SpiderMan’s Supplemental Origin

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The amount of solar energy that strikes the Earth is irrelevant. Superman only has access to the energy that strikes Superman.  That gives him access to the energy of a single solar panel, or a small bush.

It shouldn’t be necessary to do the math.  Anyone who spends 5 minutes outside should have a rough idea of how much energy strikes a human
being.  (Were you instantantly incinerated?  No?  Can Superman incinerate a large boulder with heat vision?  Yes?  Gee, wouldn’t it take at least a few weeks to accumulate that much energy?)

But let’s do the math anyway:

At this distance, the sun provides about 1353 W/m^2 of power in space. On Earth, you have to divide by 4 because about half the energy is
reflected by clouds, and another half is lost at night.  Toss in a reasonable estimate of 100 cm^2 for the surface area of Superman’s face and hands (which are the parts he normally exposes), and you get 33.8 Watts.  Call it about 30 Watts if you want to account for the fact that Superman must reflect *some* light, or he’d be jet black.

So the next time you see a 30-Watt light bulb, just think: that’s how much power Superman has access to.  If he stores it like a battery, he should be able to lift a 1-ton car a couple of hundred feet into the air once per day, or a major feat (such as the ship he lifted in MOS #2) once every 20 years or so.  Logically, Superman’s batteries should have been depleted after his first week on the job.

 As is becoming increasingly apparent, this is really just a matter of  preference. Some like it more complicated, some less.

In the case of Superman, I’d say the “solar battery” people are squarely in the “less complicated” camp.  Accepting an obviously-false explanation is less scientific than saying, “Kryptonians get superpowers under a yellow sun, and nobody knows why”.

In the case of Spider-Man, I’m torn.  On the face of it, spider venom shouldn’t have any more connections to a spider’s abilities than, say, snake venom.  So why didn’t Peter get snake powers instead?  The whole bit about “it was a spider, therefore you get spider-like powers” does have a hint of sympathetic magic about it.

Frankly, I find it hard to be too worried about it.  As far as I’m concerned, Spider-Man’s origin has nothing to do with how he got his powers — the spider bite is the McGuffin part of the story.  His *real* origin is when he found out who murdered Uncle Ben.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The hazards of solar energy

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Many groups and individuals are proposing that our government spend tax money on research and development of systems to utilize solar energy. They urge construction of vast solar energy collectors to convert sunlight to electricity to supply our energy needs. They would even put solar collectors on roofs of homes, factories, schools, and other buildings. Proponents of this technology claim that energy obtained from the sun will be safer and cleaner than coal, oil, or nuclear energy sources.

We view these proposals with alarm. Unscrupulous scientists and greedy promoters are hoodwinking a gullible public. We consider it rash and
dangerous to commit our country to the use of solar energy. This solar technology has never been utilized on such a large scale, and we have no
assurance of its long-range safety. Not one single study has been done to assess the safety of electricity from solar energy as compared to electricity
from other sources.

The promoters of solar energy cleverly lead you to believe that it is perfectly safe. Yet they conveniently neglect to mention that solar energy is
generated by nuclear fusion within the sun. This process operates on the very same basic laws of nuclear physics used in nuclear power plants and atomic bombs!

And what is the source of this energy? It is hydrogen, a highly explosive gas (remember the Hindenberg?) Hydrogen is also the active material in H-bombs, which are not only tremendously destructive, but produce dangerous fallout. The glib advocates of solar energy don’t even mention these disturbing facts about the true sources of solar energy. What else are they trying to hide
from us?

In addition to the known dangers cited above, what about the unknown dangers, which very well might be worse? When pressed, scientists will admit that they do not fully understand the workings of the sun, or even of the atom. They will even grudgingly admit that our knowledge of the basic laws of physics is not yet perfect or complete. Yet these same reckless scientists would have us use this solar technology even before we fully understand how it works.

Admittedly we are already subject to a natural `background’ radiation from the sun. We can do little about that, except to stay out of direct sunlight
as much as possible. The evidence is already clear that too much exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer. But solar collectors would concentrate that sunlight (which otherwise would have fallen harmlessly on waste land), convert it to electricity and pipe it into our homes to irradiate us from
every light bulb! We would then not even be safe from this cancer-producing energy even in our own homes!

