Saturday, May 16, 2009
Green Urban Living Center
Miami Dade College has a Green Urban Living Center where you can take eco-friendly courses in person or online. There are currently course in Organic Composting, Intro to Horticulture, Container gardening, Native Landscaping, Pruning and Propagation, and landscaping at Home. All cost $32. For information call (305) 237-1019 or email slewis3@mdc.edu or www.greenlivingurbancenter.org. Group field trips are also available for schools, organizations, Girl Scout and Boy Scout badges. Also included are course in How To Go green and Building Green for $19. Youth programs include Bugs and Butterflies, Garden Club, and Urban Wildlife- Birds in the Hood from $19-65.
Friday, May 15, 2009
4 Ways to Reuse Old Car Dealership Properties
4 Ways to Reuse Old Car Dealership Properties
From new town centers to public art projects -- there is potential in the demise of 1,100 GM dealerships and nearly 800 Chrysler dealerships.
related articles
Amazing Homes Made from Shipping Containers
America's 10 Most Walkable Cities
33+ Products Made from Recycled Materials
Incredible Art Made from Cardboard
10 Weird Uses for Vodka
By Dan Shapley
With GM set to close 1,100 or more dealerships today, a day after Chrysler announced plans to close 789 of its own car dealerships across the U.S., communities big and (mostly) small will be reeling from the loss of a local business. For many communities, this loss is just the latest in a string of losses, as the recession has taken its toll on the economy.
While there's no telling what's in store for each individual dealership -- most of them locally owned and operated, some by the same family for more than a generation -- The Daily Green got to thinking about how communities might deal with the loss proactively.
What's green about that? Everything. Finding ways to productively reuse urban and suburban land that's already been developed is one of the best ways to protect outlying open spaces, wildlife habitat and farmland. Finding ways to re-orient communities around urban centers and public transportation hubs likewise reins in suburban sprawl that for decades has tended to gobble up land for strip malls, highways and other car-dependent destinations.
Finding productive uses of these properties won't necessarily be easy, according to June Williamson, one of the authors of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. These "underperforming asphalt" properties likely have three strikes against them:
Many are in the outer suburbs and distant exurbs, where there is little chance of integrating the property into a new mixed use development.
Many are likely to have soil contamination, from leaking underground gasoline storage tanks.
With the economy in recession, developers aren't exactly knocking down doors to invest in new building projects.
That said, she suggested several ways to redevelop those dealerships that are in the "inner suburbs" -- those neighborhoods closest to cities, generally built in the post-WWII period:
1. The Car Dealership as a New Town Center
A car dealership is perhaps the greatest symbol of the car-dominated strip mall culture that has defined (and one could say decimated) American neighborhoods for a half century, and which is only slowly losing favor as communities see the value of new urbanism -- the clustering of development around new and existing town centers, where housing, shopping, schools and workplaces are integrated in walkable downtowns served by public transit options.
So can a car dealership really turn into a community center? Emphatically yes -- assuming the conditions are right. Witness Downtown Dadeland, a 7.5-acre former Cadillac dealership in Kendall, Fla., which is now a housing complex with 415 apartments and 125,000 square feet of retail space on 7 urban blocks, complete with arcades, walkways and other public spaces. And it's connected to other communities by an elevated metro line along busy Route 1.
Some of what made this renaissance possible: 10 years of planning work by local officials, public subsidies, the building of that public transit line ... and the site's location near other development. The silver lining is that local planning boards have some time on their hands, now that the real estate market has taken the steam out of many development proposals, so local officials have time to plan for the next generation of development in their communities. "Instead of being reactive," Williamson said, "they can be proactive."
(Image: The Cadillac dealership was part of the land re-imagined as Downtown Dadeland, shown in this image from the Miami-Dade Master Plan.)
2. The Car Lot as a New Business or Community Center
While in the past, a defunct car dealership might be replaced by a viable car dealership, it's hard to imagine any car-maker expanding its retail sales base at this point in time. That doesn't mean these properties can't serve some functions. While not an ideal candidate for development -- given that most of the car dealerships are on strips that typify suburban sprawl, they at least have the benefit of being already paved. If you're going to build anew, Williamson pointed out, it's better to use land that's already degraded rather than a pristine property.
The Daily Green came up with a few ideas, each with varying degrees of viability depending on local communities:
A visitor center: What exurban communities lack in public transportation they often gain in scenic beauty. What attracts second home owners into the countryside is often a mix of scenery and proximity to historic sites, pick-your-own farms and other tourist destinations. Why not cater to visitors, boost the local economy and provide a place for out-of-towners to park their cars and get on a tour bus than a centrally located, easy to find parking lot with a small building ... like an old car lot. Scenic Hudson, the environmental group directed by The Daily Green's Backyard Matters blogger, Ned Sullivan, has performed a similar transformation with a still-active drive-in theater that will serve simultaneously as a visitor center, parking area and farmers market in Hyde Park, N.Y., home of the Franklin D. Roosevelt (and don't forget Eleanor!) and Vanderbilt estates.
A public art gallery: The International Fiber Collaborative (which provided the photo at right) produced the innovative public art project to highlight society's dependence on oil. That's a gas station under all that yarn ... Why not a car dealership?
"Dubbed the World Reclamation Art Project (W.R.A.P.), participants crocheted, knitted, stitched, patched, or collaged 3-foot square fiber panels, with each unique one expressing concern about the topic," as The Daily Green's Brian Clark Howard wrote in his 38 Extraordinary Knit Designs feature. "The panels were then sewed together, to completely cover an abandoned gas station in central New York. It an example of the people remaking an ugly industrial legacy into something softer, gentler and more beautiful."
A Make It America Craft Factory: The Daily Green recently had a great conversation with Adina Levin, who founded Make It America, which is in the first phase of a mission to re-imagine the U.S. economy. Now, it's connecting businesses holding events to U.S.-made, sustainable producers. Next, it aims to open workshops in cities across the U.S., where local artisans will have access to the tools they need to scale up their creations for local or national markets. It's a great vision. Why not make it happen in an old strip mall?
A Solar Power Sub Station: Hey, we can dream, right? A few acres of sunny parking lot could be reborn as a nifty little solar power electric-generating station to serve the needs of some local businesses.
Think it's unlikely? Witness New Jersey, where the state's largest utility plans to install 200,000 solar panels on utility poles.
3. The Car Dealership as Flea Market
If permanent reuse isn't in the cards for a particular property, there are still options, according to Williamson.
Communities can stage flea markets, craft shows, farmers markets or other "opportunistic events," making temporary use of all that asphalt for gatherings that knit a community together and benefit local businesses and artisans.
4. The Car Dealership as a Field of Wildflowers
A little-appreciated truth about the modern strip mall is this: It was often built exactly where housing could not be built, because the land was too wet, Williamson said. Today, most states have rules against draining or filling wetlands, which act as natural (and cost-effective) systems of flood control, pollution filtration and wildlife habitat. Restoring a more natural landscape to a paved area increases rainwater infiltration, produces wildlife habitat for birds, bees and other beneficial insects, and helps to restore the water quality and ecological function of local watersheds.
"Re-greening is certainly something that should be considered," Williamson said, though she warned that even this apparently simple idea is not inexpensive. "You can't just let it go. You have to break up asphalt."
A wildflower, native plant or similar garden is probably the best garden use for an old car dealership (assuming it is going to seed) since contaminants in the soil would make vegetable gardening potentially unwise.
From new town centers to public art projects -- there is potential in the demise of 1,100 GM dealerships and nearly 800 Chrysler dealerships.
related articles
Amazing Homes Made from Shipping Containers
America's 10 Most Walkable Cities
33+ Products Made from Recycled Materials
Incredible Art Made from Cardboard
10 Weird Uses for Vodka
By Dan Shapley
With GM set to close 1,100 or more dealerships today, a day after Chrysler announced plans to close 789 of its own car dealerships across the U.S., communities big and (mostly) small will be reeling from the loss of a local business. For many communities, this loss is just the latest in a string of losses, as the recession has taken its toll on the economy.
While there's no telling what's in store for each individual dealership -- most of them locally owned and operated, some by the same family for more than a generation -- The Daily Green got to thinking about how communities might deal with the loss proactively.
What's green about that? Everything. Finding ways to productively reuse urban and suburban land that's already been developed is one of the best ways to protect outlying open spaces, wildlife habitat and farmland. Finding ways to re-orient communities around urban centers and public transportation hubs likewise reins in suburban sprawl that for decades has tended to gobble up land for strip malls, highways and other car-dependent destinations.
Finding productive uses of these properties won't necessarily be easy, according to June Williamson, one of the authors of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. These "underperforming asphalt" properties likely have three strikes against them:
Many are in the outer suburbs and distant exurbs, where there is little chance of integrating the property into a new mixed use development.
Many are likely to have soil contamination, from leaking underground gasoline storage tanks.
With the economy in recession, developers aren't exactly knocking down doors to invest in new building projects.
That said, she suggested several ways to redevelop those dealerships that are in the "inner suburbs" -- those neighborhoods closest to cities, generally built in the post-WWII period:
1. The Car Dealership as a New Town Center
A car dealership is perhaps the greatest symbol of the car-dominated strip mall culture that has defined (and one could say decimated) American neighborhoods for a half century, and which is only slowly losing favor as communities see the value of new urbanism -- the clustering of development around new and existing town centers, where housing, shopping, schools and workplaces are integrated in walkable downtowns served by public transit options.
So can a car dealership really turn into a community center? Emphatically yes -- assuming the conditions are right. Witness Downtown Dadeland, a 7.5-acre former Cadillac dealership in Kendall, Fla., which is now a housing complex with 415 apartments and 125,000 square feet of retail space on 7 urban blocks, complete with arcades, walkways and other public spaces. And it's connected to other communities by an elevated metro line along busy Route 1.
Some of what made this renaissance possible: 10 years of planning work by local officials, public subsidies, the building of that public transit line ... and the site's location near other development. The silver lining is that local planning boards have some time on their hands, now that the real estate market has taken the steam out of many development proposals, so local officials have time to plan for the next generation of development in their communities. "Instead of being reactive," Williamson said, "they can be proactive."
(Image: The Cadillac dealership was part of the land re-imagined as Downtown Dadeland, shown in this image from the Miami-Dade Master Plan.)
2. The Car Lot as a New Business or Community Center
While in the past, a defunct car dealership might be replaced by a viable car dealership, it's hard to imagine any car-maker expanding its retail sales base at this point in time. That doesn't mean these properties can't serve some functions. While not an ideal candidate for development -- given that most of the car dealerships are on strips that typify suburban sprawl, they at least have the benefit of being already paved. If you're going to build anew, Williamson pointed out, it's better to use land that's already degraded rather than a pristine property.
The Daily Green came up with a few ideas, each with varying degrees of viability depending on local communities:
A visitor center: What exurban communities lack in public transportation they often gain in scenic beauty. What attracts second home owners into the countryside is often a mix of scenery and proximity to historic sites, pick-your-own farms and other tourist destinations. Why not cater to visitors, boost the local economy and provide a place for out-of-towners to park their cars and get on a tour bus than a centrally located, easy to find parking lot with a small building ... like an old car lot. Scenic Hudson, the environmental group directed by The Daily Green's Backyard Matters blogger, Ned Sullivan, has performed a similar transformation with a still-active drive-in theater that will serve simultaneously as a visitor center, parking area and farmers market in Hyde Park, N.Y., home of the Franklin D. Roosevelt (and don't forget Eleanor!) and Vanderbilt estates.
A public art gallery: The International Fiber Collaborative (which provided the photo at right) produced the innovative public art project to highlight society's dependence on oil. That's a gas station under all that yarn ... Why not a car dealership?
"Dubbed the World Reclamation Art Project (W.R.A.P.), participants crocheted, knitted, stitched, patched, or collaged 3-foot square fiber panels, with each unique one expressing concern about the topic," as The Daily Green's Brian Clark Howard wrote in his 38 Extraordinary Knit Designs feature. "The panels were then sewed together, to completely cover an abandoned gas station in central New York. It an example of the people remaking an ugly industrial legacy into something softer, gentler and more beautiful."
A Make It America Craft Factory: The Daily Green recently had a great conversation with Adina Levin, who founded Make It America, which is in the first phase of a mission to re-imagine the U.S. economy. Now, it's connecting businesses holding events to U.S.-made, sustainable producers. Next, it aims to open workshops in cities across the U.S., where local artisans will have access to the tools they need to scale up their creations for local or national markets. It's a great vision. Why not make it happen in an old strip mall?
A Solar Power Sub Station: Hey, we can dream, right? A few acres of sunny parking lot could be reborn as a nifty little solar power electric-generating station to serve the needs of some local businesses.
Think it's unlikely? Witness New Jersey, where the state's largest utility plans to install 200,000 solar panels on utility poles.
3. The Car Dealership as Flea Market
If permanent reuse isn't in the cards for a particular property, there are still options, according to Williamson.
Communities can stage flea markets, craft shows, farmers markets or other "opportunistic events," making temporary use of all that asphalt for gatherings that knit a community together and benefit local businesses and artisans.
4. The Car Dealership as a Field of Wildflowers
A little-appreciated truth about the modern strip mall is this: It was often built exactly where housing could not be built, because the land was too wet, Williamson said. Today, most states have rules against draining or filling wetlands, which act as natural (and cost-effective) systems of flood control, pollution filtration and wildlife habitat. Restoring a more natural landscape to a paved area increases rainwater infiltration, produces wildlife habitat for birds, bees and other beneficial insects, and helps to restore the water quality and ecological function of local watersheds.
"Re-greening is certainly something that should be considered," Williamson said, though she warned that even this apparently simple idea is not inexpensive. "You can't just let it go. You have to break up asphalt."
A wildflower, native plant or similar garden is probably the best garden use for an old car dealership (assuming it is going to seed) since contaminants in the soil would make vegetable gardening potentially unwise.
Utility to install solar panels on 200,000 utility poles
New Jersey Utility Plans Major Solar Project
Mark Lovretin/P.S.E.G.
The panels would feed directly into the power grid.
KEN BELSON
Published: February 10, 2009
Public Service Electric and Gas, New Jersey’s largest utility, said it would unveil a five-year, one-of-a-kind plan on Tuesday to install solar panels on 200,000 utility poles in its service territory.
The project, which the utility must first present to state regulators for approval, would also include putting solar panels on schools and municipal buildings, low-income housing and areas like closed garbage dumps.
The utility expects to spend $773 million on the project, which it said would generate 120 megawatts of electricity, one-third of which should come from the panels on utility poles. That amounts to barely 1 percent of the power consumed in the state, but is about 7 percent of the state’s goal of power generated from renewable energy sources by 2020.
By then, 22.5 percent of the state’s electricity is supposed to come from renewable sources, according to New Jersey’s energy master plan.
Most solar panels on utility and municipal properties power single items, like traffic lights and parking meters. These panels, however, would feed directly into the electrical grid. By selling the electricity into the wholesale market, the utility expects to offset some of the cost of installing the panels.
The project would add about 10 cents to each customer’s monthly bill in the first year and as much as 35 cents in subsequent years. It comes at a time when many renewable energy installations — including those on homes — are being scaled back because of the lack of money or the higher cost of loans.
“We saw how the financial crunch has really brought renewables to a grinding halt, and this is a way to get it back going and a way to make sure all our customers benefit,” said Ralph Izzo, the chief executive of Public Service Enterprise Group, the utility’s parent company.
In addition to raising money by selling the panels’ electricity, P.S.E. & G. also expects to receive a federal tax credit and income from selling the state renewable energy credits that accrue when solar energy is produced.
The bulk of the money for the project, however, would come from new bonds and equity from Public Service Enterprise. Mr. Izzo said he did not expect his utility to have difficulty issuing bonds in the shaky debt markets, and added that the price of installing the panels — about $6.44 for each watt produced — was far lower than just a few years ago.
Other power companies in the region, including the Long Island Power Authority and Con Edison, have announced other, less ambitious solar energy projects in recent months. And others have proposed electrifying about 20 dams in New Jersey. A subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise is also part of a venture to install 96 wind turbines as far as 20 miles offshore to produce up to 346 megawatts of electricity.
But solar power is the most prominent renewable energy source in New Jersey, which ranks second behind California in producing solar energy. As a result, the number of companies that install solar energy equipment has blossomed. By starting such a large-scale project, the utility is providing much-needed stimulus to the state’s economy.
“P.S.E. & G. is taking solar to another level,” said Scott A. Weiner, a partner at the solar energy development company Resource Energy Systems and the former commissioner of the state’s Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. “They are stepping up to facilitate the solar market in New Jersey and to contribute to achieve public policy objectives.”
But there are many hurdles. Solar panels mounted on utility poles would not rotate as the sun crosses the sky, which means they would produce peak amounts of power for only about six hours a day, or less time if it is cloudy or snowing.
Some 40-foot poles cannot be used because their view of the sun is blocked by trees or buildings. If the utility cannot find enough of its own poles to use, it will contract with Verizon and other companies.
Unlike power plants, which require a large amount of money to spent up front, P.S.E. & G. can begin recouping its investment as the solar panels are installed. Still, rate payers should not expect immediate returns.
“This type of investment is long term, so you’re not going to see the benefits right away,” said Upendra J. Chivukula, the chairman of the Telecommunications and Utilities Committee in the State Assembly. “But if you don’t do it now, you’re never going to become energy independent.”
Mark Lovretin/P.S.E.G.
The panels would feed directly into the power grid.
KEN BELSON
Published: February 10, 2009
Public Service Electric and Gas, New Jersey’s largest utility, said it would unveil a five-year, one-of-a-kind plan on Tuesday to install solar panels on 200,000 utility poles in its service territory.
The project, which the utility must first present to state regulators for approval, would also include putting solar panels on schools and municipal buildings, low-income housing and areas like closed garbage dumps.
The utility expects to spend $773 million on the project, which it said would generate 120 megawatts of electricity, one-third of which should come from the panels on utility poles. That amounts to barely 1 percent of the power consumed in the state, but is about 7 percent of the state’s goal of power generated from renewable energy sources by 2020.
By then, 22.5 percent of the state’s electricity is supposed to come from renewable sources, according to New Jersey’s energy master plan.
Most solar panels on utility and municipal properties power single items, like traffic lights and parking meters. These panels, however, would feed directly into the electrical grid. By selling the electricity into the wholesale market, the utility expects to offset some of the cost of installing the panels.
The project would add about 10 cents to each customer’s monthly bill in the first year and as much as 35 cents in subsequent years. It comes at a time when many renewable energy installations — including those on homes — are being scaled back because of the lack of money or the higher cost of loans.
“We saw how the financial crunch has really brought renewables to a grinding halt, and this is a way to get it back going and a way to make sure all our customers benefit,” said Ralph Izzo, the chief executive of Public Service Enterprise Group, the utility’s parent company.
In addition to raising money by selling the panels’ electricity, P.S.E. & G. also expects to receive a federal tax credit and income from selling the state renewable energy credits that accrue when solar energy is produced.
The bulk of the money for the project, however, would come from new bonds and equity from Public Service Enterprise. Mr. Izzo said he did not expect his utility to have difficulty issuing bonds in the shaky debt markets, and added that the price of installing the panels — about $6.44 for each watt produced — was far lower than just a few years ago.
Other power companies in the region, including the Long Island Power Authority and Con Edison, have announced other, less ambitious solar energy projects in recent months. And others have proposed electrifying about 20 dams in New Jersey. A subsidiary of Public Service Enterprise is also part of a venture to install 96 wind turbines as far as 20 miles offshore to produce up to 346 megawatts of electricity.
But solar power is the most prominent renewable energy source in New Jersey, which ranks second behind California in producing solar energy. As a result, the number of companies that install solar energy equipment has blossomed. By starting such a large-scale project, the utility is providing much-needed stimulus to the state’s economy.
“P.S.E. & G. is taking solar to another level,” said Scott A. Weiner, a partner at the solar energy development company Resource Energy Systems and the former commissioner of the state’s Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. “They are stepping up to facilitate the solar market in New Jersey and to contribute to achieve public policy objectives.”
But there are many hurdles. Solar panels mounted on utility poles would not rotate as the sun crosses the sky, which means they would produce peak amounts of power for only about six hours a day, or less time if it is cloudy or snowing.
Some 40-foot poles cannot be used because their view of the sun is blocked by trees or buildings. If the utility cannot find enough of its own poles to use, it will contract with Verizon and other companies.
Unlike power plants, which require a large amount of money to spent up front, P.S.E. & G. can begin recouping its investment as the solar panels are installed. Still, rate payers should not expect immediate returns.
“This type of investment is long term, so you’re not going to see the benefits right away,” said Upendra J. Chivukula, the chairman of the Telecommunications and Utilities Committee in the State Assembly. “But if you don’t do it now, you’re never going to become energy independent.”
Downtownd Dadeland Condominium
Downtown DadeLAND
Downtownd Dadeland Condominium Address:
N. Kendall Drive, Miami, Fl. 33156
Location of Downtown Dadeland
Floor Plans Downtown Dadeland
Request Info. about Downtown Dadeland
Looking to Sell or Lease your investment unit ? Please CONTACT your Dadeland Condo Specialist
Developer: Gulfside Development & Canyon-Johnson
Architect: Spillis-Candela
Description: Condos Residential
Type: Condominium
Floors: 7 (7 Towers)
Units: 416 residences
Number of Bedrooms: Studios, 1,2, 3
Unit Sq. Ft. Range: 470-2,172
Price Range: $ 200,000's - $ 700,000's
Amenities: Temperate Controlled Pool, Fitness Center
Downtown Dadeland Condominium is a mixed-use project which includes 416 condominium residences in seven unique buildings on its own street grid. Amenities include spacious terraces and balconies, extensive landscaping, central rooftop pool and recreation areas, 24-hour restricted access to residential units, and private parking in the 14-acre, two-story, below-grade parking garage. At Downtown Dadeland, there is also 120,000 square feet of ground floor retail for boutique shops, restaurants and select commercial services, including, West Elm, Chili's, Ruth Chris Steak House, Bombay and many more. Moss was chosen for this exciting project because of our ability to provide the supervisory and managerial expertise to deliver this complicated project on-time and within the owner budget structure!
