http://theosmblog.com/2009/06/16/solve-stacsv64-processor-usage-problem/
Is your laptop or computer running slow? Check out this link. There is a common, and unneccessary application, that is taking up most of your usage memory. Check this out.
My next piece will appear on Monday! Today I have an interview planned today with Physicist, energy expert, and JMU professor Dr. Tony Chen. Have a good weekend everybody!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
New Fuel Cell: NYT Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/business/energy-environment/24bloom.html?em
Bloom Energy claims to have developed a fuel cell that, using natural gas, can produce electricity at 8 to 10 cents a kilowatt-hr. That is a competitive price for electricity. However, no mention of oxygen depletion in this article.
With this announcement fuel cells have taken a big step to becoming more mainstream. Excessive oxygen depletion must be investigated before this technology is adapted on a mass scale.
Bloom Energy claims to have developed a fuel cell that, using natural gas, can produce electricity at 8 to 10 cents a kilowatt-hr. That is a competitive price for electricity. However, no mention of oxygen depletion in this article.
With this announcement fuel cells have taken a big step to becoming more mainstream. Excessive oxygen depletion must be investigated before this technology is adapted on a mass scale.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Hydrogen Fuel Cells - Part 1: A Breath of Fresh Air or Lack Thereof?
Hydrogen fuel cells come across as a miracle technology. This box, or fuel cell, that can take hydrogen gas (usually from methanol) and take oxygen from the ambient air and produce nothing but electricity and water? A battery that runs on air sounds too good to be true. Promoters of the technology always note that since, ideally, there is no carbon involved in the reaction, there is a way we can engineer fuel cells to produce no carbon based emissions. However, whenever the industry talks about fuel cells there is never any mention of oxygen, a key part of the reaction and key part of sustaining human life. How much oxygen will be necessary to produce the amount of electricity we need? Technology like fuel cells seem like a breath of fresh air, but will it rob us of all the fresh air we have?
Hydrogen fuel cells were invented in 1839 but, until recently, could never put out enough electricity to have any practical use. Our government and academics have put their weight behind this technology and made it part of our country's comprehensive energy strategy. The U.S. government has dedicated over a billion dollars towards research and development of hydrogen fuel cells and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has made a goal of developing "practical" fuel cell vehicles by 2020. Beyond cars, scientists and academics have envisioned using fuel cells in a variety to ways, ranging from large scale power plants to a replacement for laptop batteries.
I'm going to directly quote Mary Bellis of about.com to give a brief technical description of how the basic hydrogen fuel cell works: "The hydrogen fuel cell operates similar to a battery. It has two electrodes, an anode and a cathode, separated by a membrane. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other. The hydrogen reacts to a catalyst on the electrode anode that converts the hydrogen gas into negatively charged electrons (e-) and positively charged ions (H+). The electrons flow out of the cell to be used as electrical energy. The hydrogen ions move through the electrolyte membrane to the cathode electrode where they combine with oxygen and the electrons to produce water."(found at: http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/ss/Physics_Illustr_2.htm)
A key aspect here is that the mechanism takes breathable oxygen from the ambient air and, after it processes it, comes away with water and free flowing electrons. Is this oxygen a problem? By the lack of discussion one would assume not. But not according to former Harvard physicist Dr. Ruggero Santilli who writes "hydrogen combustion implies the permanent removal from our atmosphere of directly usable oxygen, a serious environmental problem called oxygen depletion, since the combustion turns oxygen into water whose separation to restore the original oxygen is prohibitive due to cost. We then show that a conceivable global use of hydrogen in complete replacement of fossil fuels would imply the permanent removal from our atmosphere of 2.8875x10^7 metric tons of oxygen per day."
Dr. Santilli's claims warrent additional investigation. This concern certainly makes logical sense. The amount of oxygen necessary would be incredible given that the energy stored within the bond of two hydrogen atoms is not large by any means. I will be addressing this concern throughout this series.
Another question that should be addressed is the necesity of oxygen in the process. If the Anode Catalyst seperates the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom and then sends the electron on its merry way as a current to begin with, why do we even need the oxygen?
By converting molecules and atoms in our air into water, we are going to be concentrating our air into water. Could this create problems by essentially taking air out of our atmosphere? With prolonged use, could it possibly effect atmospheric pressure?
