Status of my solar power generation project

This is the status of my solar generating project. As at yesterday, my power plant has generated 3,049 KwH (Revenue of RM4,095). More importantly, I helped reduced 2,134kg of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

Energy from the oceans 5

Autonomous PowerBuoy


Company: Ocean Power Technologies

The PowerBuoy has two main parts: a moving float that's 5 feet in diameter by 5 feet tall and a 25-foot-tall spar anchoring it. When the float bobs up and down on the wave, it tugs on the spar. That stretching gets translated into electricity by a rotary motor and generator.

One significant challenge to the design, says Phil Hart, OPT's chief technology officer, was getting the buoy to properly resist the waves. In order to get electricity out of puny waves, the resistance between the float and the spar needs to be low—otherwise, the weakling wave won't move the buoy at all. But bigger waves contain more energy, and by increasing the force needed to move the float, OPT can harness more of that energy. Thus, PowerBuoy needs low resistance at some times and high resistance at other times. To solve the problem, they've implemented a computer that adjusts the device's resistance 10 times per second, leading to a big increase in efficiency.

Each PowerBuoy currently operating off the coast of Hawaii has a capacity of 0.04 megawatts, but an upcoming installation in Scotland may be able to generate up to 0.15 megawatts.

Energy from the oceans 4

The Terminator


Company: The U.S. Air Force Academy

This model was inspired by airplane design. The wing-shaped turbine blades force water to flow faster over one side than the other, creating different pressures on each surface. This results in a "lift" toward the low-pressure side; lift is the upward force that happens when you hold your hand horizontally out the window of a moving car. In contrast, typical water turbines rely on drag, or the direct push of the water—like sticking your hand out flat against the wind. By employing lift instead of drag, engineer and owner Stefan Siegel says the device (theoretically) could use 99 percent of a wave's energy, compared to the 50 percent efficiency or less that current tidal power projects can get. Siegel hasn't tried the device in the ocean yet. He's working to scale up the prototype to make it strong enough for testing off the coast of Texas later this year.

Energy from the oceans 3

GreenWAVE

Company: Oceanlinx

This design was inspired by Oceanlinx founder Tom Denniss's youthful days on the beach. Like a blowhole cave on a rocky coastline, the greenWAVE consists of an underwater tunnel that opens on a cabin full of air that sits above the waterline. At the top of the cabin is a small hole with a turbine. As an incoming wave floods the device with water, it compresses the air inside the cabin, making it rush out the air vent. When the water recedes, the falling water creates a vacuum inside the chamber. That makes the cabin suck in air from outside.

When it's working, the greenWAVE sounds like a big animal breathing, Denniss says. And as the vent breathes in and out, it turns a turbine hooked up to a generator. Each device measures 82 by 50 feet and has a 1-megawatt capacity. Oceanlinx has plans to develop a permanent version in Australia or Mexico, which it hopes to expand into a wave farm. GreenWAVE is relatively inexpensive as well, Denniss argues, because it's made mostly of concrete, weathers ocean storms easily and has no moving parts underwater.

Energy from the oceans 2

The Pelamis Wave Energy Converter


Company: Pelamis Wave Power

Floating on top of the water, the Pelamis device is the sea snake of ocean-power generation. It consists of four big cylinders strung together by hydraulic joints. As the tubes bob up and down on the waves, their movement pumps the joints, moving oil through hydraulic motors. Those motors drive generators to produce electricity.

Recent improvements in the design give the device's joints universal mobility. The initial joint worked like a knee joint—it could only generate electricity from simple up-and-down or side-to-side movements. The new design acts more like the ball-and-socket joint of your shoulder. It can make electricity whether the segments are moving up and down, from side to side, or in any other direction. That increases efficiency at turning waves into energy.

Each Pelamis snake is 600 feet long and 13 feet wide and generates up to 0.75 megawatts—that's enough to power about 500 homes for a year. Past projects have generated up to 2.25 megawatts, and Pelamis plans to set up similar ones at several sites in Scotland.

Energy from the oceans 1

The Oyster


Company: Aquamarine Power

Much like its namesake mollusk, the Oyster sits on the seabed, opening and closing its jaws. The device is a large hinged flap attached to the ocean floor at a depth of about 35 feet. As the flap opens and closes, it drives hydraulic pistons that squirt high-pressure water onshore, where it drives a conventional hydroelectric turbine. "In essence, the Oyster is simply a large pump which provides the power source for a conventional onshore hydroelectric power plant," says Carrie Clement, a spokeswoman for Aquamarine.

A 0.32-megawatt Oyster has already been installed in Scotland, where it began feeding power to National Grid in 2009. Now Aquamarine Power is working on creating a 2.4-megawatt Oyster bed in the Orkney Islands in Scotland. The submerged design protects Oyster's equipment from storm damage and allows it to keep working in all kinds of weather.

Ideas to Capture the Ocean’s Energy

Far out at sea, the wind blows over the water's glassy surface, creating tiny ripples and eddies. Those ripples provide a rough surface for the wind to grab and push—and waves are born. The longer a gust of wind catches the water's surface, the bigger the waves become.