DOWNTOWN DADELAND CONDOMINIUM FEATURES
- Professionally Decorated Lobby and Community Spaces
- Controlled Access to Private Parking Garage
- Fully-Equipped Fitness Center
- Steam Baths
- Brick Paved Walkways
- Private Sundeck with Heated Pool and Spa
- Park and Landscaped Gardens with European Style Fountain
- Walk to Downtown Kendall Dining, Shopping, Entertainment
- Easy Access to Major Roadways
DOWNTOWN DADELAND RESIDENCE FEATURES
- Braced Outlet for Lighting Fixture in Dining Area
- Pre-Wired for Cable in Bedrooms, Living Room and Den
- Braced Outlet for Lighting Fixture in Dining Area
- Pre-Wired for Category 5 High-Speed Internet
- Textured Ceilings and Walls Throughout Living Areas
- G.E. Full-Sized Stackable Washer-Dryer
- High-Efficiency Central A/C and Heating System
- Fire Protection Sprinkler System with Smoke Detectors
DOWNTOWN DADELAND CONDO KITCHENS
- Cabinets-choice of two wooden finishes (dark cherry or white)
- Countertops-Granite with under-mounted stainless steel sink
- Appliances-Kitchen Aid, GE Profile with black or white finish
- Refrigerator-21 cu. ft. side-by-side
- Oven Range-slide-in design
- Microwave oven
- Dishwasher
- Garbage Disposer
DOWNTOWN DADELAND CONDOMINIUM MASTER BATHS
- Cabinets-Choice of two wooden finishes (dark cherry or white)
- Fixtures-Kohler, American Standard (or equal)
- Medicine Cabinet
- Mirror
- Light Fixture
DOWNTOWN DADELAND RESIDENCE FEATURES
Washer and Dryer
- GE side-by-side or stackable depending upon closet design
Flooring
- Bathrooms-ceramic tile or faux stone floors (including 4” base)
- All Other Interior Areas-Concrete
- Exterior Terraces/Balconies-Concrete
- Wall Finishes Throughout-Primed white walls ready for paint
Light Fixtures
-High hats where indicated & bathroom fixtures
Doors
- Entry-Metal paneled
- Painted wooden hollow core with wooden casement
- Closets-Painted wooden louvered bi-fold with wood casement
- Pre-Wired for Security Alarm, Internet Access, Cable TV and
Telephone
Windows-Impact resistant glass
"Downtown Dadeland Condominium will set a new standard for 'smart growth' in Miami-Dade, given its unique design and urban qualities" Mr.Johansson
Request More Information about Downtown Dadeland Condos
Building Name:
Address:
* Name: * Required Field
* Email: * Required Field
Telephone:
Cellular:
Minimum Bedrooms: Any 1 2 3
Best Way to Contact: Any E-mail Telephone Cellular
Questions or Comments:
By submitting this form with your numbers you are consenting to be contacted even if your name is on the Federal Do-Not-Call List.
Don't Miss this opportunity to own a Condo at DOWNTOWN DADELAND
If you would like to reserve a unit at this exclusive new project please follow these simple steps;
1. Total deposit Required: 20%
2. 20% - With Contract
3. 80% - Completion
If you would like more information regarding Downtown Dadeland Condos, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at: 786-554-3085 or via e-mail at: dienerph@bellsouth.net
PHILIPPE DIENER • AVANT REALTY INTERNATIONAL
701 Brickell Key Blvd. Suite CU-4, Miami, Florida 33131 • 786-554-3085
Send mail to: webmaster with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2005 Philippe Diener
Downtownd Dadeland Condominium Address:
N. Kendall Drive, Miami, Fl. 33156
Location of Downtown Dadeland
Floor Plans Downtown Dadeland
Request Info. about Downtown Dadeland
Looking to Sell or Lease your investment unit ? Please CONTACT your Dadeland Condo Specialist
Developer: Gulfside Development & Canyon-Johnson
Architect: Spillis-Candela
Description: Condos Residential
Type: Condominium
Floors: 7 (7 Towers)
Units: 416 residences
Number of Bedrooms: Studios, 1,2, 3
Unit Sq. Ft. Range: 470-2,172
Price Range: $ 200,000's - $ 700,000's
Amenities: Temperate Controlled Pool, Fitness Center
Downtown Dadeland Condominium is a mixed-use project which includes 416 condominium residences in seven unique buildings on its own street grid. Amenities include spacious terraces and balconies, extensive landscaping, central rooftop pool and recreation areas, 24-hour restricted access to residential units, and private parking in the 14-acre, two-story, below-grade parking garage. At Downtown Dadeland, there is also 120,000 square feet of ground floor retail for boutique shops, restaurants and select commercial services, including, West Elm, Chili's, Ruth Chris Steak House, Bombay and many more. Moss was chosen for this exciting project because of our ability to provide the supervisory and managerial expertise to deliver this complicated project on-time and within the owner budget structure!
DOWNTOWN DADELAND CONDOMINIUM FEATURES
- Professionally Decorated Lobby and Community Spaces
- Controlled Access to Private Parking Garage
- Fully-Equipped Fitness Center
- Steam Baths
- Brick Paved Walkways
- Private Sundeck with Heated Pool and Spa
- Park and Landscaped Gardens with European Style Fountain
- Walk to Downtown Kendall Dining, Shopping, Entertainment
- Easy Access to Major Roadways
DOWNTOWN DADELAND RESIDENCE FEATURES
- Braced Outlet for Lighting Fixture in Dining Area
- Pre-Wired for Cable in Bedrooms, Living Room and Den
- Braced Outlet for Lighting Fixture in Dining Area
- Pre-Wired for Category 5 High-Speed Internet
- Textured Ceilings and Walls Throughout Living Areas
- G.E. Full-Sized Stackable Washer-Dryer
- High-Efficiency Central A/C and Heating System
- Fire Protection Sprinkler System with Smoke Detectors
DOWNTOWN DADELAND CONDO KITCHENS
- Cabinets-choice of two wooden finishes (dark cherry or white)
- Countertops-Granite with under-mounted stainless steel sink
- Appliances-Kitchen Aid, GE Profile with black or white finish
- Refrigerator-21 cu. ft. side-by-side
- Oven Range-slide-in design
- Microwave oven
- Dishwasher
- Garbage Disposer
DOWNTOWN DADELAND CONDOMINIUM MASTER BATHS
- Cabinets-Choice of two wooden finishes (dark cherry or white)
- Fixtures-Kohler, American Standard (or equal)
- Medicine Cabinet
- Mirror
- Light Fixture
DOWNTOWN DADELAND RESIDENCE FEATURES
Washer and Dryer
- GE side-by-side or stackable depending upon closet design
Flooring
- Bathrooms-ceramic tile or faux stone floors (including 4” base)
- All Other Interior Areas-Concrete
- Exterior Terraces/Balconies-Concrete
- Wall Finishes Throughout-Primed white walls ready for paint
Light Fixtures
-High hats where indicated & bathroom fixtures
Doors
- Entry-Metal paneled
- Painted wooden hollow core with wooden casement
- Closets-Painted wooden louvered bi-fold with wood casement
- Pre-Wired for Security Alarm, Internet Access, Cable TV and
Telephone
Windows-Impact resistant glass
"Downtown Dadeland Condominium will set a new standard for 'smart growth' in Miami-Dade, given its unique design and urban qualities" Mr.Johansson
Request More Information about Downtown Dadeland Condos
Building Name:
Address:
* Name: * Required Field
* Email: * Required Field
Telephone:
Cellular:
Minimum Bedrooms: Any 1 2 3
Best Way to Contact: Any E-mail Telephone Cellular
Questions or Comments:
By submitting this form with your numbers you are consenting to be contacted even if your name is on the Federal Do-Not-Call List.
Don't Miss this opportunity to own a Condo at DOWNTOWN DADELAND
If you would like to reserve a unit at this exclusive new project please follow these simple steps;
1. Total deposit Required: 20%
2. 20% - With Contract
3. 80% - Completion
If you would like more information regarding Downtown Dadeland Condos, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at: 786-554-3085 or via e-mail at: dienerph@bellsouth.net
PHILIPPE DIENER • AVANT REALTY INTERNATIONAL
701 Brickell Key Blvd. Suite CU-4, Miami, Florida 33131 • 786-554-3085
Send mail to: webmaster with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2005 Philippe Diener
Save Birds by Promoting Wind Energy
Save Birds by Promoting Wind Energy
9 May, 2009 10:53 am Enlarge text Reduce text size Send this article
A new study shows that wind farms and nuclear power plants are substantially better for avian wildlife than fossil-fueled power stations.
One could be tempted to think, after reading the more than 600 studies about wind farms and the deaths of birds and bats read by this author the past year, that the evidence linking wind turbines with avian mortality is indisputable.
Birds, for instance, can directly crash into a turbine blade when they are fixated on perching or hunting and pass through its rotor plane; they can strike its support structure; they can hit part of its tower; or they can collide with its associated transmission and distribution lines.
We are told that these risks are exacerbated when turbines are placed on ridges and upwind slopes, built close to migration routes, or operated during periods of poor visibility such as fog, rain, and at night. Some species, such as bats, face additional risks from the rapid reduction in air pressure near turbine blades, which can cause internal hemorrhaging through a process known as barotraumas. Indirectly, wind farms can positively and negatively physically alter natural habitats, the quantity and quality of prey, and the availability of nesting sites.
Yet the deluge of studies making such claims, while useful and important, nonetheless suffers from three common problems. Studies rarely compare their results with studies of other wind farms to contextualize their estimates, instead relying on a narrow sample size. Most do not compare the possible avian deaths from wind electricity with other sources, and when they do, studies typically do not compare them to other energy sources. None have so far attempted to calculate the number of avian deaths per kWh from energy sources so that more meaningful comparisons might be made between different forms of electricity supply.
In an attempt to address some of these shortcomings, one new albeit preliminary study conducted by this author has compared the avian deaths per GWh from three electricity systems: wind farms, fossil-fueled power plants (coal, natural gas, and oil generators), and nuclear power plants.
Avian wildlife can perish not only by striking wind turbines in the ways described above, but by smashing into nuclear power plant cooling structures, transmission and distribution lines, and smokestacks at fossil-fuel fired power stations. Birds can starve to death in forests ravaged by acid rain, ingest hazardous and fatal doses of mercury, drink contaminated water at uranium mines and mills, or die in large numbers as climate change wreaks havoc on migration routes and degrades habitats.
For wind turbines, the risk appears to be greatest to birds striking towers or turbine blades and for bats suffering barotrauma. For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change, which is altering weather patterns and destroying habitats that birds depend on. For nuclear power plants, the risk is almost equally spread across hazardous pollution at uranium mine sites and collisions with draft cooling structures.
When these avian deaths are correlated with the units of electricity those power plants produce, some may find the results surprising. Based on real world operating experience of 339 wind turbines comprising six wind farms constituting 274 MW of installed capacity in the U.S., average avian mortality for wind appears to be about 0.269 fatalities per GWh.
Based on real world operating experience for two coal facilities as well as the indirect damages from mountain top removal coal mining in Appalachia, acid rain pollution on wood thrushes, mercury pollution, and anticipated impacts of climate change, average avian mortality for fossil fueled power stations appears to be about 5.18 fatalities per GWh.
Based on real world operating experience at four nuclear power plants and two uranium mines and mills, average avian mortality for nuclear systems is about 0.416 GWh.
In terms of birds killed per electricity produced, nuclear power is slightly worse but comparable to wind energy, but fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per kWh basis. In absolute terms, since wind turbines produced a relatively small amount of national electricity in the United States in 2006, they may have killed about 7,000 but fossil fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear power plants 327,000.
Clearly, wind energy is not as bad for birds as many environmentalists make it out to be, and conventional resources are much more damaging to birds than is commonly believed.
Of course, a few caveats must be stated. Far more detailed, rigorous, and sophisticated analysis is called for that takes into account the complexities of the wind, fossil-fueled, and nuclear energy fuel cycles, and the sample size for many parts of this study is small.
Yet perhaps wind turbines seem to present a significant threat to birds because all of their environmental impacts are concentrated in one place, while those from conventional and nuclear fuel cycles are spread across space and time. Avian mortality and wind energy has consequently received far more attention and research than the avian deaths associated with coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power generators, even though this study suggests that wind energy may be the least harmful to birds.
For further reading
Benjamin K. Sovacool, “Contextualizing Avian Mortality: A Preliminary Appraisal of Bird and Bat Fatalities from Wind, Fossil-Fuel, and Nuclear Electricity,” Energy Policy 37(6) (June, 2009), pp. 2241-2248, available at http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Benjamin_K_Sovacool.aspx.
9 May, 2009 10:53 am Enlarge text Reduce text size Send this article
A new study shows that wind farms and nuclear power plants are substantially better for avian wildlife than fossil-fueled power stations.
One could be tempted to think, after reading the more than 600 studies about wind farms and the deaths of birds and bats read by this author the past year, that the evidence linking wind turbines with avian mortality is indisputable.
Birds, for instance, can directly crash into a turbine blade when they are fixated on perching or hunting and pass through its rotor plane; they can strike its support structure; they can hit part of its tower; or they can collide with its associated transmission and distribution lines.
We are told that these risks are exacerbated when turbines are placed on ridges and upwind slopes, built close to migration routes, or operated during periods of poor visibility such as fog, rain, and at night. Some species, such as bats, face additional risks from the rapid reduction in air pressure near turbine blades, which can cause internal hemorrhaging through a process known as barotraumas. Indirectly, wind farms can positively and negatively physically alter natural habitats, the quantity and quality of prey, and the availability of nesting sites.
Yet the deluge of studies making such claims, while useful and important, nonetheless suffers from three common problems. Studies rarely compare their results with studies of other wind farms to contextualize their estimates, instead relying on a narrow sample size. Most do not compare the possible avian deaths from wind electricity with other sources, and when they do, studies typically do not compare them to other energy sources. None have so far attempted to calculate the number of avian deaths per kWh from energy sources so that more meaningful comparisons might be made between different forms of electricity supply.
In an attempt to address some of these shortcomings, one new albeit preliminary study conducted by this author has compared the avian deaths per GWh from three electricity systems: wind farms, fossil-fueled power plants (coal, natural gas, and oil generators), and nuclear power plants.
Avian wildlife can perish not only by striking wind turbines in the ways described above, but by smashing into nuclear power plant cooling structures, transmission and distribution lines, and smokestacks at fossil-fuel fired power stations. Birds can starve to death in forests ravaged by acid rain, ingest hazardous and fatal doses of mercury, drink contaminated water at uranium mines and mills, or die in large numbers as climate change wreaks havoc on migration routes and degrades habitats.
For wind turbines, the risk appears to be greatest to birds striking towers or turbine blades and for bats suffering barotrauma. For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change, which is altering weather patterns and destroying habitats that birds depend on. For nuclear power plants, the risk is almost equally spread across hazardous pollution at uranium mine sites and collisions with draft cooling structures.
When these avian deaths are correlated with the units of electricity those power plants produce, some may find the results surprising. Based on real world operating experience of 339 wind turbines comprising six wind farms constituting 274 MW of installed capacity in the U.S., average avian mortality for wind appears to be about 0.269 fatalities per GWh.
Based on real world operating experience for two coal facilities as well as the indirect damages from mountain top removal coal mining in Appalachia, acid rain pollution on wood thrushes, mercury pollution, and anticipated impacts of climate change, average avian mortality for fossil fueled power stations appears to be about 5.18 fatalities per GWh.
Based on real world operating experience at four nuclear power plants and two uranium mines and mills, average avian mortality for nuclear systems is about 0.416 GWh.
In terms of birds killed per electricity produced, nuclear power is slightly worse but comparable to wind energy, but fossil-fueled facilities are about 17 times more dangerous to birds on a per kWh basis. In absolute terms, since wind turbines produced a relatively small amount of national electricity in the United States in 2006, they may have killed about 7,000 but fossil fueled stations killed 14.5 million and nuclear power plants 327,000.
Clearly, wind energy is not as bad for birds as many environmentalists make it out to be, and conventional resources are much more damaging to birds than is commonly believed.
Of course, a few caveats must be stated. Far more detailed, rigorous, and sophisticated analysis is called for that takes into account the complexities of the wind, fossil-fueled, and nuclear energy fuel cycles, and the sample size for many parts of this study is small.
Yet perhaps wind turbines seem to present a significant threat to birds because all of their environmental impacts are concentrated in one place, while those from conventional and nuclear fuel cycles are spread across space and time. Avian mortality and wind energy has consequently received far more attention and research than the avian deaths associated with coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear power generators, even though this study suggests that wind energy may be the least harmful to birds.
For further reading
Benjamin K. Sovacool, “Contextualizing Avian Mortality: A Preliminary Appraisal of Bird and Bat Fatalities from Wind, Fossil-Fuel, and Nuclear Electricity,” Energy Policy 37(6) (June, 2009), pp. 2241-2248, available at http://www.spp.nus.edu.sg/Faculty_Benjamin_K_Sovacool.aspx.
Miami Herald Today
THE ENVIRONMENT
South Florida suburbs, not farms, spared new water restrictions
Water managers put off sweeping new restrictions for the suburbs but imposed new ones for farmers as the managers combat a deepening drought they hope ends during the rainy season.
By CURTIS MORGAN
cmorgan@MiamiHerald.com
At least four groundwater monitoring wells in South Miami-Dade County have hit the highest salt concentrations ever. The marshy water conservation areas at the western fringes of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties have gone bone dry. Lake Okeechobee has dropped so low that water managers can't tap it to replenish coastal drinking water supplies.
Water managers, grappling with deepening water shortages after the driest six months on record, on Thursday approved emergency restrictions on farmers who draw from the lake, cutting their rations by nearly half.
But with forecasts calling for increasing storms this weekend, the South Florida Water Management District ordered no sweeping new cutbacks for the suburbs. The district's governing board left in place existing twice-weekly sprinkling restrictions and essentially crossed its fingers that the rainy season is rolling in.
''We really need this rain, and we need it to kick in and keep raining,'' said Susan Sylvester, director of operations for the district.
Still, even if rain does crank up, she stressed it will have to be well above the average 36 inches to make up for historic dry-season shortages.
The district projects that Lake Okeechobee, which stood at 10.63 feet above sea level Thursday, has only a 50 percent shot of rising to a level where water restrictions can be eased by next year. Groundwater levels across much of the 16-county district, which stretches from Orlando to Key West, also are at or near historic lows -- with South Miami-Dade in the most dire straits.
Last week, the district issued an emergency order cutting South Miami-Dade south of Southwest 216th Street and the Florida Keys back to once-weekly lawn sprinkling.
Conditions haven't improved since.
`VERY CONCERNING'
Peter Kwiatkowski, a water resources director for the district, said the buffer of fresh water protecting well fields has dwindled to a quarter of what it should be, significantly raising risks to Everglades marshes and wells supplying tens of thousands of residents. If saltwater pushing in from Biscayne Bay taints those wells, it can take years to reverse the impact or could require utilities to perform expensive desalination treatments.
''It's very concerning for us,'' he said.
Mike Collins, a board member from Islamorada, said some monitoring wells ringing drinking wells for the Florida Keys showed salt concentrations 30 times above normal levels last week.
The governing board hit the agricultural industry hardest, cutting farmers who tap Lake Okeechobee by 45 percent. It also capped the amount that Lake Worth can pull from coastal wells that have shown rising salt levels. Lake Worth, along with Dania Beach and Hallandale Beach, has been on once-weekly irrigation for years because of salt-intrusion concerns.
`PULSE RELEASES'
The board also delayed one decision that hinted at the regional water wars likely to erupt if the rains don't come, or come in large enough amounts over the summer.
Environmentalists urged the district to authorize ''pulse releases'' from Lake Okeechobee down the Caloosahatchee River, one of the richest estuaries in the state, saying rising salt levels could kill essential sea grasses within days -- a concern shared by district scientists.
Charles Dauray, a board member from Southwest Florida, urged approval, arguing the small amount of water -- about a third of an inch on the lake -- would make a huge difference to the local economy.
`CRITICAL MASS'
But Collins countered that water could be needed elsewhere if the drought conditions persist, including to bolster the threatened wells supplying Florida City, Homestead and the Keys.
''I understand you are concerned about the estuaries,'' he said. ``I am concerned about people in the Keys having water at all. Those well fields are at critical mass.''
The board decided to delay a decision on sending more water to the river, giving executive director Carol Ann Wehle a few days to see if the rain comes before making the call.
South Florida suburbs, not farms, spared new water restrictions
Water managers put off sweeping new restrictions for the suburbs but imposed new ones for farmers as the managers combat a deepening drought they hope ends during the rainy season.
By CURTIS MORGAN
cmorgan@MiamiHerald.com
At least four groundwater monitoring wells in South Miami-Dade County have hit the highest salt concentrations ever. The marshy water conservation areas at the western fringes of Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties have gone bone dry. Lake Okeechobee has dropped so low that water managers can't tap it to replenish coastal drinking water supplies.
Water managers, grappling with deepening water shortages after the driest six months on record, on Thursday approved emergency restrictions on farmers who draw from the lake, cutting their rations by nearly half.
But with forecasts calling for increasing storms this weekend, the South Florida Water Management District ordered no sweeping new cutbacks for the suburbs. The district's governing board left in place existing twice-weekly sprinkling restrictions and essentially crossed its fingers that the rainy season is rolling in.
''We really need this rain, and we need it to kick in and keep raining,'' said Susan Sylvester, director of operations for the district.
Still, even if rain does crank up, she stressed it will have to be well above the average 36 inches to make up for historic dry-season shortages.
The district projects that Lake Okeechobee, which stood at 10.63 feet above sea level Thursday, has only a 50 percent shot of rising to a level where water restrictions can be eased by next year. Groundwater levels across much of the 16-county district, which stretches from Orlando to Key West, also are at or near historic lows -- with South Miami-Dade in the most dire straits.
Last week, the district issued an emergency order cutting South Miami-Dade south of Southwest 216th Street and the Florida Keys back to once-weekly lawn sprinkling.
Conditions haven't improved since.
`VERY CONCERNING'
Peter Kwiatkowski, a water resources director for the district, said the buffer of fresh water protecting well fields has dwindled to a quarter of what it should be, significantly raising risks to Everglades marshes and wells supplying tens of thousands of residents. If saltwater pushing in from Biscayne Bay taints those wells, it can take years to reverse the impact or could require utilities to perform expensive desalination treatments.
''It's very concerning for us,'' he said.
Mike Collins, a board member from Islamorada, said some monitoring wells ringing drinking wells for the Florida Keys showed salt concentrations 30 times above normal levels last week.
The governing board hit the agricultural industry hardest, cutting farmers who tap Lake Okeechobee by 45 percent. It also capped the amount that Lake Worth can pull from coastal wells that have shown rising salt levels. Lake Worth, along with Dania Beach and Hallandale Beach, has been on once-weekly irrigation for years because of salt-intrusion concerns.
`PULSE RELEASES'
The board also delayed one decision that hinted at the regional water wars likely to erupt if the rains don't come, or come in large enough amounts over the summer.
Environmentalists urged the district to authorize ''pulse releases'' from Lake Okeechobee down the Caloosahatchee River, one of the richest estuaries in the state, saying rising salt levels could kill essential sea grasses within days -- a concern shared by district scientists.
Charles Dauray, a board member from Southwest Florida, urged approval, arguing the small amount of water -- about a third of an inch on the lake -- would make a huge difference to the local economy.
`CRITICAL MASS'
But Collins countered that water could be needed elsewhere if the drought conditions persist, including to bolster the threatened wells supplying Florida City, Homestead and the Keys.
''I understand you are concerned about the estuaries,'' he said. ``I am concerned about people in the Keys having water at all. Those well fields are at critical mass.''
