Search 
Friday, September 03, 2010 ..:: Energy Saving » Environment Page ::.. Register  Login
Utility Rates Surge Around the U.S.
If you're paying more, you aren't alone -- but the increases vary by location. If you think your electric bill was high this summer, wait till next year. The Energy Department predicts that the average residential electricity bill will rise about 10% in 2009 after a 5% increase this year. Among the most expensive states in which to purchase electricity are Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, according to the Department of Energy. Hawaii is the most expensive state, though that comes as no surprise.
The Northeast
Consumers throughout the Northeast have seen their rates rise dramatically in recent years due to the effects of de-regulation of the utility market there. Dense population and lack of new power lines and infrastructure to meet the region's energy demands also play a part in the higher cost.
Hawaii
Hawaii is the most expensive state, though that comes as no surprise. Many goods and services are more expensive in the state due to its sheer isolation from the mainland and the costs involved in delivering goods and services. Alaska has high electricity costs as well, for similar reasons.
States with Cheap Power
Idaho, which uses cheap hydroelectric power, had the cheapest electricity, and other coal-producing states like West Virginia and Kentucky have consistently lower rates.
"Freeze Rates"
Certain states have also seen prices rise recently as so-called "rate freezes" expired and utilities attempted to make up for lost time. Those freezes were put in place by the government to control power costs, but didn't factor in surging commodity costs down the road. Some Maryland electric bills rose as much as 72% in 2006 due to that trend, hurting consumers and businesses alike.
Regulated Power
States like Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are facing similar rate-freeze expirations, have worked out plans to phase in higher rates over time or include regulated power and renewables in the mix to ease the pain of rate hikes.
Surging Electricity Prices
The point of deregulating the power market was to provide more choices for consumers, with the belief that strong competition would lower prices. But even Texas, whose deregulation was once hyped as the perfect example of the free market at work, with more than 100 power companies operating in the state, is now facing surging electricity prices as well.
De-Regulation
It was once believed that de-regulation would lead to greater efficiency and improvement of aging infrastructure -- new plants, more transmission lines and better service. But that hasn't happened either, due to the high costs of building such infrastructure, combined with the NIMBYism of many Americans who don't want power lines and power plants being built across their neighborhoods. These factors provide little incentive for power producers who can increase profits with the infrastructure they already have.
More on De-Regulation
"This was supposed to promote the construction of new power plants. Well, that hasn't happened," says Mark Crisson, president and CEO of the American Public Power Association, a nonprofit group that represents local public utilities. "All it does is transfer money from the consumer to these 10 or 12 companies that have been doing very well in recent years."
Rapid Increase in Prices
Crisson predicts more pain ahead if nothing is done to alleviate the rapid increase of electricity prices in dozens of deregulated states. The trend could hurt utilities, which are coping with high commodity costs, as well as promises of stricter emissions regulation from lawmakers and both presumptive presidential candidates.
Assumptions about Energy
While the Energy Department predicts that electricity prices will peak in 2009 at 9.3 cents per kilowatt hour, there are no guarantees. Its projections have assumptions about commodity mix, renewables, costs and infrastructure that, of course, aren't certain.
No Guarantees
Some utilities offer "demand management" programs to encourage use of electricity during off-peak times, or will seasonally adjust bills to spread out the high summer prices over the full year. But such programs don't guarantee lower prices either. For the time being, consumers can only lower their bills by conserving energy.