We all know that looking at the sun for even a few seconds can cause blindness. What long term health hazards might result from reading by light
derived from solar energy? Will we develop cataracts, or slowly go blind? Not one medical study has yet addressed itself to this question, and none are
planned.

In their blind zeal to plug us in to solar energy, scientists seem to totally ignore possible fire hazards of solar energy. Sunlight reaching us directly
from the sun at naturally safe levels poses little fire threat. But all one has to do is concentrate sunlight, with a simple burning- glass, and it
readily ignites combustible materials. Who would feel safe with solar energy concentrators on their roof? Could we afford the fire insurance rates?

These scientists, and the big corporations which employ them, stand to profit greatly from construction of solar-power stations.
No wonder they try to hide the dangers of the technology and suppress any open discussion of them.

Proponents of solar energy present facts, figures and graphs to support their claim that energy from the sun will be less expensive, as conventional fuel supplies dwindle and technology of solar energy systems improves. But even if this is so, what will stop the solar energy equipment manufacturers and solar power companies from raising prices when they achieve a monopoly and other fuel sources disappear?

Of course every technology has risks. We might be willing to tolerate some small risk–if solar energy really represented a permanent solution to our
energy problems. But that is not the case. At best, solar energy is only a temporary band-aid. Recent calculations indicate that the “Sun Will Go Out in
a Billion Years As Its Fuel Runs Out” (Source: newspaper headline) As that calculation was made a year ago, we now have only nine-hundred ninety-nine
million, nine-hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine-hundred and ninety-nine years left during which we could use solar energy. Wouldn’t it be better to
put our human resources and scientific brains to work to find a safer and more permanent solution to our energy needs?

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

THE LANDMARK PENNSYLVANIA DECISION

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

PUC commissioners approved a plan for restructuring Southeastern Pennsylvania’s electric industry in a landmark case decision on Thursday, December 11, 1997.  
      The decision, made on a 3 to 2 vote of the commissioners, promises a 15% savings to customers who shop and permits PECO to recover $5 billion.  Under the plan, PECO starting January 1999, will give residential customers who shop for electricity a credit of 5.2 cents per kilowatt hour.  One third of PECO’s customers will be eligible to start shopping 1/1/99 with another third the following day and the remainder beginning January 1, 2000.
      The outcome which was called “an easy decision to appeal” by PECO officials seemed to be a compromise which left all parties unhappy. The parameters for the PUC decision were established in three competing restructuring plans; the Philadelphia Electric Company’s self-christened “Pennsylvania Plan”, Enron’s “Choice Plan”, and the Environmentalist’s  ”Better Choice Plan”.  
      The contentious portions of PECO Energy’s plan included the level of compensation requested for expected losses from its monopoly based investment decisions and the treatment of so-called default customers who do not chose an electric supplier.  To Enron’s credit, their Choice Plan reawakened local public debate about the future of our electric industry, the size of offered rate discounts, and the handling of so-called default customers (those not choosing a supplier).  It also cast a new light on a negotiated “public” settlement agreement with PECO over the level of stranded cost allowed and other key elements of introducing competition.  
      The Environmentalist’s, which include the Philadelphia Solar Energy Association (PSEA), developed a plan that promised a more
environmentally friendly electric industry.  The proposal would assign customers who decide not to choose an electric supplier to a supplier
according to criteria which promote a healthier, safer, and economy boosting electric industry.    Local environmental organizations
offered the Better Choice Planto the PUC as an alternative that goes beyond the submitted plans and settlement agreements to insure the
promised benefits of a competitive market.  
      A broad coalition of Philadelphia area environmental non-profit organizations established standing before the Public Utility Commission by filing an intervention in PECO’s request for stranded costs.  The primary issues for the environmental coalition include nuclear decommissioning, universal service, consumer education, fair competition, and renewable energy development.  Concern remains about the environmental effects of the generation mix employed to serve our electric needs and the public’s ability to effectively and positively influence that mix with their choices.
       PSEA members are working to ensure that renewable energy sources are not disadvantaged by the new rules for electric competition.  Many believe that our best hope for building a healthier electric industry lies in the unfetered ability of individual customers to generate their own electricity using renewable technologies such as rooftop photovoltaics.  We are working to remove the institutional barriers to net metering which would enable
self-generation to become cost effective.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Solar Energy In Mexico Training Workshop

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Renewable Energy Training Institute (RETI), with support from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the Organizacion Latino-Americana de Energia (OLADE), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), and the Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas (IIE-Mexico), is conducting a two day workshop on solar energy technologies in Mexico.