The board decided to delay a decision on sending more water to the river, giving executive director Carol Ann Wehle a few days to see if the rain comes before making the call.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Steven Chu Interview - page 2
TR: When might those loan guarantees become available?
SC: Well, sooner rather than later. I'm hoping within a year, but that's just a wild guess. We're pushing ahead. As you know, we've become very aggressive about trying to accelerate the loan process by a considerable amount. A factor of 5 to 10 is about the right amount. When I first came, I was told that the first loans would go out mid-2010. So they've now gone out, and there's going to be another tranche of them that we'll be vetting.
TR: No loan guarantees yet for nuclear plants.
SC: No.
TR: Are you referring to the loan guarantee to Solyndra? [Editor's note: Solyndra is a solar company that received approval for a loan guarantee earlier this year.]
SC: Solyndra, for example. That means that there's a commitment: if you can get the 20 percent financing, the thing's yours. And there will be more announced this month.
TR: The hydrogen fuel-cell program has been scaled back in the proposed budget, and the emphasis has been changed from transportation to buildings.
SC: That's right.
TR: It used to be thought, five to eight years ago, that hydrogen was the great answer for the future of transportation. The mood has shifted. What have we learned from this?
SC: I think, well, among some people it hasn't really shifted [laughs]. I think there was great enthusiasm in some quarters, but I always was somewhat skeptical of it because, right now, the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas. That's not an ideal source of hydrogen. You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas, which is a very valuable fuel. So that's one problem. The other problem is, if it's for transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. Compressed hydrogen is the best mechanism [but it requires] a large volume. We haven't figured out how to store it with high density. What else? The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet. So you have four things that have to happen all at once. And so it always looked like it was going to be [a technology for] the distant future. In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs. That makes it unlikely.
TR: So this is an example, perhaps, of picking a technology prematurely. Is there anything we've learned from that in terms of future policy?
SC: I wasn't there when they started making this [decision]. I'm not sure it was deeply understood what was required. Now, having said that, I think that hydrogen could be effectively a "battery" in the sense that suppose you had a way of using excess electricity--let's say a nuclear plant at night, or solar or wind excess capacity, and there was an efficient electrolysis way of turning that into hydrogen, and then we have stationary fuel cells. It could effectively be a battery of sorts. You take a certain form of energy and convert it to hydrogen, and then convert it back [into electricity]. You don't have the distribution problem, you don't have the weight problem. [Editor's note: Storage tanks can be heavy.] In certain applications, you don't need as many miracles for it to happen. If you need four miracles, that's unlikely: saints only need three miracles [laughs].
TR: This application of fuel cells--is this a way, then, of addressing the variability of wind and solar power?
SC: Perhaps. I think the process we do have now that could work is pumped storage. If you have excess wind capacity, you pump water up the hill, and when the wind isn't blowing, you could let it down into a small holding pond [using it to turn a generator]. Now, that's only in places where you have hydroelectric facilities, so let's say in the northern great plains, South Dakota and North Dakota, compressed air storage is something we should be looking at. The excess air is used to pump air down into a sealed cave. You use that, plus natural gas, to spin a turbine. The round trip efficiency of both of these technologies is between 60 and 70 percent of overall conversion. That's very good for this massive-scale technology. If we're going to go over 10, 20, 30 percent renewables that are variable, you need some storage mechanism.
SC: Well, sooner rather than later. I'm hoping within a year, but that's just a wild guess. We're pushing ahead. As you know, we've become very aggressive about trying to accelerate the loan process by a considerable amount. A factor of 5 to 10 is about the right amount. When I first came, I was told that the first loans would go out mid-2010. So they've now gone out, and there's going to be another tranche of them that we'll be vetting.
TR: No loan guarantees yet for nuclear plants.
SC: No.
TR: Are you referring to the loan guarantee to Solyndra? [Editor's note: Solyndra is a solar company that received approval for a loan guarantee earlier this year.]
SC: Solyndra, for example. That means that there's a commitment: if you can get the 20 percent financing, the thing's yours. And there will be more announced this month.
TR: The hydrogen fuel-cell program has been scaled back in the proposed budget, and the emphasis has been changed from transportation to buildings.
SC: That's right.
TR: It used to be thought, five to eight years ago, that hydrogen was the great answer for the future of transportation. The mood has shifted. What have we learned from this?
SC: I think, well, among some people it hasn't really shifted [laughs]. I think there was great enthusiasm in some quarters, but I always was somewhat skeptical of it because, right now, the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas. That's not an ideal source of hydrogen. You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas, which is a very valuable fuel. So that's one problem. The other problem is, if it's for transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. Compressed hydrogen is the best mechanism [but it requires] a large volume. We haven't figured out how to store it with high density. What else? The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet. So you have four things that have to happen all at once. And so it always looked like it was going to be [a technology for] the distant future. In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs. That makes it unlikely.
TR: So this is an example, perhaps, of picking a technology prematurely. Is there anything we've learned from that in terms of future policy?
SC: I wasn't there when they started making this [decision]. I'm not sure it was deeply understood what was required. Now, having said that, I think that hydrogen could be effectively a "battery" in the sense that suppose you had a way of using excess electricity--let's say a nuclear plant at night, or solar or wind excess capacity, and there was an efficient electrolysis way of turning that into hydrogen, and then we have stationary fuel cells. It could effectively be a battery of sorts. You take a certain form of energy and convert it to hydrogen, and then convert it back [into electricity]. You don't have the distribution problem, you don't have the weight problem. [Editor's note: Storage tanks can be heavy.] In certain applications, you don't need as many miracles for it to happen. If you need four miracles, that's unlikely: saints only need three miracles [laughs].
TR: This application of fuel cells--is this a way, then, of addressing the variability of wind and solar power?
SC: Perhaps. I think the process we do have now that could work is pumped storage. If you have excess wind capacity, you pump water up the hill, and when the wind isn't blowing, you could let it down into a small holding pond [using it to turn a generator]. Now, that's only in places where you have hydroelectric facilities, so let's say in the northern great plains, South Dakota and North Dakota, compressed air storage is something we should be looking at. The excess air is used to pump air down into a sealed cave. You use that, plus natural gas, to spin a turbine. The round trip efficiency of both of these technologies is between 60 and 70 percent of overall conversion. That's very good for this massive-scale technology. If we're going to go over 10, 20, 30 percent renewables that are variable, you need some storage mechanism.
Technology Review Interview With Steven Chu
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Q & A: Steven Chu
The secretary of energy talks with Technology Review about the future of nuclear power post Yucca Mountain and why fuel-cell cars have no future.
By Kevin Bullis
Credit: Technology Review
In his first 112 days as the U.S. Energy Secretary, Steven Chu has presided over unprecedented changes at the Department of Energy (DOE). The stimulus bill signed into law in February provided $39 billion to the agency--a sum that Chu acknowledges is straining the agency as it attempts to sort through proposals for distributing this money. The money is in addition to the agency's yearly budget of about $25 billion. Most recently, President Obama's proposed 2010 budget upped DOE's budget by $400 million and called for increased spending on climate science and nuclear security, as well as support for many alternative-energy projects.
At a lecture at MIT on Tuesday, Chu, who won the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics and is the former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, outlined his plans for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the near term, Chu said, the answer is improving energy efficiency. Better buildings could cut energy use in the United States by roughly one-third, he said. That would save more energy than is produced by all of the country's nuclear-power plants, solar-power plants, and wind farms. The simple step of fine-tuning a building after it's built--to ensure that things such as the heating, ventilation, and air-condition systems are working properly--could cut energy use in those buildings by 10 percent, according to Chu.
In the longer term, alternative energies can be a big part of the solution. But Chu noted that solar power, for one, is still far too expensive to compete with conventional power plants (except on hot summer days in some places, and with subsidies). Making solar cheap will require "transformative technologies," equivalent to the discovery of the transistor, he said.
But Chu's first months in office weren't all about handing out money for new technologies. Technology Review's energy editor, Kevin Bullis, sat down to talk with Chu about two of the most controversial decisions of the first hundred days. In an abrupt break with previous administrations, President Obama's proposed 2010 budget eliminates funding for the controversial plan to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The proposed 2010 budget also cuts funding for research into hydrogen fuel cells--a multibillion dollar initiative that was the focus of President Bush's plan to develop future low-carbon-emissions vehicles. A researcher at heart, Chu discussed some of the technical solutions to storing nuclear waste and applications for fuel cells that might be more practical than using them to power cars.
Technology Review: There's some 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste scattered among 130 sites across the country. What are you going to do with that waste now?
Steven Chu: Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue.
[We're] looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste. [Editor's note: Actinides include plutonium, which can be dangerous for 100,000 years.] These are fast neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn down the long-lived actinides.
TR: Is this to burn up existing waste? Or to deal with waste in future reactors?
SC: It could be for existing, but mostly for future waste. So we're looking at, instead of the way we do it today, where you're using 10 percent or less of the energy content of fuel, can you actually reduce the amount of waste and the lifetime of the waste.
TR: What about the existing waste?
SC: Some of the waste is already vitrified. There is, in my mind, no economical reason why you would ever think of pulling it back into a potential fuel cycle. So one could well imagine--again, it depends on what the blue-ribbon panel says--one could well imagine that for a certain classification for a certain type of waste, you don't want to have access to it anymore, so that means you could use different sites than Yucca Mountain, [such as] salt domes. Once you put it in there, the [salt] oozes around it. These are geologically stable for a 50 to 100 million year time scale. The trouble with those type of places for repositories is you don't have access to it anymore. But say for certain types of waste you don't want to have access to it anymore--that's good. It's a very natural containment.
TR: Waste you know you don't want to reprocess.
SC: Yes, whereas there would be other waste where you say it has some inherent value, let's keep it around for a hundred years, two hundred years, because there's a high likelihood we'll come back to it and want to recover that.
So the real thing is, let's get some really wise heads together and figure out how you want to deal with the interim and long-term storage. Yucca was supposed to be everything to everybody, and I think, knowing what we know today, there's going to have to be several regional areas.
TR: That will deal with some of the transportation problems.
SC: Right. It makes it less of a problem.
TR: I know you've come out in favor of nuclear power. It's been decades since any new plants have been constructed. What progress has been made so far in getting some new plants built?
SC: We're now going to a two-step licensing. You license the generic plant, and then there's a separate license for the site. And this helps speed along the process. Before, the way we did it is every plant was a new one.
A lot of this depends on some loan guarantee money, which will help.
Q & A: Steven Chu
The secretary of energy talks with Technology Review about the future of nuclear power post Yucca Mountain and why fuel-cell cars have no future.
By Kevin Bullis
Credit: Technology Review
In his first 112 days as the U.S. Energy Secretary, Steven Chu has presided over unprecedented changes at the Department of Energy (DOE). The stimulus bill signed into law in February provided $39 billion to the agency--a sum that Chu acknowledges is straining the agency as it attempts to sort through proposals for distributing this money. The money is in addition to the agency's yearly budget of about $25 billion. Most recently, President Obama's proposed 2010 budget upped DOE's budget by $400 million and called for increased spending on climate science and nuclear security, as well as support for many alternative-energy projects.
At a lecture at MIT on Tuesday, Chu, who won the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics and is the former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, outlined his plans for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In the near term, Chu said, the answer is improving energy efficiency. Better buildings could cut energy use in the United States by roughly one-third, he said. That would save more energy than is produced by all of the country's nuclear-power plants, solar-power plants, and wind farms. The simple step of fine-tuning a building after it's built--to ensure that things such as the heating, ventilation, and air-condition systems are working properly--could cut energy use in those buildings by 10 percent, according to Chu.
In the longer term, alternative energies can be a big part of the solution. But Chu noted that solar power, for one, is still far too expensive to compete with conventional power plants (except on hot summer days in some places, and with subsidies). Making solar cheap will require "transformative technologies," equivalent to the discovery of the transistor, he said.
But Chu's first months in office weren't all about handing out money for new technologies. Technology Review's energy editor, Kevin Bullis, sat down to talk with Chu about two of the most controversial decisions of the first hundred days. In an abrupt break with previous administrations, President Obama's proposed 2010 budget eliminates funding for the controversial plan to store the nation's nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The proposed 2010 budget also cuts funding for research into hydrogen fuel cells--a multibillion dollar initiative that was the focus of President Bush's plan to develop future low-carbon-emissions vehicles. A researcher at heart, Chu discussed some of the technical solutions to storing nuclear waste and applications for fuel cells that might be more practical than using them to power cars.
Technology Review: There's some 50,000 metric tons of nuclear waste scattered among 130 sites across the country. What are you going to do with that waste now?
Steven Chu: Yucca Mountain as a repository is off the table. What we're going to be doing is saying, let's step back. We realize that we know a lot more today than we did 25 or 30 years ago. The NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] is saying that the dry cask storage at current sites would be safe for many decades, so that gives us time to figure out what we should do for a long-term strategy. We will be assembling a blue-ribbon panel to look at the issue.
[We're] looking at reactors that have a high-energy neutron spectrum that can actually allow you to burn down the long-lived actinide waste. [Editor's note: Actinides include plutonium, which can be dangerous for 100,000 years.] These are fast neutron reactors. There's others: a resurgence of hybrid solutions of fusion fission where the fusion would impart not only energy, but again creates high-energy neutrons that can burn down the long-lived actinides.
TR: Is this to burn up existing waste? Or to deal with waste in future reactors?
SC: It could be for existing, but mostly for future waste. So we're looking at, instead of the way we do it today, where you're using 10 percent or less of the energy content of fuel, can you actually reduce the amount of waste and the lifetime of the waste.
TR: What about the existing waste?
SC: Some of the waste is already vitrified. There is, in my mind, no economical reason why you would ever think of pulling it back into a potential fuel cycle. So one could well imagine--again, it depends on what the blue-ribbon panel says--one could well imagine that for a certain classification for a certain type of waste, you don't want to have access to it anymore, so that means you could use different sites than Yucca Mountain, [such as] salt domes. Once you put it in there, the [salt] oozes around it. These are geologically stable for a 50 to 100 million year time scale. The trouble with those type of places for repositories is you don't have access to it anymore. But say for certain types of waste you don't want to have access to it anymore--that's good. It's a very natural containment.
TR: Waste you know you don't want to reprocess.
SC: Yes, whereas there would be other waste where you say it has some inherent value, let's keep it around for a hundred years, two hundred years, because there's a high likelihood we'll come back to it and want to recover that.
So the real thing is, let's get some really wise heads together and figure out how you want to deal with the interim and long-term storage. Yucca was supposed to be everything to everybody, and I think, knowing what we know today, there's going to have to be several regional areas.
TR: That will deal with some of the transportation problems.
SC: Right. It makes it less of a problem.
TR: I know you've come out in favor of nuclear power. It's been decades since any new plants have been constructed. What progress has been made so far in getting some new plants built?
SC: We're now going to a two-step licensing. You license the generic plant, and then there's a separate license for the site. And this helps speed along the process. Before, the way we did it is every plant was a new one.
A lot of this depends on some loan guarantee money, which will help.
Enhanced geothermal technology
May 14, 2009 9:35 AM PDT
Google's energy guru Reicher hot on geothermal
by Martin LaMonica
Dan Reicher, the director of climate and energy initiatives at Google.org, says we're standing on a great untapped source of renewable energy: enhanced geothermal.
Reicher spoke on Tuesday to university students at the announcement of the winners of the Clean Energy Prize organized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and sponsored in part by utility NStar.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)In addition to talking up clean energy, Reicher said Google will "very soon" launch PowerMeter, its Web-based home energy-monitoring software which is now in private beta. Right now, the software can monitor homes appliance energy consumption but over time Google will add features to let consumer take advantage of cheaper, off-peak electricity rates and demand-response programs.
Although it's core business is search, Google is actively promotes renewable energy and efficiency. It has a fleet of plug-in vehicles powered by a very large solar array and is trying to influence policy makers to encourage a more high-tech approach to energy.
Google has also invested in a handful of energy companies, including an enhanced geothermal systems outfit AltaRock Energy, solar thermal provider BrightSource Energy, and wind company Makani Power.
During his talk, Reicher singled out enhanced geothermal as the most under-served area with great potential: "We have three times the potential of wind...and now we've got the oil and gas companies interested."
There are already many geothermal power plants operating in areas where there is underground heat that can be converted into steam to make electricity.
Enhanced geothermal technology calls for pumping water deep underground, making cracks in the rock to create a reservoir of water that is heated by the earth.
Reicher said the big advantage of enhanced geothermal is that it can be done nearly everywhere in the U.S. He said even places like Maine have sufficient underground heat although drilling must be done three to ten kilometers down. Oil and gas companies are well suited for this business since they know about drilling and geology.
A diagram of enhanced geothermal system where water is pumped underground at high pressure to crack rock and then the heated water is recuperated to make steam.
(Credit: Department of Energy)
Although the potential is great, Reicher said that the commercialization risk is high as well. "I don't want to oversell this. We have a long way to go," he said. The recovery act passed earlier this year puts aside $400 million for research in geothermal.
Computing can play a significant role in enhanced geothermal system by providing geological models and simulations. In general, Google expects to see a growing role for IT in energy technology, Reicher said.
"We believe that fundamentally there's an intersection between information technology and energy technology. IT and ET--that's where we are heading in part at Google," he said.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin
Google's energy guru Reicher hot on geothermal
by Martin LaMonica
Dan Reicher, the director of climate and energy initiatives at Google.org, says we're standing on a great untapped source of renewable energy: enhanced geothermal.
Reicher spoke on Tuesday to university students at the announcement of the winners of the Clean Energy Prize organized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and sponsored in part by utility NStar.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)In addition to talking up clean energy, Reicher said Google will "very soon" launch PowerMeter, its Web-based home energy-monitoring software which is now in private beta. Right now, the software can monitor homes appliance energy consumption but over time Google will add features to let consumer take advantage of cheaper, off-peak electricity rates and demand-response programs.
Although it's core business is search, Google is actively promotes renewable energy and efficiency. It has a fleet of plug-in vehicles powered by a very large solar array and is trying to influence policy makers to encourage a more high-tech approach to energy.
Google has also invested in a handful of energy companies, including an enhanced geothermal systems outfit AltaRock Energy, solar thermal provider BrightSource Energy, and wind company Makani Power.
During his talk, Reicher singled out enhanced geothermal as the most under-served area with great potential: "We have three times the potential of wind...and now we've got the oil and gas companies interested."
There are already many geothermal power plants operating in areas where there is underground heat that can be converted into steam to make electricity.
Enhanced geothermal technology calls for pumping water deep underground, making cracks in the rock to create a reservoir of water that is heated by the earth.
Reicher said the big advantage of enhanced geothermal is that it can be done nearly everywhere in the U.S. He said even places like Maine have sufficient underground heat although drilling must be done three to ten kilometers down. Oil and gas companies are well suited for this business since they know about drilling and geology.
A diagram of enhanced geothermal system where water is pumped underground at high pressure to crack rock and then the heated water is recuperated to make steam.
(Credit: Department of Energy)
Although the potential is great, Reicher said that the commercialization risk is high as well. "I don't want to oversell this. We have a long way to go," he said. The recovery act passed earlier this year puts aside $400 million for research in geothermal.
Computing can play a significant role in enhanced geothermal system by providing geological models and simulations. In general, Google expects to see a growing role for IT in energy technology, Reicher said.
"We believe that fundamentally there's an intersection between information technology and energy technology. IT and ET--that's where we are heading in part at Google," he said.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin
9 Ways to Cut Down on Food Waste
9 Ways to Cut Down on Food Waste
August 06, 2008 05:50 PM ET | Maura Judkis | Permanent Link | Print
Moldy bread. Just expired yogurt. Furry leftovers. Squishy green beans. They're festering in fridges across the country and headed for the garbage can or disposal. Nearly half of all food in America goes to waste. Setting aside for a minute the "finish your supper, there are starving children in China" implications of this, think of your grocery bill. According to this Associated Press article, the average American household wastes $500 a year on uneaten produce alone. While a lot of our wasted food comes from restaurants and grocery stores, we can easily prevent much of the food in our own homes from making it to the trash—and that way, we'll be getting our money's worth. Here are some tips.
When you're shopping:
Make a list, and plan meals ahead of time. That way you won't be wondering, "Am I out of balsamic vinaigrette?" only to come home and find a full bottle in your fridge.
Don't shop hungry. It only increases the chances of making impulse purchases that you won't be able to finish.
Don't buy in bulk unless you know the item is one you can finish—or one that never goes bad (i.e., toilet paper). A giant tub of butter may seem like a deal but only if you can finish it before the expiration date. Buying in bulk is good for items you can freeze, though—it uses less packaging.
At home:
Organize your fridge. Often, perfectly good food goes to waste just because it was buried behind the lettuce and the leftovers. Line up your yogurt containers so the ones closest to expiration are in the front. If you see that a bottle of salad dressing is about to expire, put it on the middle of the shelf, so you're reminded to use it more often. When you're putting away new groceries, store them in the back of the fridge.
Be sure your refrigerator is set to the right temperature (between 35 and 38 degrees) and has good seals on the door.
Learn how to freeze your food for better storage. Most foods freeze well and can be wrapped in portions to prolong storage and make it easier to pop them in the microwave for a quick lunch. Vegetables freeze best if they are blanched first—find guidelines for blanching here. Meat and fish can be frozen raw or cooked but should be wrapped tightly. Not all foods are ideal for freezing; find a list of things that are better in the fridge here.
Perfect the art of the last-minute recipe. Learn leftover-friendly recipes that incorporate foods that have only a day or two left before they go bad. Old white rice, for example, is better for fried rice than fresh rice is. Brown bananas can be sliced, sprinkled with honey, and frozen for a snack or can be baked into banana bread. French toast and bread pudding are sweet uses for stale bread.
When it's too late:
Compost your waste for a better garden. You can start a compost bin or pile in a yard with plenty of space for one, but in-home compost systems are available, too. Yard trimmings and kitchen scraps make excellent compost. Do not compost meat, bones, cheese, salad dressing, or cooking oil.
Find new uses for spoiled food. Shriveled-up citrus has a lot of uses, particularly as a cleanser. An old lemon can freshen a dishwasher or garbage disposal. A dried-out onion can clean your grill.
August 06, 2008 05:50 PM ET | Maura Judkis | Permanent Link | Print
Moldy bread. Just expired yogurt. Furry leftovers. Squishy green beans. They're festering in fridges across the country and headed for the garbage can or disposal. Nearly half of all food in America goes to waste. Setting aside for a minute the "finish your supper, there are starving children in China" implications of this, think of your grocery bill. According to this Associated Press article, the average American household wastes $500 a year on uneaten produce alone. While a lot of our wasted food comes from restaurants and grocery stores, we can easily prevent much of the food in our own homes from making it to the trash—and that way, we'll be getting our money's worth. Here are some tips.
When you're shopping:
Make a list, and plan meals ahead of time. That way you won't be wondering, "Am I out of balsamic vinaigrette?" only to come home and find a full bottle in your fridge.
Don't shop hungry. It only increases the chances of making impulse purchases that you won't be able to finish.