Insulation Alternatives: Blown or Foamed Through a Membrane
Four entries in the PATH Technology Inventory describe alternatives to conventional fiberglass batts or rolls:
• Non-fiberglass batts
• Sprayed foam insulation
• Sprayed fiber insulation
• Blown or foamed through a membrane.
This document deals with insulation that is blown or foamed through a membrane.
To add insulation to existing homes, it is common practice to blow fibrous insulation material into enclosed wall, floor, and roof cavities. The same technique can be used in new construction by covering an open wall cavity tightly with a membrane fastened to the framing. A fabric similar to that used on the underside of furniture, nylon netting, or polyethylene is used as the membrane in various systems. Fiberglass, cellulose, and mineral blowing wool, can be used.
Cementitious foam is blown through a membrane with air, resulting in a continuous network of mineral surrounding bubbles of air. It is inert, non-toxic, fireproof, and vermin proof, being made entirely of magnesium oxide and air. At its minimum density, it is rated at R-3.9 per inch, but it is fragile. To create a more durable product, the density can be doubled, reducing the insulating value to R-3.6 per inch. The material also acts as fireproofing; it can be held safely in the hand while a torch is applied to the surface.
Installation
To prepare walls for blown-in insulation, areas that should not receive insulation are taped off. Next, membrane is installed per manufacturer’s instructions. Typically, the membrane is installed tightly against the wall studs to avoid “pillowing” which can create an uneven surface and complicate drywall attachment. Various schemes are used to resolve this problem: stretching the netting very tightly, applying a coat of glue through the netting to secure it continuously to studs, or in the case of polyethylene, stretching it hand tight and applying frequent inset stapling. In the case of cementitious foam, the wet foam can be squeezed out from between a plastic membrane and the studs, or wiped off the face of the stud.
If the membrane is netting, air pressure created when the insulation is forced into the cavity is relieved through the netting. Using a plastic membrane either requires openings to allow air to escape, or arranging the membrane so that air escapes into the adjacent cavity.
It is important to follow manufacturer guidelines on blowing density and number of bags required for a given area to ensure proper installation. For cellulose, this is typically 3 pounds per cubic foot; for fiberglass, approximately 2 pounds per cubic foot.
Cementitious foam is thick enough when installed to be retained by almost any netting, screening, or chicken wire; or it can be foamed in behind house wrap or polyethylene.
A separate vapor barrier may be required. Check with the local building department to determine if it is required in your area.
Benefits/Costs
Insulation that is blown or foamed through a membrane share the advantage of any blown-in or sprayed-on insulation: they completely fill cavities with insulation. The process inhibits air circulation within the cavities, thereby eliminating an important cause of condensation and moisture problems. It can also help create a tighter house by inhibiting air movement through the envelope. Unlike wet-spray systems, blowing through a membrane can use dry material, although water and water-activated adhesive can be added to fiberglass insulation if desired. Insulation can be packed around wiring and plumbing, because any voids or "shadows" can be seen through the membrane and immediately corrected. Higher density insulation also improves acoustic performance. Installation under some pressure eliminates settling, and raises the R-value to ranges of 3.7 per inch for fiberglass to 4.0 per inch for cellulose.
Scientists at the National Research Council of Canada report that "cellulose in the wall cavity provided an increase in fire resistance performance of 22% to 55%," relative to fiberglass batts, provided the cellulose is treated with fire retardants. A similar effect may occur when using blown-in fiberglass without a binder.
The cost of fiber insulation depends on the method used to close the cavity; typical costs are about double the cost of fiberglass batts or about $1.40 per s.f. for an R-19 wall. Cementitious foam costs between about $1.45 to $2.45 per s.f. for an R-19 wall.
Insulation Alternatives: Non-Fiberglass Batts
Non-fiberglass batts made of cotton, sheep's wool, and rock or slag wool
Four entries in the PATH Technology Inventory describe alternatives to conventional fiberglass batts or rolls:
• Non-fiberglass batts
• Sprayed foam insulation
• Sprayed fiber insulation
• Blown or foamed through a membrane
This document deals with non-fiberglass batts made of cotton, sheep's wool, and mineral (rock or slag) wool .
Cotton batt insulation is manufactured from post-industrial denim and cotton fibers. The product is available in R-13 (3.5 inch thickness) or R-19 (5.5 inch thickness) unfaced batts. Sheep's wool, used as an insulating material for joints in log homes, is now available in batt form. Both products are borate treated for pest and fire resistance.
Mineral wool insulation refers to fiberglass, rock wool (made from basalt, a volcanic rock, and limestone) and slag wool (made from blast furnace slag). In addition to the use of rock and slag wool for insulation of pipes and many other industrial, appliance, and transportation uses, it is used in batt and board form in commercial buildings for fire-resistance and acoustical absorption. Mineral wool batts are made primarily of rock wool. Unlike fiberglass, batt widths and thicknesses vary among manufacturers.
Rock wool for residential insulation is more common in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand than in the U.S. Although batts are primarily made for commercial use for thermal, fire, and sound insulation purposes, there is growing interest by manufacturers in the residential market.

