Slashdot Mirror

My cottage is quite close, the project is described at http://ecogeek.org/2013/04/ope...

This approach is low-cost, and used in Brazil among other places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

electricity generation is going to use some land

FWIW, to power the entire United States today with solar power, it would take about 92 Sq. miles of solar plants. To power the entire world with solar power by what is estimated the world will need in 2030, it would take a bit less than about 180,000 Sq. miles, i.e. an area smaller than the size of Spain. Seems like a lot, but looking at the graphic linked, looks like we have plenty of space for it... and its better to spread it out anyway.

We really need to get new ideas for more efficiently transferring energy long distances, and battery/energy storage tech advancing faster. And some ideas on how to, on a massive scale, scrub the CO2 currently in the atmosphere back into a safer state somewhere... and maybe humans will still be a living species in a hundred years.

As many have mentioned already, such an air-to-petrol might be viable in the middle of the Sahara where sunshine is plenty and access is poor. Anywhere where plants grow well, and can be dried, there a more efficient way...

(1) Grow plants to create biomass
(2) Let the biomass dry
(3) Put the biomass into a sealed container
(4) Add heat to evaporate the biomass
(5) Pump the air out of the container through a condensor

What you end up with is a mix of hydrocarbon oils that can be refined into petrol and many other things. The collection of the CO2 is done for you by vegitation in the sun. You can use waste biomass (stems and leaves) from a crop that actually produces something useful besides biomass.

Here is another idea... the UK is experimenting with storing energy as liquified air (1), which can be heated later to propel turbines just like steam. One of the byproducts of freezing air (at 77K or lower) is solid CO2 which freezes at 174K. The dry ice is a concentrated source of CO2 that can be liquified at pressures above 5 atmospheres and chemically combined with hydrogen to produce hydrocarbon oils.

Of course, such a system would require more energy input than it would produce, but this is about energy storage and the production of clean hydrocarbon oils rather than energy efficiency. There are a few locales that will be able to produce more clean energy than needed and might have difficulty selling/exporting it -- such places might eventually be able to produce their own hydrocarbon fuels for more self sufficiency.

(1) http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3819

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/1902

What's with all the hate for the Aptera? Did the owner rape your sister or something? I can't believe so many of you are getting so worked up about hating this guy and his company and his car. I smell some kind of agenda, although I can't imagine what it could possibly be. Maybe you guys work for companies that make those pathetic hybrids that barely get more than 50 mpg? It was a concept car that never made it off the ground. It could have been any small automotive startup. The fact that it was a car that looked like an airplane and got much higher gas mileage than anything else on the road in North America is not why they failed. Even for major manufacturers, most concept cars never see the light of day. I would have bought an Aptera if they could have sold it for less than 30k. It was strikingly beautiful and had an incredibly low coefficient of drag. I think it would have been one of the best cars ever made.

For now I will continue to salivate over Volkswagen's efforts with the XL1. Although I much prefered the former, more radical, tandem 2 seater L1 A real jetson-mobile.

Correct, turbines are not efficient. However, a nearly isothermal engine IS. Combine a solar array with a SustainX compressed gas energy storage system and a 200C thermal gradient and you would have something neat:

http://ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3620

The amount of heat leaking out of the core already is MUCH larger than anything added by geothermal power plants, by several orders of magnitude. The surface area of the Earth is huge, which means its thermodynamic coupling to the atmosphere and oceans proportionally high. When you compute the thermal output of a single lava volcano should find that it dwarfs the sum of all deployed geothermal power plants and probably our worldwide energy needs. All of this heat eventually leaks into the atmosphere already except that part that radiates directly into space through the air.

Some geothermal plant designs do have problems. For example, those that tap directly into hot water and release it as steam can introduce some poisons (arsenic, acids, salts) from underground that build up in the nearby topsoil, which will kill local plants and produce a small "toxic" dump. However, there are other designs that could use a temperature gradient to run a thermodynamic engine, such as the SustainX compressed air energy storage idea:

http://ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3620

While that is mostly for storing energy, if there were a sufficiently steep temperature gradient (boiling hot ground to ice cold water) then such a storage engine could exceed 100% "efficiency" and produce positive power without leaking any undrground water into the environment.

Problem is that it takes more energy to produce a solar panel than the panel takes in over its lifetime.

BULLSHIT

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/794/

The low turbidity of the water (the reason why it forms a gyre in the first place) might enable to production of cellulosic and starch origin plastics (like the infamous 'Potato Plastic') from farmed algae and kelp. Given the rapid growthrate of both botanical forms under "idealized" conditions, it could supply a good portion of the needed plastic mass you are referring to.

http://www.ecogeek.org/biofuels/3082-british-airways-turning-waste-into-jet-fuel

I dont have to have an answer, British Airways already designed a solution.

Which is, in fact, the case in America today.

e.g., "Many two car families could replace one of the two with this. It boils down to cost effectiveness. "

Wrong

It is true that the US is the last best hope of humanity, for China builds the equivalent of a coal plant every week. If the US does not act to reduce the 'carbon footprint' of humanity, we are all going to be fucked.

China isn't necessarily such a hopeless case — emissions could peak in 20 years and they are taking measures against climate change. Chinese gas milage laws are about to become stricter than US ones.

It is true that the US is the last best hope of humanity, for China builds the equivalent of a coal plant every week. If the US does not act to reduce the 'carbon footprint' of humanity, we are all going to be fucked.

China isn't necessarily such a hopeless case — emissions could peak in 20 years and they are taking measures against climate change. Chinese gas milage laws are about to become stricter than US ones.

Not really, surprisingly.

Growing plants for fuel is far, far more destructive and less efficient than just turning the solar energy directly to electricity and operating off of that.

I'm wondering if they can find a way to process Kudzu into ethanol.

