Slashdot Mirror
CIA Investing in Modular Green Energy
Paladin144 writes "The CIA's venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, has announced a strategic development agreement with SkyBuilt Power Inc. The CIA seems to be interested in SkyBuilt's new Mobile Power Station, which can be parachuted into remote locations and be up and running in a few hours with only 2 people needed to set it up. The MPS harnesses both solar and wind power and is capable of up to 150 kilowatts of electricity. The devices uses off-the-shelf components and easily swappable parts to be cost-effective."
The devastation in New Orleans and Gulfport, MS would have been an ideal testing location for these devices. And it could have been very helpful at the same time. If they didn't do well, you can just say they were "experimental". If they worked out, then you got your testing done for next to nothing. Either way it was a win for the CIA's tech firm and the population in the affected areas.
I guess FEMA never thought about asking the CIA for help, they didn't ask anyone else either it seems!
As these devices improve, the cost will most likely decrease, thus making them suitable for deployment in homes and buildings all over. Such activities would no doubt cause financial problems for the existing energy providers. Considering the clout of such businesses, there is always the chance of DMCA-esqe legislation being passed to limit this technology. Indeed, let's hope that these developments are not stifled by existing energy firms.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
This should be pretty interesting. A lot of natural disasters cause major outages which cannot be immediately repaired, and this would be beyond useful in those situations. Also could be a major help with military setups in 3rd world areas or places where we don't have or aren't welcome to use of the existing infrastructure. About time something decent comes along...
"Crime fighters fight crime. Fire fighters fight fire. What do freedom fighters fight?" -George Carlin
While SkyBuilt has 140 patent claims on its energy system, most of its individual component parts are widely available.
Isn't this sickening? They piece together crap that anybody can buy, cram it in a shipping container, and claim 140 patents on it.
I'm in the process of building an "energy system" that uses off-the-shelf components as well. Hope I don't infringe on any of their brilliant ideas.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
How many square feet of solar panels, and how many wind-turbines, are need to produce an *average* output of 150 KW? When a blurb says 'up to', I wonder what's the 'down to'.
There is no way that a 10x40 ft container is going to produce 150kW of continuous power (for the uses they envision, it would have to be continuous).
... larger than the statue of liberty) under more ordinary conditions, like in Iraq.
150kW using photovoltics requires about 1000 sq metres of space in the middle of the desert at high noon. You'll need about 4000-5000 sq metres of space and a massive battery system to deliver 150kW day and night with photovoltics (you can get away with as little as half the space if you spring for more efficient panels, but the price skyrockets and such panels are generally reserved for spacecraft and solar racecars and the likes).
a 150kW wind turbine is huge, and 2 people aren't going to be able to build the foundation (necessary to keep a several hundred foot propeller from getting ripped away) on a moment's notice and without heavy machinery (a cement truck and a crane at the least). Once again, if you want 24/7 power, you'll have to install around a 450kW turbine in the best of conditions (say, on a mountain ridge), or as much as a 1.5MW turbine (about the largest built
And let's not even get into the cost assuming this was true. Even without the standard military surcharge, photovoltics is about the most expensive renewable source of energy around and I couldn't even think of stuffing a statue of liberty sized wind generator into a standard packing crate and having it assembled by two people.
I also couldn't envision a battery system capable of storing 2-4MWh (megawatt-hours) of juice and not bringing the helicopter or truck over its weight limit. That's like 2,000 heavy duty car batteries (No way you're going to use anything pricier than lead-acid for such a large battery). So that's around 60,000 to 100,000 pounds of weight. Too heavy for a truck, although a heavy bomber or cargo plane could carry the load. The parachute would be a sight to be seen to slow that lead weight on its way down.
And lastly, what about the cooling tower and the inverters and the transformers. Such a large plant will need some heavy duty electrical equipment to deliver consistant frequency and voltage (assuming it gives out standard 110/220 volts, 50/60 Hz alternating current).
As far as the patents go, assuming they really do have 180 relevent patents (at $30,000 a pop, I would be a little suprised), they're just an indicator of how much you paid your attorneys. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean it works or is even physically possible.
Blah blah blah... who cares about the CIA. Can I buy one? That's more than enough renewable energy to run my house off of.
Jeremy Logan's Website.
Your premise is that renewables have an edge over fossil fuels in remote locations (including disaster zones), but I think that needs to be qualified a bit. That's probably true for a situation where a one-time delivery of fairly sizeable equipment is possible, but continuous supply of fuel would be challenging. There are certainly niche markets where this is the best solution right now. (I'm amazed by the fact that nearly every traffic counter you see on roadways is solar-powered these days. They're not doing it because the Department of Transportation is super-green, but because it's the right tool for the job.) I buy your case for a mountainside repeater, too. But disaster zones? The amount of energy you can cram into a small package and deploy quickly with a gas or diesel generator is far beyond what you could do with any current renewable. Send in a truck with a big generator and a few thousand gallons of fuel, and you've got a LOT of energy and a lot higher peak output than any comparable renewable. That's exactly the situation where burning some fossil fuels can be justified pretty easily. As others have said here, I'm extremely skeptical of any system that claims to pack 150kW into a shipping container. Unless this thing unfurls to the size of a football field, it's hard to imagine how it can produce that amount of power. In my opinion, the mid-term solution is to get to a situation where most of our energy comes from renewables, using fossil fuels only where you NEED the ability to pack a lot of energy (with high peak output) into a small, portable package. That's something fossil fuels do well, but renewables don't. To me, that means running most everything in your home and business on renewable energy, and saving the gas for portable generators, chainsaws, camp stoves, helicopters, etc. Of course, eventually we'd hope that all these "unplugged" devices will move to hydrogen, but I expect it to be a while before I can fill my chainsaw with hydrogen (or slap in a battery pack that will last half a day).
so... why isn't this being parachuted into every state in the union now? Why are we still using fossil fuel? We have tons of sunshine here in so cal, put it to better use than giving people a tan. >.
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
Umm, can someone explain how and why the Central Intelligence Agency has Venture Capital? ...or if they just contribute toward VC, how and why is this legal?
In-Q-Tel sounds to have a similar function for the CIA as DARPA does for the Army - they go out and fund and buy advanced technology for use in operations, or eventual use. It sounds like the CIA is both buying units now and funding further development, typical of how DARPA tends to work.
I think the reporter was just exaggerating the numbers because exaggerating gets eyes to pop, measuring the "150kW" number - which is probably a peak production number, not sustained - as though it were sustained. That does this technology a disservice though, I think, because the blend of concerns here - portability, maintainability, renewable power - is a very smart one.
For example, running Predator drones on pure electric, powered by recharging at this kind of dropped power plant, would be quite the cheap way to monitor a very wide area for a long time. Dropping several would give you redundancy should the enemy eliminate one, and with such a modular deployment that kind of redundancy would be far more cost effective than the money spent now on getting fuel to the reconnaissance front.