Installation
Cotton and sheep's wool batts are friction fit into cavities, like unfaced fiberglass batts. They stay in place because they are 16" and 24" wide, 1.5" larger than cavity-width. Because neither product contains irritating chemicals or fibers, each can be handled without protective clothing. However, only one manufacturer (Roxul) makes batts that are sized for wood studs (15" and 23" wide), and these products are currently not available in the U.S. It is possible to install mineral wool batts that are wider than the cavity by squeezing in a 16" or 24" wide sound insulating batt with a 2-1/2 pound density. As this may bulge the insulation more than is desirable for installing gypsum board, install a test section before committing to a size. While it is possible to install the next smaller thickness to compensate for any bulging, this practice leaves gaps and is not recommended. Typical batts are 48" long, but 47" batts may be available.
Rock wool is less abrasive and therefore more user-friendly than slag wool. Some care is required in installation to work it around wiring and piping. It cuts easily with a sharp tool. Gloves, dust mask, eye protection and loose clothing are recommended when handling mineral wool insulation.
Benefits/Costs
Cotton batts use about 75% post-industrial recycled material (denim waste from blue-jean manufacturing) and are completely recyclable at the end of its useful life. It does not itch when it contacts skin and contains no formaldehyde or other chemical irritants. The installed cost for cotton batt insulation is about $1.20 per s.f.
Sheep's wool is a natural product that is sustainable. It is borate treated to resist moths, termites and other pests, and to provide fire and mold resistance. Its ability to hold large quantities of water can be an advantage in walls that can dry out between cycles of water loading, although repeated wetting and drying can leach out the borate treatment. Installed cost of sheep’s wool batt insulation is about $2.40 per s.f.
Because of its high density, mineral wool provides better acoustical absorption than fiberglass and has a higher insulating value: R-3.7/inch for 2-1/2 pcf density, and R-3.9/inch for 4 pcf density. Made of rock, it is a superb fire-resistive material, with a typical smoke developed rating of zero and a flame spread rating of 0 to15. Unlike fiberglass (which contains an organic binder), it can be used in direct contact with flues, stoves and other hot objects. Mineral wool is also water-repellant and does not lose its insulating value when wet.
Slag wool is made from a recycled byproduct of blast-furnace steel production (a considerable amount of slag is imported). Prices for mineral wool batts vary considerably around the country, depending on the distance to the manufacturer. However, cost is comparable to fiberglass batts.

Insulation Alternatives: Sprayed Fiber Insulation
Cellulose, fiberglass, or mineral wool sprayed in a moist state into an open stud cavity

