Electric Tesla Roadster - Obtained with thanks from e-connected on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/e-connected/. Click image for the wallpaper sized 2298 x 1535 pixel version.

IBM discovered a new electrode for lithium-air batteries, and it facilitates driving electric vehicles 500 miles after each charge.

Lithium-air battery technology is recent, but not new. It does have the potential to store a significant amount of energy in a very lightweight package. This is otherwise known as a high gravimetric energy density. Gravimetric energy density is measured in Wh/kg of batteries, or watt-hours per kilogram.

Lithium-air batteries use carbon as their positive electrode (unlike typical li-ion batteries that use oxides of metals such as lithium cobalt oxide), and that carbon reacts with oxygen in the air to generate electricity. Batteries do not store electricity, they generate it.

IBM decided to start work on these batteries due to their potential and discovered that the oxygen in the air is reacting with both the carbon electrode mentioned, ans also with the battery’s electrolyte. This ruins the electrolyte.

So, physicist Winfried Wilcke and his colleague Alessandro Curioni at IBM’s Zurich research labs in Switzerland used the Blue Gene supercomputer to simulate extremely detailed models of the reactions using alternative electrolytes until they finally found a more suitable one, which is confidential.

Winfried Wilcke said: “We now have one which looks very promising,”, but there are several research prototypes t hat have been demonstrated.

Batteries with a higher energy density enable hybrid-electric and electric vehicles to drive further per charge because they are lighter. Lighter batteries weigh down the vehicle less, therefore, the vehicle will be lighter overall and require less energy per mile it travels, conserving the energy in the batteries. This translates to more energy available for driving. Another way to look at it is: Each kWh (kilowatt-hour) of energy takes you further.

A greater energy density also means that fewer batteries can be used to achieve the same range that you would using ordinary batteries, which is usually less than 100 miles in ordinary cars such as the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt. The Tesla Roadster uses many batteries which enable it to achieve a 244 mile range per charge.

Apart from that, fewer batteries cost less money. So you can either increase the vehicle’s range, or cut the cost by using fewer batteries. I should also add that lighter vehicles are faster and handle better.

So, as you probably realized now: A significantly improved energy density really can have a far reaching impact on vehicles.

Typical lithium-ion batteries such as the lithium cobalt and lithium-iron phosphate types have a much a lower energy density, and as a result of this, electric vehicles powered by them often have a driving range of less than (but not limited to) 100 (160 km) miles per charge. They are, however, more practical than older lithium-air batteries that are unreliable due to chemical instability.

The hope is to have a full-scale battery prototype operational by 2013 and commercial batteries around 2020.

Source: New Scientist

Fuel Cell Powered Chevrolet Equinox. Image obtained with thanks from svacher from Flickr.

Introduction to the Problem

You, like most people, may already be familiar with the fact that electric vehicles have a relatively short driving range compared to traditional gasoline powered vehicles.

Most people do not need to drive more than 40 miles per trip, but range anxiety is a problem helping to prevent the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

People in general would like to have a driving range significantly more than the distance they usually drive, just in case they have to drive far, which is perfectly understandable.

This issue can be addressed, albeit with consequences using a gasoline or diesel fueled backup generator that can either charge the vehicle’s batteries, directly power the vehicle’s motor if the battery dies, provide additional power to the motor if necessary, or combinations of what I mentioned above.

One consequence of including a generator in an EV is that it increases the weight of the vehicle,  it lowers efficiency and degrades performance. Another important consequence is that the generator is expensive, so it increases the initial cost of the vehicle and scares consumers away.

One of the benefits of a backup generator is that it can extend driving range to several hundred miles. Chevrolet did this with the Volt. Volt owners enjoy peace of mind because they can drive even farther than they could in a traditional gasoline only vehicle which provides a range of 300 miles.

Now, back to reality: Gasoline fueled backup generators are expensive and inefficient. They are, however, more efficient than a parallel hybrid gasoline engine due to the fact that they usually operate at their single most efficient speed.

The Invention

Researchers at the University of Maryland have developed a type of generator which they say would not only boost the range of electric vehicles, but also keep CO2 emissions low.

This could boost EV range because the energy density of gasoline is a high 12,500 Wh/kg. This is a member of the solid-oxide fuel cell (SOFC) family, which uses a solid ceramic electrolyte.

Solid-oxide fuel cells can be powered by some readily available fossil fuels such as natural gas, diesel, and gasoline, unlike hydrogen fuel cells.