Don't buy in bulk unless you know the item is one you can finish—or one that never goes bad (i.e., toilet paper). A giant tub of butter may seem like a deal but only if you can finish it before the expiration date. Buying in bulk is good for items you can freeze, though—it uses less packaging.
At home:
Organize your fridge. Often, perfectly good food goes to waste just because it was buried behind the lettuce and the leftovers. Line up your yogurt containers so the ones closest to expiration are in the front. If you see that a bottle of salad dressing is about to expire, put it on the middle of the shelf, so you're reminded to use it more often. When you're putting away new groceries, store them in the back of the fridge.
Be sure your refrigerator is set to the right temperature (between 35 and 38 degrees) and has good seals on the door.
Learn how to freeze your food for better storage. Most foods freeze well and can be wrapped in portions to prolong storage and make it easier to pop them in the microwave for a quick lunch. Vegetables freeze best if they are blanched first—find guidelines for blanching here. Meat and fish can be frozen raw or cooked but should be wrapped tightly. Not all foods are ideal for freezing; find a list of things that are better in the fridge here.
Perfect the art of the last-minute recipe. Learn leftover-friendly recipes that incorporate foods that have only a day or two left before they go bad. Old white rice, for example, is better for fried rice than fresh rice is. Brown bananas can be sliced, sprinkled with honey, and frozen for a snack or can be baked into banana bread. French toast and bread pudding are sweet uses for stale bread.
When it's too late:
Compost your waste for a better garden. You can start a compost bin or pile in a yard with plenty of space for one, but in-home compost systems are available, too. Yard trimmings and kitchen scraps make excellent compost. Do not compost meat, bones, cheese, salad dressing, or cooking oil.
Find new uses for spoiled food. Shriveled-up citrus has a lot of uses, particularly as a cleanser. An old lemon can freshen a dishwasher or garbage disposal. A dried-out onion can clean your grill.
How Working Affects Retirement Benefits
How Working Affects Retirement Benefits
By Emily Brandon
Posted January 9, 2008
Many baby boomers say they want to work into their mid-60s and beyond, for both financial and social reasons. But going back to work after you sign up for Social Security can affect your benefits if you earn too much money. Here's a look at the effect of working after age 62:
People Who Read This Also Read
Social Security Recipients Will Get Bigger Checks Next Year 20177791
6 Tips on Retirement Account Withdrawals 20176483
Working without claiming your benefit can increase your monthly check. You can claim Social Security benefits at age 62, but continuing to work without signing up for Social Security until you reach full retirement age or further delaying up until age 70 will increase your retirement benefits, assuming you now make more than you did in your 20s. "Every year you keep working, your benefit gets recomputed," says Olivia Mitchell, a professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "If you can replace some low-earning years when you were young with some higher-earning ones in your 60s, that could enhance your benefit."
While employed, you can also continue to tuck money into 401(k)'s, IRAs, and other retirement savings. "What Social Security does is calculate the average of your 35 best earnings years," says Peter Diamond, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "If this year's earnings are not higher compared to the lowest of those years, then that is not going to add to your benefit."
Watch out for income limits. But even if they keep working at 62 and older, many people don't want to wait to collect Social Security. "You can work a little bit and still continue to get your Social Security benefits," Mitchell notes. In 2008, those who collect benefits before reaching the year of their full retirement age can earn up to $13,560 without penalty. Above that level of earnings, they will lose 50 cents of every benefit dollar. Working may decrease your retirement benefits until you reach your full retirement age. For boomers born in 1946 and turning 62 this year, it's age 66.
In the year in which you turn your full retirement age, work becomes a better deal. From January of that year until your birthday you can earn a higher amount (up to $36,120 in 2008) with no penalty, above which your Social Security check is reduced by about 33 cents of every dollar earned. And once your birthday passes that year, you can earn any amount by working without your benefits being reduced at all.
Wages, bonuses, commissions, and vacation pay all count toward the income limits, but pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, and government or military retirement benefits do not. This calculator can tell you how your specific earnings will affect your benefits.
Benefits aren't withheld forever. Workers who received reduced benefits or whose benefits were suspended because they earned more than the income limits after signing up for Social Security will have their benefits recalculated to a higher amount when they reach full retirement age. This can completely or partially reverse the smaller Social Security check you would otherwise permanently receive, according to Hugo Benitez-Silva, an associate professor of economics at SUNY-Stony Brook.
For example, a worker whose full retirement age is 66 but who claims Social Security at 62 might receive a yearly benefit of $8,760, Benitez-Silva and Frank Heiland of Florida State University posited in an upcoming paper. But if the employee worked for just one more year and earned $30,000 before retiring completely at age 63 (which means the Social Security check would be withheld for earning above the limit), his benefit would be boosted at age 66 to $9,344 per year. "If they still feel capable and are still healthy, that extra year of work can have a long-lasting effect on their future benefits," Benitez-Silva says. "When [the benefits] are recomputed, they may be erasing a bad year that they had 10 years ago or 30 years ago."
By Emily Brandon
Posted January 9, 2008
Many baby boomers say they want to work into their mid-60s and beyond, for both financial and social reasons. But going back to work after you sign up for Social Security can affect your benefits if you earn too much money. Here's a look at the effect of working after age 62:
People Who Read This Also Read
Social Security Recipients Will Get Bigger Checks Next Year 20177791
6 Tips on Retirement Account Withdrawals 20176483
Working without claiming your benefit can increase your monthly check. You can claim Social Security benefits at age 62, but continuing to work without signing up for Social Security until you reach full retirement age or further delaying up until age 70 will increase your retirement benefits, assuming you now make more than you did in your 20s. "Every year you keep working, your benefit gets recomputed," says Olivia Mitchell, a professor of insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. "If you can replace some low-earning years when you were young with some higher-earning ones in your 60s, that could enhance your benefit."
While employed, you can also continue to tuck money into 401(k)'s, IRAs, and other retirement savings. "What Social Security does is calculate the average of your 35 best earnings years," says Peter Diamond, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "If this year's earnings are not higher compared to the lowest of those years, then that is not going to add to your benefit."
Watch out for income limits. But even if they keep working at 62 and older, many people don't want to wait to collect Social Security. "You can work a little bit and still continue to get your Social Security benefits," Mitchell notes. In 2008, those who collect benefits before reaching the year of their full retirement age can earn up to $13,560 without penalty. Above that level of earnings, they will lose 50 cents of every benefit dollar. Working may decrease your retirement benefits until you reach your full retirement age. For boomers born in 1946 and turning 62 this year, it's age 66.
In the year in which you turn your full retirement age, work becomes a better deal. From January of that year until your birthday you can earn a higher amount (up to $36,120 in 2008) with no penalty, above which your Social Security check is reduced by about 33 cents of every dollar earned. And once your birthday passes that year, you can earn any amount by working without your benefits being reduced at all.
Wages, bonuses, commissions, and vacation pay all count toward the income limits, but pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, and government or military retirement benefits do not. This calculator can tell you how your specific earnings will affect your benefits.
Benefits aren't withheld forever. Workers who received reduced benefits or whose benefits were suspended because they earned more than the income limits after signing up for Social Security will have their benefits recalculated to a higher amount when they reach full retirement age. This can completely or partially reverse the smaller Social Security check you would otherwise permanently receive, according to Hugo Benitez-Silva, an associate professor of economics at SUNY-Stony Brook.
For example, a worker whose full retirement age is 66 but who claims Social Security at 62 might receive a yearly benefit of $8,760, Benitez-Silva and Frank Heiland of Florida State University posited in an upcoming paper. But if the employee worked for just one more year and earned $30,000 before retiring completely at age 63 (which means the Social Security check would be withheld for earning above the limit), his benefit would be boosted at age 66 to $9,344 per year. "If they still feel capable and are still healthy, that extra year of work can have a long-lasting effect on their future benefits," Benitez-Silva says. "When [the benefits] are recomputed, they may be erasing a bad year that they had 10 years ago or 30 years ago."
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
hilarious
The web master of this site has said on more than one occasion that he is FRIENDLY with the city. How would people know with any certainty who was posting if they didnt sign their posts? Simple. The city gets them from the web master here. They knew my posts several months before I started signing them. How could THAT happen?There are several local web sites locally, where various topics are presented. This site fosters no real debate, just a variety of self-righteous opinions. When facts and figures are presented they are attacked - if they cant discredit the message with their own facts and figures, and they cant, or they would have tried already - try to discredit the messenger with insults and personal attacks. Thats been the MO here forever. This is no platform for rational debate and discussion, just a platform for petty childishness, illiteracy, and irrationality. Its a complete waste of time and energy to anyone who has a serious interest in local politics. Its a good place, however, for anyone who wants study multiple personalities as some of these posters have several different identities and often ask and answer their own questions here, as if they were somebody else answering. Now THATS hilarious. Dr. Mel Johnson
The Race to an EV Future: Being First to an Electric Vehicle Grid
The Race to an EV Future: Being First to an Electric Vehicle Grid
Written by Gavin Newsom
Published on April 29th, 2009
Editor’s Note: This is San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s second post on electric vehicles for Gas 2.0. It’s a direct response to Portland Mayor Sam Adams, who announced that his city would be the first to develop the charging infrastructure to support full-scale electric vehicle deployment. We expect to hear back from Mayor Adam’s later today - don’t miss it). UPDATE: Mayor Adam’s has posted his response. See video of his declaration to make Portland EV capitol of the US.
As car companies lined up in Washington, DC last November for the first round of federal bailout money – in San Francisco we announced another way – our comprehensive plan to make the San Francisco Bay Area the “Electric Vehicle (EV) Capital of the US.”
Our efforts to advance electric vehicles are not limited to San Francisco. We’ve engaged the entire Bay Area – a region of 7.3 million people – to make our region the cornerstone of the coming market for EVs. Not just governments, but key companies, business associations, policy advocates, and international car and EV infrastructure companies are all working together to make the San Francisco Bay Area the EV Capital of the U.S.
Want an electric car? Sign-up to learn about group discounts from friends 1BOG.org
Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Now our neighbors to the north, Portland are challenging us for EV supremacy. This type of competition symbolizes what is best about our region and our country. If we were able to put a man on the moon, we most certainly can create a new generation of cars that do not run on fossil fuels. We’ve done it before. I owned one of the EV1’s from Saturn in the 1990s. Now EV companies are sprouting up all over the country from Fisker Automotive to Better Place to Bright Automotive.
Portland and San Francisco have been battling for the title of the most sustainable city for years. We welcome Portland’s latest challenge and hope that this EV competition will spread across the country, creating thousands of new jobs and helping establish the United States as an EV leader. In turn this will transform our automotive industry and combat climate change by reducing green house gas emissions.
Since our EV announcement in November we have been working tirelessly on our regional collaborative. Our approach has three different aspects:
1. Government: This effort is comprised of city and county staff from throughout the region (fleet managers, transportation policy directors, etc). This group is sharing information on the current permitting requirements in each jurisdiction, as well as current EV incentives, with an eye toward standardized permitting and incentives for EVs by early 2010. This group, under San Francisco’s leadership, is submitting a regional proposal to the federal government for stimulus funding to implement EV infrastructure throughout the region. We are hopeful that this funding will allows us to break ground on thousands of new EV charging stations throughout the Bay Area.
2. Businesses: Led by the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, this group is focused on sharing best practices from companies like Google and making the case to large regional employers to embrace EVs in company fleets and EV chargers for employees.
3. Advocacy: Led by Richard Schorske of the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership this working group will lead an effort this spring to invest over $100M in available state funds annually for alternative vehicles in electric vehicles and not only biofuels.
Through our shared EV goals with Portland and other cities, we’ll bring electric vehicles into the mainstream of American life. In the process, we’ll greatly advance efforts to fight climate change and reinvent our ailing car industry.
We welcome the race to an EV future.
FYI Mayor Newsome is running for Governor of California.
Written by Gavin Newsom
Published on April 29th, 2009
Editor’s Note: This is San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s second post on electric vehicles for Gas 2.0. It’s a direct response to Portland Mayor Sam Adams, who announced that his city would be the first to develop the charging infrastructure to support full-scale electric vehicle deployment. We expect to hear back from Mayor Adam’s later today - don’t miss it). UPDATE: Mayor Adam’s has posted his response. See video of his declaration to make Portland EV capitol of the US.
As car companies lined up in Washington, DC last November for the first round of federal bailout money – in San Francisco we announced another way – our comprehensive plan to make the San Francisco Bay Area the “Electric Vehicle (EV) Capital of the US.”
Our efforts to advance electric vehicles are not limited to San Francisco. We’ve engaged the entire Bay Area – a region of 7.3 million people – to make our region the cornerstone of the coming market for EVs. Not just governments, but key companies, business associations, policy advocates, and international car and EV infrastructure companies are all working together to make the San Francisco Bay Area the EV Capital of the U.S.
Want an electric car? Sign-up to learn about group discounts from friends 1BOG.org
Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Now our neighbors to the north, Portland are challenging us for EV supremacy. This type of competition symbolizes what is best about our region and our country. If we were able to put a man on the moon, we most certainly can create a new generation of cars that do not run on fossil fuels. We’ve done it before. I owned one of the EV1’s from Saturn in the 1990s. Now EV companies are sprouting up all over the country from Fisker Automotive to Better Place to Bright Automotive.
Portland and San Francisco have been battling for the title of the most sustainable city for years. We welcome Portland’s latest challenge and hope that this EV competition will spread across the country, creating thousands of new jobs and helping establish the United States as an EV leader. In turn this will transform our automotive industry and combat climate change by reducing green house gas emissions.
Since our EV announcement in November we have been working tirelessly on our regional collaborative. Our approach has three different aspects:
1. Government: This effort is comprised of city and county staff from throughout the region (fleet managers, transportation policy directors, etc). This group is sharing information on the current permitting requirements in each jurisdiction, as well as current EV incentives, with an eye toward standardized permitting and incentives for EVs by early 2010. This group, under San Francisco’s leadership, is submitting a regional proposal to the federal government for stimulus funding to implement EV infrastructure throughout the region. We are hopeful that this funding will allows us to break ground on thousands of new EV charging stations throughout the Bay Area.
2. Businesses: Led by the Bay Area Council and Silicon Valley Leadership Group, this group is focused on sharing best practices from companies like Google and making the case to large regional employers to embrace EVs in company fleets and EV chargers for employees.
3. Advocacy: Led by Richard Schorske of the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership this working group will lead an effort this spring to invest over $100M in available state funds annually for alternative vehicles in electric vehicles and not only biofuels.
Through our shared EV goals with Portland and other cities, we’ll bring electric vehicles into the mainstream of American life. In the process, we’ll greatly advance efforts to fight climate change and reinvent our ailing car industry.
We welcome the race to an EV future.
FYI Mayor Newsome is running for Governor of California.
San Francisco Installs Electric Vehicle Recharging Stations in Front of City Hall
San Francisco Installs Electric Vehicle Recharging Stations in Front of City Hall
Written by Clayton B. Cornell
Published on February 18th, 2009
Editor’s Note: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has written an exclusive guest post on this topic here on Gas 2.0 earlier this same day.
At approximately 10:00 AM PST today, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will announce the installation of three electric vehicle charging stations in front of City Hall. The stations will be used by plug-in electric vehicles already in San Francisco’s municipal fleet, along with plug-in electric hybrids owned by car-sharing organizations City CarShare and Zipcar.
The charging stations were provided for a two-year public demonstration by “Smartlet” manufacturer Coulomb Technologies—one of the few companies vying for primacy in the business of building or supplying EV charging stations.
“Electric vehicles are the future of transportation and the Bay Area is the testing ground for the technology. We began using plug-in hybrids in the city’s fleet last year. Now, for the first time the public can plug-in to the next generation of cars through car sharing organizations and take them for a drive in San Francisco.””
-Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco
One of the big stumbling blocks to would-be widespread electric vehicle use, and of particular importance to San Francisco residents (where only 16% of drivers have access to a garage), is the chicken-and-egg problem of electric-vehicle recharging. Assuming electric cars were affordable and available, where would owners plug them in?
While a handful of stations are already available in San Jose (11 in Portland, OR), they aren’t exactly ubiquitous (find the charging stations that do exist at mychargepoint.net).
Today’s announcement follows the Bay Area’s attempt to address this and other issues: a 9-step policy declaration on electric vehicles made last November (see video below). Mayor Newsom, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed jointly outlined a plan to transform the Bay Area into the “EV Capital of the US.” The plan intends to make electric vehicles commercially available by 2012, and make the Bay Area a top-priority market for investment in EV infrastructure. Coinciding with the announcement, Coulomb competitor Better Place estimated it would invest $1 billion in electric vehicle networks by the target date.
One of the plan’s 9 points is the expedited permitting and approval of battery exchanges and fast-charging stations, which is what today’s event is all about:
“Today’s announcement further demonstrates that the Bay Area is the epicenter of the electric vehicle movement. A smart, networked infrastructure is an essential enabler of this movement and the City of San Francisco is leading by example.”
-Richard Lowenthal, CEO of Coulomb Technologies
Car-sharing services offer a unique chance to test out user preference and practicality of plug-in vehicles before they hit the market. What is not immediately clear is how accessible the charging stations will be to plug-in hybrid drivers using car sharing services like City CarShare or Zipcar, or when and where these new models will be available (we’ll be calling them this morning for comment).
How this fits in with national policy: Electric vehicles received a major jolt yesterday from the new economic stimulus bill, which allocates $2 billion in grants for manufacturing advanced batteries, plus tax credits to cover the cost of manufacturing facilities. Additionally, tax credits of up to $7,500 will be available to those who buy new plug-in electric vehicles along with $300 million set aside for federal agencies to buy alternative fuel vehicles (including plug-ins), and $400 million for “transportation electrification.” Another $4.5 billion will be set aside for improving the nation’s electric grid.
Written by Clayton B. Cornell
Published on February 18th, 2009
Editor’s Note: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has written an exclusive guest post on this topic here on Gas 2.0 earlier this same day.
At approximately 10:00 AM PST today, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will announce the installation of three electric vehicle charging stations in front of City Hall. The stations will be used by plug-in electric vehicles already in San Francisco’s municipal fleet, along with plug-in electric hybrids owned by car-sharing organizations City CarShare and Zipcar.
The charging stations were provided for a two-year public demonstration by “Smartlet” manufacturer Coulomb Technologies—one of the few companies vying for primacy in the business of building or supplying EV charging stations.
“Electric vehicles are the future of transportation and the Bay Area is the testing ground for the technology. We began using plug-in hybrids in the city’s fleet last year. Now, for the first time the public can plug-in to the next generation of cars through car sharing organizations and take them for a drive in San Francisco.””
-Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco
One of the big stumbling blocks to would-be widespread electric vehicle use, and of particular importance to San Francisco residents (where only 16% of drivers have access to a garage), is the chicken-and-egg problem of electric-vehicle recharging. Assuming electric cars were affordable and available, where would owners plug them in?
While a handful of stations are already available in San Jose (11 in Portland, OR), they aren’t exactly ubiquitous (find the charging stations that do exist at mychargepoint.net).
Today’s announcement follows the Bay Area’s attempt to address this and other issues: a 9-step policy declaration on electric vehicles made last November (see video below). Mayor Newsom, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, and San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed jointly outlined a plan to transform the Bay Area into the “EV Capital of the US.” The plan intends to make electric vehicles commercially available by 2012, and make the Bay Area a top-priority market for investment in EV infrastructure. Coinciding with the announcement, Coulomb competitor Better Place estimated it would invest $1 billion in electric vehicle networks by the target date.
One of the plan’s 9 points is the expedited permitting and approval of battery exchanges and fast-charging stations, which is what today’s event is all about:
“Today’s announcement further demonstrates that the Bay Area is the epicenter of the electric vehicle movement. A smart, networked infrastructure is an essential enabler of this movement and the City of San Francisco is leading by example.”
-Richard Lowenthal, CEO of Coulomb Technologies
Car-sharing services offer a unique chance to test out user preference and practicality of plug-in vehicles before they hit the market. What is not immediately clear is how accessible the charging stations will be to plug-in hybrid drivers using car sharing services like City CarShare or Zipcar, or when and where these new models will be available (we’ll be calling them this morning for comment).
How this fits in with national policy: Electric vehicles received a major jolt yesterday from the new economic stimulus bill, which allocates $2 billion in grants for manufacturing advanced batteries, plus tax credits to cover the cost of manufacturing facilities. Additionally, tax credits of up to $7,500 will be available to those who buy new plug-in electric vehicles along with $300 million set aside for federal agencies to buy alternative fuel vehicles (including plug-ins), and $400 million for “transportation electrification.” Another $4.5 billion will be set aside for improving the nation’s electric grid.
Firefly Energy
Written by Nick Chambers
Published on July 1st, 20085 CommentsPosted in Batteries, Electric Cars (EVs), Politics
Editor’s note: This interview is a companion piece to Part I of the Gas 2.0 series about who might win John McCain’s proposed $300 million dollar battery competition if it were to become reality.
Last week John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee for the 2008 Republican ticket, generated debate by suggesting that a $300 million government- sponsored competition would be a good way to spur development of next generation battery technologies.
His comments got me thinking about just who might win such a competition it if it were to become reality.
Firefly Energy is one of the companies that made it to my short list. Founded in 2003, they have been working on reinvigorating old-hat lead-acid battery technology in such a way that it would become brand new and cutting edge once again.
Firefly’s innovation is that they’ve taken the heavy lead plates you’d find in a classic lead-acid battery and replaced them with a light carbon-graphite microcell foam that’s been impregnated with lead.
I recently had a chance chat with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly, about the company, their take on McCain’s competition, Firefly’s battery technology, environmental worries about lead, the Oasis battery, electric vehicles and the company’s plans for the future.
» See also: MIT Battery Breakthrough Could Revolutionize Electric Cars
» Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Interview with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly, June 26th, 2008.
NC: What are the core operating principles of Firefly? What drives the company?
MO: We are developing a battery technology that reinvigorates a battery chemistry that’s been around since 1859 — lead-acid. Although traditional lead-acid batteries have been proven safe and are low cost, they suffer from weight issues as well as lifetime issues because they use fairly heavy lead plates on a metal grid. What we’re doing instead is replacing the lead plates and metal grid with a high surface area, non-corroding, lightweight microcell foam material. Using this technology you can start to realize the true capability of the chemistry and overcome some of those limitations I mentioned by not having to use all that lead in the battery.
NC: I’ve read that Firefly started as a part of the company Caterpillar. Is Firefly still a subsidiary of Caterpillar?
MO: No. The technology was spun off from Caterpillar. Firefly was created as a separate company with separate funding and was founded on May 1st, 2003.
NC: As you know, one of the main reasons we got interested in having this conversation was because of John McCain’s recent proposal to hold a competition to see who could come up with the most advanced next generation battery technology. If McCain’s $300 million battery competition were to become reality, what would give Firefly the edge to win it?