According to some estimates, ocean waves around the world could hold up to 10 trillion watts of energy. If humans could harness that energy, we would be able to generate renewable, predictable and pollution-free electricity. But so far, few large-scale wave-energy projects have made it off the diving board—which means that ocean-wave technology is a free-for-all in terms of design. "There are many, many different types of devices," says Paul Jacobson, an ocean-energy leader at the Electric Power Research Institute. "The technology hasn't developed to the point where a lot of the designs have been shaken out yet. And so it remains to be seen which devices will turn out to be the most cost-effective and efficient."

Some of the ideas will be listed out in subsequent postings.

My solar power project finally went on-stream on 26 November 2012

After 11 months, my solar power project went on-stream on 26 November 2012. It was an exciting day as I can finally see the benefit of renewable energy working firsthand. The inspection by the staff of the electricity company went smoothly and after putting in all the security locks on the meter (to minimise the possibility of tempering), the power was switched on. In a small part, I am now helping the environment.

Below is the meter installed prior to switching on.

Below are some of the links to blog postings I made about this journey:

1. http://meoramri.blogspot.com/2012/09/my-home-solar-energy-project-is-now-at.html
2. http://meoramri.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-final-assembly-of-my-home-solar.html
3. http://meoramri.blogspot.com/2012/02/brand-of-solar-cells-to-be-incorporated.html
4. http://meoramri.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-am-going-into-solar-power-generation.html
5. http://meoramri.blogspot.com/2012/02/paper-advert-on-solar-power-project.html

Below is the converter, the heart of the whole solar power generating system. This is the machine that converts the DC generated by the solar panels to AC and harmonised the frequency of the AC to the national grid. If you can see from the display panel in the picture below, the system was generating the first KwH into the national grid (reading 0.851 KwH).

Quite proud about this achievement. Faced a lot of problems with regards to bureaucracy as well as the negotiations on the Power Purchase Agreement. On hindsight, it was worth it.

The final assembly of my home solar power project

In my previous posting, the installers were busy putting up the infrastructure on the house. After four days, the work is completed. (see: My home solar energy project is now at final stages of completion). Below a picture of my roof with all 39 panels solar panels assembled.

Below is the heart of the system, the transformer-less inverter (the blue box) and the accompanying fuse boxes. The direct current (DC) from the solar panels flows down and gets inverted into alternating current (AC). This box than will harmonised the sine wave of the AC to that of the national grid and starts feeding it.

Energy flows into the grid, money flows into my pocket!

Here you can see one of the electrical engineers configuring the wiring and fuses for the system.

Further entries on this subject can be found here:

My home solar energy project is now at final stages of completion

I am going into the solar power generation business - an independent power producer

The brand of solar cells to be incorporated on top of my roof

On the way to become a solar power producer

The paper advert on the solar power project

My home solar energy project is now at final stages of completion

A few months ago, I've decided to apply for the solar energy production license. Below are some of the blog entries on the same subject earlier:

I am going into the solar power generation business - an independent power producer 

The brand of solar cells to be incorporated on top of my roof

On the way to become a solar power producer

The paper advert on the solar power project

A few days ago, I took delivery of the solar panels from the installers. Delivery of the 39 Sanyo solar panels was done relatively fast. These HIT modules measuring approximately 80 cm wide by 160 cm long and weighing in at 15 kg a piece is currently the top range of solar panels available for consumers.



As it is designed to be exposed to the elements, there is no problem of leaving them in the open.



The installers informed me that the panels will be put in-place on the roof using aluminum bracing. The panels will be set a approximately 2 inches above the roof.



This is the solar panel itself from Sanyo.



The power rating for each panel. At a rate of 210w, with 39 panels, maximum power generated with optimum solar radiation is approximately 8.2 kwh.



Another view of the stacks of panels in my garden awaiting to be assemble.



Once up, based on the solar radiation statistics in Putrajaya, the minimum revenue per month is expected to be RM1,400 and the maximum would be in the region of RM3,000 per month. The installers have sort of guaranteed a return of RM1,800 per month per year on average.

There will another blog entry with some pictures of the installation in progress.

Tune in then.

Shape of cars to come

Very impress the speed of technology. Saw this entry by the Economist regarding the shapes of cars to come. Have a read.

----------------------------------------------------


See: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/06/motor-racing?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/shapeofcarstocome

TO NO-ONE'S great surprise, Audi dominated last weekend's 24-hour endurance race at Le Mans, in the bucolic Loire district of France. A hybrid version of its R18 sports car took the chequered flag—the first time a hybrid, from any manufacturer, won at Le Mans. Another Audi hybrid came second, and the company claimed third and fifth with a pair of turbo-diesels. Toyota returned to the race after a 13-year absence with two hybrids of its own—only to see one crash and the other retire with mechanical problems.

Though a novelty, the hybrids were not the stars of the show. A tiny triangular-shaped car known as the DeltaWing was giving the other 55 fire-breathing machines a run for their money when it was unceremoniously bumped off the track and into the crash barrier by one of the Toyotas. So ended a brave attempt to show that a car with half the weight, half the horsepower and half the aerodynamic drag could run rings round the dreadnoughts of the sport.