The Solar Energy In Mexico Workshop will be held Janaury 25-27, 1995 during the ENERCON 1995 Conference and Exhibition in Mexico City, Mexico
and in conjunction with MEXCOMM 95, a telecommunications conference and exhibition.  The RETI Mexico Workshop will discuss opportunities for
solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies in the utility power and industrial or commercial process sectors in Mexico.  Solar energy experts
from Mexico and the United States will present authoritative analyses of utility and industrial sector solar energy projects and programs in the
U.S. and Mexico.  The RETI Mexico Workshop will also examine the tools and techniques needed to ensure successful technology deployment, utility
integration, and business development.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Consumers Aided in Search for Solar Energy

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Colorado Consumer’s Guide to Buying a Solar Electric System provides basic information about the who, what and why of financing, purchasing and installing photovoltaic (solar electric) systems in Colorado. It also includes information about financial incentives such as the Solar Rebate Program, tax credits for businesses and net metering. Net metering means that extra electricity produced by a photovoltaic system is sold back to the utility at the same rate as power is purchased from the utility. “People need easy to follow guidelines for purchasing and installing solar energy systems, and this new booklet answers that need,” said NREL engineer John Thornton, who helped write the booklet.

The Borrower’s Guide to Financing Solar Energy Systems provides information for lenders and consumers about nationwide financing programs for photovoltaic systems and solar thermal systems, which heat indoor air and water. In addition to traditional sources for home mortgage funds, several government organizations offer programs for financing solar energy systems and energy efficiency improvements.

The guide’s glossary includes information about energy saving performance contracts through which energy service companies absorb the cost of more efficient energy systems in exchange for a share of the savings. It also describes energy efficient mortgages, which give special consideration to borrowers who purchase or refinance homes that are or will be energy efficient.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Atlantic City UA sells solar energy credits for $32,000

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

ACUA sells solar energy credits for $32,000

ATLANTIC CITY — Another part of its renewable energy program is paying off for the Atlan-tic County Utilities Authority. The ACUA reported the first sale of solar renewable energy credits for about $32,000. Those credits are part of an incentive program for companies to use more renewable energy, such as wind or solar power.

The state issues the ACUA one credit for every 1,000 kilowatts generated by its solar energy field. That field generated 135,000 kilowatts of power, or 135 credits. In this sale, the credits were bought by PSE&G Resources & Trade LLC. Each of the credits sold for $237.65.

Companies such as PSE&G can buy the credits rather than build their own solar fields to help meet their renewable-energy requirements, said ACUA Controller Katie Vesey. Vesey said that, in New Jersey, credits linked with solar energy carry the most value because the state is specifically pushing solar energy as a renewable energy source. The other benefit is that, without the credits and other associated state rebates, solar renewable energy
would be too expensive to produce, she said.

“The rebate provided by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities supporting the construction of this project and the revenue derived from the sale of (the credits) makes this solar project favorable from a financial standpoint,” said ACUA President Rick Dovey. The ACUA’s solar energy system at the treatment plant consists of two ground-mounted solar arrays, two roof-mounted solar arrays and one canopy array. The solar panel installation was completed in May.

ACUA officials estimate they’ll wind up with more than 600 credits for the “energy year” that began June 1 and will run through May 31, 2007. The solar energy system is one of several renewable energy products run by the ACUA. Also in May, ACUA officials said power generated by the five wind turbines at the treatment plant here helped the ACUA save almost $168,000 in energy costs during the first four months of the year.

The wind turbines generated on average almost 70 percent of the plant’s energy electricity during that time, according to ACUA figures. The ACUA estimated it would save at least $367,000 annually on electric costs once the wind farm was operational.

Filed Under: Technology Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Spectrolab Terrestrial Concentrator Solar Cell Achieves Unparalelled Solar Energy Conversion

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Using concentrated sunlight, these photovoltaic (PV) cells can convert 36.9 percent of the sun’s energy to electricity, a technology capability that
could dramatically reduce the cost of generating electricity from solar energy.