Four entries in the PATH Technology Inventory describe alternatives to conventional fiberglass batts or roll for use in open vertical cavities:
• Non-fiberglass batts
• Sprayed foam insulation
• Sprayed fiber insulation
• Blown or Foamed through a membrane.
This document deals with sprayed fiber insulation.
Cellulose, fiberglass, or mineral wool (rock wool and slag wool) is sprayed in a moist state into an open stud cavity. Moist cellulose creates its own glue, but some manufacturers add adhesive. Both mineral wool and fiberglass need added adhesive. After application, stud edges are scraped clean with a special milling tool made for that purpose. As long as the "salvaged" insulation is free of debris it can be sent back to a mixing machine for reuse. Properly installed, it completely fills the cavity, suppressing air leakage.
Sprayed-on cellulose is a mature technology. The chief concern with its use is to carefully monitor the water content of the material, and to refrain from closing in the cavity until its moisture content has dropped to a stable level, typically around 10 percent. Cellulose is treated with borate fire-retardant for fire and vermin resistance.
Fiberglass can also be sprayed into wall cavities with some water and adhesive. Although is has a slightly lower R-value than cellulose, it fills the cavity and suppresses air movement. It is sprayed at 24% moisture content, but because the fiberglass does not absorb moisture, it dries quickly.
Mineral wool (rock wool and slag wool) is sprayed into stud cavities with water and adhesive at between 10% and 20% moisture content. In place, the material is a non-combustible fire-retardant, and can be used to create 1-hour and 2-hour fire-rated walls.
Many companies make more expensive products (with substantial amounts of adhesive binder) from cellulose, wood fibers, fiberglass, or mineral wool that can be spray-applied directly to almost any substrate. These products typically are used for acoustical or thermal insulation in commercial applications, where the material is left exposed (as in a hanger, warehouse or recording studio). At least one manufacturer of sprayed-on mineral wool markets a direct spray product, using Portland cement as a binder that can be applied to crawlspace walls and left exposed.
Installation
To prepare the jobsite, the area should first be swept clean (to prevent foreign debris from being drawn into the insulation hopper) and areas that should not be covered with insulation, such as windows and electrical boxes, should be taped off.
Fiber insulation material, used for open wall cavities, is sprayed through an applicator hose with water added at the nozzle. The material is over sprayed; then a wide scraper tool is drawn along the studs or joists to clean off the excess. Clean material is vacuumed back into a hopper and re-used. A typical job includes three workers: one to spray the material, one to scrape, and another to vacuum excess.
Applicators should follow manufacturer guidelines on the number of bags, blowing density, and moisture content to achieve the proper adhesion, R-value, and to reduce the chance of settling. After application, the material must be allowed to dry before being covered. Many manufacturers do not recommend vapor barriers. However, if a vapor barrier is required, it is imperative that the insulation material is adequately dry before covering.
Neither fiberglass nor mineral wool absorb water, so the water used for application (23% by weight for fiberglass, 17% by weight for mineral wool) can dry out in less than a day. Cellulose, which is sprayed at between 25% and 35% moisture content, absorbs water and dries more slowly—requiring about 36 hours drying time under normal circumstances. Regardless of the type of fiber, drying time will vary according to ambient conditions, thickness and width of that wall cavity, and the amount of moisture added during the spray.
It is important to follow manufacturer’s guidelines on the amount of moisture added while spraying: if the mix is applied too dry, it tends to fall out of the cavity; if applied too wet, it will increase drying time. However, in humid conditions, especially in cool maritime climates, the material may never dry enough to cover it safely. Spraying into an overhead cavity is problematic because of the tendency for the material to fall out because of vibration, before a finish can be applied.
Surface sprayed material can be sprayed directly against almost any clean substrate. The most common products are not abrasion resistant and, therefore, cannot be left exposed. For exposed applications, there are alternative products that contain additional adhesive or a cementations admixture for enhanced durability. One brand of mineral wool fiber mixed with Portland cement is marketed for use on crawl space walls and on basement walls when covered by a wall finish. The material is commonly used exposed in overhead applications as acoustic and thermal insulation. Most materials will adhere overhead up to 3" in thickness. Surface sprays can also be aerated on discharge to reduce their density.
Benefits/Costs
Properly applied, cellulose insulation completely fills the wall cavity, minimizing air circulation within the wall and providing some acoustical attenuation. No membrane or netting is necessary to hold the product in place. Mineral wool provides excellent fire resistance and the highest acoustical rating of the three materials, and it also is totally inert. Borate treatment of cellulose provides it with fire protection and vermin resistance.
Depending on the supplier and geographic regions, installed cost for in-cavity sprayed-on cellulose, fiberglass and mineral wool can be about 50% higher than a typical fiberglass batt installation. The cost of mineral wool varies with the distance from a source of minerals. Mineral wool is not typically stocked by the dealer network normally used by homebuilders.
Installed cost for surface sprayed commercial products that can be left exposed is typically higher than in-cavity sprays because they contain substantial amounts of adhesive binder.