It was not the first time that a radical, lightweight design has challenged conventional thinking in motor racing. Something similar happened when Colin Chapman’s featherweight Lotus 23, with Jim Clark at the wheel, made its debut at the Nürburgring’s infamous northern loop in 1962. With its tiny 100 horsepower motor (a third that of its rivals), the Lotus 23 shot ahead of the field of ponderous Porsches, Aston Martins and Ferraris. After one lap of the rain-soaked track, Clark was 27 seconds ahead of the leading Porsche driven by the American ace, Dan Gurney. The world of motor racing had never seen anything like it before.



The following month, when two Lotus 23 cars—one with a 750cc engine and the other with a 1,000cc unit—were entered for the Le Mans endurance race, French officials promptly banned them for being too good. Chapman swore never to enter a Lotus car for the 24-hour Le Mans race ever again—and kept his promise till the day he died.

More than in any other motor sport, engineering improvements made to meet the gruelling demands of endurance racing feed directly into everyday motoring. Unlike Formula One cars or their IndyCar cousins, where teams focus on making vehicles that run furiously for a few hours, endurance events like Le Mans are more about building sporty but reliable machines that can run flat out for a full 24 hours, with only brief pit stops to take on fuel, replace worn tyres and swap drivers.

Also, much of the Le Mans circuit (officially known as Circuit de la Sarthe) is made up of public roads that are used for the rest of the year by cars and camions. Le Mans requires drivers to cope with rough, cambered surfaces as bone-jarring as anything everyday motorists face. To compete successfully, Le Mans cars have to be not only robust, but also have good fuel economy and be extremely stable, especially at high speed.

Long, fast straights dominate the Le Mans circuit. Because drivers were reaching 250mph (400km/h) before hitting the brakes for the sharp turn at the bottom of the three-mile (five-kilometre) downhill Mulsanne straight, two sets of chicanes were added in 1990 to slow the cars down. Even so, Mulsanne remains a savage test for aerodynamic stability. In 1999, a Mercedes-Benz CLR became airborne while hurtling down it, flying spectacularly over the safety fencing before landing in the woods beyond. That was not the first time. The CLRs had flipped twice during practise. Fortunately, no one was seriously hurt.

But the stability problems were enough to make Mercedes-Benz withdraw from the race and abandon its entire sports-car programme before further accidents could tarnish its public image. Last weekend, after being hit by a Ferrari, one of the Toyota hybrids also took to the skies before slamming into a tyre barrier at the bottom of the Mulsanne straight, fracturing two vertebrae in the driver’s spine.

Such are the perils of relying on aerodynamic downforce for high-speed stability. Any interference, whether a nudge from another vehicle or a bump in the track, can upset the airflow over the car, especially on the wing at the rear that creates the bulk of the downforce. The car will often "porpoise", as the rear wing stalls and air pressure builds up under the nose, sending the vehicle tumbling end over end.

The little DeltaWing car at this year’s Le Mans aimed to do things differently. Conceived by Ben Bowlby, a British-born racing-car designer, and built by Dan Gurney’s All American Racers as a contender for the 2012 IndyCar Series, the DeltaWing carried no external wings, because of their propensity to generate drag along with downforce. Instead, the car got most of its downforce from the underside of the body.

To reduce drag still further, the DeltaWing’s frontal area was made as small as possible. The front wheels were spaced just two feet apart, while the track at the back was a more conventional five-and-a-half feet. The result was a car with superior straight line and cornering speeds, and much better fuel economy than any of the IndyCars it was designed to replace.

Another feature of the delta layout is the way the wing’s leading edges generate strong vortices that energise the air flowing over the rest of the wing. That keeps the airflow attached more effectively to the surface, allowing the wing to sustain much higher angles of attack before stalling. Used on a racing car, with the lifting surface beneath the vehicle and pointing down, the vortex effect can be used to keep the vehicle glued to the ground.

Though Mr Bowlby’s novel design was deemed too radical for the IndyCar Series, his car was invited to participate in this year’s Le Mans race as a “Project 56” entrant. Apart from the 55 cars that qualify to race each year, the organisers reserve one extra slot on the grid for a car considered so innovative that it should be allowed to compete without having to comply with the rules.

With its 1.6 litre, four-cylinder Nissan engine, the DeltaWing was far from the most powerful machine on the grid. However, like the featherweight Lotus all those years before, it tipped the scales at just half the weight of the big Audis and other “prototype” sports cars in the race. That let it produce a similar power-to-weight ratio of 600-700 horsepower per ton, but with a drag coefficient of just 0.24 compared with the 0.47 of the all-conquering R18s. What the diminutive DeltaWing lost in outright speed, it gained by not having to go into the pit so often to change tyres and refuel.

So popular was the little DeltaWing with fans that when it was forced into the crash barrier by a Toyota driver who did not see it creeping cheekily alongside, the number of people listening to the race commentary on Radio Le Mans fell by 30%. Will it race again? Probably. But most likely under different management. Mr Bowlby designed the DeltaWing as an open-source project, so other teams could build their own versions to race.

The brand of solar cells to be incorporated on top of my roof

After looking at the various options in terms of type of solar cells to be used in my project. I have decided to go with the Sanyo HIT Photovoltaic module. HIT stands for Heterojunction with Intrinsic Thin Layer. This technology is better suited for Malaysia's warm and humid climate compared to the European option. Below is the brochure for the Sanyo unit.

Catalog Hip-210nkh5 2

The other alternative is the Bosch Solar Module c-Si M 60 EU 30117. The brochure is given below.
Bosch Solar Module c Si M 60 EU 30117 Englisch Monitor

In terms of price difference, the Sanyo is considered the high-end unit compared to the Bosch.

The paper advert on the solar power project

Below was the one-page advert that was made by DitrolicSolar in the NST for the Fit-In-Tariff programme.

I am going into the solar power generation business - an independent power producer

I am participating in the solar power movement. Signing up with this company to get a government contract to supply solar power to the grid for 21 years. Hopefully, this would be start of a good home business for the family.

Using Technology to Build Better Batteries

Below is an article I read from time that would be of interest to all of you.....

----------------------------------------------

Read full article from TIME: http://techland.time.com/2011/11/21/addicted-to-power-using-technology-to-build-better-batteries/#ixzz1eOAJFfyY



When walking through an airport, have you ever tried to find an outlet for your computer or to charge your phone only to realize that every last outlet is being used? I have this experience often since I travel for business quite a bit. The same is true of my house. There never seems to be enough plugs to charge all my gadgets. Then again, I have too many gadgets.

Whenever I have this experience, I am reminded of the sad state of battery technology for our mobile devices. The constant need to charge our gadgets is about as irritating to me as having to put gas in my car. Charging, like having to get gas, is an irritating task. It makes me feel like somehow my freedom is restricted—and in a way, it is.

On Twitter this week, Bill Gates put out a call for the creation of new and better renewable energy sources. He also shared a stat I thought was interesting: All the batteries on Earth store just 10 minutes worth of world electricity needs.

Unfortunately, battery technology is a limited science. We don’t have the luxury of having our battery technology follow the pace of innovation or technological advancements like we do with other technologies. This is going to be a limiting factor for the foreseeable future, too.

Technology innovation is not bad, of course. It’s good and encouraging. But having said that, our issues with short battery life are partially our fault. The market’s desire for thinner PCs, smartphones, and tablets with brighter screens and faster processors all require making tradeoffs that impact battery life. Innovation isn’t bad, as I said, but the reality is that our desire for innovative electronics is hampered by the limited science of our current battery technology.

So what can be done about it? Is there hope, or are we doomed to need to recharge all our gadgets on a daily basis? There are several things happening that I want to highlight, along with emphasizing that more still needs to be done.

The first is advancements in microprocessors. The brains that power our electronics have come a long way. Every company making microprocessors for PCs, tablets, smartphones and any other mobile technology we dream up is working on creating more power efficient processors. The goal is to create processors that are still powerful, but don’t require more power themselves, which drains battery life. This is important because as we demand more processing power in our devices to do things like run our apps, play media-rich games and browse multimedia-filled web pages, we need faster CPUs.

If you follow the technology industry, you’re familiar with a term called “Moore’s Law.” One of Intel’s founders, Gordon E. Moore stated that the number of transistors which could be placed on a single chip would double every 18 months. Note that this does not mean processing performance necessarily doubles every 18 months—only the number of transistors.

There is a key observation, however, for Moore’s Law and mobile devices. Moore’s Law not only makes it possible to double transistors every 18 months, but it also paves the way for chips to become smaller and, in turn, require less power. This is why companies like Intel and AMD are racing to create new processor architectures on an annual cadence. With each new generation, we can have roughly the same computing power, but with smaller processors which require less power. Key advancements by all players in the silicon space are happening in a way that, over time, will see significant computing power that requires less battery power to achieve.

The second thing that is happening is experimentation around battery technology itself. As I stated previously, lithium-ion battery technology is a limited science. People have been trying to achieve breakthroughs with this technology for some time with little success. However, Northwestern University recently released a report and white paper stating that researchers there had created created an electrode for lithium-ion batteries that allows the batteries to hold a charge up to 10 times greater than current technology and can charge 10 times faster than current batteries.

As with all early research, it takes time and money to see if these new technologies could be sustained and produced commercially for the mass market. This new research out of Northwestern is encouraging, and I’m hearing of work in other technology labs that are also trying to create breakthroughs with lithium-ion batteries.

Unfortunately, making technological advancements in microprocessors, lithium-ion batteries, and perhaps some new energy source simply takes time. The important thing is that key work is being done to address our battery life issues with our devices. So for the foreseeable future we will still have to fight for outlets at the airport and charge our smartphones at least once each day. But that’s the reality of today; hopefully not the reality of tomorrow.

Read more: http://techland.time.com/2011/11/21/addicted-to-power-using-technology-to-build-better-batteries/#ixzz1eOAJFfyY

Proton goes electric (Article from NST dated 15 September 2011)

Article from NST dated 15 September 2011




PUTRAJAYA: Proton Holdings Bhd’s global compact electric and hybrid car, Emas, could enter the market in two to three years, its chairman, Datuk Seri Mohd Nadzmi Mohd Salleh, said.



The electric vehicle, designed by Italdesign Giugiaro and developed by Proton, was first unveiled at the Geneva International Motor Show last year.