Spectrolab’s achievement is a necessary step to achieve one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s major PV initiative goals, to develop solar modules
that convert more than 33 percent of the sun’s energy into electricity as targeted in the High Performance PV Project.

“The modified cell design better suits the terrestrial solar spectrum and opens the path for higher performance terrestrial concentrators” said David
Lillington, president of Spectrolab. “And because the terrestrial cell we have developed is similar to our conventional space cells, it can be
implemented in production, and manufactured in very high volumes with minimal impact to production flow.”

Spectrolab uses these state-of-the-art solar cells in concentrator modules of various sizes and power-generating capabilities. Several modules are
already being tested throughout the world by PV concentrator system manufacturers.

A significant advantage of concentrator systems is that fewer solar cells are required to achieve a specific power output, thus replacing large areas
of semiconductor materials with relatively inexpensive optics that provide optical concentration. The slightly higher cost of multijunction cells is
offset by the use of fewer cells. Due to the higher efficiency of multijunction cells used in the concentrator modules, only a small fraction
of the cell area is required to generate the same power output compared to crystalline silicon or thin-film flat-plate modules.

The terrestrial solar cell is a modified version of Spectrolab’s Improved Triple Junction (ITJ) space solar cell.

“There is considerable synergy between space and terrestrial cells, and improvements in space cells are expected to drive efficiency improvements
for terrestrial cells. During the last few years, multijunction solar cells have doubled the power output of large commercial satellites, and
substantially improved their revenue-generating capability. We believe that further optimization of the improved terrestrial concentrator cells will
yield the potential to surpass 40 percent conversion efficiency,” said Dr. Nasser Karam, Spectrolab vice president for Advanced Technology.

Terrestrial solar cells will also be the driving force to reduce the cost of materials used in space and terrestrial applications. This will add to the
economic attractiveness of multijunction solar cell technology both for high power space satellites and large terrestrial systems.

The terrestrial concentrator cell, measuring approximately one-quarter of a square centimeter in area, was fabricated and tested at Spectrolab and then
re-measured at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), located in Golden, Colorado. NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy’s premier laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficient research, development and deployment. Development of the device technology embodied in the record efficiency multijunction cell was funded in part by NREL, in part by the Air
Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and by Spectrolab.

Spectrolab, founded in 1956, has been supplying solar cells and panels to the space industry for 40 years. Spectrolab is headquartered in Sylmar,
Calif., a suburb of Los Angeles. It also is a leading supplier of searchlights and solar simulators. With its heritage mirroring the history of flight. It is the largest manufacturer of satellites, commercial jetliners and military aircraft. The company is also a global market leader in missile defense, human space flight and launch services.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Renewable energy crumb laced with poison

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

As leader of the Democrats, Senator Meg Lees negotiated the passage of the GST legislation with John Howard in 1999. She is standing for re-election in South Australia at the election for the ‘Progressive Alliance”.
This energy announcement and the diesel measures within bring us back to 1999 negotiations on the New Tax Package.

Then we were able to reduce the planned diesel bonus by $714 million and to include an environment package worth $376 million that covered fuel emission standards, gas conversions, renewable energies grants, green power, greenhouse gas emissions abatement, incentives for rail and gas vehicles.

At that time regional Australian relied heavily on diesel fired trucks for transport and for remote power generation. There were virtually no subsidies for any other fuels but diesel.

The aim of the negotiations with the government in 1999 was to encourage a shift to non fossil fuels to clean up diesel and petrol. The key aim of the abolition of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme and its replacement with the Energy Credit scheme was to encourage use of other fuels – not just diesel.

Issues such as support for remote power generation were addressed through support for gas and/or solar and/or wind energy.

These reforms gave birth to lots of small renewable energy firms, particularly across regional Australia. They now provide the energy infrastructure for remote areas. It is an industry that has grown up since 1999 and has the potential for much more growth.

The 1999 changes to the Governments energy priorities were designed to take us into the 21st century. The new vision was for a smarter, and more innovative Australia through promoting clean renewable energy as an alternative to fossil fuels.

In today’s energy package the government claims that it is providing a balance between clean and dirty energies. Between the old and the new. That is plain rubbish. The scales are tipped significantly in favour of fossil fuel. The government has given the cake to the fossil fuel industry and the crumbs to the renewable energy industry. And even those crumbs are at risk.