Insulation Alternatives: Sprayed Foam Insulation
Foam insulation that is sprayed into place and then expands to fill cavities

Four entries in the PATH Technology Inventory describe alternatives to conventional fiberglass batt insulation for use in open vertical cavities:
• Non-fiberglass batts
• Sprayed foam insulation
• Sprayed fiber insulation
• Blown or foamed through a membrane.
This document deals with sprayed foam insulation.
Spray foam can be used as an insulating and air sealing product for residential wall and ceiling cavities. The insulation is sprayed, via special equipment, into wall cavities and expands to fill all the nooks and crannies in a wall cavity. Excess foam is scraped off the studs to form a uniform wall cavity. Spray foam insulation makes it easy to completely fill wall cavities with insulation and to perform air sealing in the same step.
There are two types of spray foam: open-cell (isocyanurate) and closed cell (polyurethane). The closed cell foams typically have a higher R-value than open-cell foam.
Sprayed foam insulation is applied as a liquid which contains a polymer (such as polyurethane or modified urethane) and a foaming agent. The liquid is sprayed through a nozzle into wall, ceiling, and floor cavities where it expands to fill every nook and cranny. Because it expands into tight areas, sprayed foam is ideal for insulating steel framing and around outlets. By acting as a wind and air barrier, it often eliminates the need for separate air-tightness detailing which can increase energy efficiency and allow downsizing of the heating and cooling system equipment. Sprayed foam insulation does not shrink, sag, settle, or biodegrade.
Installation
Certified insulation installers spray foam insulation in place via special equipment. As the foam dries (typically within minutes), it expands to fill the wall cavity. After it is dry, excess spray foam is trimmed from the cavity. After trimming, it is then ready for a thermal barrier covering, as required by code. Installing sprayed foam insulation typically is the last task before enclosing a wall, floor, or ceiling area. Installation is best accomplished by an experienced installer—it takes skill to completely fill a wall cavity with spray foam insulation without having a lot of overspray.
Benefits/Costs
Sprayed foam materials cost more than traditional fiberglass batt insulation. However, since sprayed foam forms both an insulation and an air barrier, it can be cost competitive with batt insulation because it eliminates the steps for air-tightness detailing (such as caulking, applying house wrap and vapor barrier, and taping joints). As a result, it also reduces construction time and the number of specialized contractors.
Spray foam insulation is ideal for filling small spaces—such as window jambs, small stud bays, rim joist areas, and for sealing around electrical boxes and other penetrations—where cutting fiberglass batt insulation to fit can be difficult and labor-intensive.
Many sprayed foams are environmentally friendly. Most of them do not contain HCFCs that are harmful to Earth's ozone layer, or off gas formaldehyde—a potentially harmful volatile organic compound. Polyurethane foam insulation has about twice the R-value per inch of traditional batt insulation, making it more energy efficient in a smaller space.

Active Solar Heating
There are two basic types of active solar heating systems based on the type of fluid—either liquid or air—that is heated in the solar energy collectors. (The collector is the device in which a fluid is heated by the sun.) Liquid-based systems heat water or an antifreeze solution in a "hydronic" collector, whereas air-based systems heat air in an "air collector."
• Both of these systems collect and absorb solar radiation, then transfer the solar heat directly to the interior space or to a storage system, from which the heat is distributed. If the system cannot provide adequate space heating, an auxiliary or back-up system provides the additional heat. Liquid systems are more often used when storage is included, and are well suited for radiant heating systems, boilers with hot water radiators, and even absorption heat pumps and coolers. Both air and liquid systems can supplement forced air systems.

Economics and Other Benefits of Active Solar Heating Systems
Active solar heating systems are most cost-effective when they are used for most of the year, that is, in cold climates with good solar resources. They are most economical if they are displacing more expensive heating fuels, such as electricity, propane, and oil heat. Some states offer sales tax exemptions, income tax credits or deductions, and property tax exemptions or deductions for solar energy systems.
The cost of an active solar heating system will vary. Commercial systems range from $30 to $80 per square foot of collector area, installed. Usually, the larger the system, the less it costs per unit of collector area. Commercially available collectors come with warranties of 10 years or more, and should easily last decades longer. The economics of an active space heating system improve if it also heats domestic water, because an otherwise idle collector can heat water in the summer.
Heating your home with an active solar energy system can significantly reduce your fuel bills in the winter. A solar heating system will also reduce the amount of air pollution and greenhouse gases that result from your use of fossil fuels such as oil, propane, and natural gas for heating or that may be used to generate the electricity that you use.

