Fuel-Cell Setbacks

My thoughts on fuel cells oscillate. Now I'm down on them.

Last year, the NY Times Magazine published a promising story on the future of fuel-cell powered homes. Now (10 Nov. 2008) they find that the company that was featured has yet to install a single new system. Too expensive.

Also Materials Technology (December 2008) points out that large-scale application of fuel cells depends on the availability of Pt catalysts, which material is in limited supply. Efforts to find a substitute are still in early development.

Cost of Conservation

The Ohio Environmental Council has come up with an estimate of the cost of conserving electricity. They argue that energy saved is freed for use elsewhere. In essence, conservation creates energy.

To understand their thinking, consider a 25 W CFL bulb replacing a 100 W incandescent bulb. If the CFL burns for 8000 hrs, it saves 75*8000/1000 kW = 600 kWh. If the CFL bulb costs $6, it frees up (‘creates’) 600 kWh. So the cost of conservation is $6/600 or 1 cent/kWh.

OEC actually estimates the average cost to be somewhat higher if they average all energy-saving equipment, about 2.25 cents/kWh. I like to think that a saving is a saving and that people will save enough that the freed-up energy never needs to be generated.

Fuel-Cell 'Gas' Stations

Any discussion of fuel cells should start with the fact that they require hydrogen, which costs energy to produce. This is a bad thing if the energy comes from coal-fired electric plants. The compensating factor is that hydrogen-storage technology is well developed. Serious methods for large amounts of electricity storage still need to be perfected.

In the hydrogen economy (which seems less likley than a few years ago) I envision the future 'gas' station to be equipped with a device to produce hydrogen from natural gas and a tank to store it. The motorist drives up to the station, plugs into the tank, and fills up his car. Thus the much-talked-about distribution system for hydrogen is easily provided.

The 'gas' station has advantages over other future technologies. Ethanol will still have to be delivered by tanker truck, which is expensive. Charging of electric cars en-route will be slow, unless the technology improves.

More on Electrical Usage

According to recent postings on Cleantechnica.com, large wind turbines need to generate about 3kW to supply a home (a planned wind farm in KS has a capacity of 250MW and will satisfy the needs of 85,000 homes). A small rooftop turbine works out to 6 kW/home, due to the lesser efficiency of smaller blades. The small rooftop model seems terribly expensive ($6.70 per kW), so I'll stick with the 3 kW/home number.

They also state that the average home uses 670 kWh/mo, which is 70% higher than our usage (see yesterday). This means almost 800,000 homes could be served with a 1000 MW coal plant.

Electricity per month

We use about 400 kWh per month. A 1000 MW coal plant produces about 520 million kWh/per month (70% time on line, which amounts to about 1.3 million homes supplied if they are all like us). I expect (need to check) that our usage is below average and that the estimate that a 1000 MW coal plant can supply one million homes is not far off.

Coal vs. Wind

I'm having a problem sorting out relative efficiencies of various electricity generation methods. For example, a 1000 MW coal plant is supposed to provide enough electricity for 1 million homes (this may be high, but I don't have good numbers). The power is then about 1kW/home. But only about 1/3 of the chemical energy of coal is converted to electricity.

Wind turbines need about 3 kW/home. So the efficiency of harnessing wind to produce electricity is in the same ball park as the efficiency for coal.

More Solar Economics Data

There was a report in Sunday's Columbus Dispatch about a solar home with a claimed 10-12 year payback. The owner paid $41,500 and received State and Federal grants reducing that to $21,500. He has net metering.

In his best month, he generated 806 kWh, which provides 115,200 kWh over 12 years. At $0.10.kWh, this comes out to around $11,000 worth of electricity produced - I don't see how he can break even.

Refs:

"Solar power users amass savings by folllowing the sun", Columbus Dispatch, 08 Oct. 2008

Stowell web page:

Energy Contest

Earlier this year I tried to get an energy conservation contest organized by a local group called Sustainable Grandview Heights. It was discouraging that nobody else in the organization was willing to pee a drop. Here are the Official Rules, in case someone else want to try:

"We are looking to reward the best energy savers in the Grandview Heights area. Since our scoring system allows small users to compete evenly with large users, everyone has an equal chance.

"How it works There are two contests: electricity usage and natural gas usage. Contestants can enter one or both contests.