MO: First of all I’d like to say that whatever party is offering solutions that involve expediting development of next generation batteries, we’re all for that. The government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on fuel cell development and we’re still probably as far away from fuel cells as we were ten years ago when they said it would be ten years before we see them widely deployed. We see the shift coming towards the realization that fuel cells are still going to take at least another ten years and that battery technology is of paramount importance.
Right now the world of advanced batteries and research is primarily in the far east, most notably in China. In one sense, while we want to electrify vehicles and reduce our nation’s dependance on foreign oil and the national security risks that represents, we’re in essence kind of trading one energy security risk for another because the majority of the lithium-ion batteries come from China. Firefly’s goal is to reinvigorate the vast base of lead-acid battery manufacturers in the US and enable them and their customers to enjoy greater performance without necessarily getting the resources of the less safe, higher priced, advanced batteries that come from the far east.
NC: I hear where you’re coming from on fuel cells. I remember about 20 years ago I read an article in Popular Science about how hydrogen fuel cells were going to be widely available within the decade. That was 20 years ago. Today they’re still saying that hydrogen fuel cells will be available within the decade. It’s easy to get pessimistic about fuel cells given that environment.
MO: Yeah. The thoughts about lithium-ion technology right now are similar to how fuel cells have evolved over time. People are saying “yeah, it’s expensive” and “yeah, it’s not as safe as it needs to be,” but there’s a lot of money being thrown into it and a lot of smart people. Well, take out the word lithium-ion and replace it with fuel cell and it’s the same phrases that have been uttered about fuel cells for some time now. We think we are unique in that we have a very practical means of gaining better battery performance and getting that right equation of safety, cost, run-time, size, weight, and life that has eluded many in the past. On one end of the extreme you have companies liking lead-acid’s low cost but hating its life and weight issues, and at the other extreme liking lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride for their small footprint and light weight, but hating its ten-times cost penalty and safety and thermal challenges.
NC: So, McCain thinks his plan is a good idea, Obama says its a gimmick. Obviously both of them are interested in spurring next generation technologies. Do you think something like McCain’s plan is a good idea, or is it a gimmick? If you think it would spur innovation, do you think $300 million is enough?
MO: One has to look at the specifics of the proposal to weigh in and determine whether it’s a practical idea or not. Without knowing the details — I haven’t seen them yet — I’m not going to comment on whether that particular plan is a good one.
In general government support of advanced research on batteries is a good thing because the stock market doesn’t support long term investments in capital in research — they’re more interested in quarterly results — and certainly venture capitalists aren’t patient enough to see multimillion dollar research evolve. A lot of venture capitalist jumped into investing in fuel cells only to see the payback be much longer than they expected.
It is a role of our government to enable basic research because, frankly, our country is being outspent in battery research by China, Japan and Korea.
NC: Shifting gears now… What is the microcell foam made of?
MO: There’s a variety of materials we can choose from including graphite and carbon.
NC: Graphite is a pretty fragile compound. Is there a way you’ve gotten around that limitation in your battery to increase the durability?
MO: The way in which we reinforce the underlying foam is part of the intellectual property of Firefly, and part of those reinforcement methods are patented and some are trade secrets.
NC: Okay, we’ll leave it at that I guess. Inside the battery, is the lead bonded to the foam?
MO: Yeah. In a regular lead-acid battery, for lack of a better term, you plop the chemistry on top of the lead metal grid and then you press onto that the plate and that’s a two-dimensional grid structure. In contrast, in the Firefly foam approach the chemistry is washed into the pores of the foam so that now you have a three-dimensional surface area that you can take advantage of and the electrolyte then is in much tighter proximity within the pores of the foam to the chemistry that is in the walls of that foam. Now your ability to recharge and discharge the battery is greatly increased and particularly in cold weather it becomes an advantage.
NC: How long would you expect the Firefly battery to last versus a traditional lead-acid battery or versus a lithium-ion?
MO: The answer on all of these things is ‘it depends.’ I’ve been in the battery industry 5 years now and I’ve come to learn the phrase “there are liars, damn liars and battery companies.” As a policy, in the public forum, we don’t make claims that ‘hey our battery can achieve this level of watt hours per kilogram and watt hours per liter’ because it really is dependent on solving a complex set of calculations in terms of cost, safety, runtime, weight, volume, and temperature concerns. So these types of things really depends on the application.
Take an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) example. Envision a room full of lead-acid batteries providing power backup for a data center of a major corporation. Under a fast discharge of five minutes — say power goes out at the facility and before the generator kicks in — the batteries are invoked and over the course of a five minute discharge, that battery is drained. The problem with a classic lead-acid battery, is that under very fast discharges it can supply the power you need, but it requires a room’s full of batteries to do it. In contrast, the high surface area of Firefly microcell foam batteries can accomplish that same five minute discharge in half a room’s worth of batteries. So what does this mean practically? It’s at least half the weight and half the volume of classic lead-acid battery technology. So the implications beyond that would include that there’s less shipping, less installation, less cabling required, less floor space taken up, and less air conditioning. The benefits really multiply in just that one example alone.
Another example is the Army. We’re working on a prototype battery for military tank applications. The Army says “we’re not interested in size reduction because this Bradley tank has a battery tray and cables already wired with set specifications.” It’s a 40-ton vehicle so weight reduction is nice to have, but it’s not critical. The idea is to just stuff as much runtime as you can into this thing. So in that example we’re not delivering any size savings, but were greatly improving upon watt-hours per liter of the current lead-acid batteries. So, all that is a long-winded way of telling you that it’s a complicated answer.
NC: What kinds of reductions do you find in the amount of lead used in the Firefly batteries when compared to classic lead-acid batteries?
MO: I believe on our website there’s a trucking industry white paper (PDF), and in there we go into a description of how much lead per battery is in a Firefly battery versus a standard battery. The other factor to consider is that a battery is going to last several times longer than a regular lead-acid battery, so the amount of lead used in the mission, in this case powering a truck over several years instead of over one year, means that the effective lead reduction is several fold. That’s how we like to portray the lead reduction.
Now we have two technologies. The first one we call 3D, which involves the replacement of the negative lead metal grids in a classic lead-acid battery with a microcell foam. The positive lead metal grids as well as the overall interconnecting strap that connects the cells within that battery are still lead. The second generation of our technology that we’re also working on is called 3D2, and that replaces all of the lead metal in the battery with the foam material. The amount of lead savings can range from 50% to 70% depending on which technology were talking about. The true effective reduction in lead depends on the application.
We’re about to commercialize a battery for the world of highway trucks called Oasis. The reason why we named it Oasis is because, when you think about it, what does a sleeper cab represent to trucker that’s just finished a ten hour hour drive and he’s pulling into a truck stop in the middle of August and it’s 95 degrees out? Well that sleeper cab is a sanctuary or refuge or, as we like to call it, an oasis. With the anti-idling legislation that is starting to sweep the country requiring that, for example in California you need to shut off your truck engine for a portion of every hour, how are they going to run all of their hotel loads — microwave ovens, TVs and the like? It’s going to put a tremendous strain on current lead-acid batteries which are primarily used for starting the truck, not for runtime support.
Besides requirements due to anti-idling legislation, since January prices for diesel have gone from $3 to over $5 per gallon. If you’re idling your engine 8 hours a night times $5 per gallon — because that’s about how much is consumed per hour when you’re idling the main engine — times 5 days per week times 52 weeks per year, you can see how incredibly expensive idling your truck becomes. In response, Firefly has developed this long runtime battery in the classic group 31 battery footprint and we think it is going to enable fuel savings as well as pollution reduction as a result — and give the trucker the kind of performance he needs in order to drive effectively.
We’re also pursuing a strategic marketing relationship with a company called Bergstrom, which makes a battery powered supplemental air conditioning system, so that indeed you can turn off the engine and the driver can turn on this supplemental battery powered air conditioning system in the sleeper cab and the driver can have a comfortable night’s rest running on battery power.
NC: My brother is a trucker, so I’m familiar with those laws. There’s another strategy in the preliminary stages I’m sure you’re aware of in truck stops where they are putting in these supplemental power units and air conditioning attachments, but you have to have your truck specially outfitted to take advantage of that…
MO: Well, yeah, and you have to also find a place that has that special equipment and, you know, it’s not ubiquitous of course, so it’s not a solution that’s going to make a big dent in the trucking problems we’re facing today.
NC: And I’d say that most truckers don’t actually spend every night at truck stops, they spend the night on the side of the road…
MO: …Right, along the highway on an exit.
NC: In terms of the Oasis, and maybe any other future products, obviously there’s going to be a premium charged for the technology. What’s the premium you expect to charge for the Oasis over a traditional lead-acid battery?
MO: Well, if you look at the spectrum of choices available to a trucker for group 31 lead-acid batteries, they could buy an inexpensive flooded lead-acid battery for anywhere from 80 to 100 bucks, and if you went to the next tier of quality lead-acid batteries it would be a valve-regulated lead-acid battery, or VRLA battery, and that would be around $280 for one battery. We haven’t announced prices yet, but we’ll probably be somewhere around $400 per battery. From a cycles per dollar perspective, that being how many times can you run it before you have to replace it given that it’s a heavy cycling application, we think that on a cycles per dollar basis it’s cheaper than both of the traditional battery choices I mentioned. Certainly, in the view of battery powered air conditioning systems and the like and being able to turn your engine off and not use fuel idling, the payback would be less than a year.
NC: So you’ve got the Oasis, there’s some buzz going about that — but future products? Obviously, from our readership there’s going to be a huge interest about electric vehicles. So the next questions are going to be about just that. I don’t know how much you’ll be able to answer about it because you haven’t even gone there yet, but I’m sure you’ve talked with some companies or interested parties that are out there. In general, when you’re talking about electric vehicles, what sorts of benefits does your technology hold over lithium-ion?
MO: Well, I think that before I answer that question I would say that if you look to the GM EV1, it was deployed in California and Arizona. Why? Because it had a 60 mile range due to the limitations of the traditional lead-acid batteries that it had. But, were you to drive it in the depths of winter in Detroit, you would have an 8 mile range. That’s because in a classic lead-acid battery it’s capacity falls as the temperature falls. So at minus 20 degrees centigrade you would only have 10-15% of what you would have at 30 degrees centigrade — which would be 100% of your battery capacity. In contrast, with the microcell foam Firefly technology you would have about 60% of your maximum battery capacity at minus 20 degrees centigrade.
So what does that mean? First of all it means lead-acid electric vehicles can become more practical across the nation not just specific to a modest temperature or a modest climate like in California. So that’s one advantage. Secondly, lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries have certain issues in terms of capabilities in both cold and hot temperature extremes that are limitations. Third, in particular, if you look at nickel metal hydride batteries they have a very high self discharge rate and so if you left your electric vehicle standing without charging it for a week you’d see a fairly significant drop off in capacity.
The Firefly battery has an incredibly low self discharge rate even compared to a traditional lead-acid battery which is already the best among the various chemistries in terms of slow self discharge rates. Even the first generation of our technology, 3D, probably would be the best lead-acid battery out there in terms of fitting with an EV for those few reasons I mentioned. But we think that the real promise, in terms of the world of EVs will come from our second generation technology, 3D2, where we’ll be able to make pretty significant inroads in terms of weight and size reduction and making it competitive to lithium-ion. Because in today’s world of lead-acid EVs, as you know, you’re spending a fair amount of energy just pushing the lead down the road.
NC: Not to mention that it’s lead and people are always going to have environmental concerns about the process of making lead and the chances for it to contaminate the environment. But after reading through your website, Firefly seems to have a good argument for why lead is actually a better choice than lithium-ion when it comes to the environment because there’s a vast recycling program already available in the United States…
MO: Yeah, people don’t talk about that with these other chemistries. It is very expensive to reclaim the metal in a lithium-ion or nickel metal hydride battery and lead-acid has a far better recycling rate than aluminum bottles — over 90% of lead-acid batteries are recycled — and there’s no change required in the recycling infrastructure to reclaim the Firefly batteries.
NC: So, there are going to be a lot of people who will ask “when can I get a hold of a Firefly battery to put it in my electric car?” What would you say to that?
MO: We get that all the time…. all the time. I mean, there is no one more passionate about seeking better battery solutions than the EV aficionado. That’s for sure. They’ve been continuously eager to get a hold of our battery. As a start up, however, I hope your readers can appreciate that there’s only so much time we have on our investment capital, so we have to get to market with some major customers first and so we’re working with some major companies and we’re also working with the US Army.
Out of that work I would hope that there could come variants that would allow Firefly to offer a lead-acid battery for the EV crowd that represents a new standard for performance capabilities for those that are looking to put lead-acid batteries in their converted vehicles. But there are also other types of EVs ranging from scooters to three wheel and four wheel vehicles and neighborhood electric vehicles and the like.
So it’s a question of finding what’s best and making it all fit. What’s the ideal distribution structure that would allow us to get those batteries out to that audience? What would be your advice if I were to sort of turn the tables on you? What vehicle do you think this would be best for in terms of type of electric vehicle? Or do you just offer it up for sale and let the EV world grab it and adapt it as they would for their application?
NC: Well, that’s a good question. I think that once you start digging into it, there are a huge amount of home EV tinkerers, especially in the west. There are organizations like the Seattle Electric Vehicle Association. It might be that you could establish connections with those groups. You know, even the Oasis battery that you are selling to truckers, they might want to tinker with that. That might be a place to start and establish a relationship.
But, I don’t know, I see what your problem is. It’s an issue of chicken and egg. Nonetheless, I think from all the research I’ve been doing and the comments I’ve seen — and I’m probably biased because I’m in the thick of it — I think that in the next 2 to 3 years I would imagine there would be a big enough market of electric vehicles for you to start considering actually developing batteries specifically for that market. Anyway, if you were to develop a battery for EVs, this 3D2 technology, how far off is that really?
MO: I think that probably in 24-36 months we could have a commercial version of our 3D2 technology. Now, I’m not saying that it would be ready for an EV at that stage because we do have funding from the US Army to develop something for them, but we’re aiming to commercialize our technology in the next 24-36 months.
NC: Compared to a lithium-ion battery — these are the last questions by the way, and then I’ll let you get going because I’m sure you have better things to do than talk with me — how far might you expect an electric vehicle vehicle powered by your next generation battery to go on one charge and at what kind of speed? Ball park if you can. If you can’t that’s fine, but these are going to be the kinds of questions that I get and the better I can answer them, even if they are not set in stone, the better it would be.
MO: The problem with lithium is that everybody likes to quote what the innate performance of the single cell is… you know in terms of watt hours. The problem is that when you put it into a multi-cell task now you’ve got all these thermal management issues and you’ve got these safety issues that require controls and all of this safety and thermal management stuff that all adds to the volume and weight of the box which then drags down the performance in terms of range and so on. The fact is that you’ve got to keep lithium from over-discharging. Therefore you’re really not using the innate power capability of that single cell as a result.
We get very specific with major customers who say “here’s my application, here’s the performance envelope of that application, and here’s my favorite battery in this application, how would you compare?” All I’m saying is that I don’t like to throw out a number there because there are so many factors that have to be considered for each application and, in any case, are you talking about a particular climate, are you talking about combined city/highway driving, are you talking about hills involved, you know, what specifics? So I’m going to have to beg off on answering that question for those reasons.
NC: Okay, thanks… and with that I guess I’ll let you go.
MO: Thanks Nick. It was good talking with you. I enjoyed your questions.
NC: Well, thanks very much for taking the time to answer them in such a thorough way.
Posts Related to Batteries, Electric Vehicles, and the Politics of Green:
McCain Proposes $300 Million Prize to Developer of “Super Battery”
Snapshot of Battery Technology for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Cars
Volkswagen to Produce Plug-In Hybrid Electric Cars in 2010
Mercedes, Smart to Sell Electric Cars in 2010
Th!nk Ox: An Electric Car With Style and Smarts
Company Turns Familiar Gas Cars Into Electric Vehicles
An Electric Car You Can Buy Today: The $20K TRIAC EV
Tesla Roadster Pictures From SF Green [Pics]
Sorry Bush, Voters Think Investment in Renewable Energy is the Best Option
Senate Republicans Block Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil Companies
Image Credits: Firefly Energy
Published on July 1st, 20085 CommentsPosted in Batteries, Electric Cars (EVs), Politics
Editor’s note: This interview is a companion piece to Part I of the Gas 2.0 series about who might win John McCain’s proposed $300 million dollar battery competition if it were to become reality.
Last week John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominee for the 2008 Republican ticket, generated debate by suggesting that a $300 million government- sponsored competition would be a good way to spur development of next generation battery technologies.
His comments got me thinking about just who might win such a competition it if it were to become reality.
Firefly Energy is one of the companies that made it to my short list. Founded in 2003, they have been working on reinvigorating old-hat lead-acid battery technology in such a way that it would become brand new and cutting edge once again.
Firefly’s innovation is that they’ve taken the heavy lead plates you’d find in a classic lead-acid battery and replaced them with a light carbon-graphite microcell foam that’s been impregnated with lead.
I recently had a chance chat with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly, about the company, their take on McCain’s competition, Firefly’s battery technology, environmental worries about lead, the Oasis battery, electric vehicles and the company’s plans for the future.
» See also: MIT Battery Breakthrough Could Revolutionize Electric Cars
» Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Interview with Mil Ovan, Senior Vice President and Co-founder of Firefly, June 26th, 2008.
NC: What are the core operating principles of Firefly? What drives the company?
MO: We are developing a battery technology that reinvigorates a battery chemistry that’s been around since 1859 — lead-acid. Although traditional lead-acid batteries have been proven safe and are low cost, they suffer from weight issues as well as lifetime issues because they use fairly heavy lead plates on a metal grid. What we’re doing instead is replacing the lead plates and metal grid with a high surface area, non-corroding, lightweight microcell foam material. Using this technology you can start to realize the true capability of the chemistry and overcome some of those limitations I mentioned by not having to use all that lead in the battery.
NC: I’ve read that Firefly started as a part of the company Caterpillar. Is Firefly still a subsidiary of Caterpillar?
MO: No. The technology was spun off from Caterpillar. Firefly was created as a separate company with separate funding and was founded on May 1st, 2003.
NC: As you know, one of the main reasons we got interested in having this conversation was because of John McCain’s recent proposal to hold a competition to see who could come up with the most advanced next generation battery technology. If McCain’s $300 million battery competition were to become reality, what would give Firefly the edge to win it?
MO: First of all I’d like to say that whatever party is offering solutions that involve expediting development of next generation batteries, we’re all for that. The government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on fuel cell development and we’re still probably as far away from fuel cells as we were ten years ago when they said it would be ten years before we see them widely deployed. We see the shift coming towards the realization that fuel cells are still going to take at least another ten years and that battery technology is of paramount importance.
Right now the world of advanced batteries and research is primarily in the far east, most notably in China. In one sense, while we want to electrify vehicles and reduce our nation’s dependance on foreign oil and the national security risks that represents, we’re in essence kind of trading one energy security risk for another because the majority of the lithium-ion batteries come from China. Firefly’s goal is to reinvigorate the vast base of lead-acid battery manufacturers in the US and enable them and their customers to enjoy greater performance without necessarily getting the resources of the less safe, higher priced, advanced batteries that come from the far east.
NC: I hear where you’re coming from on fuel cells. I remember about 20 years ago I read an article in Popular Science about how hydrogen fuel cells were going to be widely available within the decade. That was 20 years ago. Today they’re still saying that hydrogen fuel cells will be available within the decade. It’s easy to get pessimistic about fuel cells given that environment.
MO: Yeah. The thoughts about lithium-ion technology right now are similar to how fuel cells have evolved over time. People are saying “yeah, it’s expensive” and “yeah, it’s not as safe as it needs to be,” but there’s a lot of money being thrown into it and a lot of smart people. Well, take out the word lithium-ion and replace it with fuel cell and it’s the same phrases that have been uttered about fuel cells for some time now. We think we are unique in that we have a very practical means of gaining better battery performance and getting that right equation of safety, cost, run-time, size, weight, and life that has eluded many in the past. On one end of the extreme you have companies liking lead-acid’s low cost but hating its life and weight issues, and at the other extreme liking lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride for their small footprint and light weight, but hating its ten-times cost penalty and safety and thermal challenges.
NC: So, McCain thinks his plan is a good idea, Obama says its a gimmick. Obviously both of them are interested in spurring next generation technologies. Do you think something like McCain’s plan is a good idea, or is it a gimmick? If you think it would spur innovation, do you think $300 million is enough?
MO: One has to look at the specifics of the proposal to weigh in and determine whether it’s a practical idea or not. Without knowing the details — I haven’t seen them yet — I’m not going to comment on whether that particular plan is a good one.
In general government support of advanced research on batteries is a good thing because the stock market doesn’t support long term investments in capital in research — they’re more interested in quarterly results — and certainly venture capitalists aren’t patient enough to see multimillion dollar research evolve. A lot of venture capitalist jumped into investing in fuel cells only to see the payback be much longer than they expected.
It is a role of our government to enable basic research because, frankly, our country is being outspent in battery research by China, Japan and Korea.
NC: Shifting gears now… What is the microcell foam made of?
MO: There’s a variety of materials we can choose from including graphite and carbon.
NC: Graphite is a pretty fragile compound. Is there a way you’ve gotten around that limitation in your battery to increase the durability?
MO: The way in which we reinforce the underlying foam is part of the intellectual property of Firefly, and part of those reinforcement methods are patented and some are trade secrets.
NC: Okay, we’ll leave it at that I guess. Inside the battery, is the lead bonded to the foam?
MO: Yeah. In a regular lead-acid battery, for lack of a better term, you plop the chemistry on top of the lead metal grid and then you press onto that the plate and that’s a two-dimensional grid structure. In contrast, in the Firefly foam approach the chemistry is washed into the pores of the foam so that now you have a three-dimensional surface area that you can take advantage of and the electrolyte then is in much tighter proximity within the pores of the foam to the chemistry that is in the walls of that foam. Now your ability to recharge and discharge the battery is greatly increased and particularly in cold weather it becomes an advantage.
NC: How long would you expect the Firefly battery to last versus a traditional lead-acid battery or versus a lithium-ion?
MO: The answer on all of these things is ‘it depends.’ I’ve been in the battery industry 5 years now and I’ve come to learn the phrase “there are liars, damn liars and battery companies.” As a policy, in the public forum, we don’t make claims that ‘hey our battery can achieve this level of watt hours per kilogram and watt hours per liter’ because it really is dependent on solving a complex set of calculations in terms of cost, safety, runtime, weight, volume, and temperature concerns. So these types of things really depends on the application.
Take an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) example. Envision a room full of lead-acid batteries providing power backup for a data center of a major corporation. Under a fast discharge of five minutes — say power goes out at the facility and before the generator kicks in — the batteries are invoked and over the course of a five minute discharge, that battery is drained. The problem with a classic lead-acid battery, is that under very fast discharges it can supply the power you need, but it requires a room’s full of batteries to do it. In contrast, the high surface area of Firefly microcell foam batteries can accomplish that same five minute discharge in half a room’s worth of batteries. So what does this mean practically? It’s at least half the weight and half the volume of classic lead-acid battery technology. So the implications beyond that would include that there’s less shipping, less installation, less cabling required, less floor space taken up, and less air conditioning. The benefits really multiply in just that one example alone.