Selecting and Sizing a Solar Heating System
Selecting the appropriate solar energy system depends on factors such as the site, design, and heating needs of your house. Local covenants may restrict your options; for example homeowner associations may not allow you to install solar collectors on certain parts of your house (although many homeowners have been successful in challenging such covenants).
The local climate, the type and efficiency of the collector(s), and the collector area determine how much heat a solar heating system can provide. It is usually most economical to design an active system to provide 40%–80% of the home's heating needs. Systems providing less than 40% of the heat needed for a home are rarely cost-effective except when using solar air heater collectors that heat one or two rooms and require no heat storage. A well-designed and insulated home that incorporates passive solar heating techniques will require a smaller and less costly heating system of any type, and may need very little supplemental heat other than solar.
Besides the fact that designing an active system to supply enough heat 100% of the time is generally not practical or cost effective, most building codes and mortgage lenders require a back-up heating system. Supplementary or back-up systems supply heat when the solar system can not meet heating requirements. They can range from a wood stove to a conventional central heating system.

Controls for Solar Heating Systems

Solar system controls.
Controls for solar heating systems are usually more complex than those of a conventional heating system, because they have to analyze more signals and control more devices (including the conventional, backup heating system). Solar controls use sensors, switches, and/or motors to operate the system. The system uses other controls to prevent freezing or extremely high temperatures in the collectors.
The heart of the control system is a differential thermostat, which measures the difference in temperature between the collectors and storage unit. When the collectors are 10°–20°F (5.6°–11°C) warmer than the storage unit, the thermostat turns on a pump or fan to circulate water or air through the collector to heat the storage medium or the house.
The operation, performance, and cost of these controls vary. Some control systems monitor the temperature in different parts of the system to help determine how it is operating. The most sophisticated systems use microprocessors to control and optimize heat transfer and delivery to storage and zones of the house.
It is possible to use a solar panel to power low voltage, direct current (DC) blowers (for air collectors) or pumps (for liquid collectors). The output of the solar panels matches available solar heat gain to the solar collector. With careful sizing, the blower or pump speed is optimized for efficient solar gain to the working fluid. During low sun conditions the blower or pump speed is slow, and during high solar gain, they run faster.
When used with a room air collector, separate controls may not be necessary. This also ensures that the system will operate in the event of utility power outage. A solar power system with battery storage can also provide power to operate a central heating system, though this is expensive for large systems.

Building Codes Covenants and Regulations for Solar Heating Systems
Before installing a solar energy system, you should investigate local building codes, zoning ordinances, and subdivision covenants, as well as any special regulations pertaining to the site. You will probably need a building permit to install a solar energy system onto an existing building.
Not every community or municipality initially welcomes residential renewable energy installations. Although this is often due to ignorance or the comparative novelty of renewable energy systems, you must comply with existing building and permit procedures to install your system.
The matter of building code and zoning compliance for a solar system installation is typically a local issue. Even if a statewide building code is in effect, it's usually enforced locally by your city, county, or parish. Common problems homeowners have encountered with building codes include the following:
• Exceeding roof load
• Unacceptable heat exchangers
• Improper wiring
• Unlawful tampering with potable water supplies.
Potential zoning issues include these:
• Obstructing side yards
• Erecting unlawful protrusions on roofs
• Sitting the system too close to streets or lot boundaries.
Special area regulations—such as local community, subdivision, or homeowner's association covenants—also demand compliance. These covenants, historic district regulations, and flood-plain provisions can easily be overlooked. To find out what's needed for local compliance, contact your local jurisdiction's zoning and building enforcement divisions and any appropriate homeowner's, subdivision, neighborhood, and/or community association(s).