"Electricity Find the item “Total Usage (Past 12 Months)”near the end of your most recent electricity bill (July or August 2008). Then find the same item on an earlier bill (January 2007 to July 2008). Record the numbers and mail to Al Rosenfield al.sustain@sbcglobal.net

"Example:
"August 2007 through July 2008 – 3071 kWh
"February 2007 through Jan 2008 — 3116 kWh

"Gas The procedure is the same, except that the number showing twelve-month usage is located at the bottom of the right-hand column on your bill.

"Example:
"September 2007 through August 2008 - 4868 Ccf
"June 2006 through May 2007 - 4985 Ccf

"All entries are due on August 31, 2008.

"Who is eligible To enter the contest you must pay an electric or gas bill for an address in the Grandview area, which means between the Olentangy and Scioto Rivers. The northern boundary is addresses on W. Fifth Ave. Everyone is free to enter - individuals, businesses, industries, and government.

"Judging The winners will be the contestants with the largest percentage decreases in usage. Here is an example of how it will work for gas:

"Contestant A Contestant B
"Aug 2007 through July 2008 – 4850 Ccf Sep 2007 through Aug 2008 – 1951 Ccf
"Feb 2007 through Jan 2008 — 5010 Ccf Nov 2006 through Oct. 2007 – 2057 Ccf

"Difference = - 160 Ccf (3.2 % of 5010) - 106 kWh (5.2 % of 2057)

"Contestant B wins because he made the effort to cut his usage by a bigger percentage, even though Contestant A saved more gas.

"There are two other requirements for winners to qualify. They must provide the judges with copies of their bills and an explanation of what they did to save energy. The judges can disqualify a winner if the saving is based on some unusual circumstances (got a programable thermostat is good, closed the house and went to Florida for the Winter disqualifies).

"?Prizes List needed.

"Any Questions Contact Al Rosenfield "

Solar in AZ

There’s an article from Lake Havasu AZ (08/21/08) about a church which installed a solar roof. It cost $100K and they expect to save $20K per year. It helps that they can get various rebates. One point is that the church is only heavily used one day a week and can sell a lot of the electricity that they generate to the grid.

The article also mentions that the average residential installation in AZ is 4 to 7 kW and costs about $8/W. The church cost was slightly less ($7.14/W for 14kW), suggesting that the cost benefit scales only slightly.

Tidal Power

According to Technology Review (online - 29 June 08) a 1.8 MW Irish tidal power project will cost $7-8 per W and provide the 1.2 kW needed per home.

Ethanol abd Food Prices

There was a story on NPR this morning about rising food prices due to increased demand for corn to make ethanol. On one side there was a claim that 35 percent of the rise was due to ethanol, while the other claimed five percent. I’m fairly sure that this is a manifestation of the Chernobyl Syndrome - the estimate depends on the position of the advocate.

Wind Power (Champaign County)

The Columbus Dispatch for 27 July 2008 had an article about a proposed wind farm in Champaign County (about 50 mi NW of Columbus). Data were:

130 turbines
$500 million cost
Each turbine will supply 800 homes

From this, I deduce:

Output = 2.3 MW/turbine = 2.9 kW/home
Cost = $3.85 million/turbine = $1.67/watt

This all seems reasonable. In light of other estimates I have seen.

Solar Cost

Paraphrased from: , January 09, 2008

Ann plans to have a solar roof installed. It will be a mini-generator (all of the electricity will go to the grid). She will be receiving 42 cents per kWh over a 20 year term. The current rate she is paying is set by the local utility, Toronto Hydro, and not the province. It is approximately 11 cents per KWh.

The cost for a rated power of 2.34 kW is $22,485 (current exchange rate = 1:1) or $9.59/Watt. The is at the high end of the current price range of $8-10/W.

---------------------------------------------
An ad in Technology Review for July/Aug 2008 by SolFocus states that they will soon be producing photovoltaic for $0.24-0.28/W. and expect the priec to drop by half in two years. Still expensive!!

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

More from Jerry:

You can check these websites for further information:

www.powerauthority.on.ca For further information on the Standard Offer
Contract
www.ontario-sea.org The Ontario Sustainable Energy Association. Their
recent report 'Renewables Without Limits' is the best critique I've read
of the current Standard Offer Contract, and offers a clear overview of
similar programs around the world.
www.wind-works.org Paul Gipe's website. He wrote the OSEA report, is
the acknowledged expert in this field, and the website will keep you
up-to-date on developments in the USofA. Paul can be a great help to you,
his email address is pgipe@igc.org.