Another example is the Army. We’re working on a prototype battery for military tank applications. The Army says “we’re not interested in size reduction because this Bradley tank has a battery tray and cables already wired with set specifications.” It’s a 40-ton vehicle so weight reduction is nice to have, but it’s not critical. The idea is to just stuff as much runtime as you can into this thing. So in that example we’re not delivering any size savings, but were greatly improving upon watt-hours per liter of the current lead-acid batteries. So, all that is a long-winded way of telling you that it’s a complicated answer.
NC: What kinds of reductions do you find in the amount of lead used in the Firefly batteries when compared to classic lead-acid batteries?
MO: I believe on our website there’s a trucking industry white paper (PDF), and in there we go into a description of how much lead per battery is in a Firefly battery versus a standard battery. The other factor to consider is that a battery is going to last several times longer than a regular lead-acid battery, so the amount of lead used in the mission, in this case powering a truck over several years instead of over one year, means that the effective lead reduction is several fold. That’s how we like to portray the lead reduction.
Now we have two technologies. The first one we call 3D, which involves the replacement of the negative lead metal grids in a classic lead-acid battery with a microcell foam. The positive lead metal grids as well as the overall interconnecting strap that connects the cells within that battery are still lead. The second generation of our technology that we’re also working on is called 3D2, and that replaces all of the lead metal in the battery with the foam material. The amount of lead savings can range from 50% to 70% depending on which technology were talking about. The true effective reduction in lead depends on the application.
We’re about to commercialize a battery for the world of highway trucks called Oasis. The reason why we named it Oasis is because, when you think about it, what does a sleeper cab represent to trucker that’s just finished a ten hour hour drive and he’s pulling into a truck stop in the middle of August and it’s 95 degrees out? Well that sleeper cab is a sanctuary or refuge or, as we like to call it, an oasis. With the anti-idling legislation that is starting to sweep the country requiring that, for example in California you need to shut off your truck engine for a portion of every hour, how are they going to run all of their hotel loads — microwave ovens, TVs and the like? It’s going to put a tremendous strain on current lead-acid batteries which are primarily used for starting the truck, not for runtime support.
Besides requirements due to anti-idling legislation, since January prices for diesel have gone from $3 to over $5 per gallon. If you’re idling your engine 8 hours a night times $5 per gallon — because that’s about how much is consumed per hour when you’re idling the main engine — times 5 days per week times 52 weeks per year, you can see how incredibly expensive idling your truck becomes. In response, Firefly has developed this long runtime battery in the classic group 31 battery footprint and we think it is going to enable fuel savings as well as pollution reduction as a result — and give the trucker the kind of performance he needs in order to drive effectively.
We’re also pursuing a strategic marketing relationship with a company called Bergstrom, which makes a battery powered supplemental air conditioning system, so that indeed you can turn off the engine and the driver can turn on this supplemental battery powered air conditioning system in the sleeper cab and the driver can have a comfortable night’s rest running on battery power.
NC: My brother is a trucker, so I’m familiar with those laws. There’s another strategy in the preliminary stages I’m sure you’re aware of in truck stops where they are putting in these supplemental power units and air conditioning attachments, but you have to have your truck specially outfitted to take advantage of that…
MO: Well, yeah, and you have to also find a place that has that special equipment and, you know, it’s not ubiquitous of course, so it’s not a solution that’s going to make a big dent in the trucking problems we’re facing today.
NC: And I’d say that most truckers don’t actually spend every night at truck stops, they spend the night on the side of the road…
MO: …Right, along the highway on an exit.
NC: In terms of the Oasis, and maybe any other future products, obviously there’s going to be a premium charged for the technology. What’s the premium you expect to charge for the Oasis over a traditional lead-acid battery?
MO: Well, if you look at the spectrum of choices available to a trucker for group 31 lead-acid batteries, they could buy an inexpensive flooded lead-acid battery for anywhere from 80 to 100 bucks, and if you went to the next tier of quality lead-acid batteries it would be a valve-regulated lead-acid battery, or VRLA battery, and that would be around $280 for one battery. We haven’t announced prices yet, but we’ll probably be somewhere around $400 per battery. From a cycles per dollar perspective, that being how many times can you run it before you have to replace it given that it’s a heavy cycling application, we think that on a cycles per dollar basis it’s cheaper than both of the traditional battery choices I mentioned. Certainly, in the view of battery powered air conditioning systems and the like and being able to turn your engine off and not use fuel idling, the payback would be less than a year.
NC: So you’ve got the Oasis, there’s some buzz going about that — but future products? Obviously, from our readership there’s going to be a huge interest about electric vehicles. So the next questions are going to be about just that. I don’t know how much you’ll be able to answer about it because you haven’t even gone there yet, but I’m sure you’ve talked with some companies or interested parties that are out there. In general, when you’re talking about electric vehicles, what sorts of benefits does your technology hold over lithium-ion?
MO: Well, I think that before I answer that question I would say that if you look to the GM EV1, it was deployed in California and Arizona. Why? Because it had a 60 mile range due to the limitations of the traditional lead-acid batteries that it had. But, were you to drive it in the depths of winter in Detroit, you would have an 8 mile range. That’s because in a classic lead-acid battery it’s capacity falls as the temperature falls. So at minus 20 degrees centigrade you would only have 10-15% of what you would have at 30 degrees centigrade — which would be 100% of your battery capacity. In contrast, with the microcell foam Firefly technology you would have about 60% of your maximum battery capacity at minus 20 degrees centigrade.
So what does that mean? First of all it means lead-acid electric vehicles can become more practical across the nation not just specific to a modest temperature or a modest climate like in California. So that’s one advantage. Secondly, lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries have certain issues in terms of capabilities in both cold and hot temperature extremes that are limitations. Third, in particular, if you look at nickel metal hydride batteries they have a very high self discharge rate and so if you left your electric vehicle standing without charging it for a week you’d see a fairly significant drop off in capacity.
The Firefly battery has an incredibly low self discharge rate even compared to a traditional lead-acid battery which is already the best among the various chemistries in terms of slow self discharge rates. Even the first generation of our technology, 3D, probably would be the best lead-acid battery out there in terms of fitting with an EV for those few reasons I mentioned. But we think that the real promise, in terms of the world of EVs will come from our second generation technology, 3D2, where we’ll be able to make pretty significant inroads in terms of weight and size reduction and making it competitive to lithium-ion. Because in today’s world of lead-acid EVs, as you know, you’re spending a fair amount of energy just pushing the lead down the road.
NC: Not to mention that it’s lead and people are always going to have environmental concerns about the process of making lead and the chances for it to contaminate the environment. But after reading through your website, Firefly seems to have a good argument for why lead is actually a better choice than lithium-ion when it comes to the environment because there’s a vast recycling program already available in the United States…
MO: Yeah, people don’t talk about that with these other chemistries. It is very expensive to reclaim the metal in a lithium-ion or nickel metal hydride battery and lead-acid has a far better recycling rate than aluminum bottles — over 90% of lead-acid batteries are recycled — and there’s no change required in the recycling infrastructure to reclaim the Firefly batteries.
NC: So, there are going to be a lot of people who will ask “when can I get a hold of a Firefly battery to put it in my electric car?” What would you say to that?
MO: We get that all the time…. all the time. I mean, there is no one more passionate about seeking better battery solutions than the EV aficionado. That’s for sure. They’ve been continuously eager to get a hold of our battery. As a start up, however, I hope your readers can appreciate that there’s only so much time we have on our investment capital, so we have to get to market with some major customers first and so we’re working with some major companies and we’re also working with the US Army.
Out of that work I would hope that there could come variants that would allow Firefly to offer a lead-acid battery for the EV crowd that represents a new standard for performance capabilities for those that are looking to put lead-acid batteries in their converted vehicles. But there are also other types of EVs ranging from scooters to three wheel and four wheel vehicles and neighborhood electric vehicles and the like.
So it’s a question of finding what’s best and making it all fit. What’s the ideal distribution structure that would allow us to get those batteries out to that audience? What would be your advice if I were to sort of turn the tables on you? What vehicle do you think this would be best for in terms of type of electric vehicle? Or do you just offer it up for sale and let the EV world grab it and adapt it as they would for their application?
NC: Well, that’s a good question. I think that once you start digging into it, there are a huge amount of home EV tinkerers, especially in the west. There are organizations like the Seattle Electric Vehicle Association. It might be that you could establish connections with those groups. You know, even the Oasis battery that you are selling to truckers, they might want to tinker with that. That might be a place to start and establish a relationship.
But, I don’t know, I see what your problem is. It’s an issue of chicken and egg. Nonetheless, I think from all the research I’ve been doing and the comments I’ve seen — and I’m probably biased because I’m in the thick of it — I think that in the next 2 to 3 years I would imagine there would be a big enough market of electric vehicles for you to start considering actually developing batteries specifically for that market. Anyway, if you were to develop a battery for EVs, this 3D2 technology, how far off is that really?
MO: I think that probably in 24-36 months we could have a commercial version of our 3D2 technology. Now, I’m not saying that it would be ready for an EV at that stage because we do have funding from the US Army to develop something for them, but we’re aiming to commercialize our technology in the next 24-36 months.
NC: Compared to a lithium-ion battery — these are the last questions by the way, and then I’ll let you get going because I’m sure you have better things to do than talk with me — how far might you expect an electric vehicle vehicle powered by your next generation battery to go on one charge and at what kind of speed? Ball park if you can. If you can’t that’s fine, but these are going to be the kinds of questions that I get and the better I can answer them, even if they are not set in stone, the better it would be.
MO: The problem with lithium is that everybody likes to quote what the innate performance of the single cell is… you know in terms of watt hours. The problem is that when you put it into a multi-cell task now you’ve got all these thermal management issues and you’ve got these safety issues that require controls and all of this safety and thermal management stuff that all adds to the volume and weight of the box which then drags down the performance in terms of range and so on. The fact is that you’ve got to keep lithium from over-discharging. Therefore you’re really not using the innate power capability of that single cell as a result.
We get very specific with major customers who say “here’s my application, here’s the performance envelope of that application, and here’s my favorite battery in this application, how would you compare?” All I’m saying is that I don’t like to throw out a number there because there are so many factors that have to be considered for each application and, in any case, are you talking about a particular climate, are you talking about combined city/highway driving, are you talking about hills involved, you know, what specifics? So I’m going to have to beg off on answering that question for those reasons.
NC: Okay, thanks… and with that I guess I’ll let you go.
MO: Thanks Nick. It was good talking with you. I enjoyed your questions.
NC: Well, thanks very much for taking the time to answer them in such a thorough way.
Posts Related to Batteries, Electric Vehicles, and the Politics of Green:
McCain Proposes $300 Million Prize to Developer of “Super Battery”
Snapshot of Battery Technology for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Cars
Volkswagen to Produce Plug-In Hybrid Electric Cars in 2010
Mercedes, Smart to Sell Electric Cars in 2010
Th!nk Ox: An Electric Car With Style and Smarts
Company Turns Familiar Gas Cars Into Electric Vehicles
An Electric Car You Can Buy Today: The $20K TRIAC EV
Tesla Roadster Pictures From SF Green [Pics]
Sorry Bush, Voters Think Investment in Renewable Energy is the Best Option
Senate Republicans Block Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil Companies
Image Credits: Firefly Energy
plug-in vehicles
The Problem:
There are 54 million garages for the 247 million registered cars in the US, meaning that the majority of cars are parked overnight in parking structures, parking lots or curbside.
As a result, most potential plug-in vehicle consumers do not have an adequate place to charge their vehicles. This problem is even more pronounced in urban areas like San Francisco, where only about 16% of cars are parked in garages overnight and the rest end up curbside or in parking lots.
Also, although the US power grid probably has enough overall capacity to supply energy to a nation of plug-in vehicles, it may not have the ability to charge them when they all plug-in and demand energy at the same time — say 6 pm every weekday.
» See also: Better Place Unveils First Solar-Powered Electric Vehicle Battery Switching Station
Imagine pulling into any old parking spot downtown, plugging your electric car into a box on the curb, running some errands, and coming back ten minutes later to find your car completely charged and your bank account automatically debited for the balance of your electricity use without you having to swipe any cards.
Now imagine you park your plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) overnight on the curb outside your apartment after driving all day. You’ve driven enough that your batteries have stored excess energy from the combustion of a fuel (gas, ethanol, biodiesel, whatever).
As soon as you plug that PHEV in, it communicates to the power grid that it has excess energy. As it turns out, the power grid has a need for that extra energy at the moment you plug your car in. In response your car gives some of its stored energy back to the grid. Your account is then credited for the amount of energy you supplied back to the grid.
Later, in the wee hours of the morning when the energy demand is quite low, the grid tells your car (along with a smallish group of other plug-ins) that it can start charging. Ten minutes later, when your group of cars is done charging, another smallish group of plug-ins is told they can begin their charge cycle. And so on and so forth until all the cars that need to be charged are charged.
If three collaborating companies have their way, this may indeed be what the future looks like.
At the Plug-In 2008 conference hosted in San José, CA, this week, Coulomb Technologies and V2Green announced a partnership to create an intelligent charging infrastructure for plug-in vehicles.
Their partnership will combine Coulomb’s charging station and communications network technology with V2Green’s bi-directional net metering technology to make the complex communications between plug-in cars and the power grid an effortless endeavor for drivers and a boon for the already overloaded grid.
Coulomb and V2Green’s announcement comes on the heels of news earlier in the week that eTec will be working with V2Green to develop a smart power grid charging infrastructure that would adapt to the needs of the power grid and be able to charge electric cars in 10 minutes.
The collaboration between eTec and V2Green is funded by the US Department of Energy and is designed to demonstrate the feasibility of charging electric vehicles quickly using eTec’s proven Minit-Charger system as well as test the benefits and problems associated with net metering of a connected car battery.
Not coincidentally to the site of the Plug-In 2008 conference, the City of San Jose is leading the “charge” on developing infrastructure for plug-in vehicle charging (PDF) and announced a partnership with Coulomb Technologies to provide city residents with smart charging stations located on streetlights, curbside and in parking lots.
Posts Related to Plug-In Cars and Charging:
GM Preps for the Debut of the Plug-in Car by Wooing Electric Companies
Toyota’s New Hybrid Travelling Twice as Far
Tesla Begins Popping Roadster EVs Off Production Line
Who Might Win McCain’s Battery Competition? Part I: Firefly
Volkswagen to Produce Plug-In Hybrid Electric Cars in 2010
Th!nk Ox: An Electric Car With Style and Smarts
Prototype Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid: 88 MPG on 85% Ethanol
Snapshot of Battery Technology for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Cars
Coal-Power Can’t Stop Plug-In Hybrids From Beating Normal Cars
Image Credit: Coulomb Technologies
There are 54 million garages for the 247 million registered cars in the US, meaning that the majority of cars are parked overnight in parking structures, parking lots or curbside.
As a result, most potential plug-in vehicle consumers do not have an adequate place to charge their vehicles. This problem is even more pronounced in urban areas like San Francisco, where only about 16% of cars are parked in garages overnight and the rest end up curbside or in parking lots.
Also, although the US power grid probably has enough overall capacity to supply energy to a nation of plug-in vehicles, it may not have the ability to charge them when they all plug-in and demand energy at the same time — say 6 pm every weekday.
» See also: Better Place Unveils First Solar-Powered Electric Vehicle Battery Switching Station
Imagine pulling into any old parking spot downtown, plugging your electric car into a box on the curb, running some errands, and coming back ten minutes later to find your car completely charged and your bank account automatically debited for the balance of your electricity use without you having to swipe any cards.
Now imagine you park your plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) overnight on the curb outside your apartment after driving all day. You’ve driven enough that your batteries have stored excess energy from the combustion of a fuel (gas, ethanol, biodiesel, whatever).
As soon as you plug that PHEV in, it communicates to the power grid that it has excess energy. As it turns out, the power grid has a need for that extra energy at the moment you plug your car in. In response your car gives some of its stored energy back to the grid. Your account is then credited for the amount of energy you supplied back to the grid.
Later, in the wee hours of the morning when the energy demand is quite low, the grid tells your car (along with a smallish group of other plug-ins) that it can start charging. Ten minutes later, when your group of cars is done charging, another smallish group of plug-ins is told they can begin their charge cycle. And so on and so forth until all the cars that need to be charged are charged.
If three collaborating companies have their way, this may indeed be what the future looks like.
At the Plug-In 2008 conference hosted in San José, CA, this week, Coulomb Technologies and V2Green announced a partnership to create an intelligent charging infrastructure for plug-in vehicles.
Their partnership will combine Coulomb’s charging station and communications network technology with V2Green’s bi-directional net metering technology to make the complex communications between plug-in cars and the power grid an effortless endeavor for drivers and a boon for the already overloaded grid.
Coulomb and V2Green’s announcement comes on the heels of news earlier in the week that eTec will be working with V2Green to develop a smart power grid charging infrastructure that would adapt to the needs of the power grid and be able to charge electric cars in 10 minutes.
The collaboration between eTec and V2Green is funded by the US Department of Energy and is designed to demonstrate the feasibility of charging electric vehicles quickly using eTec’s proven Minit-Charger system as well as test the benefits and problems associated with net metering of a connected car battery.
Not coincidentally to the site of the Plug-In 2008 conference, the City of San Jose is leading the “charge” on developing infrastructure for plug-in vehicle charging (PDF) and announced a partnership with Coulomb Technologies to provide city residents with smart charging stations located on streetlights, curbside and in parking lots.
Posts Related to Plug-In Cars and Charging:
GM Preps for the Debut of the Plug-in Car by Wooing Electric Companies
Toyota’s New Hybrid Travelling Twice as Far
Tesla Begins Popping Roadster EVs Off Production Line
Who Might Win McCain’s Battery Competition? Part I: Firefly
Volkswagen to Produce Plug-In Hybrid Electric Cars in 2010
Th!nk Ox: An Electric Car With Style and Smarts
Prototype Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid: 88 MPG on 85% Ethanol
Snapshot of Battery Technology for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Cars
Coal-Power Can’t Stop Plug-In Hybrids From Beating Normal Cars
Image Credit: Coulomb Technologies
Better Place To Exhibit First Battery Switching Station
YOKOHAMA, JAPAN- Tonight at approximately 10:30 PM PST (1:30 AM EST), electric vehicle services provider Better Place will demonstrate key elements of their battery switching station technology. This is the first public exhibition of a battery switching station—which Better Place lauds as the final piece of a “total electric vehicle solution.” The company was invited by the Japanese Ministry of the Environment to set up an exhibit in Yokohama.
“Range anxiety,” as it’s called, describes the most fundamental fear expressed by would-be adopters of electric vehicles. It’s no different than the fear of driving through sparsley inhabited parts of the United States, where it’s important to know your car’s mileage and the distance to the next gas station.
Electric vehicles differ in that their fuel is electricity stored in a battery pack. But battery packs can’t be recharged in the same amount of time that it takes to pump 10 gallons of gas. It usually takes hours. That means that either EVs are restricted to short driving distances, fully charging during long breaks in commuting (like work or home), or, they just never take off.
Better Place intends to solve this problem, and thereby eliminate range anxiety, by swapping out used batteries for fully-charged replacements. If this can be done in the same time as a pit stop (under 5 minutes), it would offer drivers a hassle-free way to dramatically extend the range of their electric vehicles.
Clearly, Better Place will face numerous challenges when bringing this technology to market. A multitude of these stations must be built before range anxiety can be completely eliminated, and that’s going to take time an money (each station costs $500,000, though Agassi says that’s half the price of a regular gas station). But if the idea works, it could revolutionize transportation.
“Range anxiety,” as it’s called, describes the most fundamental fear expressed by would-be adopters of electric vehicles. It’s no different than the fear of driving through sparsley inhabited parts of the United States, where it’s important to know your car’s mileage and the distance to the next gas station.
Electric vehicles differ in that their fuel is electricity stored in a battery pack. But battery packs can’t be recharged in the same amount of time that it takes to pump 10 gallons of gas. It usually takes hours. That means that either EVs are restricted to short driving distances, fully charging during long breaks in commuting (like work or home), or, they just never take off.
Better Place intends to solve this problem, and thereby eliminate range anxiety, by swapping out used batteries for fully-charged replacements. If this can be done in the same time as a pit stop (under 5 minutes), it would offer drivers a hassle-free way to dramatically extend the range of their electric vehicles.
Clearly, Better Place will face numerous challenges when bringing this technology to market. A multitude of these stations must be built before range anxiety can be completely eliminated, and that’s going to take time an money (each station costs $500,000, though Agassi says that’s half the price of a regular gas station). But if the idea works, it could revolutionize transportation.
Bokashi Composting
Bokashi is a ramped-up, high-speed composting method first developed in Japan. What gives it the muscle that ordinary compost lacks? Think of the difference between wine and grape juice, and that’s the key to a fine bokashi.
» See also: Recycling Our Way to a More Sustainable Future
» Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
Fermentation and Bokashi
Conventional composting relies on oxygen-fed organisms to break down organic material. Bokashi uses different kinds of microbes that thrive without oxygen. They decompose organic matter through an anaerobic process. It’s basic fermentation, the same process that gives us wine and pickles.
Advantages of Bokashi Compost
Bokashi works fast - in a matter of days, not months. And, when properly managed, bokashi is practically odorless. That makes it ideal for apartments and other small dwellings. Compared to sink disposals, bokashi or “bucket composting” also promises to save water and reduce the load on sewage treatment plants.
Bokashi is also highly scalable. Larger buckets can be fitted with wheels to ease transportation logistics. For restaurants or schools, prisons and other institutions, bokashi has potential as a speedier, more space-efficient way to recycle large volumes of kitchen waste into valuable compost.
How to Do Bokashi Compost
Making bokashi compost is simple. You need a couple of big containers with tight-fitting lids (to keep the oxygen out), some kitchen scraps, and bokashi mix. The mix contains wheat bran, molasses, and EM’s - the efficient microorganisms that drive the process. DIY bokashi help is available online but if you want to get started quickly, you can find ready-to-go bokashi kits at many gardening and eco-shopping sites like gaiam, or at specialty suppliers like Bokashicycle.
» See also: Recycling Our Way to a More Sustainable Future
» Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
Fermentation and Bokashi
Conventional composting relies on oxygen-fed organisms to break down organic material. Bokashi uses different kinds of microbes that thrive without oxygen. They decompose organic matter through an anaerobic process. It’s basic fermentation, the same process that gives us wine and pickles.
Advantages of Bokashi Compost
Bokashi works fast - in a matter of days, not months. And, when properly managed, bokashi is practically odorless. That makes it ideal for apartments and other small dwellings. Compared to sink disposals, bokashi or “bucket composting” also promises to save water and reduce the load on sewage treatment plants.
Bokashi is also highly scalable. Larger buckets can be fitted with wheels to ease transportation logistics. For restaurants or schools, prisons and other institutions, bokashi has potential as a speedier, more space-efficient way to recycle large volumes of kitchen waste into valuable compost.
