To Grid or not to Grid

I write a lot about renewable energy because it seems to attract inventors, engineers, and scientists alike. It thus is a good focus point for the paradoxes these problem solvers meet when trying to solve what seems to be in every ones interest (global warming, energy supply, pollution). The topic of this blog.

The New Scientists brought an article the 3rd of December 2008 on an increasing trend of people becoming independent of the power grid suppliers (How to unplug from the grid). More and more people apparently seems to dump the high cost of establishing new grid connections, or just sleep with clearer consciousness at night, and become self-sufficient with heat and electricity. I felt this myself as am building a house now. Just getting permission to use an existing connection to the house cost me over 1000 Euro ("connection fee"), and once again for using extra amps.

Prices are dropping and efficiency on equipment (sun cells/panels, wind mills, electricity storage devices etc.) is improving (see previous blog entries). It is becoming affordable and doable to replace outdated heating/power systems in your own home.
These days it seems that we, the people, are taking or demanding more and more independence at the same time the governments are tightening the control. Whether it is named "Web 2.0", "civil disobedience", "anarchists", "activists", "interest groups" or whatever - we are organizing and not waiting for our leaders to solve the problems. And the firms can smell the profits to be earned from this new movement. From my chair these changes in mindset is causing many clashes in our world today.

In our case of independence of the grid the conflict of interests, the paradox, seems to become apparent in the problem of producing too much energy as a private, independent, energy supplier. In Germany and the previous blog entry on Ota City, the private power generates are allowed to channel their excess electricity into the power grid, and take out electricity when unable to sustain themselves with power (see picture). The power grid functions as a "battery" so to say. Simple, easy to calculate, manage, and beneficial for all parts (the power company sets the prices). But it is very few countries who use this option. Why? Perhaps it the existence of a monopoly situation on energy supply as it is now. Letting go of some of this control may be difficult. However, it does not lead to non-fossil energy anytime soon if the power companies are expected to become "green" anytime soon. The companies has billions invested in power plants that are not easily rebuilt for new energy scources. So economically it is not rent able.

So, we can easily supply energy clean an efficiently from the sun or wind, but storing the electricity is a problem. The solution is simple, and already existing and working in places, but requires acceptance of power companies. Sad but true.

Perhaps we will see independent power suppliers organizing alternative grid networks in the future. Teslas wireless transfer of electricity is currently only use ind tooth brushes and art installations - but potentially could become a new grid network ("Change must come through the barrel of a gun").

Article in the New Scientist
Picture: http://www.greenlineenergy.com/solarbasics.shtml

Sun cells running a Japanese city

Sun power is the absolute largest known source of continous free power on earth, but we are currently quite bad at harvesting it.

The Danish news channel, Politiken, presented a news reel today (by Clavs Sylvest) on the Japanese Ota City that is being fully self sufficient in sun powered electricity.

This is a goverment sponsored program including about 500 homes. Each home has been given sun cells. The project is a national experiment testing how to avoid power cuts with the use of sun power. The house owners are allowed to sell the electricity back to the power compagny when producing excess electricity. This amounts to about 50 US dollars/month per house, on top of the electricity saved. However, sun cells are still expensive to produce and buy, and not using the electricity optimally due to reflection.

Good news though, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US, also source of foto) has figured out how to coat the sun cells with tiny hairs that capture the otherwise reflected sunlight, much like hairs on a polar bear. The improvement allows the cells to harvest close to 100% of incoming rays, in contrast to about 67% now. So let us hope this will arrive on the market one day, that goverments will support people buying them, and that power compagnies will buy surpluss energy.

The video on Ota City can be watched here: http://politiken.tv/nyheder/udland/article597272.ece (in Danish)
The article on the new sun cells: http://ing.dk/artikel/92983-beklaed-nutidens-solceller-med-nanohaar-og-faa-50-procent-ekstra-energi (in Danish)

The Back Shed - Open Science in use

Looking for sources of information on initiatives that involved other people I entered The Back Shed. This website is very close to my idea of Open Science in practice. I will try to break down into parts how.

Summary: The Back Shed is a channel for "publishing" how a few windmill enthusiasts building effective windmills, improvements, and expansions, mostly from spare parts. But not only that - they involve others in projects through their website, and allow them to give ideas to solving problems - returning the result on the website.

Economy: The website use Goggles AdSense and thus gives a little project money in return for people using the listed suggestions for windmill parts by Google.

Blue prints: the site offer detailed, step by step instructions how to replicate their results.

Forum: An open forum for discussing various projects and concepts is present.

Control: The site is run and maintained by the group.