Installing and Maintaining Your Solar Heating System
Periodic visual inspection may be necessary to properly maintain your solar system.
How well an active solar energy system performs depends on effective sitting, system design, and installation, and the quality and durability of the components. The collectors and controls now manufactured are of high quality. The biggest factor now is finding an experienced contractor who can properly design and install the system.
Once a system is in place, it has to be properly maintained to optimize its performance and avoid breakdowns. Different systems require different types of maintenance, but you should figure on 8–16 hours of maintenance annually. You should set up a calendar with a list of maintenance tasks that the component manufacturers and installer recommends.
Most solar water heaters are automatically covered under your homeowner's insurance policy. However, damage from freezing is generally not. Contact your insurance provider to find out what its policy is. Even if your provider will cover your system, it is best to inform them in writing that you own a new system.

Ventilation Preheating
Solar air heating systems use air as the working fluid for absorbing and transferring solar energy. Solar air collectors (devices to heat air using solar energy) can directly heat individual rooms or can potentially pre-heat the air passing into a heat recovery ventilator or through the air coil of an air-source heat pump.
Air collectors produce heat earlier and later in the day than liquid systems, so they may produce more usable energy over a heating season than a liquid system of the same size. Also, unlike liquid systems, air systems do not freeze, and minor leaks in the collector or distribution ducts will not cause significant problems, although they will degrade performance. However, air is a less efficient heat transfer medium than liquid, so solar air collectors operates at lower efficiencies than solar liquid collectors.
Although some early systems passed solar-heated air through a bed of rocks as energy storage, this approach is not recommended because of the inefficiencies involved, the potential problems with condensation and mold in the rock bed, and the effects of that moisture and mold on indoor air quality.
Solar air collectors are often integrated into walls or roofs to hide their appearance. For instance, a tile roof could have air flow paths built into it to make use of the heat absorbed by the tiles. Air entering a collector at 70°F (21.1°C) is typically warmed an additional 70°–90°F (21.1°–32.2°C.). The air flow rate through standard collectors should be 1–3 cubic feet (0.03–0.76 cubic meters) per minute for each square foot (0.09 square meters) of collector. The velocity should be 5–10 feet (1.5–3.1 meters ) per second.
Most solar air heating systems are room air heaters, but relatively new devices called transpired air collectors have limited applications in homes.

Room Air Heaters
Air collectors can be installed on a roof or an exterior (south facing) wall for heating one or more rooms. Although factory-built collectors for on-site installation are available, do-it-yourselfers may choose to build and install their own air collector. A simple window air heater collector can be made for a few hundred dollars.
The collector has an airtight and insulated metal frame and a black metal plate for absorbing heat with glazing in front of it. Solar radiation heats the plate that, in turn, heats the air in the collector. An electrically powered fan or blower pulls air from the room through the collector, and blows it back into the room. Roof-mounted collectors require ducts to carry air between the room and the collector. Wall-mounted collectors are placed directly on a south-facing wall, and holes are cut through the wall for the collector air inlet and outlets.
Simple "window box collectors" fit in an existing window opening. They can be active (using a fan) or passive. In passive types, air enters the bottom of the collector, rises as it is heated, and enters the room. A baffle or damper keeps the room air from flowing back into the panel (reverse thermo siphoning) when the sun is not shining. These systems only provide a small amount of heat, since the collector area is relatively small.

Transpired Air Collectors
Transpired air collectors use a simple technology to capture the sun's heat to warm buildings: The collectors consist of dark, perforated metal plates installed over a building's south-facing wall. An air space is created between the old wall and the new facade. The dark outer facade absorbs solar energy and rapidly heats up on sunny days—even when the outside air is cold.
A fan or blower draws ventilation air into the building through tiny holes in the collectors and up through the air space between the collectors and the south wall. The solar energy absorbed by the collectors warms the air flowing through them by as much as 40°F. Unlike other space heating technologies, transpired air collectors require no expensive glazing.
Transpired air collectors are most suitable for large buildings with high ventilation loads, a fact which makes them generally unsuitable for today's tightly sealed homes. However, small transpired air collectors could be used to pre-heat the air passing into a heat recovery ventilator or could warm the air coil on an air source heat pump, improving its efficiency and comfort level on cold days. However, no information is currently available on the cost effectiveness of using a transpired air collector in this way.