How to Do Bokashi Compost
Making bokashi compost is simple. You need a couple of big containers with tight-fitting lids (to keep the oxygen out), some kitchen scraps, and bokashi mix. The mix contains wheat bran, molasses, and EM’s - the efficient microorganisms that drive the process. DIY bokashi help is available online but if you want to get started quickly, you can find ready-to-go bokashi kits at many gardening and eco-shopping sites like gaiam, or at specialty suppliers like Bokashicycle.
U.S. ships must post guards if sailing off Somalia
U.S. ships must post guards if sailing off Somalia
Tue May 12, 2009 6:08pm EDT
By Jane Sutton
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. Coast Guard will require U.S.-flagged ships sailing around the Horn of Africa to post guards and ship owners to submit anti-piracy security plans for approval, a Coast Guard official said on Tuesday.
The new requirements, which respond to a surge of piracy off the coast of Somalia, allow ship owners to decide whether to use armed or unarmed guards, Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson told shipping industry representatives at a maritime security meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The revised Maritime Security Directive, highly anticipated by the shipping industry, was signed on Monday by Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen.
"We expect to see additional security on U.S.-flagged vessels that transit these waters," said Watson, the Coast Guard's director of prevention policy.
"It can involve the use of firearms," he said, but added, "We are looking for things that work but that don't make the situation worse."
The requirement to post guards applies only to ships sailing off the Horn of Africa, but the owners of all U.S.-flagged ships must submit security plans to the Coast Guard within two weeks, Watson said.
"They're going to tell us what they propose," and then the Coast Guard will give thumbs up or thumbs down, Watson said.
He said the directive does not dictate how many guards must be posted on each vessel, or what type of training they must have. He said the Coast Guard would work with ship owners whose plans are deemed inadequate to fend off pirate attacks.
"We're not interested in putting ships out of business," he said.
The piracy off the coast of Somalia included an attack against the U.S.-flagged container ship Maersk Alabama last month. The ship's captain, Richard Phillips, was freed four days later when U.S. commandos shot and killed three pirates.
Arming cargo ships has been a sensitive issue because some countries will not allow armed vessels to enter their ports. Additionally, arming the ships can raise liability issues and increase insurance costs.
Some ship owners fear it could cause misunderstandings to escalate into gunfights, noting for example that fishermen off Yemen sometimes fire their automatic rifles into the air to warn other vessels away from their nets.
U.S.-flagged ships that carry military cargo already are armed, Watson said.
The U.S. State Department is working with countries in pirate-plagued regions to learn what weapons laws apply in their ports in order to clarify the issue for U.S. mariners.
It may also try to negotiate agreements allowing armed U.S. ships to enter those countries' ports, said Donna Hopkins, of the State Department's political and military planning and policy division.
Tue May 12, 2009 6:08pm EDT
By Jane Sutton
FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. Coast Guard will require U.S.-flagged ships sailing around the Horn of Africa to post guards and ship owners to submit anti-piracy security plans for approval, a Coast Guard official said on Tuesday.
The new requirements, which respond to a surge of piracy off the coast of Somalia, allow ship owners to decide whether to use armed or unarmed guards, Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson told shipping industry representatives at a maritime security meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
The revised Maritime Security Directive, highly anticipated by the shipping industry, was signed on Monday by Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen.
"We expect to see additional security on U.S.-flagged vessels that transit these waters," said Watson, the Coast Guard's director of prevention policy.
"It can involve the use of firearms," he said, but added, "We are looking for things that work but that don't make the situation worse."
The requirement to post guards applies only to ships sailing off the Horn of Africa, but the owners of all U.S.-flagged ships must submit security plans to the Coast Guard within two weeks, Watson said.
"They're going to tell us what they propose," and then the Coast Guard will give thumbs up or thumbs down, Watson said.
He said the directive does not dictate how many guards must be posted on each vessel, or what type of training they must have. He said the Coast Guard would work with ship owners whose plans are deemed inadequate to fend off pirate attacks.
"We're not interested in putting ships out of business," he said.
The piracy off the coast of Somalia included an attack against the U.S.-flagged container ship Maersk Alabama last month. The ship's captain, Richard Phillips, was freed four days later when U.S. commandos shot and killed three pirates.
Arming cargo ships has been a sensitive issue because some countries will not allow armed vessels to enter their ports. Additionally, arming the ships can raise liability issues and increase insurance costs.
Some ship owners fear it could cause misunderstandings to escalate into gunfights, noting for example that fishermen off Yemen sometimes fire their automatic rifles into the air to warn other vessels away from their nets.
U.S.-flagged ships that carry military cargo already are armed, Watson said.
The U.S. State Department is working with countries in pirate-plagued regions to learn what weapons laws apply in their ports in order to clarify the issue for U.S. mariners.
It may also try to negotiate agreements allowing armed U.S. ships to enter those countries' ports, said Donna Hopkins, of the State Department's political and military planning and policy division.
The Folly of Building-Integrated Wind
Feature from Environmental Building News
May 1, 2009
The Folly of Building-Integrated Wind
The Bahrain World Trade Center, with three 225 kW turbines on bridges spanning the twin towers, is the first building to integrate commercial-scale wind turbines into a building.
The appeal of integrating wind turbines into our buildings is strong. Rooftops are elevated above ground, where it’s windier; the electricity is generated right where it’s needed; and wind energy can make a strong visual statement. Dozens of start-up wind turbine manufacturers have latched onto this idea since it fits well with a strong public sentiment to shift from fossil fuels to renewables. The 30% tax credit for the technology (that’s 30% without a cap) provides a strong financial incentive. A year ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg even suggested building-integrated wind as a greening strategy for New York City’s many tall buildings. What’s not to like about it?
It turns out that, despite some benefits, building-integrated wind doesn’t make much sense as a renewable-energy strategy. In this article, we’ll examine both the pros and cons of this technology, look at some examples of how it’s been tried, and explain why it’s usually a bad idea.
Context for Building-Integrated Wind
The wind power industry has gone through a steady evolution since the 1970s, when interest in generating electricity from the wind was reawakened. Wind turbines from the early 1970s were generally small, a few kilowatts (kW) in rated output, and most were for residential applications. Aided by significant research support from the U.S. Department of Energy, the wind industry pursued the significant economies of scale with larger turbines, leading to machines with output in the tens of kW, then hundreds of kW, then in the megawatt (MW) scale.
Another major shift, starting in the 1980s, was to aggregate wind turbines into wind farms. By situating multiple wind turbines close to each other on windy ridges, such as Altamont Pass and Tehachapi Pass in California, maintenance could be more efficient, and power could more easily be fed into the utility grid.
Some suggest that a third shift is underway today: putting wind turbines on top of buildings or integrating them into buildings in other ways.
The Case for Building-Integrated Wind
Wind speed typically increases with height, as it is less affected by trees and surrounding topography. Putting wind turbines on top of buildings—especially tall buildings—should allow them to take advantage of height without an expensive, full-size tower.
In some cases, building geometry can enhance wind turbine performance. Several manufacturers of building-integrated wind turbines are taking advantage of the increased wind velocities at building parapets—where the wind rises up the façade of a large building and curls over the edge. Some architects are designing wind scoops right into the structures of buildings or situating building towers to funnel wind into turbines.
Most of our electricity is used in buildings, and generating the electricity on site reduces the need for transmission. This in turn reduces transmission losses as well as the materials needed for wiring and poles. In addition to this practical benefit, wind turbines spinning on a building provide a visible testament to a building owner’s commitment to the environment. While building-integrated photovoltaics (PV) can make a similar statement, the modules just sit there; we don’t see them generating electricity.
Finally, many consider wind turbines to be beautiful. The graceful AeroVironment wind turbines that top an office building at Logan International Airport are an aesthetic feature. Architects and building owners spend a lot of money on non-functional, decorative elements of buildings; why not install decorative elements that actually do something?
Sidebar:
Integrating Wind Turbines Directly Into Building Architecture
The Bahrain World Trade Center and China’s Pearl River Tower provide examples of how building-integrated wind is being used in high-profile green projects. ...
Read More... Facing Up to Reality
Unfortunately, building-integrated wind often doesn’t live up to its promise. The turbines must overcome several challenges to meet performance expectations and be cost effective.
Turbulent Air Flow
The best wind-turbine performance happens with strong laminar wind, in which all of the air flows in a single direction. But on top of even very tall buildings, wind flow is highly turbulent. Bob Thresher, director of the National Wind Technology Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, explains that as wind flow comes over the edge of a roof or around a corner, it separates into streams. “Separating the flow creates a lot of turbulence,” he told EBN.
According to Ron Stimmel, the small wind technology expert at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), this turbulent flow confuses a wind turbine, affecting its performance. “Even if it feels really windy [on top of a building], it’s probably more turbulent than steady wind,” he said. A common rule of thumb, according to Stimmel, is to elevate a wind turbine at least 30 feet (9 m) above anything within a 500-foot (150 m) radius, including the building itself.
What about the increased wind velocity at building parapets that manufacturers like AeroVironment use? Although AeroVironment’s turbines successfully harvest this band of higher-velocity wind, they do so only in a fairly narrow band, which limits the potential size and output of wind turbines. Because the turbines are small, the economics are not as attractive as with larger wind turbines.
Noise and vibration
This opening in the face of the Pearl River Tower will funnel wind to a vertical-axis wind turbine.
Noise and vibration from wind turbines are among the greatest obstacles to integrating them into buildings. Based on the recent surge in building-integrated wind, one might think that engineers had beaten this problem. In truth, some wind turbines are a lot quieter than others—vertical-axis machines among them—but managing noise and vibration remains a huge challenge. Roger Frechette, P.E., of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) in Chicago, who led the engineering team on the Pearl River Tower, opted for vertical-axis turbines to minimize noise and vibration but still put them in unoccupied “technical floors” to isolate them from occupants in the building.
Engineer Paul Torcellini, P.E., Ph.D., of NREL points out that the vibration from wind turbines is variable. He said that with HVAC fans on buildings, where the frequency of the fan is known, controlling the vibration and noise requires carefully engineered housings and mounting systems to isolate that vibration from the building—and it’s still a problem.
In one of the only extensive surveys of actual performance of building-integrated wind turbines (the Warwick Wind Trials Project, the only turbines able to generate close to their projected electricity output were mounted on high-rise apartment buildings. And these wind turbines remained switched off throughout most of the test period because of complaints from the residents about noise.
The Pearl River Tower will include four vertical-axis turbines located in penetrations through the face of the building.
If you try to put a turbine on a tower on top of a building—to get away from the turbulent flow and into the most productive wind—the stresses on the building are magnified. Randy Swisher, the past executive director of AWEA, notes that wind turbines are subjected to a great deal of stress, and if installed on a building, “that stress can be transmitted to the building structure, creating substantial problems.”
Experts EBN interviewed explained that turbulent flow creates stress on the drive gear in a turbine, creating vibrations. These vibrations can, in turn, create harmonic resonances within a building structure. Metal roof decks made from thin roll-formed steel sheet, common in commercial buildings, can act like drumheads and amplify these resonances. In fact, AeroVironment, the building-integrated wind energy company that has done more than any other to understand the aerodynamics of wind around buildings, suggests in its sales literature that their turbines are only appropriate for buildings constructed of concrete.
Safety
One of the inherent fears aroused by installing wind turbines on buildings is that blades might fly off and injure people or property. It is not unheard of for large, free-standing wind turbines to occasionally shed a blade. On a ridgetop or in a large field, these accidents are unlikely to cause serious damage, but on a tall building in a city or even on a house, they could be a real problem. Even if the building owner is willing to accept that risk, the insurance company may not be.
Though EBN found no evidence of injury or damage from building-integrated wind turbines, a building such as the Bahrain World Trade Center, with its 95-foot-diameter (29 m) rotors, might not be insurable in the risk-averse and litigious North American market.
Poor measured performance
Despite the growing number of building-integrated wind turbine installations around North America and the rest of the world, obtaining actual measured performance data is like pulling teeth. Most manufacturers of these wind systems either claim not to have such data or are unwilling to share it. The reason for this reluctance may be that actual electricity production is much worse than expected.
Manufacturers publish power curves for their turbines that show projected electricity outputs at different wind speeds. There is also a rated power output at a specific wind speed, though the wind speed used for this rated output differs among manufacturers. Referring to small-scale, rooftop wind turbines, Ron Stimmel of AWEA said that “it’s very, very difficult to get them to perform at anywhere near their rated capacities.” He told EBN that he has yet to find one that achieves its expected performance.
This Windside turbine is being tested by Madison Gas and Electric is nominally rated at 10 kW AC but has never produced more than 600 watts. It is installed at a height that might be typical for a rooftop application.
The municipal utility company Madison Gas and Electric, in Wisconsin, set out last year to find out for itself whether small-scale, building-integrated wind made sense. The company installed a vertical-axis wind turbine made by the Finnish company Windside, whose turbines are widely installed on rooftops in Europe. Madison Gas and Electric installed a turbine on a pole, with the top at 42 feet (13 m)—about the height it would be on a one-story commercial building—and has been tracking performance continually since November 2008.
According to senior engineer David Toso, P.E, the 12-foot-tall (3.7 m) by 3-foot-diameter (0.9 m) WS-4C turbine is rated at 10 kW AC power output, but he has never seen it produce more than 600 watts—6% of its rated output—even on a very windy day. The turbine cost $40,000 and was purchased from Bright Idea Energy Solutions in Evansville, Indiana (which is no longer distributing the Windside product, although the company does offer a similar, U.S.-made product). When EBN checked the real-time cumulative electricity production from the wind turbine in early April 2009 (go to www.mge.com and click on “Our Environment”), we found that it had produced only 33 kWh total in four months—about a quarter kWh per day. “Either someone was too aggressive with their projections, or they missed a decimal point,” Toso told EBN. “They’re not quite ready for prime time.”
Power generation systems are typically rated by a capacity factor, which is the percent of electricity generated compared with the output if the system were operating at the rated capacity over that time period (although with wind turbines there is no standard for the wind speed on which the rated capacity is based). Freestanding wind turbines in good wind sites typically operate at a 10% to 30% capacity factor—the better the site, the higher the capacity factor. By this analysis, the Madison Gas and Electric wind turbine is operating at a capacity factor of just 0.11%. Fixed-pitch PV systems in selected cities, by comparison, have capacity factors ranging from 11% in Seattle to 18% in Tucson, according to data supplied by Steven Strong of Solar Design Associates.
The previously mentioned Warwick Wind Trials Project in the U.K. measured turbine performance of 26 building-mounted wind turbines from October 2007 through October 2008 and found an average capacity factor of 0.85%. All were very small (“microwind,” defined as less than 2 kW) turbines, including the Ampair 600 (600 W), Zephyr Air Dolphin (1,000 W), Eclectic D400 StealthGen (400 W), and Windsave WS1000 (1,000 W). For each installation, measured electricity production was compared with predicted production based on the manufacturers’ supplied power curves and both predicted and measured wind speeds. The study found that predicted performance exceeded actual performance by a factor of 15 to 17. With the worst-performing systems, the electricity required to run the electronics exceeded the electricity production, so the wind turbines were net consumers of electricity!
A 2008 report on 19 small wind turbines installed in Massachusetts, written by the Cadmus Group with support of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, found far lower performance than expected. While these were freestanding rather than building-integrated turbines, the measured capacity factor was just 4%, versus the projected 10%. In other words, the performance was 60% worse than predicted. Various reasons were given as to why this large discrepancy may exist, including inaccurate wind speed estimates, incorrect power curves, inverter inefficiencies, and greater losses due to site conditions (turbulence and wind shear) than expected.
The Adventure Aquarium in Camden, New Jersey, features eight 400-watt and four 1000-watt AeroVironment turbines.
Even AeroVironment’s wind turbines, are not performing at the level the company had originally hoped for. Since 2006, when their parapet-optimized wind turbine was introduced (see EBN Aug. 2006), the company has adjusted downward its expectations of energy production, according to Paul Glenney, director of AeroVironment’s Energy Technology Center, though installations are matching their predicted power curves.
Cost-effectiveness
Perhaps the greatest impediment to building-integrated wind energy is the economics. While large free-standing wind turbines provide the least expensive renewable electricity today, small wind turbines are far less cost effective, and when small turbines are put on buildings, the costs go up while the production drops.
How does building-integrated wind compare with PV? AeroVironment installations have been running at $6,500–$9,000 per kW of installed capacity, which is fairly close to the cost of PV installations, which averaged $7,600 in 2007, according to a February 2009 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. An AeroVironment wind system will deliver, according to Glenney, 750–1,500 kWh annually per kW of rated capacity (depending on the wind resource), while a fixed-pitch, commercial-scale PV system will deliver annually 1,100–1,200 kWh/kW of rated capacity in Boston and 1,400–1,560 kWh/kW in Tucson, according to data provided by Strong.
When you factor in the fact that the PV system is likely to deliver closer to its rated output on a building than the building-integrated wind system, while costing less to maintain, PV is just a better deal. According to Paul Gipe, a leading advocate of wind power for 30 years and author of numerous books on the topic, if you’re looking to put renewable energy on buildings, “there’s nothing better than photovoltaics.”
Wind turbines as advertising
Putting wind turbines on a building to advertise the greenness of a company or organization is a compelling idea—as long as those turbines spin most of the time. In Golden, Colorado, a Southwest Windpower Skystream turbine was installed at a dental office to make a statement about renewable energy and demonstrate wind energy. The problem, according to a few residents of the area, is that it’s hardly ever spinning, especially during the morning rush hour when commuters are driving by. A lot of commuters who pass this turbine may conclude that wind energy doesn’t work very well.
Products
Quite a few manufacturers offer wind turbines for rooftop installation. The following is a small sampling of what’s available today.
AeroVironment AVX1000
The 400-watt AVX400 turbine from AeroVironment, released in 2006 and shown here, has since been replaced by the 1-kilowatt AVX1000.
Arguably, the world leader in rooftop wind technology today is AeroVironment and its Architectural Wind division, based in Monrovia, California. In 2006, the company introduced a 400-watt wind turbine designed to take advantage of concentrated wind at the parapets of commercial buildings. That initial model has been replaced by the AVX1000, an elegant, lightweight, 1 kW turbine that bends gracefully from a mounting base on a building’s parapet. The turbines are designed to be installed in a row; 20 grace a Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) administrative office building at Logan Airport in Boston.
AeroVironment has pursued horizontal-axis, rather than vertical-axis, wind turbines. Vertical-axis machines “are inherently less efficient by a wide margin,” according to Glenney. “Our patent for leveraging the accelerated wind flow includes vertical-axis wind turbines, but we’ve never pursued them simply because the lower efficiency significantly increases turbine size and, thus, material costs,” he said.
Aerotecture International helical rotor wind turbines
These helical Aerotecture turbines on a building in Chicago have been operating only sporadically.
Aerotecture founder Bill Becker, a professor at the University of Illinois, invented this unique wind turbine, described on the company website as a “helical rotor and airfoils housed within … a steel cage.” The lightweight, 10-foot-tall by 5-foot-diameter (3 x 1.5 m) 510V turbine is designed for vertical mounting and rated at 1 kW output—at 32 miles per hour (14 meters per second). While the 510V turbine is rated at 32 mph, the power curve for the unit shows less than 200 watts of output in 20 mph (9 m/s) wind. The cut-in windspeed (when the turbine begins generating electricity) is listed as 6.3 mph (2.8 m/s). The slightly modified 520H is made up of two 510V turbines that are installed horizontally; it is rated at 1.8 kW at 32 mph.
Eight 520H Aerotecture wind turbines were installed on a Mercy Housing Lakefront single-room occupancy building in Chicago in May 2007. Each of these was rated at 1.5 kW (somewhat lower than the currently listed rated output for the 520H)—for a total rated capacity of 12 kW. Unfortunately, there is no data available on the actual performance of these turbines. Aerotecture would not return EBN’s calls, referring us to a public relations agency, which told us by e-mail that “the company is focused on internal development not media coverage at this point, so it’s frankly just not possible to get your query on the agenda.”
Larry McCarthy, the vice president for property management at Mercy Housing Lakefront, told EBN that the turbines “are not all working at this time,” adding that a couple of the alternators are frozen up. A Chicago resident EBN spoke with said he has “rarely seen more than one of the turbines rotating and often not even one.”
Windside and GUS vertical-axis wind turbines
Made in Finland by Oy Windside Production, Windside turbines are Savonius-style, vertical-axis turbines made by forming two spiral vanes (photo page 15). The design was developed in 1979 by Risto Joutsiniemi, and the turbines have been on the market since 1982. Used for charging batteries in harsh, cold climates (they are manufactured just 250 miles, or 400 km, south of the Arctic Circle), some of the turbines are designed for operation in winds up to 130 mph (60 m/s). It is a Windside turbine that is being tested by Madison Gas & Electric in Wisconsin, and these turbines are planned for the Pearl River Tower. The turbines are claimed to be virtually silent: less than 2dB at two meters, according to Raigatta Energy, the Canadian distributor.
These graceful U.K.-manufactured Quiet Revolution turbines produce 3 kW of power in 25 mph (11 m/s) wind.
The installer of the Wisconsin turbine, Bright Idea Energy Solutions of Evansville, Illinois, no longer carries the Windside products, having replaced them with remarkably similar-looking turbines made by the Flagtown, New Jersey company Tangarie Alternative Power. Creede Hargraves of Bright Idea Energy Solutions says the Tangarie turbines (referred to as Greenpower Utility System or GUS turbines) cost half as much as Windside products—though are still far more expensive than the line of free-standing horizontal-axis turbines that the company sells. They are also larger for the same rated output, which should help to avoid the problems being experienced by Madison Gas and Electric. Hargraves said that he will be replacing that Windside turbine with a GUS model in the summer of 2009.
Quiet Revolution QR5 vertical-axis wind turbine
Currently available only in the U.K, Quiet Revolution’s QR5 is an elegant, eggbeater-style (Darrieus) wind turbine with blades and spokes made from carbon and fiberglass. The 16-foot-tall (5 m) by 10-foot-diameter (3.1 m) turbine is designed for mounting on a mast that is installed either stand-alone or on top of a building. The peak DC power output in 31 mph (14 m/s) wind is 6.2 kW, with the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) rated power output at 24.6 mph (11 m/s) is 3 kW DC. Power generation can begin at 10 mph (4.5 m/s), and the turbine cuts out at 36 mph (16 m/s). Data from the company on noise production from the turbine shows about 50 dB(A) at 13 mph (6 m/s) and 58 dB(A) at 22 mph (10 m/s). The company’s website lists the price for the turbine and control electronics at 29,600 British Pounds (about $43,000), plus mast and installation.
To date, more than 65 Quiet Revolution turbines have been installed in the U.K., and expansion to other countries is anticipated in 2010 or 2011, according to Phillipa Rogers of the company.
Swift Wind Turbine
These Swift wind turbines are made of nano-fiber-reinforced polymer. The 1.5 kW turbines start up in 5 mph (2.3 m/s) wind and are claimed to be the quietest horizontal-axis wind turbines on the market, producing just 35 dB of noise.