Wind Over-power

I saw an ad in Smithsonian (July 2008) for wind power. They claim that the US has 18GW, enough for 5 million households. This amounts to 3.6kW per household.

At the same time technologyreview.com reported that a waste to energy plant in Ottawa will produce 21MW per day, enough to power 19,000 homes - i.e. 1.1 kW per home. Lacking a better estimate, I'm assuming that other steady burners (coal and nuclear) also produce 1.1 kW per household.

The reason for this difference is that the wind doesn't always blow; storage batteries can be charged when the turbine produces more electricity than is needed. Even so, wind is not yet a reasonable source for a steady 24/7 electric supply.

Solar Opposition - Further to 20 June

According to AP (15 June 2008) there is opposition to an electric transmission line connecting proposed renewable electricity sources (solar, wind, geothermal) through the desert to San Diego. Apparently, it would 'ruin' the desert scenery.

Computer Electricity Use

Peg heard a story on the radio about an elementary student who found that his family could save $1 per day by turning off the family’s computer at night. Not only did he get an A in this science project, but the school system realized that they could save a lot of money by turning off their 500 computers after school. This sounds a little fishy. Our LWVO survey finds that just abut all schools turn off things not in use. Also $1 per day electricity savings seem huge; this is the cost of about 10 kWh. If the turn-off is for 10 hours, their system uses about 1kW.

I decided to check. Here are the data from The Texas Office of Risk Management:

Computer -------------- ----------------------- 250 watts
Monitor ----------------- -----------------------150 watts
Speakers --------------------------------------- 15 watts
Electric stapler ---------------------------------- 25 watts
Scanner ---------------------------------------- 150 watts
HP Laser Jet 4 Printer (Idle) ------------------- 250 watts
(Printing) ---------------1,175 watts

Total 840 watts when idle
1,765 watts when printing

It appears that the student’s estimate may not be far off. However, $1/day = $30/month is almost our entire electric bill.

We don’t have an electric stapler and our scanner is off when not in use. Furthermore, we have an ink-jet printer, which takes mush less energy than a laser. I figure that our system uses maybe 400-450 watts for 16 hours per day or around 200 kWh per month. which is maybe half of our electric bill. Still a lot!!

Opposition to Projects

Several weeks ago I read a story by a Baltimore Sun reporter about two proposed energy projects in Maryland. One is for a third nuclear plant at Calvert Cliffs, on the Eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay. The locals strongly support the project. Their view is that the current nuclear plants have brought good jobs to town and pay large taxes. There is no discernible effect on the health of plant employees as well as the general population. Their case is strengthened by the large reduction in greenhouse gasses associated nuclear energy and the excellent safety record of US nuclear plants. Opposition to the new plant comes from out of town and uses the general anti-nuclear arguments. As of today the project is going ahead.

The second proposed project was a wind farm in Garrett County, the westernmost county in Maryland. The turbines would have been built on state land in this mountainous region. Here the roles were switched. Out-of-towners thought it a great idea, but the locals strongly opposed it. They argued that Garrett County is a tourist region and the towers would spoil the scenery. Also, there was opposition to chopping down trees for the project. In the end the Governor canceled the project.

My reaction was the we will never fight climate change if everybody mounts his particular hobby horse.

Gasoline Usage

It was recently reported that Americans drove six billion fewer miles over a six-month period. There are 245 million motor vehicles in the US, of which 155 million are cars. If we consider both cars and trucks, the average mileage is about 17 mpg. So the average vehicle drove about 24 miles less over the six-month period and saved a little under 1-1/2 gal of gas.

Other statistics:

Americans used about 136 billion gallons of gas last year or about 550 gal/vehicle.
They also used about 7 billion gallons of ethanol.

Today's Columbus Dispatch lists the profits of the five largest oil companies in 2007. The total is about $125 billion. The US has about 150 million cars using an average of about 750 gal. of petrol per year. So the profits come out to about $1/gal.

There are adjustments to be made:

1. The US uses 43% of the world's oil (GAO).
2. These companies sell petrol in other countries.
3. Other companies sell petrol in the US.

Items 1 & 2 lower the profit per gallon and item 3 raises it. I don't have data for 2 & 3, but I find it hard to believe that the profits are less that $0.50/gal.

On Bridges and Cell Phones

Many years ago I spent an afternoon with an historian of bridges. He said that there is a cycle of bridge design. First a bridge collapses. Then a new design or material is introduced. This bridge is built with extreme overdesign to bear loads much in excess of any it might experience. But, as time goes on, standards relax and talented people turn to other fields. Then there is another collapse and the cycle starts over.