Not only is the ‘clean’ package far from adequate, with an increase in the MRET missing, we find vastly increased support for diesel and petrol use.

The government proposes to extend an off-road excise rebate for diesel to those industries which were previously denied it, including forestry, manufacturing and construction. Primary producers will receive a benefit for their off road business use of petrol in their utility vehicles and 4 wheel motorcycles.

There is little point in providing support for research and development into renewable energies if these renewable options are priced out of use by the availability of cheap fossil fuels.

So while parts of the package that support the development of solar energy and support research into the storage of renewable energies are positive, the diesel part of the package undermines these measures.

The changes to the fuel excise system will have far reaching ramifications for Australia’s renewable energy industry if they are implemented – particularly the growing remote power generation industry – the traditional market for solar energy in Australia.

Making polluting fossil fuels excise free for stationary energy applications in regional Australia such as heating, electricity, generation and industrial applications reduces the cost of it by around 40 percent and works to make clean renewable energy systems uncompetitive.

Australia was generally recognised as a world leader in PV a number of years ago, largely driven by the extensive rollout of solar energy in remote area power supply – reliably meeting the power needs of our regional and remote communities. This has been Australia’s traditional market for solar energy.

Mr. Howard’s energy statement now undermines this industry sector, and this sector will face collapse if these measures are implemented. This puts at risk the livelihoods of around 300 renewable energy businesses and their families that are active in this market.

This not only results in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions but also reduces investment in regional and rural communities – the same communities who face the brunt of climate change.

The tragedy in this announcement is that Australia’s remote power generation sector has been a world leader with a number of businesses actively supplying renewable energy systems to developing countries. This is now jeopardised.

This is another example of the Howard government failing the renewable energy industry and small emerging businesses.

Filed Under: Technology Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

The Solar Cooking Archive

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Food is easily and conveniently cooked with solar energy as the “fuel” in devices called solar cookers. Solar cookers are an ideal addition
to any kitchen wherever there are predictable hours of sun many days of the year. Solar cooking and baking are easy. Solar cookers are safe around children and provide a great way to learn about and use solar energy. Solar cookers are clean, convenient, non-polluting and easy on the environment. And, for millions of people living in arid, fuel-scarce regions of the world, solar cookers can literally save
lives.
Solar Cookers International (SCI) spreads solar cooking awareness and skills worldwide, particularly in areas with plentiful sunshine and diminishing sources of cooking fuel. SCI has enabled 30,000 families in Africa to cook with the sun’s energy, freeing women and children from the burdens of gathering wood and carrying it for miles. Tens of thousands of individuals and organizations — from all over the world —
have learned about solar cooking through SCI’s excellent publications and educational materials, and have benefited from SCI’s information exchange networks, research, technical support, and the SCI-sponsored Solar Cooking Archive, the internationally recognized Internet resource for solar cooking information.

SCI’s nonprofit, tax-deductible work is supported by generous individuals, private foundations, and sales of solar cookers and supplies. If you are a current member of Solar Cookers International, we thank you. If you are learning about solar cooking for the first time, please explore the possibilities and join us in teaching the world that with sunshine, cooking is free and easy.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Molecular Assemblies Created to Convert Water to Hydrogen

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Wonder where the fuel will come from for tomorrow’s hydrogen-powered vehicles? Virginia Tech researchers are developing catalysts that will convert water to hydrogen gas.

The research will be presented at the 228th American Chemical Society National Meeting in Philadelphia August 22-26, 2004

Supramolecular complexes created by Karen Brewer’s group at Virginia Tech convert light energy (solar energy) into a fuel that can be transported, stored, and dispensed, such as hydrogen gas.

The process has been called artificial photosynthesis, says Brewer, associate professor of chemistry. “Light energy is converted to chemical energy. Solar light is of sufficient energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, but this does not happen on its own; we need a catalysts to make this reaction occur.”

One major challenge is to use light to bring together the multiple electrons needed for fuel production reactions. Electrons are the negatively charged particles that surround an atom’s nucleus, allowing atoms to react and form bonds.

Previous research has focused on collecting electrons using light energy. The Brewer group has gone the next step and created molecular machines that use light to bring electrons together (photoinitiated electron collection) then deliver the electrons to the fuel precursor, in this case, water, to produce hydrogen.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »