Luhmenhaus is Virginia Tech’s 2010 entry to the Solar Decathlon Europe competition. It delivers a brighter way to live, literally and figuratively. Lumenhaus uses technology optimally to make the owner’s life simpler, more energy efficient and less expensive. On the edge of responsive architecture, Lumenhaus can operate completely self-sufficiently, responding to environmental changes automatically to balance energy efficiency with user comfort. Lumenhaus is a zero-energy home that is completely powered by the sun. Other sustainable features inside the use of passive energy systems, radiant heating and building materials that are from renewable and/or recyclable sources. I think that sustainable architecture is a great technology with actual potential to improve our use of clean, renewable energy. Realizing that the construction and operation of buildings consume the majority of the world's natural resources and energy, and contribute the bulk of landfill waste, sustainable architecture could be a way to improve the deterioration of our natural and energy resources.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
Solar Cell Making Bot
Ok this is super cool. I am getting more interested in solar power now. The people at the National Renewable Energy Lab have created a robot that can not only make solar cells in record time, but also test the solar cells it has made while moving on to the next batch. This one-stop solar cell making process reduces the chance of malfunctioning or destroyed solar cells. This means that solar cells would become much more cost effective. Also, there would be no question as to the quality of solar cells due to the fact that EVERY SINGLE ONE will already have been tested by the robot. However, I have some doubts about President Obama's hope to get solar power to become cost-competitive with coal and fossil fuels by 2015. Five years is a long time but not long enough for solar to compete with fossil fuels. I am also interested in these new CIGS solar cells. If they are truly 20% efficient, then solar cells would become cost effective enough for household use.
Read for more info: http://www.nrel.gov/features/20100319_cigs.html
Read for more info: http://www.nrel.gov/features/20100319_cigs.html
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Fuel Cells in the Future?
Recently fuel cells have become a highly talked about subject because of their ability to provide the same energy has fossil fuels with virtually no emissions. Fuel cells convert stored chemical energy into electricity. The chemical energy comes from a fuel source, usually rich in hydrogen like methane but natural gas is common as well, which is converted to chemical energy and then passed through some electrolyte or catalyst, depending on the type of fuel cell. This technology is exciting so many people because fuel cells could potentially replace power plants. This appeals to environmentalists as well because of the reduction of hydrocarbons put into the atmosphere. So why aren't fuel cells the obvious choice for energy? Economics. So far the fuel cell is not cost effective except in industrial cases, like the Bloom Box powering the Yahoo building in California. The goal of scientists currently developing this technology is to make fuel cells cost effective for individual consumers. With the goal of fuel cells powering homes, cars, and even larger appliances we could be on our way to an energy revolution within the next ten years.
For more information on fuel cells (especially watch the video): http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell.htm
For more information on fuel cells (especially watch the video): http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell.htm
Electric Cars for Everyone
There are now various options throughout the market for hybrid vehicles from many different manufacturers. But the realm of zero emission electric vehicles is still a quite small one. No manufacturer currently produces an electric only car on a large scale, but that is soon to change with the release of the new Nissan Leaf. Nissan has received overwhelming amounts of interest from the public with 20 thousand reservations for purchase being made before the car has even been set out for retail sale. The cars engine is comparable to a 100hp ICE and has an estimated range of about 100miles. It seems like Nissan has put a lot of thought into this car and knows their target market well, integrating many of the features into this car that their audience is looking for. The car manages to justify its $33,000 price tag with an intelligent array of electronic gadgets that many consumers are coming to expect from a mid range car. Coming in at a price point close to vehicles of similar quality, the Nissan Leaf could prove to be a very cost effective mode of transport for many people. Almost every aspect of the car despite range is on par with conventional gas powered automobiles, this is made possible by recent advancements in battery technology that seem to have a good outlook for the future. If such trends continue it appears that the electric car will have a chance at surpassing fossil fuel vehicles in a short amount of time. For more information on the Leaf visit Nissan's website.
Soccket: Revolutionizing the Game
Soccer is the world's sport. The game's more than 3.5 million fanatics resides in most all of the world's countries. Across the globe kids gather around a single ball and enjoy hours of daily activity and community with there fellow players. Additionally, for many children living in underdeveloped nations, soccer temporarily frees them from their day to day rituals, tasks, and issues. When the game is over though, sadly 95% of kids in African countries go home to houses with no lights, no fridge, and no electricity (World Bank Millennium Goals Report, 2006).
The Soccket is an innovation with the potential to help change this. The Soccket is a soccer ball that uses an inductive coil mechanism to generate energy which can then be used to power a lamp and even charge a cell phone. Though still in the prototype stages of development, Soccket carries remarkable potential and could immensely change the lives of families across the world.
By harnessing kinetic energy, after only 15 minutes of game play, the Soccket can charge a LED lamp for three hours. With this high amount of energy capture and capability, the effects would be tremendous. Some children alone spend hours juggling a ball. After play, they could go home and use the electricity they generated to study or make a phone call that otherwise would have been impossible. The Soccket will not only improve home environments in these third world countries, but can also open up education options to children by expanding their time for studying. With the right advertisement and distribution, the Soccket can drastically improve the lives of children, expand their futures, and change the faces of nations around the globe.
This video goes into Tidal Energy's method of harvesting energy in the ocean. It should be said that the video is a promotional clip for Tidal Energy (the company, not tidal energy as a whole) so the trustworthiness of the video may go down a few notches. However, I found a lot of the information in this video to be pretty entertaining.
To sum up the video, Tidal Energy presents the advantages of their method of harnessing the ocean's underwater currents to generate electricity. They state that the ocean's current is renewable and sustainable, and their machines do not harm the underwater environment. One very interesting point to me is the fact that sea water is much denser (832 times denser) than air. This makes a great point for the implementation of tidal energy on the ocean floor. An ocean current is very reliable and will most always be in motion (unlike wind). Also, a little flowing sea water is equal to a much greater amount of flowing wind. The video does not belittle wind power, but I just found it easier to appreciate the facts about tidal energy when it was compared to another source of energy. One large advantage of using the Davidson Hill Vanturis turbines is the fact that they are completely underwater. This way, there is no defacement of an ocean scene as ell the equipment is out of sight. This opens up a lot of doors for Tidal Energy as they would most likely meet minimal opposition whenever they would want to install their turbines in a new location.
The Davidson Hill Vanturis is said to be the most efficient and environmentally safe underwater turbine on the market. It can be used in a variety of environments that include oceans, rivers and streams. The turbines can be directly inserted into the grid to supply electricity as a primary source, or lessen the burden of other energy sources to provide electric power to the public.
The Battle of the Bulbs
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-battle-of-the-bulbs/
Edison's creation of the traditional incadescent light bulb resulted in a revolution in humanities daily actions and methods. The lightbulb obviously allowed for all to be able to see in the dark, which allowed for the possibility of greater productions and prossibilities as work days and leisure hours could be extended. The regular traditional and inefficient incadescent lightbulb is still the primary choice of light-source after over a 100 years, as 3 our 4 lightbulbs in America are generally incadescent. However, there are many other more efficient and, unfortunately, more costly alternatives.
The specific relating topic I would like to bring to attention (as seen in the article) is the newly introduced Better Use of Light Bulbs Act. This piece of legislature would essentially remove the current standard of minimum efficiency for light bulbs. The reasoning behind this is that the minimum standard that was established in 2007, largely restricted the production of incadescent light bulbs and consequently cut many jobs in this sector of the United States.
The issue at hand is the conflict between producing light bulbs at a cheap production cost or rather more energy efficient and technologically advanced light bulbs at greater cost. As can be understood the perspective varies. What is your opinion on whether or not this act should be passed, and furthermore what kind of light bulbs must be produced?
I believe I would be against this act; as with the bigger picture in mind, retaining the minimum effeciency standard for light bulbs is a positive step forward in creating an environmentally friendly and long lasting human civilization. The issue is economic (as most things with green and efficient motives), as large initial investments would be necessary to construct an effective production facility and sale prices would be higher. I think removing the efficiency standard would be a step backwards and may not even compensate the job loss that was resulted in 2007. The amount of energy used by the United States (and the world) for just lighting is enormous and there can be huge savings in energy and in terms of money by making energy efficient light bulbs the standard. The long-term durability and savings can compensate for the initial higher paying price.
Thank you for your time, Cheers.
Edison's creation of the traditional incadescent light bulb resulted in a revolution in humanities daily actions and methods. The lightbulb obviously allowed for all to be able to see in the dark, which allowed for the possibility of greater productions and prossibilities as work days and leisure hours could be extended. The regular traditional and inefficient incadescent lightbulb is still the primary choice of light-source after over a 100 years, as 3 our 4 lightbulbs in America are generally incadescent. However, there are many other more efficient and, unfortunately, more costly alternatives.
The specific relating topic I would like to bring to attention (as seen in the article) is the newly introduced Better Use of Light Bulbs Act. This piece of legislature would essentially remove the current standard of minimum efficiency for light bulbs. The reasoning behind this is that the minimum standard that was established in 2007, largely restricted the production of incadescent light bulbs and consequently cut many jobs in this sector of the United States.
The issue at hand is the conflict between producing light bulbs at a cheap production cost or rather more energy efficient and technologically advanced light bulbs at greater cost. As can be understood the perspective varies. What is your opinion on whether or not this act should be passed, and furthermore what kind of light bulbs must be produced?
I believe I would be against this act; as with the bigger picture in mind, retaining the minimum effeciency standard for light bulbs is a positive step forward in creating an environmentally friendly and long lasting human civilization. The issue is economic (as most things with green and efficient motives), as large initial investments would be necessary to construct an effective production facility and sale prices would be higher. I think removing the efficiency standard would be a step backwards and may not even compensate the job loss that was resulted in 2007. The amount of energy used by the United States (and the world) for just lighting is enormous and there can be huge savings in energy and in terms of money by making energy efficient light bulbs the standard. The long-term durability and savings can compensate for the initial higher paying price.
Thank you for your time, Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)