I invite comments and questions regarding this issue. This technology is being pushed as part of the solution to our reliance on non-renewable energy resources. But is the solution worse than the problem? Lets find out!
Hydrogen fuel cells were invented in 1839 but, until recently, could never put out enough electricity to have any practical use. Our government and academics have put their weight behind this technology and made it part of our country's comprehensive energy strategy. The U.S. government has dedicated over a billion dollars towards research and development of hydrogen fuel cells and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 has made a goal of developing "practical" fuel cell vehicles by 2020. Beyond cars, scientists and academics have envisioned using fuel cells in a variety to ways, ranging from large scale power plants to a replacement for laptop batteries.
I'm going to directly quote Mary Bellis of about.com to give a brief technical description of how the basic hydrogen fuel cell works: "The hydrogen fuel cell operates similar to a battery. It has two electrodes, an anode and a cathode, separated by a membrane. Oxygen passes over one electrode and hydrogen over the other. The hydrogen reacts to a catalyst on the electrode anode that converts the hydrogen gas into negatively charged electrons (e-) and positively charged ions (H+). The electrons flow out of the cell to be used as electrical energy. The hydrogen ions move through the electrolyte membrane to the cathode electrode where they combine with oxygen and the electrons to produce water."(found at: http://inventors.about.com/od/sstartinventions/ss/Physics_Illustr_2.htm)
A key aspect here is that the mechanism takes breathable oxygen from the ambient air and, after it processes it, comes away with water and free flowing electrons. Is this oxygen a problem? By the lack of discussion one would assume not. But not according to former Harvard physicist Dr. Ruggero Santilli who writes "hydrogen combustion implies the permanent removal from our atmosphere of directly usable oxygen, a serious environmental problem called oxygen depletion, since the combustion turns oxygen into water whose separation to restore the original oxygen is prohibitive due to cost. We then show that a conceivable global use of hydrogen in complete replacement of fossil fuels would imply the permanent removal from our atmosphere of 2.8875x10^7 metric tons of oxygen per day."
Dr. Santilli's claims warrent additional investigation. This concern certainly makes logical sense. The amount of oxygen necessary would be incredible given that the energy stored within the bond of two hydrogen atoms is not large by any means. I will be addressing this concern throughout this series.
Another question that should be addressed is the necesity of oxygen in the process. If the Anode Catalyst seperates the electron and proton in a hydrogen atom and then sends the electron on its merry way as a current to begin with, why do we even need the oxygen?
By converting molecules and atoms in our air into water, we are going to be concentrating our air into water. Could this create problems by essentially taking air out of our atmosphere? With prolonged use, could it possibly effect atmospheric pressure?
I invite comments and questions regarding this issue. This technology is being pushed as part of the solution to our reliance on non-renewable energy resources. But is the solution worse than the problem? Lets find out!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Nuclear Energy: Does It Make Economic Sense?
On February 16th, President Obama announced that the federal government would guarantee a loan of $8.3 billion to build two nuclear power plants in Georgia. This is the first time new nuclear power plants would be built in the United States since the 1970's. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html) According to the New York Times article the government takes on all the risk. If the plants operate profitably, they will pay back their creditors, most likely banks, and pay the federal government a fee for guaranteeing the loans. If the plants default, the federal government will repay the creditors with taxpayer money.
President Obama cites nuclear energy as part of his comprehensive energy strategy because it will create jobs, does not require imported fuel, and is "clean" source of energy because it produces no carbon emissions. Opponents to the idea argue that the nuclear waste creates greater environmental hazard. Regardless of the environmental impacts, is the fact that federal loan guarantees are necessary for construction a sign that nuclear energy does not make economic sense?
The answer is no according to a paper produced by Citibank titled "New Nuclear - The Economics Say No." (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308) The report cites five major risks that all parties involved must confront. According to the IPS report, "these risks are planning, construction, power price, operational, and decommissioning." Power price seemed to be of primary concern in the report. The paper cites a case in Britain where the price needed to sustain the plant reached that point only 20 out of 115 months. According to the paper, "It was a sudden drop in power prices that drove British Energy to the brink of bankruptcy in 2003."
There are several other contributing factors, such as construction, decommissioning, and liability in the case of an accident. But for the sake of time, I refer interested parties to the link provided above. However, the Citibank paper concludes that without government assistance, or taxpayers money, there is "little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built … by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and/or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built."