Emas, short for Eco Mobility Advance Solution, is a plug-in electric vehicle (EV) or hybrid Range Extender Electric Vehicle (REEV).

The compact car’s powertrain could include a turbocharged small engine of 1.2-litre capacity, or lower.

Proton is currently fleet-testing the Exora REEV and Saga EV to assess their potential.

The national car maker yesterday handed over five Exora REEVs and three Saga EVs to the government to be test driven. This would be the first step before mass-producing them.

The vehicles were received by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in a ceremony witnessed by former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who is also Proton’s adviser.

Others who took delivery of the vehicles at the PM’s Department were Energy, Green Technology and Water Minister Datuk Seri Peter Chin Fah Kui, Second Finance Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Husni Mohamad Hanadzlah, Deputy International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir and Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Rahim Bakri.

This is the first phase of fleet testing, a collaboration between Proton, the Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry and International Trade and Industry Ministry.

Nadzmi said 250 electric-powered cars would be handed to the government in phases for fleet-testing by the year-end or early next year.

“We want to deliver them as fast as possible.”

Proton will get feedback from the testing, covering the technological aspects, design and performance of the vehicles.

Charging stations provided by Proton will be at the Prime Minister’s Department and the four minis tries.

The Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry, in a statement, said that a charging system for home use would be supplied to motorists who will be identified from the PM’s Department and the four ministries.

According to Dr Mahathir, Proton took three years to develop the vehicles.

“We hope that Proton will one day produce trucks and buses using this system which reduces the use of petrol by relying on batteries to power the engine.”

Read more: Proton goes electric http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/Protongoeselectric/Article/#ixzz1Y0zZKyFY

Solar light bulbs

Denver (CNN) -- It started with such a simple concept: A solar light bulb that charges up during the day and lights the night when the sun sets.



Inventor Steve Katsaros perfected his design in June 2010, and four days later he had a patent in hand.

He knew it was a good product, but he didn't know what to do with it.

"It wasn't until after we created it that we asked ourselves, 'How do we market this,'" Katsaros says. "And we learned that the largest market was the developing world."

SEE FULL ARTICLE FROM CNN BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK

Lack of research drive impacts us all in the long run - "Japan's winds of change"

Saw this article from the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/04/technology_monitor_2?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/japanswindsofchanges). Due to expediency, no interest was made to continue researching on alternative energy sources. I believe the better term is the lack of drive. Why investigate further when the current technology is sufficient?

Malaysia must not be drawn into this pothole. Yes, there are benefits to nuclear power, nevertheless effort must still be put into looking at other sources. I have copied some parts of the article for you to read. What do you think?

------------------------------------------------------

ONE reason for Japan’s reliance on nuclear power—with all its attendant difficulties of building reactors safely in an earthquake zone—is its lack of indigenous energy sources. Yet it does have one that seems under-exploited, namely the wind. According to a report published in 2009 by the Global Wind Energy Council, Japan, which generates 8.7% of the world’s economic output, has just 1.3% of its capacity to make electricity from the air. The world’s third-largest economy, then, is 13th in the world’s windpower league table.



According to Chuichi Arakawa, a mechanical engineer at the University of Tokyo, that is because Japan has too much of the wrong sort of wind. First, the typhoons which regularly strike the place are simply too powerful. (In 2003, for example, such a storm crippled six turbines on Miyakojima, near Okinawa.) Second, the regular winds that blow through the country are less useful than they might be because Japan is so mountainous. Engineering considerations require that a turbine be erected perpendicular to the Earth, regardless of the slope of the local hillside. But if that ground is, indeed, sloping, it means that the wind (which tends to follow the ground when it is close to the surface) hits the blades of the turbines at an angle instead of face on. That makes the whole process of power generation less efficient.

Help, though, is on the way. Engineers at Fuji Heavy Industries (FHI), a large manufacturing company, have come up with a turbine they think can withstand the sort of battering that brought down those on Miyakojima, and also turn the irregular mountain winds to advantage.

The crucial differences between FHI’s new turbine and a traditional one are in the location and setting of the blades. In a traditional turbine the blades are in front of the pole and also of the nacelle—the structure that houses the generator. In addition, the plane of the blades is parallel to the pole, so that a ground-hugging wind hits the blades face on. This is known as an upwind design.

By contrast, FHI has opted for a downwind design, which puts the blades behind both nacelle and pole. This allows the rotor plane to be tilted so that it faces directly into winds blowing up the hill without snagging on the pole. According to Shigeo Yoshida, who is in charge of research for the project, that makes the arrangement 5-8% more efficient in these circumstances than an upwind turbine would be.

As a bonus, the downwind design is less temperamental in high winds. That is because the blades, being behind the pole and at an angle to it, can be given more freedom to yaw about than they would have in an upwind turbine. This puts less strain on them than if they were fixed.

So far, 25 downwind turbines have been constructed in Japan, and dozens more are in the pipeline. Windpower will never, of course, replace the day-in-day-out reliability of nuclear or other thermal forms of electricity generation. But, as Japan has recently been reminded, it is never a good idea to put all of your eggs in one basket.

Myths about alternative energy technology - what is the real truth?

