Original Caption "Outrunning a storm, US50 west of Austin Nevada" - Image obtained with thanks from Slideshow Bruce on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/springfieldhomer/

Many people are either considering the purchase of a backup generator for power outages caused by hurricanes, tornadoes, and other disasters, or they may want to generate their own electricity. Whichever you are doing, it will be very helpful if your local electricity grid is broken down. You should prioritize which appliances you will power with your new generator. Below is a guide to that.

If money is limited, and you need a backup generator, buy one that can power the refrigerator, generate a little additional power to charge portable electronics (these can be very comforting during power outages), power a small radio and a fan too.

If Going Off-Grid/Generating Your Electricity

Sometimes people want to generate their own electricity using solar panels or biofuels to power lights, thinking that there is a benefit of prioritizing that over their appliances. One benefit of this is that you will have light during a power outage if using an independent generator to power them, but: You can use lanterns during a power outage, though, so lights do not need a generator the most.

Powering your lights does not provide a better return on investment ratio than powering a refrigerator. It may actually be worse because the wiring required to power light bulbs is more complex, because they cannot be plugged directly into the power outlets of the generator, while the refrigerator can be.

You should prioritize the appliances that you have to use all the time, such as the refrigerator, otherwise your food will expire during a power outage. For outages lasting weeks, you may want to power the washing machine too.

If your stove is electric, it is cheaper to get a small gas stove top with a small LPG cylinder and put it away.

Video embedded with thanks from: Jeri Ellsworth on Youtube.

The temperature of lava normally ranges from 700 (1,292 °F)  to 1,600 °C (2,912 °F). It is therefore hot enough to kill you if you get your foot stuck in it, for example. Large scale lava flows can decimate an entire village, not only because it will burn it, but it is also extremely heavy and viscous (dense and syrupy).

When it cools, and hence hardens, whatever was trapped under it is no longer recoverable. The lava exploration in the video above may not look particularly dangerous, but, it has to be done with great caution because you may not see little crevices that hot lava are in, between hardened rock. Your feet may slip into them.

Learn more about volcanoes here.

Video Credit: NMA News Direct

The potential for a gas explosion at the extraction platform is high, and 240 workers were evacuated from it as a safety precaution.

This may be reminiscent of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (known as the BP oil spill), but that was a liquid oil leak, this is a gas leak that pollutes the atmosphere, rather than water. Also, oil does not explode as natural gas does, and oil forms a layer on top of the water, and prevents the wind from oxygenating the water, which kills marine life by causing hypoxia.

According to Total, the gas leak could run out of gas, but so far, has not showed any sign of doing this.

Source: CNN

Sayda Wind Park - Obtained with thanks from Eclipse.sx on Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Eclipse.sx

This is the first time that I have heard MIT announce that they officially have the answer to the solar and wind intermittency problem. They made many announcements in the past of inventions of theirs that could potentially be cheaper than traditional energy storage systems such as the lithium-ion or lead-acid batteries in use today, but never this.

Primer: The sun does not always shine, the wind does not always blow, wind speeds fluctuate, and the amount of sunlight we receive varies due to clouds. According to the United States Department of Energy 2011 Annual Energy Outlook, the average cost of wind power in the U.S is only 9.7 cents per kWh (kilowatt-hour) of electricity that wind farms generate.

What this translates to: Wind power’s problem is no longer the cost to generate it. It is now mainly intermittency. Fluctuations in the amount of power generated by a wind farm can be compensated for by adjusting other hydroelectric, or fossil fueled natural gas, nuclear, or coal power plants. If a wind farm generates more than necessary, other power plants can be turned down to compensate for that, and back up again when there is less than enough wind power available.

The ability of fossil fueled power plants to adjust is very limited because they take long to make major adjustments in power production and energy storage enables wind farms to independently supply power without the help of other power plants.

This can be achieved with lithium-ion or lead-acid batteries, but these are too expensive. The cost issue associated with lead-acid batteries is because of their short lifespan and and inefficiency. They have to be replaced frequently, waste too much electricity, and this cost of these adds up.

According to MIT, liquid batteries are inexpensive and have a longer lifespan than traditional batteries. The three materials contained in the liquid batteries each settle in separate layers due to the difference in their densities, which, in this case, is a good thing. They have to be separate to work correctly.

This project was conducted with the importance of material availability and abundance in mind. All three layers of the battery materials used are abundant and inexpensive.

“We explored many chemistries,” Sadoway says. The negative electrode (anode) is in the top layer and is made of magnesium, the middle layer, which is the electrolyte consists of a salt mixture containing magnesium chloride, and the bottom layer which is the positive electrode (cathode) is made of antimony.

This battery operates at a temperature of 700 °C, which is 1,292 °F.

Discharging: The battery generates an electric current as each magnesium atom (this is in the negative electrode) loses two electrons, then they are magnesium ions which travel to the other antimony electrode. The magnesium ions then reacquire two more electrons and become magnesium again because of this. This causes an alloy to form with the antimony.

Charging: When the battery is supplied with an electric current, this process is reversed and the electrons are driven out of the antimony electrode, and back to the magnesium electrode.

As I say sometimes, batteries do not store electricity, they generate it. When you charge a battery,  you supply it with an electric current that drives a chemical reaction of which the one mentioned above is an example.  You reverse that process to make the battery generate electricity.