Alchemist or Scientists: These are enthusiasts, making improvements to industrial designs as well as from scrap. They supply technical information and prints, but the method is trail and error, not so much scientific. So though they are not green stamped representatives of intellectual property But they do make things work - cheap, easy, and better for anyone it seems.

Interactivity: The linkage to a global idea network is lacking.

Ultraviolet light in the environment of domestic animals as method of limiting infection with parasites eggs (a defensive publication)

What is a defensive publication? It is a publication of an idea, or method, that prevents other from claiming the intellectual rights to it (such as a patent), because the idea no longer is "original".

Background: Ultraviolet light (UV) is harmful to living organisms. Our atmosphere and clouds, protects us from the major exposure produced by the sun. Besides being burned by the rays, the light can also penetrate tissue, enter cells, and damage DNA ("nicking" it), making survival of organisms difficult (eg. skin-cancer). Basically, what it takes to kill or weaken an organism with UV-light depends on the intensity, exposure time, and the spectrum used of the light. The smaller the organism, the less UV-exposure necessary to kill it. This is well known, and is widely used in many fields as a sterilizing procedures. It is also applied to water borne parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium with great success. UV-light is a natural limiting factor of egg shedding parasites, who in most cases require shade, moisture, and normal temperatures to develop and survive.

Parasite eggs: Many parasites, both protozoan (one celled) and helminths (worms), have a part of their life cycle outside the animal, either as a worm or egg. The success of a parasite depends on whether new animals pick up these eggs and get infected. Good hygiene can limit these eggs in the environment, but it is often difficult or neglected, especially in animal production.

Method: The novelty of this idea is to use UV-light directly on the environment (in the farm) of the animals (not on the animals), either killing or weakening the infection potential of parasites picked up from surfaces. The tool is simply identical to a flashlight with UV-light bulb of the right intensity, held over the surfaces the animal comes in contact with.

Limitations: UV-light does not penetrate deeply into for example faces on the ground. The effect is therefore limited to surfaces.

Extra benefits: Parasites with damaged DNA, will cause a weaker infection than normal, and possibly increase the chance of the animal acquiring immunity to it. Works on other free living pathogens too such as fungus, virus, and bacteria.

Warnings: UV-light is harmful to the eyes, and skin under longer exposures! Small amounts of ozone (O3) is created when using UV-light, but quickly (minutes) reconverts to oxygen (O2). Ozone creates radicals that could act on the environment. Realistically, in a place like a farm, with air flow, this most likely will not cause any problems.

Economic Logic of Open Science

In my search for fellow thinkers in the line of Open Science I might have hit the jackpot with Professor Paul A. David at Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Prof. David apparently has been working with the concept of Open Science, not as an invention, but as a real factor in the scientific and commercial sphere of economics. From what I can read in his references the concept is hatched around 1998. The report brings forth (in Davids words) similar arguments in how Open Science works in favor of both scientific/commercial interests.

The paper has many eloquently phrased points, and I will not give them here except one on intellectual property rights: "...it can be said that a good bit of intellectual ingenuity and entrepreneurial energy is being directed towards the goal of neutralizing the achievements of information scientists and engineers by creating new legally sanctioned monopolies."

The Economic Logic of "Open Science" and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and Information. SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 02-30, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Further reading:

Sterling Denmark - but why the biofules?

One of the machines with greatest potential for supplying electrical power is the 200 year old invention of the Sterling Engine. It is basically a closed bicycle pump that moves a piston, turning a wheel or generator, when being heated or cooled. The clever part is that it is one of the engines that can work at moderate temperatures and make it into power. And another attempt of putting it to use is made in Denmark.

Stirling Denmark has announced the launch of their working Sterling Engine for biofuel producing an impressive 9 kW and 35 kW of power. The 9 kW model is however not for purchase before 2009. Cogratulations to the inventors who spent 15 years on making a commercial model! I sincerely hope you will succeed in selling it!

At first I was wondering why someone would use biofuels to power a Sterling engine when other cheaper options were available (sun, ground heat, composting, and potentially cooling sources as well...). There are no doubt technical reasons to the choice, but putting things in to context, biofuels do make sense. Biofuel is a hot new buzz-word that politicians love, and love to throw funding at. And scientists must adapt the science to what a handful of people with the money think are important. Biofuels currently seems to be the transition phase from fossil fuels to the better existing technologies (at continental pace), allowing a dilution of the fossil fuels into something renewable.

I also noticed in the product synopsis on Sterling Denmark’s website that the product description had a clever "Designed for biofuels etc." It is probably clever not to state too much of the actual potential of a working Sterling Engine in producing electricity from various sources to avoid too hard opposition. Clever, very clever Sterling Denmark! Keep going.