Traditional solid-oxide fuel cells are too large for vehicles, but they say this new one produces ten times more power for it’s size.

This means that it could be ten times smaller than a traditional gasoline engine and produce just as much power, making it a much more suitable candidate (where size is concerned) for electric vehicles.

Another problem with traditional SOFCs is that they have to be heated to very high temperatures of 900 ⁰C  in order to function correctly (this is the operating temperature).

The researchers say that they lowered the operating temperature by hundreds of degrees to 650 ⁰C, which is not only a cheaper and easier temperature to maintain, but cheaper materials can be used.

Higher temperature materials tend to cost more money.

This improvement is impressive, but as is the case with new technologies in general, it could use more improvement. Turning it on and off with each trip would cause too much wear and tear, shortening it’s life, so, for now, it would charge a battery pack. These fuel cells are fossil fueled, so even though they could help to facilitate the adoption of more efficient electric vehicles, they still rely on fossil fuels which are economically and environmentally unsustainable.

Follow @Kompulsa

Source: Technology Review

Photo Credit: svacher from Flickr.

Volvo S60 Interior. Image obtained with thanks from Deebeep Photography on Flickr.

Many people would like to upgrade to newer cars because they tend to be more fuel efficient, but feel as if they are torn between sticking with their “safer” old car that consumes more fuel, or upgrading to flimsier newer cars to improve fuel economy. This analysis was actually conducted by me.

If you look at the statistics here from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, you will see that overall, between 1994 and 2009, the number of automobile accidents has not increased. At first this might make you wonder if the safety of automobiles has improved much, because the fatality count hasn’t.

This is actually a good sign because the number of highway vehicles registered in the U.S increased by 21% between 1994 and 2009, but the number of fatal accidents did not. This means that newer cars have a better safety record (where fatality is concerned), but of course, death is far more important than all injuries. This is because when cars pass a certain age, people tend to discard them. Most of the population drove much newer cars in 2009 now than they did in 1994.

The increase in the number of registered vehicles is likely partly due to population increase.

Number of registered highway vehicles in the U.S [Source]:

1. 1994: 201,801,921
2. 1995: 205,427,212
3. 1996: 210,441,249
4. 1997: 211,580,033
5. 1998: 215,496,003
6. 1999: 220,461,056
7. 2000: 225,821,241
8. 2001: 235,331,382
9. 2002: 234,624,135
10. 2003: 236,760,033
11. 2004: 243,010,550
12. 2005: 247,421,120
13. 2006: 250,844,644
14. 2007: 254,403,081
15. 2008: 255,917,664
16. 2009: 254,212,610

Follow @Kompulsa

Despite the high speed of the wind gusts. they did not tear buildings apart as sustained winds of 140 mph would. I will explain why:

Sustained winds are defined by the NOAA as winds that maintain a given speed for at least one minute. In other words, it has to stay at the given speed without dropping below it for at least one minute.

A wind gust is more like a short burst of wind. So it does not do nearly as much damage because they don’t last long, Gusts last only seconds at a time. 140 mph sustained winds (this is a hurricane) can last and batter buildings constantly for hours. The video below is a recording of the aftermath of this in Arcadia, California. I recommend setting the video quality to 720p if you have a decent internet connection.

[yframe url='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Ox78ZpzqE&feature=share']

Video recorded by Doug Des Autels.

LA county fire inspector said that the fire brigade received “thousands” of calls within a 24 hour period, and during that period, firefighters responded to reports of 460 collapsed power lines. Hundreds of thousands of people were left without electricity and there were other incidents such as the overturn of furniture, collapse of trees, and flights were delayed. The winds are expected to subside soon.

Source

Wood fire. Image obtained with thanks from bugeaters on Flickr.

First, you need to understand what starts fires and what environments are ideal for them.

Fires thrive in low humidity environments and are most likely to survive on (burn) dry substances such as dead foliage (after it dries out and turns brown), dead grass, wood and paper.

The cause of fires is equally important. Fires can be caused by ignition or autoignition. Autoignition is when a substance spontaneously “catches fire” (ignites) without a flame or electric spark due to intense heat. In order to understand autoignition, you need to understand what really causes all the fires mentioned above, including the flame and spark ignited ones.

Fires are caused by intense heat. Sparks (electric arcs) start fires because they are at a temperature high enough to cause many substances to ignite. Some substances require higher temperatures than others to ignite.