Electronic technology seems to follow a very different path. New device follows on new device with ever expanding capability. But reliability suffers (an article in the NY Times this past Sunday pointed out that cell phones and VOIT are much less reliable than land lines).

Both the reliability and obsolescence of electronic devices promote a throw-away economy. It takes energy to make these devices and energy to dispose of them. I suspect that it's not much enrgy in the overall scheme of things, but it rankles a child of the Great Depression and WWII. We were taught to make do. I think that we are better for it.

Useful "Facts"

I got these from Anne Nelson, when she gave a talk based on Al Gore's organization:

1. Each five miles per gallon over 60 is equivalent to adding 20 cents to your price of gas.

2. Junk mail uses as much energy annually as 2.8 million cars.

3. Bottled water uses as much enrgy per yesr as 100,000 cars.

I don't know how accurate they are.

Hybrid Cars

About a year ago I estimated that hybrid cars would only make sense if gas went up to $5-6 per gal. Now the Columbus Dispatch (22 May 2008) has reported updated estimates. They find three models where you are ahead at $4/gal., which is the current price. One of these is the Honda Civic. However, the comparison is for the top-of-the-line Civic. If you buy a low-end Civic (we are very pleased with our current one) the hybrid only saves you about 1,000 gal. over 100,000 mi. The price difference is about $7,500. So the hybrid still doesn't make sense economically.

Gasoline to Climate Change -1

I plan to write an essay which starts with high gas prices and show how they rationally lead to the well-known methods of preventing global warming. The key is that going away from petrol will lead to more electricity usage - irregardless of what we use - ethanol, hydrogen, plug-in, etc.

Low-Hanging Electrical Fruit

According to DOE, residences in Ohio consume abut 30 percent of all electricity in the state. Residential lights are about 11 percent of that 30 percent or about 3.3 percent of the total. Compact fluorescent lights (CFL) can cut light usage by about 3/4. If all incandescent bulbs in Ohio homes were replaced by CFLs, Ohio’s electricity usage would drop about 21/2 percent. Not much, but a good contribution since the state is looking to drop usage about half of a percent per year

Hybrid Economics

Yesterday (27 April ‘08) the New York Times had two stories about hybrid vehicles.

The first was about Chevy Tahoe SVUVs. The hybrid version cost about $10,000 more than the standard and got 4-5 mpg better mileage. At $3.50/gal this amounted to a gas saving of about $4,300 over 100,000 mi. For this vehicle, buying a hybrid has a net cost of about $5,700. Of course, if you buy an SUV, you’re not serious about saving the planet.

The second story was about New York City cabs, which will be required to get 30 mpg by 2012. Replacing the standard Ford Victoria with a Ford Escape hybrid saves the cabbie $175/week in gas but raises the rent that he has to pay for the cab by $135/week. So the annual savings are about $2,000. Since the Escape is ten percent lighter than the Victoria, the gas savings have two causes.

Fuel Cells

I’m less negative about fuel cells than I was a year ago. The major application seems to be cars, which is a good thing because transportation is one of the two major sources of greenhouse gasses in this country. But producing hydrogen requires large amounts of energy from the other major source - electric power plants. Of course, power plants rely on domestic coal, whereas we get some of our petroleum from countries that we should no be relying on.

We could get hydrogen from natural gas, as the Japanese are doing for fuel-cell-powered home electricity. In fact, powering homes seems to be a more promising application than cars because introducing a new mass-production mass consumption power source should be simpler in a stable vs a moving application.Fuel cells are attractive for homes because they don’t need the sun to shine or the wind to blow.

Overall, I see hydrogen production as a major barrier to wide application of fuel cells. Some research should be devoted to this aspect of the problem.

Electrical Ballast Definition

An electrical ballast (sometimes called control gear) is a device intended to limit the amount of current in an electric circuit. An electronic lamp ballast uses solid state electronic circuitry to provide the proper starting and operating electrical condition to power one or more fluorescent lamps . Electronic ballasts substantially eliminate flicker in fluorescent lights and the lamps operate at about 9% higher efficacy.