Recent events in Japan has gotten me thinking about our energy security going forward. There are talks about introducing nuclear energy in Malaysia but the arguments and counter-arguments for it has becoming political without any scientific justification given. As a concerned citizen (we should all be!), we must tackle this problem head-on without being embroiled in political in-fighting.

I found this article written by Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar) which provides a very subjective reasons for embracing (or not embracing) a particular fuel technology. I took the liberty of pulling interesting parts of the article for you to browse through.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The road to clean energy is full of enticing opportunities—and perilous pitfalls. Picking the best path requires avoiding both starry-eyed hype and cynical fatalism. In this special report, PM debunks 10 of the most pernicious myths that could derail our progress.

Nuclear Power Isn't a Safe Solution
 

In a recent national poll, 72 percent of respondents expressed concern about potential accidents at nuclear power plants. Some opinion-makers have encouraged this trepidation: Steven Cohen, executive director of Columbia University's Earth Institute, has called nuclear power "dangerous, complicated and politically controversial."

During the first six decades of the nuclear age, however, fewer than 100 people have died as a result of nuclear power plant accidents. And comparing modern nuclear plants to Chernobyl—the Ukrainian reactor that directly caused 56 deaths after a 1986 meltdown—is like comparing World War I fighter planes to the F/A-18. Newer nuclear plants, including the fast reactor now being developed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), contain multiple auto-shutoff mechanisms that reduce the odds of a meltdown exponentially—even in a worst-case scenario, like an industrial accident or a terrorist attack. And some also have the ability to burn spent fuel rods, a convenient way to reuse nuclear waste instead of burying it for thousands of years.

Power sources such as coal and petroleum might seem safer than nuclear, but statistically they're a lot deadlier. Coal mining kills several hundred people annually—mainly from heart damage and black lung disease, but also through devastating accidents like the April mine explosion in West Virginia. The sublethal effects of coal-power generation are also greater. "The amount of radiation put out by a coal plant far exceeds that of a nuclear power plant, even if you use scrubbers," says Gerald E. Marsh, a retired nuclear physicist who worked at Argonne National Laboratory. Particulate pollution from coal plants causes nearly 24,000 people a year to die prematurely from diseases such as lung cancer. Petroleum production also has safety and environmental risks, as demonstrated by the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

INL nuclear lab's deputy associate director, Kathryn McCarthy, thinks the industry can overcome its stigma. "It's been a long time since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island," McCarthy says, "and people are willing to reconsider the benefits of nuclear energy." Nuclear plants emit only a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide that coal plants do, and a few hundred nuclear facilities could potentially supply nearly all the energy the United States needs, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

Sure, Corn Ethanol is Problematic—But Switchgrass Will Save the Day

The renewable energy movement's darling for years, corn-based ethanol has fallen out of favor for not making good on its promises of efficiency. Cellulosic ethanol—made from plant parts containing cellulose, such as grass and wood chips—seems poised to be the next star of the biofuel circuit. Its fuel crops require less fertilizer and use water more efficiently than corn. Plus, it can be created from waste products like lawn clippings and tree branches.

But the upstart fuel will have to surmount sizable environmental and financial challenges. For one, it takes a tremendous amount of cellulose to produce ethanol in industrial quantities, which means a lot of land would still have to be devoted to fuel production. "The low density of the supply is a problem," says Tad Patzek, a chemical engineer at the University of Texas at Austin. "To supply fuel to, say, the Bay Area, you would need an area of switchgrass that is larger than all the agricultural land in California."

And since cellulose is tough and fibrous, it requires heavy-duty enzymatic decomposition processes to convert the plant matter into simple sugars that can be fermented into ethanol. These processes consume large amounts of energy and are so pricey that a study in Bioresource Technology last year concluded that cellulosic ethanol won't be competitive with gasoline unless oil prices remain above $90 a barrel.

When that day comes, cellulosic could play a modest role in boosting supplies. And that's worth more research today. But hopes that grass clippings will end our oil habit are overblown.

Wind Power is Far Too Unreliable 

First things first: Wind power is intermittent; it's just the nature of, well, nature. Due largely to the unpredictability of weather, turbines typically generate only about one-fifth of the energy they'd make if they actually ran 24/7. That said, energy planners have devised tactics to make wind power reliable.

One of the best ways to balance wind's now-it's-here-now-it's-not quality is to construct grid connections between different regions of the U.S. "We have monitoring systems that show us the winds as they proceed through different regions," says George Van Hoesen, a managing partner at Global Green Building, an environmental consulting firm in Missouri. "We understand the currents and the flows." Armed with this data and computer models, utilities can plan to shunt surplus power generated in one part of the country to areas that need it.

Science supports that strategy. A recent Stanford University study found that when many wind farms are interconnected through the grid, about one-third of the electricity they generate can be counted on as a reliable source of around-the-clock power. (Less reliable wind energy sources can still be put to profitable use—to charge batteries for electric vehicles or produce hydrogen transportation fuel, for example.) And a University of Delaware study published this spring concluded that an offshore grid, connecting wind generators along the East Coast, could provide relatively stable output. Over a simulated five-year period, power never petered out entirely.

"In the eastern United States, storms typically move along the coast," says Willett Kempton, a lead author. "Thus, if offshore wind farms are connected by a transmission line, the power from the whole set is more consistent."