Each substance has an autoignition temperature and that is the temperature at which it ignites. Don’t confuse autoignition with sparked ignition. Even though the underlying cause of fire is the same, they are used in different contexts. Autoignition is specifically used to refer to ignition without a spark or flame.

A very common example of ignition without a spark is in the diesel engine. It is a compression ignition engine. This means that it compresses air inside it’s cylinders until it exceeds the ignition temperature of diesel fuel, so that when the diesel fuel is injected into the cylinder of hot air, it automatically ignites.

Droughts

Drought helps to cause fires because it is a lack of rain for a prolonged period of time which causes plants to dry out, and as I said above, dry plants are the most likely to ignite. They can be ignited by lightning strikes, arsons, cigarette lighter accidents, and more.

Wildfires

Wildfires are often contributed to by droughts because droughts are geographically large enough to cause foliage over a very widespread area to become dry, so a fire may be started on even one leaf, spread to the rest of the plant, then spread to the other plants until it becomes a large disaster.

Hamilton Steel Mill. Image obtained with thanks from haglundc on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/haglundc/

There are scrap metal recycling firms that pay people to turn in materials such as copper, iron, lead, aluminium for recycling and this has unfortunately led too many people to destroy public and private property to obtain materials from it so they can sell it to the recycling firms mentioned above.

As sustainable and environmentally beneficial as recycling can be, scrap metal recycling programs need to be planned an executed in a sensible manner. Many people want to continue the current scrap metal recycling programs despite this, and many want to shut it down completely as if it cannot be done in a more sensible way. Both are wrong.

There are solutions to this problem:

1. Stop paying people to turn in recycled materials. This completely eliminates the motive for stealing them for resale. Or at least stop paying people for the recycled materials that are most frequently stolen.
2. Have the firms pick up the materials from people for free instead of using money as an incentive to get them to drop them off. As I said above, people are not to be paid for the materials.
3. Occasionally advertise the scrap metal collection service as a way to take significant amounts of junk off people’s hands for free.

Traditional lithium-ion battery. Image obtained with thanks from Kristoferb on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kristoferb

Lithium-ion (li-ion) batteries can achieve an energy density of 1,000 watt-hours/kg which is ten times greater than that of traditional li-ion batteries. This means that 1 kg of lithium-ion batteries could store 1,000 watt-hours (Wh) of energy, compared to a traditional one which only stores a little more or less than 100 watt-hours. To achieve this energy density, years ago, researchers successfully developed one with a silicon anode, but there is a problem with this design:

Due to the fact that silicon is brittle, when the silicon anode is absorbing lithium ions, it expands, and when releasing them, it shrinks. This recurrent expansion and shrinkage causes it to crack and malfunction, resulting in an unacceptably short lifespan.

Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Clemson University have discovered that using alginate, which is a substance obtained from brown algae enables them to construct these batteries in such a way that they can withstand the expansion and contraction. This new battery stores 8 times as much as traditional li-ion batteries, which is still a noteworthy improvement.

Alginate happens to be used as a binding and gelling agent for other applications.

Potential benefits of this new technology include: Lightweight and long range electric vehicles that also perform better, laptop computers could enjoy a longer battery life provided that these batteries are as small as I think they are, and lighter portable electronics in general. Remember that the energy density per kg is how much energy can be stored in a battery that weighs a kg.

I will keep an eye open to see where this new technology goes. Follow me on Twitter in case I provide an update pertaining to the status of this technology.

Source: Technology Review

Obtained with thanks from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rama. Click the image to see a larger version of it.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has commissioned a 7 MW (7,000 kw or 7 million watts) photovoltaic (solar panels) solar power plant in Tokyo Bay, Japan, which is to generate enough electricity to power 2,100 homes and is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 3,100 tons per year. This assumes that the homes require an average of 3.3 kW of power, which is a very common average in developed countries.

The power plant is titled Ukushima and is located on an 11 hectare (0.042471 square miles) site. It consists of 38,000 Sharp solar panels. TEPCO plans to construct another solar power plant titled Ohgishima, one of which is 13,000 kW and will consist of 64,000 panels. It will be one of the largest solar projects in Japan and the combined power output of both Ohgishima and Ukushima will be 20,000 watts, which is enough to power 5,900 homes.