Well, you aren't the only person to be thinking along those lines. Hopefully someone will come up with a way to make it practical, and then we'll have solved two problems at once.

What is this idiot planning to do, have a zillion megawatts/acre of grow lights on all the lower levels?

Perhaps this idiot is planning to harness the power of the sun like every other farmer does. Maybe he even has a technology already at his disposal that would make it feasible and cost effective.

IR solar panels can work at night. Heck they'll probably work better in urban areas because of the heat island.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1329/

CA wants a ban on energy guzzling Plasma as well ...and no, LCD isn't immune.

I'm reading a number of /. posts from folks who feel this matter should be 'left to the market.'

LOL

Before everyone starts wetting themselves, calm down. While the frothing-at-the-mouth article states:

Despite several plasma vendors including Panasonic who are the worlds #1 manufacturer showing plasma power reductions of up to 40 percent, the European Union wants to ban the display technology.

The EU is not actually thinking about banning a particular technology, but:

The countries are close to agreeing upon new energy performance standards for TVs that large plasma displays will not meet. Plasma models typically use about 50 percent more energy than LCD models. The new standards, which will go into effect this spring, will pull the least efficient TVs from shelves and start a labeling system that ranks the efficiency of the remaining models.

Source. The new, more efficient Plasmas mentioned in TFA will presumably be fine under the legislation.

I now return you to your anti-EU anti-regulation frothing-at-the-mouth posts.

I don't know if it supplies all the power needed, but some big-box type places do have solar setups - like Kohl's:

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/621/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n27971502

disclaimer: I work in Kohl's IS dept.

Better than that: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/246/ The optical fibers block most of the IR.

VW Golf TDI Hybrid (from May '08)

More info:

69 MPG Golf TDI Hybrid

Though it will probably only be available in Europe for a while, it's still a step forward.

It won't help with global warming though :(

Yes, it will. The efficiency of using only a coal power plant to charge an EV is so much greater than a standard gasoline engine that the CO2 produces is cut by 1/3. And, as no one ever truly uses pure coal power, it is really a bit more. http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1569/69/

Also, the link to HCCI in the story is broken. Use the one here instead.

The discussion about HCCI is written by someone named named Benjamin Jones. He obviously does not have much technical understanding.

The land in the Texas / New Mexico / Arizona / California area is dry, sparsely populated, and receives lots of sun. It's perfect for a solar farm. Recently, a paper was published which described how 92 square miles of solar farms could fulfill the power needs of the US.

I certainly see a move to low power, passive, small form factor but acceptably performant computers. Re-reading your post, I think I see a lot of the same thing.

If there is an exception, I think it will be hardware manufacturers realizing the power of the repository to provide a vast amount of functionality for zero investment. As for closed source, for-profit software, I see it either being web-based or being crafted into some sort of one-click install solution. Or perhaps a password protected repository that you pay for access.

I guess it comes down to how people use a TV versus a computer. The environment a person watches a movie or a TV show is different form how they surf the internet or use an office suite. I certainly don't like to watch a movie unless I'm reclined somehow, and the screen should be large. An appliance that plays games, music and HD video is useful in this space. At the same time, using a computer for office or net surfing is something best done privately, at a desk.

As for games on that system for the desk, I think it the quality of games it receives will depend on the ability of gaming companies to extract revenue from such a system. It all depends on how many are on desks. Given enough desks and games-performant hardware, there will be a market and the games will be ported.

I think this will happen for games as well. At the moment the PS3 and the XBox use about 190 Watts, while the Wii uses about 18 Watts. The Wii is relatively non-performant graphically, yet successful commercially. This makes a good argument that as the polygons get smaller, those needing more polygons are a smaller and smaller niche market.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1102/

At $0.11 on average per kWh, the savings is $1.7m annually, plus another $300k from the energy they sell to the power company. That's 45 years to recoup the investment ($90m), not including maintaining the turbines for 45 years (more info here)

Still, I think this should be the new standard for sustainable living and development.

And to put 16 gigawatt hours into perspective... the average household in America uses around 11,000 kWh annually. See Official Government Website

Rock Port, MO needs to add their watts saved to the total. It's like they switched out 64,000,000 incandescent bulbs for CFCs!

Ow. My brain hurts after trying to read that article. Did someone randomly select quotes and comments from a bag? Here's a better written version, though still light on the information (no figures for cost per kWh) http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1568/

Verdiem: http://www.verdiem.com/
Surveyor product: http://www.verdiem.com/surveyor/default.asp
Ecogeek article: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1270/

Ecogeek is reporting that you can get a car that looks like an airplane and gets close to 300 mpg. It also starts selling next year. The car in question is pretty sexy - you can preorder one at this extremely annoying web page.

They should put stuff like this on Mars:
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/350/

( Saw them on digg:
    http://digg.com/gadgets/Amazing_wind_powered_robot s
)

Although I heard about it from ecogeek. It has links to the Ars Technica article also, but I really just wanted to point out the nice Office Space picture.

Here is a nice overview of compressed air cars. They are going into production soon.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/659/

Actually, Dell's environmental initiatives are quite laudable:

Is Dell the brand for EcoGeeks? -- http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/543/

For once in my life I found the only thing that made me ashamed about using an Apple computer; that being, their lack of vision regarding the environment. Funny, this coming from a company domineered over by a CEO portrayed by popular media as being some socially conscious, acid-dropping, wannabe hippie.

http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/

Actually, Dell's environmental initiatives are quite laudable:

It's already been pointed out that you fudged the calculation and are off by three orders of magnitude (I did the same thing last week figuring up the usable power output of my roof area on a napkin).

So instead, I'll leave you with this map of what the required area to meet our energy requirements with solar power would look like.

Note that this map assumes a whopping 8% efficiency for collection, too.