Still, even the savviest grid connections have limits. The most optimistic projections calculate that wind can supply about 30 percent of the planet's electricity by 2030, so power sources like nuclear, hydropower and solar will be needed as supplements. It might not be a great idea to place all bets on wind, but with the latest turbines able to generate pollution-free electricity at less than 5 cents per kilowatt-hour, it wouldn't be smart to let wind go by the wayside while we invest in less sustainable fuels, either.

Algae Grows Anywhere, So Turning It Into Fuel Will Be Cheap 

It grows in ponds. It grows in streambeds. It even grows in your sink if you forget to scrub it. Algae is so omnipresent that startups like Solix and Aurora Biofuels make it easy to envision the microscopic green organisms meeting all the transportation needs of the planet at pennies a gallon for eternity.

But in-depth experimentation suggests that algae-fuel supremacy isn't going to come easy. The strains of algae that work best for biodiesel are specialized lipid-producers that won't thrive in just any circumstances. Algae-fuel researchers have tried growing the organisms in open ponds for decades, but the water often becomes contaminated with native algae, which quickly outcompete lipid-rich strains.

Closed bioreactors come with their own set of issues. "Even relatively inexpensive ones are going to add dramatically to capital costs," says biochemical engineer John Sheehan, who worked on a stalled National Renewable Energy Laboratory algae-fuel project. Plus, as bioreactors scale up, decreased surface-area-to-volume ratios often make it difficult for all the algae to get the solar energy they need, making them subpar for fuel production. Algae fuel may eventually take off, but it's going to require a lot of testing, technical tweaking and expensive infrastructure to get there.

Tidal Power is a Lost Cause

As the sea level rises and falls, tides roll in and out twice a day, unfailingly. It's hard to imagine a more predictable source of power. Yet tidal power's showcase project in the United States, an array of underwater turbines anchored in the East River in New York City, hasn't exactly been an overnight success. Two initial turbine designs flopped over the course of several years; blades and hubs snapped off because they weren't strong enough to withstand the near-constant force of the water.

Still, it's too soon to give up on tidal power. The Rance tidal power plant in France has an installed capacity of 240 megawatts and has been in continuous operation for more than 40 years. Its axial-flow turbines are capable of operating as the water flows in both directions. And after several false starts, Verdant Power's array operated for more than 9000 hours in a 2008 trial, delivering 70 megawatt-hours of energy to two end-users. This summer, the startup Natural Currents Energy Services plans to install proprietary turbines in two projects that will power marinas in New Jersey. "We're talking about the entire ocean moving in one direction or another," says Global Green Building's Van Hoesen. "The sheer volume of energy makes it very attractive."

Clean Coal Can Clear the Skies of Emissions

The phrase "clean coal" has recently entered the argot of energy planners and political candidates, implying that coal—in addition to supplying cheap, reliable base-load power—can be an environmentally friendly energy source. Energy Secretary Steven Chu endorsed this viewpoint, announcing that the Department of Energy would spend more than $3 billion to fund facilities that capture carbon dioxide from coal and stash it underground, reducing air pollution.

Unfortunately, clean, cheap coal is still a pipe dream. According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the cost of capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants and storing it in underground locations will increase the price of electricity from 30 to 100 percent, depending on the method used. In addition, coal-fired power plants that perform sequestration burn one-quarter more coal than their unimproved counterparts to produce the same amount of electricity. That means more destructive mining operations, more CO₂ emissions from transportation and more coal ash, the toxic byproduct of all coal-burning. "We have implemented some technologies that are cleaning the air," says Mary Fox, an environmental scientist at Johns Hopkins University, "but that has led to a displacement of some of those waste products into solid waste."

That displacement can lead to serious health consequences, as in the case of the coal-ash slurry that broke through a dike in Tennessee, sullying water supplies with mercury, lead and arsenic. Disposing of toxic ash responsibly could cost in excess of $5 billion annually, so efforts to pass more stringent federal controls on solid waste have stalled. For better or worse, coal produces roughly half of the nation's electricity, so technology for next-gen facilities is worth developing. But no breakthrough will cause the nearly 500 plants already operating in the U.S. to magically clean up their act. 

The Risk of Earthquakes makes Deep Geothermal Unrealistic

Horror stories about deep geothermal drilling began circulating after a series of earthquakes shook the city of Basel, Switzerland, in 2006. And, in fact, a scientific analysis concluded that a geothermal system likely set off the quakes, causing a similar project in California to be scuttled.

But deep geothermal, also called enhanced geothermal, has distinct advantages too. Because it taps into the hot, dry bedrock miles below the surface, drilling could be widespread. A recent study led by MIT identified 200,000 exajoules of extractable deep geothermal energy, which could supply more than 2000 times the nation's annual energy use.

Odds are very low that enhanced geothermal power would ever cause a quake on the scale of, say, the recent shake-up in Chile, says Colin Williams, a geophysicist on the U.S. Geological Survey earthquake hazards team. Even the largest quake in Basel, a 3.4 on the Richter scale, caused only minimal damage. And experts say that if enhanced geothermal plants are constructed farther away from cities—in rural areas of Europe or the western U.S., for example—any induced seismicity would have even less effect on the human population. "Should we say the technology is dead?" says scientist Domenico Giardini, who analyzed Basel. "Absolutely not."