Due to the unexpected Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant meltdown in march, that power plant is no longer operational and was rated at 4.7 GW, which is 4,700 MW or 4.7 billion watts. This is one of the top 15 largest nuclear power generators in the world, and therefore was relied upon by an estimated 1,424,000 homes to give you an idea of how significant that plant is to the power supply of Japan.

Continued

Unexpected or unplanned power plant shutdowns result in power shortages, but when an old power plant is going to be decommissioned, that is prepared for by constructing a new power plant. This is not always the case though, there are often backup power plants which can be relied on until construction of the replacement power station is completed. The Fukushima Daiichi power station consisted of rods containing spent nuclear fuel, which generated heat, but the reactor also contained some of those spent fuel rods.

Spent fuel rods are liquid cooled, meaning that a coolant such as water is pumped over them to absorb heat from them, and then the coolant carries their heat outside to a radiator. The pump required for this requires electricity, which comes from the power grid. The earthquake or tsunami knocked out the power, therefore the only way to keep the pumps running and the spent fuel rods in the reactor from overheating was to use the backup diesel generators, which unfortunately malfunctioned, and the situation has since then spiraled out of control and TEPCO is still trying to contain it.

The Japanese government is now faced with the dilemma of choosing where electricity will come from in the future without relying on nuclear reactors or CO2 emission causing fossil fuels. They have decided to utilize solar power plants more and even said that all new buildings will be equipped with solar panels. It is a very bold and controversial move.

I will keep an eye on Japan to see what else they do to address this situation and might update you if anything interesting happens.

Source: CNET

Visit this Website on StumbleUpon and Click Like

Earth (eastern portion). Obtained with thanks from NASA. This is a public domain image. You may redistribute it.

Astrophysicists have discovered a belt of antiprotons surrounding the earth. They achieved this by launching a spacecraft called PAMELA into low Earth orbit which was specifically intended to discover the antiprotons. Antiprotons are sometimes referred to as negatrons.

An antiproton is the antiparticle of a proton. This means that it has the same exact mass of a proton (which is positively charged), but it is negatively charged.

If you didn’t already guess, because electrons are negatively charged, their antiparticles which are called antielectrons or positrons are positively charged. Positive is the opposite of negative, and vice versa.

When antiprotons collide with protons, they annihlate each other and turn into energy.

The PAMELA team said that they suspected that the collision of cosmic rays from the sun and other sources with the nuclei of particles in the earth’s outer atmosphere would result in the production of antiprotons.

However, there was question which wasn’t answered until now: Where do the antiprotons end up?

They are pulled into the into the Earth’s magnetic field. Although many of them are destroyed because they collided with matching protons.

Source

Storm clouds. Obtained with thanks from Kswx29: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kswx29/.

During the summer, when there is more UV light shining into the ocean, plankton can become stressed and in such a case will produce a chemical called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP) to protect themselves from it. Bacteria breaks this chemical down into dimethylsulfide (DMS) which then exits the water and into the atmosphere where it reacts with oxygen to create sulfur compounds which stick together to form dust-like particles which happen to be just right for cloud formation.

How clouds are formed:

Heat from various sources including the sun causes water to evaporate. Evaporation is the conversion of liquid water into a gas known as water vapour. Water vapour then condenses onto dust particles back into liquid water when it reaches a cold area thousands of feet up in the atmosphere. If you haven’t already connected the dots. More dust-like particles that are suitable for cloud formation can result in the formation of more clouds.

Clouds block some sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth (which is the ground if you didn’t know) and clouds also happen to do the opposite and contribute to warming because the earth’s surface reflects some of the light that reaches it back out of the atmosphere, but clouds block it and actually reflect it back down to earth again, and during that process, some of that light turns into heat which accumulates and helps to warm the planet.

More details: The dust-like particles become very cold thousands of feet up in the atmosphere and when water vapour comes into contact with cold particles, they cool the water vapour, causing the molecules in the water vapour to move closer together, causing it to become more dense until it is finally liquid water.

DMS levels are higher in the summer, and that helps to support this theory. Plankton levels also happen to be at a minimum during the summer. During the summer, the study showed that 77% of DMS level changes were due to UV light exposure.

The NASA article (at the source link at the bottom) says that the next step for researchers is to determine how much the plankton cloud production phenomenon mentioned above affects the climate. It says that it has the potential to help cool the climate, but there is still uncertainty about the net effect of it.

All of the measurements required for this study were taken from the Sargasso Sea.

Source: NASA