Economical Blocks - Tiny Steps Max the Income

When you look at your coffee machine and wonder why it is spending energy to keep the coffee warm, instead of just entering a thermo canister directly, one may wonder what went wrong in the evolution. Actually, we (the consumers) can already buy a better model that waste less energy (and undrinkable coffee), but do not buy it, or do not see it in the shop.

It is painfully common to find clever designs on the shelves, or abroad, but only to see them disappear again next year, or never reach Europe. Another ridiculously simple and ingenious design by the Japanese company Toto is the combination of a water tap on the cistern of a toilet. Beautifully, the space of a sink is taken away, the main water line and the cistern is even better separated, and you save about a deciliter of water (if you wash hands) every time a person flushes. The catch? You can't buy it if you are not living in Asia or US!

So why do we as consumers invest fortunes in cappuccino machines, but leave the strangely intelligent design (not to confuse with fancy design by the same name)? I have come to the belief that xenophobia could be part of the answer - better take the safe choice (my wife strongly opposes me for not doing the latter).This off course is not very progressive in an evolutionary process.

Engineers still allow heat conducting pot handles in the 21st century, apparently ignoring common sense. I am not an engineer, so I hope the otherwise (assumingly) bright engineers parry orders rather than try to push the limit in their work.

So lastly, but most importantly, I think it could distill down to the mindset that if you can produce infinite variations on the same design until the demand for something better is too great you release the next model; it will maximize the company income. We all know Microsofts bad rumor of fixing deliberate program bugs. It is a logical capitalist approach, and not wrong for the dominating market powers. A tiny step ("now with enzyme X", "upgrade 2.3.4.1", "innovative design") keeps you buying the same product, because you know it will do the same (at least), but a totally different approach (and perhaps better) to solving your daily needs, gets less room in the consumers home.

CO2 free electricity in 2010?

My stomach turns when I read these news about the coming of the CO2 free car driving on electricity as announced in Politikken today. Is the electricity produced by the electricity company CO2-free when the car us due to launch in 2010? I think it is a vulgar management trick to claim a car propelled by electricity CO2-free, when only a tiny fraction of the energy provided by power companies produce is just that!

If the electric car is producing the electricity itself (eg. by sun, water or other), the story is different. But when I read Shai Agassis (promoter of the car) blog, his vision for Denmark is that windmills nightly output could, and would, supply the energy to power the cars in Denmark. Now that is visionary! However the article by Poltikken does not mention this.

So, cars driven by electricity - no thank you! Cars driven by continuous and pollutant free energy sources - yes thank you!

Hypocrits or users of an unvisonary system?

Politikken (DK) writes today that Eurobarometer shows 65% of Danes are worried about global warming, but the CO2 production is still rising according to recent data from Energistyrelsen (Danish Energy Authority). A paradox indeed, but the article does not indicate if the increased CO2 is caused by private or industry, and how the CO2 is calculated. So from all we know, we may change our habits, but it could be diluted in the big production line interacting with each other.

I raised this problem in my blog on the conference of Renewable Energy Resources. I see two problems with the CO2 in the mentioned article.
First, why make people responsible for the CO2 production, when you can easily improve the situation with simple political adjustments? People don't stop smoking because it kills them, or buy less exotic wood for the floors and furniture because it wipes out wild life, do they? A recent example is that now all new houses built in Denmark has to be consuming a minimum amount of energy. Good, but it could be much more concrete than that!
Secondly, as I wrote in the blog entry on renewable energy, CO2 can also be a new puff of good intentions. Meaning, switching to renewable energy as "cleaner" energy, also includes firewood that produce CO2. And if you turn off your oil furnace and install a heat pump without changing insulation of the house - you still use electricity - made by power suppliers burning for example coal. But in your mind you have switched to a greener solution. It is as narrow sighted as buying an electrical car and thinking it automatically makes the world greener. There electricity comes from somewhere, and only a fraction from clean sources such as windmills!

Would a vision like all new houses by 2018 has to be self supplying with non-polluting heat and electricity, not be slightly more visionary, and create new jobs and markets? There are many examples of people doing this already on their own (look up the books in Amazon), without goverment support, by their own initiative and brain power. Also in the urban areas.

Denmark is going to host the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, but the vision of being a host country with vision and a source for inspiration is doubtful as best these days (not just my words). I do not envy Connie Hedegaard, the Minister of Climate and Energy.

Yesterdays Frontier

August last year I wrote about stopping light in my entry Science Fiction, or the next frontier that Lene Vetergaard stopped light and created a new frontier in what is possible. Today the Danish newspaper Politikken announced Vestergaards team newest budge to the border of what is possible. Experiments in Boston Harvard University show that it is also possible, not to just bend, but to move the path of the light. So I repeat, can your ego define the boundaries of what is possible by defending facts that are constantly altered?