So if nuclear power is not sustainable economically, is it a viable technology? A pure capitalist would have to say no. However, the government has more to think about than pure profit. The energy market currently has the potential for extreme volatility. Our demand is in right in line with production, meaning if the supply is disrupted we have no alternative but huge price spikes or rationing. Domestic natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, have already shown how susceptible energy markets are. Potential geopolitical strife around key energy resources and trade routes could also violently disrupt energy markets, tension with Tehran being the most glaring example.
Is assisting private developers a smart way the United States government to guarantee itself energy security? Even if the government loses money, is that capacity valuable as a source of energy "insurance?"
The United States government needs to be very careful how it spends taxpayer money. Recently polls suggest trust in the government is at an all time low, with only 21% believing the government is serving the interests of the people. These numbers probably rival the approval colonials would give the English government in the 18th century. Therefore, investing in nuclear energy in this manner has its risks regardless of what happens. The current model seems to put the government in a lose lose situation. If the government has to pay for defaulted plants, those investors do not lose, the taxpayer does. If the plants succeed and profit, then the government does not really get any direct benefits, the investors do. The only benefit to the government would be if those plants guaranteed service to key assets like hospitals and military installations in the case of a full fledged energy catastrophe. I am not sure that is the case at this point.
Our best option would be to start simple by focusing on energy efficiency and reduction. The smaller the better. I recently made a rack outside to air dry my clothes this summer. These small gestures can make a huge difference. Unfortunately, that won't happen en mass without a spike in energy prices.
Regardless, I found this article to be quite insightful and am happy to share it in my first post.
President Obama cites nuclear energy as part of his comprehensive energy strategy because it will create jobs, does not require imported fuel, and is "clean" source of energy because it produces no carbon emissions. Opponents to the idea argue that the nuclear waste creates greater environmental hazard. Regardless of the environmental impacts, is the fact that federal loan guarantees are necessary for construction a sign that nuclear energy does not make economic sense?
The answer is no according to a paper produced by Citibank titled "New Nuclear - The Economics Say No." (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50308) The report cites five major risks that all parties involved must confront. According to the IPS report, "these risks are planning, construction, power price, operational, and decommissioning." Power price seemed to be of primary concern in the report. The paper cites a case in Britain where the price needed to sustain the plant reached that point only 20 out of 115 months. According to the paper, "It was a sudden drop in power prices that drove British Energy to the brink of bankruptcy in 2003."
There are several other contributing factors, such as construction, decommissioning, and liability in the case of an accident. But for the sake of time, I refer interested parties to the link provided above. However, the Citibank paper concludes that without government assistance, or taxpayers money, there is "little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built … by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and/or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built."
So if nuclear power is not sustainable economically, is it a viable technology? A pure capitalist would have to say no. However, the government has more to think about than pure profit. The energy market currently has the potential for extreme volatility. Our demand is in right in line with production, meaning if the supply is disrupted we have no alternative but huge price spikes or rationing. Domestic natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, have already shown how susceptible energy markets are. Potential geopolitical strife around key energy resources and trade routes could also violently disrupt energy markets, tension with Tehran being the most glaring example.
Is assisting private developers a smart way the United States government to guarantee itself energy security? Even if the government loses money, is that capacity valuable as a source of energy "insurance?"
The United States government needs to be very careful how it spends taxpayer money. Recently polls suggest trust in the government is at an all time low, with only 21% believing the government is serving the interests of the people. These numbers probably rival the approval colonials would give the English government in the 18th century. Therefore, investing in nuclear energy in this manner has its risks regardless of what happens. The current model seems to put the government in a lose lose situation. If the government has to pay for defaulted plants, those investors do not lose, the taxpayer does. If the plants succeed and profit, then the government does not really get any direct benefits, the investors do. The only benefit to the government would be if those plants guaranteed service to key assets like hospitals and military installations in the case of a full fledged energy catastrophe. I am not sure that is the case at this point.
Our best option would be to start simple by focusing on energy efficiency and reduction. The smaller the better. I recently made a rack outside to air dry my clothes this summer. These small gestures can make a huge difference. Unfortunately, that won't happen en mass without a spike in energy prices.
Regardless, I found this article to be quite insightful and am happy to share it in my first post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