Designed and developed by the Scottish company Renewable Devices, the unique carbon-fiber rotor is now being manufactured by Cascade Engineering in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Cascade Engineering will be manufacturing all Swift rotors worldwide and assembling all components of the Swift turbine for the U.S. market. The 7-foot-diameter (2.1 m), five-blade turbine with a distinctive outer rim and twin angled positioning fins, is designed for rooftop mounting using an aluminum mast with a minimum clearance from the roof of two feet (0.6 m). The manufacturer claims its operation to be nearly silent (less than 35 dB in all winds). The turbine is rated at 1.5 kW in 31 mph (14 m/s) wind, and annual production is estimated at “up to 2,000 kWh.” The average cost is $10,000 to $12,000, according to the company.
Final Thoughts
I want to like building-integrated wind. There’s a wonderful synergy in the idea of combining form and function by generating electricity with turbines that reach into the sky on the buildings they will help to power. But in most cases, at least with today’s technology, it just doesn’t make sense.
There is a huge economy of scale with wind power. This has fueled the evolution of ever-larger wind turbines from a few kW of capacity in the 1970s to a few MW today. Small turbines, even stand-alone, pole-mounted turbines, are not very cost-effective. When we put those small turbines on top of buildings, the costs go up and the performance goes down.
Rooftop installations—even the best of them—are too small to be cost-effective, and the air flow too turbulent to be effectively harvested—whether vertical-axis or horizontal-axis. The truly integrated installations that are large enough to generate significant power will be too hard to permit or insure in North America to become a serious option, even if the vibration and noise concerns are successfully addressed.
Paul Gipe vociferously discourages building-integrated wind. Wind just isn’t a good fit, he argues. Cost-effective wind turbines are “too big for the structure of buildings.”
Wind energy has a very important role to play in our energy future, but it is with large, freestanding wind turbines, located on ridgelines, in Midwestern agricultural fields, or in offshore wind farms. The bottom line regarding cost is that while large stand-alone wind farms provide the least expensive renewable electricity today, small, building-integrated wind turbines provide electricity that is more expensive than that produced by PV, while the turbines are more costly to maintain and less dependable.
By all means, power your buildings with wind energy, but do it on a larger scale, remotely, where the turbines can operate in laminar-flow winds and where their vibrations and noise won’t affect buildings and building occupants.
– Alex Wilson
FYI There were some very nice pictures associated with this article, but they didnt survive the transfer to this site.
May 1, 2009
The Folly of Building-Integrated Wind
The Bahrain World Trade Center, with three 225 kW turbines on bridges spanning the twin towers, is the first building to integrate commercial-scale wind turbines into a building.
The appeal of integrating wind turbines into our buildings is strong. Rooftops are elevated above ground, where it’s windier; the electricity is generated right where it’s needed; and wind energy can make a strong visual statement. Dozens of start-up wind turbine manufacturers have latched onto this idea since it fits well with a strong public sentiment to shift from fossil fuels to renewables. The 30% tax credit for the technology (that’s 30% without a cap) provides a strong financial incentive. A year ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg even suggested building-integrated wind as a greening strategy for New York City’s many tall buildings. What’s not to like about it?
It turns out that, despite some benefits, building-integrated wind doesn’t make much sense as a renewable-energy strategy. In this article, we’ll examine both the pros and cons of this technology, look at some examples of how it’s been tried, and explain why it’s usually a bad idea.
Context for Building-Integrated Wind
The wind power industry has gone through a steady evolution since the 1970s, when interest in generating electricity from the wind was reawakened. Wind turbines from the early 1970s were generally small, a few kilowatts (kW) in rated output, and most were for residential applications. Aided by significant research support from the U.S. Department of Energy, the wind industry pursued the significant economies of scale with larger turbines, leading to machines with output in the tens of kW, then hundreds of kW, then in the megawatt (MW) scale.
Another major shift, starting in the 1980s, was to aggregate wind turbines into wind farms. By situating multiple wind turbines close to each other on windy ridges, such as Altamont Pass and Tehachapi Pass in California, maintenance could be more efficient, and power could more easily be fed into the utility grid.
Some suggest that a third shift is underway today: putting wind turbines on top of buildings or integrating them into buildings in other ways.
The Case for Building-Integrated Wind
Wind speed typically increases with height, as it is less affected by trees and surrounding topography. Putting wind turbines on top of buildings—especially tall buildings—should allow them to take advantage of height without an expensive, full-size tower.
In some cases, building geometry can enhance wind turbine performance. Several manufacturers of building-integrated wind turbines are taking advantage of the increased wind velocities at building parapets—where the wind rises up the façade of a large building and curls over the edge. Some architects are designing wind scoops right into the structures of buildings or situating building towers to funnel wind into turbines.
Most of our electricity is used in buildings, and generating the electricity on site reduces the need for transmission. This in turn reduces transmission losses as well as the materials needed for wiring and poles. In addition to this practical benefit, wind turbines spinning on a building provide a visible testament to a building owner’s commitment to the environment. While building-integrated photovoltaics (PV) can make a similar statement, the modules just sit there; we don’t see them generating electricity.
Finally, many consider wind turbines to be beautiful. The graceful AeroVironment wind turbines that top an office building at Logan International Airport are an aesthetic feature. Architects and building owners spend a lot of money on non-functional, decorative elements of buildings; why not install decorative elements that actually do something?
Sidebar:
Integrating Wind Turbines Directly Into Building Architecture
The Bahrain World Trade Center and China’s Pearl River Tower provide examples of how building-integrated wind is being used in high-profile green projects. ...
Read More... Facing Up to Reality
Unfortunately, building-integrated wind often doesn’t live up to its promise. The turbines must overcome several challenges to meet performance expectations and be cost effective.
Turbulent Air Flow
The best wind-turbine performance happens with strong laminar wind, in which all of the air flows in a single direction. But on top of even very tall buildings, wind flow is highly turbulent. Bob Thresher, director of the National Wind Technology Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, explains that as wind flow comes over the edge of a roof or around a corner, it separates into streams. “Separating the flow creates a lot of turbulence,” he told EBN.
According to Ron Stimmel, the small wind technology expert at the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), this turbulent flow confuses a wind turbine, affecting its performance. “Even if it feels really windy [on top of a building], it’s probably more turbulent than steady wind,” he said. A common rule of thumb, according to Stimmel, is to elevate a wind turbine at least 30 feet (9 m) above anything within a 500-foot (150 m) radius, including the building itself.
What about the increased wind velocity at building parapets that manufacturers like AeroVironment use? Although AeroVironment’s turbines successfully harvest this band of higher-velocity wind, they do so only in a fairly narrow band, which limits the potential size and output of wind turbines. Because the turbines are small, the economics are not as attractive as with larger wind turbines.
Noise and vibration
This opening in the face of the Pearl River Tower will funnel wind to a vertical-axis wind turbine.
Noise and vibration from wind turbines are among the greatest obstacles to integrating them into buildings. Based on the recent surge in building-integrated wind, one might think that engineers had beaten this problem. In truth, some wind turbines are a lot quieter than others—vertical-axis machines among them—but managing noise and vibration remains a huge challenge. Roger Frechette, P.E., of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) in Chicago, who led the engineering team on the Pearl River Tower, opted for vertical-axis turbines to minimize noise and vibration but still put them in unoccupied “technical floors” to isolate them from occupants in the building.
Engineer Paul Torcellini, P.E., Ph.D., of NREL points out that the vibration from wind turbines is variable. He said that with HVAC fans on buildings, where the frequency of the fan is known, controlling the vibration and noise requires carefully engineered housings and mounting systems to isolate that vibration from the building—and it’s still a problem.
In one of the only extensive surveys of actual performance of building-integrated wind turbines (the Warwick Wind Trials Project, the only turbines able to generate close to their projected electricity output were mounted on high-rise apartment buildings. And these wind turbines remained switched off throughout most of the test period because of complaints from the residents about noise.
The Pearl River Tower will include four vertical-axis turbines located in penetrations through the face of the building.
If you try to put a turbine on a tower on top of a building—to get away from the turbulent flow and into the most productive wind—the stresses on the building are magnified. Randy Swisher, the past executive director of AWEA, notes that wind turbines are subjected to a great deal of stress, and if installed on a building, “that stress can be transmitted to the building structure, creating substantial problems.”
Experts EBN interviewed explained that turbulent flow creates stress on the drive gear in a turbine, creating vibrations. These vibrations can, in turn, create harmonic resonances within a building structure. Metal roof decks made from thin roll-formed steel sheet, common in commercial buildings, can act like drumheads and amplify these resonances. In fact, AeroVironment, the building-integrated wind energy company that has done more than any other to understand the aerodynamics of wind around buildings, suggests in its sales literature that their turbines are only appropriate for buildings constructed of concrete.
Safety
One of the inherent fears aroused by installing wind turbines on buildings is that blades might fly off and injure people or property. It is not unheard of for large, free-standing wind turbines to occasionally shed a blade. On a ridgetop or in a large field, these accidents are unlikely to cause serious damage, but on a tall building in a city or even on a house, they could be a real problem. Even if the building owner is willing to accept that risk, the insurance company may not be.
Though EBN found no evidence of injury or damage from building-integrated wind turbines, a building such as the Bahrain World Trade Center, with its 95-foot-diameter (29 m) rotors, might not be insurable in the risk-averse and litigious North American market.
Poor measured performance
Despite the growing number of building-integrated wind turbine installations around North America and the rest of the world, obtaining actual measured performance data is like pulling teeth. Most manufacturers of these wind systems either claim not to have such data or are unwilling to share it. The reason for this reluctance may be that actual electricity production is much worse than expected.
Manufacturers publish power curves for their turbines that show projected electricity outputs at different wind speeds. There is also a rated power output at a specific wind speed, though the wind speed used for this rated output differs among manufacturers. Referring to small-scale, rooftop wind turbines, Ron Stimmel of AWEA said that “it’s very, very difficult to get them to perform at anywhere near their rated capacities.” He told EBN that he has yet to find one that achieves its expected performance.
This Windside turbine is being tested by Madison Gas and Electric is nominally rated at 10 kW AC but has never produced more than 600 watts. It is installed at a height that might be typical for a rooftop application.
The municipal utility company Madison Gas and Electric, in Wisconsin, set out last year to find out for itself whether small-scale, building-integrated wind made sense. The company installed a vertical-axis wind turbine made by the Finnish company Windside, whose turbines are widely installed on rooftops in Europe. Madison Gas and Electric installed a turbine on a pole, with the top at 42 feet (13 m)—about the height it would be on a one-story commercial building—and has been tracking performance continually since November 2008.
According to senior engineer David Toso, P.E, the 12-foot-tall (3.7 m) by 3-foot-diameter (0.9 m) WS-4C turbine is rated at 10 kW AC power output, but he has never seen it produce more than 600 watts—6% of its rated output—even on a very windy day. The turbine cost $40,000 and was purchased from Bright Idea Energy Solutions in Evansville, Indiana (which is no longer distributing the Windside product, although the company does offer a similar, U.S.-made product). When EBN checked the real-time cumulative electricity production from the wind turbine in early April 2009 (go to www.mge.com and click on “Our Environment”), we found that it had produced only 33 kWh total in four months—about a quarter kWh per day. “Either someone was too aggressive with their projections, or they missed a decimal point,” Toso told EBN. “They’re not quite ready for prime time.”
Power generation systems are typically rated by a capacity factor, which is the percent of electricity generated compared with the output if the system were operating at the rated capacity over that time period (although with wind turbines there is no standard for the wind speed on which the rated capacity is based). Freestanding wind turbines in good wind sites typically operate at a 10% to 30% capacity factor—the better the site, the higher the capacity factor. By this analysis, the Madison Gas and Electric wind turbine is operating at a capacity factor of just 0.11%. Fixed-pitch PV systems in selected cities, by comparison, have capacity factors ranging from 11% in Seattle to 18% in Tucson, according to data supplied by Steven Strong of Solar Design Associates.
The previously mentioned Warwick Wind Trials Project in the U.K. measured turbine performance of 26 building-mounted wind turbines from October 2007 through October 2008 and found an average capacity factor of 0.85%. All were very small (“microwind,” defined as less than 2 kW) turbines, including the Ampair 600 (600 W), Zephyr Air Dolphin (1,000 W), Eclectic D400 StealthGen (400 W), and Windsave WS1000 (1,000 W). For each installation, measured electricity production was compared with predicted production based on the manufacturers’ supplied power curves and both predicted and measured wind speeds. The study found that predicted performance exceeded actual performance by a factor of 15 to 17. With the worst-performing systems, the electricity required to run the electronics exceeded the electricity production, so the wind turbines were net consumers of electricity!
A 2008 report on 19 small wind turbines installed in Massachusetts, written by the Cadmus Group with support of the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, found far lower performance than expected. While these were freestanding rather than building-integrated turbines, the measured capacity factor was just 4%, versus the projected 10%. In other words, the performance was 60% worse than predicted. Various reasons were given as to why this large discrepancy may exist, including inaccurate wind speed estimates, incorrect power curves, inverter inefficiencies, and greater losses due to site conditions (turbulence and wind shear) than expected.
The Adventure Aquarium in Camden, New Jersey, features eight 400-watt and four 1000-watt AeroVironment turbines.
Even AeroVironment’s wind turbines, are not performing at the level the company had originally hoped for. Since 2006, when their parapet-optimized wind turbine was introduced (see EBN Aug. 2006), the company has adjusted downward its expectations of energy production, according to Paul Glenney, director of AeroVironment’s Energy Technology Center, though installations are matching their predicted power curves.
Cost-effectiveness
Perhaps the greatest impediment to building-integrated wind energy is the economics. While large free-standing wind turbines provide the least expensive renewable electricity today, small wind turbines are far less cost effective, and when small turbines are put on buildings, the costs go up while the production drops.
How does building-integrated wind compare with PV? AeroVironment installations have been running at $6,500–$9,000 per kW of installed capacity, which is fairly close to the cost of PV installations, which averaged $7,600 in 2007, according to a February 2009 report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. An AeroVironment wind system will deliver, according to Glenney, 750–1,500 kWh annually per kW of rated capacity (depending on the wind resource), while a fixed-pitch, commercial-scale PV system will deliver annually 1,100–1,200 kWh/kW of rated capacity in Boston and 1,400–1,560 kWh/kW in Tucson, according to data provided by Strong.
When you factor in the fact that the PV system is likely to deliver closer to its rated output on a building than the building-integrated wind system, while costing less to maintain, PV is just a better deal. According to Paul Gipe, a leading advocate of wind power for 30 years and author of numerous books on the topic, if you’re looking to put renewable energy on buildings, “there’s nothing better than photovoltaics.”
Wind turbines as advertising
Putting wind turbines on a building to advertise the greenness of a company or organization is a compelling idea—as long as those turbines spin most of the time. In Golden, Colorado, a Southwest Windpower Skystream turbine was installed at a dental office to make a statement about renewable energy and demonstrate wind energy. The problem, according to a few residents of the area, is that it’s hardly ever spinning, especially during the morning rush hour when commuters are driving by. A lot of commuters who pass this turbine may conclude that wind energy doesn’t work very well.
Products
Quite a few manufacturers offer wind turbines for rooftop installation. The following is a small sampling of what’s available today.
AeroVironment AVX1000
The 400-watt AVX400 turbine from AeroVironment, released in 2006 and shown here, has since been replaced by the 1-kilowatt AVX1000.
Arguably, the world leader in rooftop wind technology today is AeroVironment and its Architectural Wind division, based in Monrovia, California. In 2006, the company introduced a 400-watt wind turbine designed to take advantage of concentrated wind at the parapets of commercial buildings. That initial model has been replaced by the AVX1000, an elegant, lightweight, 1 kW turbine that bends gracefully from a mounting base on a building’s parapet. The turbines are designed to be installed in a row; 20 grace a Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) administrative office building at Logan Airport in Boston.
AeroVironment has pursued horizontal-axis, rather than vertical-axis, wind turbines. Vertical-axis machines “are inherently less efficient by a wide margin,” according to Glenney. “Our patent for leveraging the accelerated wind flow includes vertical-axis wind turbines, but we’ve never pursued them simply because the lower efficiency significantly increases turbine size and, thus, material costs,” he said.
Aerotecture International helical rotor wind turbines
These helical Aerotecture turbines on a building in Chicago have been operating only sporadically.
Aerotecture founder Bill Becker, a professor at the University of Illinois, invented this unique wind turbine, described on the company website as a “helical rotor and airfoils housed within … a steel cage.” The lightweight, 10-foot-tall by 5-foot-diameter (3 x 1.5 m) 510V turbine is designed for vertical mounting and rated at 1 kW output—at 32 miles per hour (14 meters per second). While the 510V turbine is rated at 32 mph, the power curve for the unit shows less than 200 watts of output in 20 mph (9 m/s) wind. The cut-in windspeed (when the turbine begins generating electricity) is listed as 6.3 mph (2.8 m/s). The slightly modified 520H is made up of two 510V turbines that are installed horizontally; it is rated at 1.8 kW at 32 mph.
Eight 520H Aerotecture wind turbines were installed on a Mercy Housing Lakefront single-room occupancy building in Chicago in May 2007. Each of these was rated at 1.5 kW (somewhat lower than the currently listed rated output for the 520H)—for a total rated capacity of 12 kW. Unfortunately, there is no data available on the actual performance of these turbines. Aerotecture would not return EBN’s calls, referring us to a public relations agency, which told us by e-mail that “the company is focused on internal development not media coverage at this point, so it’s frankly just not possible to get your query on the agenda.”
Larry McCarthy, the vice president for property management at Mercy Housing Lakefront, told EBN that the turbines “are not all working at this time,” adding that a couple of the alternators are frozen up. A Chicago resident EBN spoke with said he has “rarely seen more than one of the turbines rotating and often not even one.”
Windside and GUS vertical-axis wind turbines
Made in Finland by Oy Windside Production, Windside turbines are Savonius-style, vertical-axis turbines made by forming two spiral vanes (photo page 15). The design was developed in 1979 by Risto Joutsiniemi, and the turbines have been on the market since 1982. Used for charging batteries in harsh, cold climates (they are manufactured just 250 miles, or 400 km, south of the Arctic Circle), some of the turbines are designed for operation in winds up to 130 mph (60 m/s). It is a Windside turbine that is being tested by Madison Gas & Electric in Wisconsin, and these turbines are planned for the Pearl River Tower. The turbines are claimed to be virtually silent: less than 2dB at two meters, according to Raigatta Energy, the Canadian distributor.
These graceful U.K.-manufactured Quiet Revolution turbines produce 3 kW of power in 25 mph (11 m/s) wind.
The installer of the Wisconsin turbine, Bright Idea Energy Solutions of Evansville, Illinois, no longer carries the Windside products, having replaced them with remarkably similar-looking turbines made by the Flagtown, New Jersey company Tangarie Alternative Power. Creede Hargraves of Bright Idea Energy Solutions says the Tangarie turbines (referred to as Greenpower Utility System or GUS turbines) cost half as much as Windside products—though are still far more expensive than the line of free-standing horizontal-axis turbines that the company sells. They are also larger for the same rated output, which should help to avoid the problems being experienced by Madison Gas and Electric. Hargraves said that he will be replacing that Windside turbine with a GUS model in the summer of 2009.
Quiet Revolution QR5 vertical-axis wind turbine
Currently available only in the U.K, Quiet Revolution’s QR5 is an elegant, eggbeater-style (Darrieus) wind turbine with blades and spokes made from carbon and fiberglass. The 16-foot-tall (5 m) by 10-foot-diameter (3.1 m) turbine is designed for mounting on a mast that is installed either stand-alone or on top of a building. The peak DC power output in 31 mph (14 m/s) wind is 6.2 kW, with the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) rated power output at 24.6 mph (11 m/s) is 3 kW DC. Power generation can begin at 10 mph (4.5 m/s), and the turbine cuts out at 36 mph (16 m/s). Data from the company on noise production from the turbine shows about 50 dB(A) at 13 mph (6 m/s) and 58 dB(A) at 22 mph (10 m/s). The company’s website lists the price for the turbine and control electronics at 29,600 British Pounds (about $43,000), plus mast and installation.
To date, more than 65 Quiet Revolution turbines have been installed in the U.K., and expansion to other countries is anticipated in 2010 or 2011, according to Phillipa Rogers of the company.
Swift Wind Turbine
These Swift wind turbines are made of nano-fiber-reinforced polymer. The 1.5 kW turbines start up in 5 mph (2.3 m/s) wind and are claimed to be the quietest horizontal-axis wind turbines on the market, producing just 35 dB of noise.
Designed and developed by the Scottish company Renewable Devices, the unique carbon-fiber rotor is now being manufactured by Cascade Engineering in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Cascade Engineering will be manufacturing all Swift rotors worldwide and assembling all components of the Swift turbine for the U.S. market. The 7-foot-diameter (2.1 m), five-blade turbine with a distinctive outer rim and twin angled positioning fins, is designed for rooftop mounting using an aluminum mast with a minimum clearance from the roof of two feet (0.6 m). The manufacturer claims its operation to be nearly silent (less than 35 dB in all winds). The turbine is rated at 1.5 kW in 31 mph (14 m/s) wind, and annual production is estimated at “up to 2,000 kWh.” The average cost is $10,000 to $12,000, according to the company.
Final Thoughts
I want to like building-integrated wind. There’s a wonderful synergy in the idea of combining form and function by generating electricity with turbines that reach into the sky on the buildings they will help to power. But in most cases, at least with today’s technology, it just doesn’t make sense.
There is a huge economy of scale with wind power. This has fueled the evolution of ever-larger wind turbines from a few kW of capacity in the 1970s to a few MW today. Small turbines, even stand-alone, pole-mounted turbines, are not very cost-effective. When we put those small turbines on top of buildings, the costs go up and the performance goes down.
Rooftop installations—even the best of them—are too small to be cost-effective, and the air flow too turbulent to be effectively harvested—whether vertical-axis or horizontal-axis. The truly integrated installations that are large enough to generate significant power will be too hard to permit or insure in North America to become a serious option, even if the vibration and noise concerns are successfully addressed.
Paul Gipe vociferously discourages building-integrated wind. Wind just isn’t a good fit, he argues. Cost-effective wind turbines are “too big for the structure of buildings.”
Wind energy has a very important role to play in our energy future, but it is with large, freestanding wind turbines, located on ridgelines, in Midwestern agricultural fields, or in offshore wind farms. The bottom line regarding cost is that while large stand-alone wind farms provide the least expensive renewable electricity today, small, building-integrated wind turbines provide electricity that is more expensive than that produced by PV, while the turbines are more costly to maintain and less dependable.
By all means, power your buildings with wind energy, but do it on a larger scale, remotely, where the turbines can operate in laminar-flow winds and where their vibrations and noise won’t affect buildings and building occupants.
– Alex Wilson
FYI There were some very nice pictures associated with this article, but they didnt survive the transfer to this site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)