Change must come through the barrel of a gun

No, I am not a Communist, Maoist or environmental activist, that is not the reason for this quote from Mao Tse-tung. Change must come through the barrel of a gun is in this context meant, not as a slogan for a revolution, but a way that seems to work when change is needed. Or, it is a reversal of the saying if there is a will there is a way, becoming: if there is a way, there is a will.

In this article I will claim this mindset has been diverted to a needed change, both literally during wartime, but also in recent times, with success. And the reason for bringing this up is that political actions can actually can solve problems (hard to believe is it not), but the action has to be radical - in the constructive sense.

If we are faced, or think we are faced, with obstacles that resemble the barrel of a gun, we are most prone to change our habits and act out of united wisdom rather than fast economical gain (though one does not exclude the other, rather the opposite).

First example, second world war. In the mist of all the global horror the war race accelerated technological innovation up to the bombing of Hiroshima with a nuclear bomb, simply because governments thought they had too to meet the threat of the enemy (the barrel). But the knowledge accumulated in the years of the war continued and launched us into space (also in record time) and introduced technologies we still develop today. I will argue the threat was the primed the willingness to find fast intelligent solutions. Much like global warming is beginning to feel as a (real) threat, the willingness to take intelligent actions increase.

Like I have written in previous entries, intelligent solutions exist to most of our current problems already, in raw or developed form. If we wanted it, we could build cars that did not exceed certain speed limits. If builders were faced with a legal demand that 50-100 % of a new house has to be self-sufficient on heat and energy, it would be fairly easy to optimize existing techologies to meet this demand. Removing personal wate products could have a demand of breakdown to neutral and non-infectious components in soil by 2025 for all households, and firms would meet the demand. But if there is no barrel, and the pocket is full of money, why change a habit? Well, just see how the imaginary terror threats has boomed the inventiveness on monitoring and security measures. But as a new thing, compagnies does seem to be picking up on the greener mindset in their consumers (helped by the danger-loving news press). People want greener, smarter, safter, and more flexible solutions - and not just in buzz-word form on the wrapping. Tor Nørretrander cover this possible 360 degree change in trend in his new book Civilization 2.0. In short, the producers may have delveloped smelling senses to detect the money in sustainable development.

The Danish health sector, where everyone can get treatment when needed with no or at a symbolic cost, is a good example of when an ambitious project of visionary change pays off. Providing quality care for everyone in society spawned a wide spectra of new technologies and inventions to meet an efficient health system, that Denmark has living itself fat on for decades. This is an example, not of a threat, but that change does not have mean a sacrifice, but a change with gain.

It is doubtful that politicians risk anything these days, but for a minor adjustment to existing legislation. But if the risk is cataclysmic enough, maybe it can bring around bold enough politicians to inspire use of practical and easy development changes with effect on our habits. But it is probably more likely that our current solutiouns come from down and up to the political level. Yes, my faith in real boldness of politicians is rather small I am afraid. So good initiatives that has a long history of working might be safe enough for a politician to support, rather than demanding development through new ambitious goals.

Don't give up brilliant people - everything will change when we get ourselves scared enough!

Never mind the basics

These days science has a cancer. It is political, but not necessarily lethal – just resulting in some needless overspending. Buzz-words/newspeak drives the funding today, and thus forces the research in the same direction (nano-anything, multi-platform-anything, global-warming, CO2, food safety etc.) It is a bit like helping the third world countries: catastrophe = money = satisfied voters = base of problems remain unchanged.

At a recent lecture on pathology a researcher put this in crystal clear perspective in an example of salmon farming. We are intensely investigating vaccines for fish, but nobody has looked at even grossly describing the intestine. How absurd is that? This kind of research is probably sound by method, but I would claim it also contain a fair amount of guessing and assumptions. Are we falling over our own legs and getting ahead of ourselves because we have to be cutting-edge to get funding? I know in my own field the general feeling these days are that it is not real science if it is not molecular biology (where I started).

If we dared looking backwards a little we would discover that many of our clever inventions are copying older knowledge as David Edgerton described in his book The Shock of the Old.

Here is an example. I am the lucky to be in possession of a replica of one of the seven surviving imperial seals from the Ming dynasty. This bronze mirror looks like the common mirrors of this age, but was so intelligently crafted that the atomic structure was altered in the bronze at the cooling process, that it would reflect an detailed image of the blank mirror onto a wall when exposed to strong light. It was not until last century a smith discovered the key to replicate this amazing craft. Still I have seen no applications of this amazing knowledge, though I could imagine quite a few.

The mirror is a nice metaphor (for me) of science today. We are studying the applications of atomic structures, but the possibilities of metal working elude us on more basic levels.