U.S. Shale can Provide Energy Independence 

Shale oil hasn't gotten too much attention since the oil crisis of the 1970s. But today, proponents are once again pointing out that there are more than a trillion barrels of oil locked in the shale deposits of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, more than all the proven crude-oil reserves on the planet. That would be enough to meet current U.S. oil demand for an entire century.

The problem, then and now, lies in the financial and ecological costs of extracting the oil. Shale oil naturally occurs in the form of kerogens, solid, waxy substances with a texture similar to that of ChapStick. Once the kerogens are heated to over 500 F, they exude hydrocarbons, which must be treated with hydrogen in order to be processed into usable fuel—a highly energy-intensive process that releases large amounts of CO₂.

And just to get at these kerogens, energy companies would have to mine and process millions of tons of shale from the earth—leaving behind toxic heavy metals and sulfates that could seep into groundwater. "There's a water contamination issue," says Olayinka Ogunsola, an engineer at the Department of Energy. "There's also a land reclamation issue—[mining] would create a lot of disturbance in the area." Mining and processing shale also require vast amounts of water—producing 2.5 million barrels of shale oil per day would require 105 million to 315 million gallons of water daily. That might be the biggest deal breaker of all for parched western states.

So while extracting the oil from U.S. shale may be technically possible, the scale of such an enterprise, as measured in acres and natural resources, may never make it worthwhile.

Solar Energy Will Never Pay for Itself

 

Solar panels are certainly expensive—about $100 per square foot for a typical installation—but eventually, you're destined to end up on the positive side of the equation.

According to the California Solar Electric Company, it may take from eight to 12 years to recoup in saved energy costs the investment put into a basic residential photovoltaic (PV) solar array. But this estimate varies greatly depending on factors like the size of the array and the amount of sunlight that hits it, and advances in PV technology continue to shorten the payback period.

"The shortest payback with new thin-film cells is less than a year," says Burr Zimmerman, a chemical engineer and co-founder of the Kairos Institute, which ushers new technologies into the marketplace. Thanks to ramped-up production and cheaper materials, up-front costs continue to plummet as well; the price of solar cells has fallen fifteenfold since 1980.

After a solar array's initial payback period, you start to reap some serious financial benefits. Assuming solar cells have an average life expectancy of 30 years, more than 50 percent of the power solar cells generate ends up being free. "There are maintenance issues," Zimmerman says, but over time, "solar cells are definitely making you money."

We Have to Drill Our Way Out of the Energy Dilemma

Discussions of America's energy future tend to focus on increasing production. There's no question that more mining and drilling can modestly increase overall supply—but, as recent accidents have shown, at a steep human and environmental cost. Renewable sources show promise but will take time and money to implement. "I'm a big advocate of renewables, but I'm also an advocate of common sense," says David Hughes, a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute. "Radical conservation has to be number one."

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that, under existing policies, total energy consumption will grow by 14 percent by 2035. That doesn't have to be the case. A report published last year by McKinsey & Company calculates that widespread deployment of energy-efficiency measures can decrease consumption by 23 percent of projected demand by 2020. What's more, such measures would result in $1.2 trillion in savings, far more than the $520 billion investment required to implement them. The corresponding reduction of greenhouse gas emissions would be like taking an entire U.S. fleet of passenger vehicles off the road.

Personal actions certainly help: A 2008 trial by Baltimore Gas and Electric showed that customers who had smart meters reduced their energy use by up to 37 percent during peak periods. And semiconductor-powered light-emitting diodes (LEDs) have the potential to reduce lighting-related energy consumption to one-sixth of its current level. The DOE estimates we could be well on our way to that goal by 2025, cutting lighting energy use by 29 percent—and collectively saving $125 billion.

There's also ample room for industry to streamline its energy consumption. If plants like oil refineries and steel mills convert exhaust heat into electricity via cogeneration, they could reap an extra 100 gigawatts, reducing CO₂ emissions by about 400 million metric tons. Energy saved, it turns out, is the cheapest new source.

I am now off the electricity grid with my new solar power charger

While I was in transit in Dubai, I saw this solar power charger from the Duty Free shop. This is something new to me and I immediate bought one. It is called the Solarmonkey and a Solarnut. The Solarmonkey is the solar panel while the Solarnut (the one with that looks like an egg) is the rechargeable battery. Below is the brochure.

Operating it is simple. Just put it against any light source. At the end of the Solarnut you can have many different kinds of extensions for various electrical devices. I like the USB female connector best as it can connect to practically any devices currently available.

If required, you just need to plug it into the connector and behold! Your device is being charged by the power of the sun!

To make the most of bright sunlight (lets be honest, you don't get it often enough with the kind of thunderstorms we are getting in KL now), I also purchased the GP instant power device that can act as a charger as well as a emergency power generator. Below is the brochure.

So, while charging the Solarmonkey in the sun, I attached the GP power to also charge the rechargeable batteries. As and when needed, I charge my phone. At the moment, my phone, Samsung B7330 has been getting its juice purely from the sun for the last 3 weeks!

We can do it. We can make a change for the environment.