Tesla Model X Electric SUV - Obtained with thanks from Tesla Motors pressroom.

This SUV seats seven and is built on the same platform as the Model S, which is another seven seat car.

A distinctive aesthetic feature of this vehicle is its gull-wing doors, and of course the fact that it is a fast electric SUV. I don’t know of any other manufacturer that offers that.

Tesla initially introduced their Roadster sports car which accelerated from zero to sixty miles per hour in only 3.9 seconds, and it successfully changed many peoples’ perception of electric cars, which is that they are underpowered.

There is a plethora of different types of lithium-ion battery technologies that electric vehicles can use to achieve great performance, but they are too expensive. It isn’t that Tesla Motors used ultra expensive technology, they are innovative. The Roadster was less expensive than many super cars at a cost of $100,000.

Do you think the secret behind this vehicle’s performance is a newer battery technology? Or just very aggressive overall improvement? It may be the former. Learn more about battery technology here, but, before you leave, follow me on Twitter or Like me on Facebook.

Tesla Motors’ EV competition from major automakers has been growing, as they introduce their own electric cars. Tesla used to be one of very few electric car manufacturers, now Ford, Chevy, Nissan, and other manufacturers are getting into the game. Do you think Tesla can survive this? Feel free to discuss all these questions in the comment section.

Source: Technology Review

Audi R18 e-tron Quattro Hybrid-Electric Race Car. Image obtained with thanks from Audi USA on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/audiusa/

This vehicle is named the R18 e-tron quattro, and it utilizes a TDI (Turbocharged Direct Injection) diesel engine to turn one vehicle axis, and twin electric motors to turn the other.

The 4WD (four wheel drive) e-tron quattro contains a V6 engine that produces 375 kW (which is 510 HP) of power that turns the rear wheels, and twin electric motors to turn the front wheels.

The R18 e-tron recovers energy that would otherwise be wasted during braking by allowing the spinning front axle to turn the electric motor/generator combo devices, which also act as generators. The motors generate electricity which is used to spin a flywheel. This process is a type of Flywheel Energy Storage (FES), which is being pursued by researchers for both automobiles and power plants. It is a form of kinetic energy recovery.

A more detailed explanation of what I said above: When you are ready to slow down the vehicle, you release the accelerator pedal and then the kinetic energy that the vehicle possesses causes it to keep coasting, and because of that, the wheels, and hence axle continue rotating and gradually slow down with the car. This axle rotation turns the electric motors, which generate electricity that powers another motor which then spins a flywheel. This process actually helps to slow the vehicle, because it is literally taking kinetic energy from it.

Learn how FES works.

The e-tron will be evaluated and improved based on it’s performance on the track.

More photographs of the e-tron quattro can be found here, but before you leave, follow me on Twitter or Like me on Facebook.

h/t Audi News USA | Photo Credit: Audi USA.

First of all: The efficacy of a power source is heavily dependent on how it is applied. Wind farms are no exception to this rule. They are traditionally set up on their own land on which they are spaced hundreds of feet to ensure the turbines don’t interfere with each other. This is why wind farms require large amounts of space.

Wind turbines, however, can be utilized in such a way that they occupy very little land. Below, i’ll explain why.

GE Wind Turbines with Honda S2000 - Obtained with thanks from kevbo1983 on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinwhite/

Example turbine:

A 2 MW (2,000 kW or 2 million watt) Ecotechnica (now Alstom Wind) E80 wind turbine has a tower width of 3.95 metres (13 feet). [Source - Page 2]. The amount of space that a wind turbine physically occupies on the ground is equal to the width of the tower.

This could power 500 homes, assuming that each of the homes consumes 4 kW and is capable of fitting in one person’s back yard, because it requires only 13 feet of space on the ground. Most of the horizontal space it requires is above ground because the blades are so long.

One 2 MW turbine that could power 500 homes could be setup in each neighbourhood that contains less than 20 people, for example and still generate enough electricity for 500 homes. Therefore, if a wind turbine this size was set up in every neighbourhood, they would generate far more than enough power for everyone.

In stagnant areas, it may be cheaper to use residential rooftop solar panels on the houses instead.

If the turbines are not being placed on private property, such as a person’s back yard, for example: The land could be leased to the power company or community purchase group by the government.

Reliability: The concept I mentioned is a form of distributed wind power. It entails spreading wind farms out over a wide area, without actually wasting much space because the land surrounding them can still be used for anything, including farming, and another benefit is that it won’t be polluted with smoke, and while generating very little noise most of the time.

When you space out wind turbines this much, you actually increase their reliability. The wind may slow down at one site where there are few turbines, but, it is actually very likely to pick up speed in another location where there are other turbines.

The turbines, in this case, actually back each other up. If all of the wind turbines were clustered into the area in which the wind speed slowed, or even stopped, which is how a traditional wind farm is setup, all of them will generate less electricity or none at all.

My idea entails that less energy storage will be required to back the turbines up, because of the high likelihood that the other turbines are generating electricity, because they are spaced out and scattered everywhere. If the wind is not blowing in one location, it is likely to be blowing elsewhere. If there is any shortage, existing power plants can scale production up or peaking power plants can be switched on within minutes to compensate for that.

This also means that the power plants backing them up would not have to generate as much electricity to do so.

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