(from Wikipedia)

More on the R Factor

I have gotten average data from EIA and an article by Papatheodoru:

Energy-----R------Eff (%)----Eff/R----Cost
Source--------------------------------------$/W

Coal-----------5.9-----70----------12-------1.25
Nuclear------7.5-----90-----------12-------2.10
Hydro---------3.7-----35----------9.5------1.54
Biomass-----6.3-----50--------- 7.9------1.80
Geotherm.---6.4----80----------13-------2.20
Solar-----------1.3----20----------15-------5.00
Wind-----------2.0----25----------13-------1.18
Avg.----12.8

So R is essentially a function of efficiency. As an estimate:
-------------------------R = Eff/13

note: R converts MW to GWh or kW to 1000kWh

Wind Power

I've always wanted a parameter named after me. So I devised the R term to convert electric power into electric energy. Of course, power does not convert directly into energy ( there is no simple multiple between watts and kilowatt-hours), but R can be a useful estimator.

The defining equation is

RP = E

where R is the conversion factor, P is power in MW, and E is electricity in millions of kWh per year. I checked some data and found for wind that R averages 2.25 with most values between 1.9 and 2.6.

So if you want to estimate the annual output of a 1MW turbine, it's about 2.25 million kWh/yr.

I also averaged some cost data for wind power and found that:

C =1.62 - 0.24*lnP

where C is cost in $/Watt and P is Power in MW. So a 2MW turbine comes in at $1.45/watt, which is not bad

Chernobyl

I'm amused at the conflicting results of energy analyses (the current one is on how much energy is needed to produce corn ethanol). I have a suspicion that the analyst first decides on the answer and then looks for support - just as Christopher Columbus did 500 years ago (see the bio by Adm. Morrison).

A good example is Chernobyl:

Deaths Resulting from 1986 Chernobyl Reactor Accident

Deaths Source

56 World Nuclear Association
4,000 U. N. Chernobyl Program
16,000 International Agency for Research on Cancer
30,000 - 60,000 European Green Parties
140,000 Greenpeace

Note that the estimated number of deaths depends strongly on the organization's stance on nuclear power.

(I can't get this table to format correctly! but it makes the point)

Electric-Powered Cars

(Written several months ago - may need updating)

Fuel costs the average driver about a dime per ten miles; a good gas/electric hybrid lowers that to about a nickel. Powering an all-electric car is even cheaper (1). The reverse is true for purchase price. All-electric cars are the most expensive and gasoline-powered ones the cheapest.

Hybrids are generally believed to be important energy savers, which is true if they are compared with gas guzzlers. However comparing the same make and model in both standard and hybrid versions reveals a different story. On average, hybrids cost about $6,500 more than standard versions and only get about ten mpg greater mileage (2). I made some rough calculations and found that the price of gas would have to roughly double to make a hybrid purchase worthwhile economically. With gasoline prices soaring (3) and electricity prices increasing only moderately (4), hybrids should become less of an economic burden. Hybrids also have the advantage over all other new car concepts, in that they can be fueled at any gas station. The gas tank can also be modified to take ethanol blends. There is some demand for them and about there are about 600,000 hybrids on the road now (5).

All-electric cars are not yet commercially available, except in golf-cart size. Conversion kits for full-size vehicles cost around $15-20,000, about half of that price if you install one yourself (6). Even at these prices, the break-even price on gasoline costs is somewhat less than for hybrids. All-electrics are also both the most energy-efficient auto technology and the quietest (7). Because all-electric cars can only go about 100 miles between charges, they can find use as ‘urban cars’, which take advantage of the fact that most cars travel only 40 miles on a typical day and can be recharged after the driver comes home at night.

Both classes of electric car will benefit from advances in battery technology to improve the range of all-electrics and to cut down the time needed to charge them. Plug-in hybrids (8), which are receiving increased attention, suffer from the same problems.

REFERENCES

(1) "Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels", Popular Mechanics, May 2006 [2-42]

(2) Yahoo Autos

(3) Energy Information Administration Petroleum Navigator

[2-110]

(4) Energy Information Administration Average Retail Prices of

Electricity [2-106]

(5) a. R.L.Polk News Index

b. R.L.Polk News Archive

(6) Electric Auto Association

(7) Michelin Challenge Bibendum, Paris 2006

(8) Plug-in Hybrids <www.sheryboschert.com/PowerPoints/florida.ppt.htm>

* Hydrogen-powered cars are sometimes considered electric vehicles. Because of their special problems, I consider them a separate class.

Macro-Economics

Using the data in the Buildings Energy Data Book - Table 5.9.1 (09/07) and the light- bulb data previously posted, there can be a huge asset transfer by switching all incandescent to CFL bulbs. On an annual basis:

consumers could save $13.5 billion
bulb manufacturers could gain $650 million
utilities would lose $12.85 billion (enough to build six nuclear reactors).

CFL Bulbs Save Money

This is not news, but I hadn't realized how much saving. Simple calculations show that CFLs save 2/3 of of the cost of incandescents when electricity costs are included. What I found:

95% of the cost of an incandescent is the cost of electricity, compared to about 3/4 for CFL.

The total cost of a CFL is about 1/3 of the six incandescents needed to get the same amount of lighting.

There is no break-even point for buying bulbs - the total incandescent cost exceeds the CFL cost after 700 hours, which is below the incandescent lifetime.
-----------------------------------
Details of calculation:

CFL = 25W costs $5.00 & lasts 6000 hours

Incandescent = 100W costs $0.50 & lasts 1000 hours (need 6 bulbs to equal 1 CFL)

Cost of electricity = $0.091/kWh (in Columbus, Feb. 2008)

Global Warming is a Materials Problem

Actually, it's more of a people problem. But materials development has been key to much that we accept now - the Internet and all of our other modern communications technology would not be possible without the invention of the transistor. Here are three materials contributions to advanced energy generation techniques as reported in the Feb issue of Advanced Materials and Processes"


Glass/polyester wind turbine blades have higher stiffness
Glass texture improves efficiency of solar cells
Fuel cell powered by sunlight on titania-coated electrode

The magazine also reports about five other weight-saving developments in more mundane applications - save weight = save fuel!

The Big Energy Wasters

I'm very taken by a graph entitled 'U.S. Energy Energy Flow Trends - 2002' produced by Lawrence Livermore. It shows that about 85% of energy losses are due to electrical-generation/transmission and transportation.

Since electrical transmission is a small part of the loss, it's clear that the best thing we can do is to make power plants more efficient. And, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the technology is available to increase plant efficiency. If we only look at greenhouse gasses, we need more nuclear - no improvement in efficiency, but a big drop in emissions.

For transport, Congress passed a law increasing mileage on cars and Light-trucks/Vans/SUVs. According to the Energy Information Administration, car mileage has been trending upwardsfor about 30 years, while vans, etc. have plateaued since 1990. But big trucks have made no gains in mileage for 40 years. I find this hard to believe, so will check further.

Traffic Lights

Learning energy conservation produces surprises. For example, today I returned some DVDs to the Library, which is about three miles away. There are six traffic lights between here and there; a simple calculation shows that they would use nine times as much electricity as we use in our house if they were still all incandescent (I mean all of our electricity, not just our lights). When they all convert to LED, they will be using only a little more than what our house uses.

The large cost savings from LED traffic signals is well documented. What I didn't realize is the change in where the money goes. The cost of an incandescent light is trivial compared to the cost of the electricity it uses, while the cost of the LED signal is significantly higher than the electricity. Conversion to LED takes money from the electric company and gives it to the lighting manufacturer.

Mnemonic

Something else that could go into a newsletter:

Everyone should do their BIT to save energy:

Buy low-energy items
Include energy conservation in building and remodeling plans.
Turn things off when not in use (or lower the power it that’s not possible)

You will save money and do a favor for the environment.

Elevators

A little bit of encouragement that I gave to my colleagues:

You stand by the elevator and read the poster “Walk up one and walk down two for your health”. You will also save lots of electricity - elevators are energy hogs. Each one uses a much power as hundreds of light bulbs. So walk up one and walk down two and save energy.

Technology Advances

Every day I read about a new technological advance in energy. Some days more than one. And I don't even try very hard to find them. My only regret is that I am too old to help develop new materials for energy-saving advances.

Nuclear Power

16 Jan. 2008 - It's ironic that nuclear power is the most effective counter to climate change. Yet the most active proponents of fighting global warming tend to loathe nuclear power, while its strongest advocates are skeptical of human influence on weather.

Who I Am

15 Jan 2008 - I am a retired metallurgist, who specialized in fracture of metals and ceramics when working. A lot of my work was for energy applications, such as safety of nuclear reactors, supertankers, and gas-transmission pipelines. I have been the alternative energy specialist for the League of Women Voters of Ohio for the past year. We are currently gathering information on what cities in Ohio are doing to save energy. I'd appreciate hearing form anyone, anywhere as to what their city is doing.