Liquid-Based Active Solar Heating

This home in Golden, Colorado uses a liquid-based solar system for space and water heating.

Solar liquid collectors are most appropriate for central heating. They are the same as those used in solar domestic water heating systems. Flat-plate collectors are the most common, but evacuated tube and concentrating collectors are also available. In the collector, a heat transfer or "working" fluid such as water, antifreeze (usually non-toxic propylene glycol), or other type of liquid absorbs the solar heat. At the appropriate time, a controller operates a circulating pump to move the fluid through the collector.
The liquid flows rapidly through the collectors, so its temperature only increases 10°–20°F (5.6°–11°C ) as it moves through the collector. Heating a smaller volume of liquid to a higher temperature increases heat loss from the collector and decreases the efficiency of the system. The liquid flows to either a storage tank or a heat exchanger for immediate use. Other system components include piping, pumps, valves, an expansion tank, a heat exchanger, a storage tank, and controls.
The flow rate through the collector should be between 0.02 and 0.03 gallons per minute per square foot of collector when water is the heat transfer fluid (0.82 to 1.22 liters per minute per square meter of collector). Other flow rates apply for different heat transfer fluids. The total flow rate, used to size the collector pump, is the product of the above flow rate times the total collector area.

Storing Heat in Liquid Systems
Liquid systems store solar heat in tanks of water or in the masonry mass of a radiant slab system. In tank type storage systems, heat from the working fluid transfers to a distribution fluid in a heat exchanger exterior to or within the tank.
Most storage tanks require 1–2 gallons (3.8–7.6 Liters) of water for each square foot (0.093 square meters) of collector area. Tanks are pressurized or unpressurized, and the type used depends on the overall system design. Before choosing a storage tank, you should consider several factors, including cost, size, durability, where to place it (in the basement or outside), and how to install it. You may need to construct a tank on-site if a tank of the necessary size will not fit through existing doorways. Tanks also have limits for temperature and pressure, and must meet local building, plumbing, and mechanical codes. You should also note how much insulation is necessary to prevent excessive heat loss, and what kind of protective coating or sealing is necessary to avoid corrosion or leaks.
Specialty or custom tanks may be necessary in systems with very large storage requirements. They are usually stainless steel, fiberglass, or high temperature plastic. Concrete and wood (hot tub) tanks are also options. Each type of tank has its advantages and disadvantages. All types require careful consideration for their location, due to their size and weight. It may be more practical to use several smaller tanks rather than one large one. The simplest storage system option is to use standard domestic water heaters. They are designed to meet building codes for pressure vessel requirements, are lined to inhibit corrosion, and designed so it is easy to attach pipes and fittings.

Distributing Heat for Liquid Systems
There are different ways to distribute the solar heat: with a radiant floor, with hot water baseboards or radiators, or with a central forced-air system. In a radiant floor system, a solar-heated liquid circulates through pipes embedded in a thin concrete slab floor, which then radiates heat to the room. Radiant floor heating is ideal for liquid solar systems because it performs well at relatively low temperatures. A carefully designed system may not need a separate heat storage tank, though most systems do for temperature control. A conventional boiler or even a standard domestic water heater can supply backup heat. The slab is typically covered with tile. Radiant slab systems take longer to heat the home from a "cold start" than other types of heat distribution systems. Once they are operating, however, they provide a consistent level of heat. Carpeting and rugs will reduce the system's effectiveness.
Hot-water baseboards and radiators require water between 160° and 180°F (71° and 82°C) to effectively heat a room. Generally, flat-plate liquid collectors heat the transfer and distribution fluids to between 90° and 120°F (32° and 49°C). Therefore, using baseboards or radiators with a solar heating system requires that either the surface area of the baseboard or radiators be larger, that the solar-heated liquid be heated more with the backup system, or that a medium-temperature solar collector (such as an evacuated tube collector) be used.
It is possible to incorporate a liquid system into a forced-air heating system, and there are different options for doing so. The basic design is to place a liquid-to-air heat exchanger, or heating coil, in the main room-air return duct prior to the furnace. Air returning from the living space is heated as it passes over the solar heated liquid in the heat exchanger. Additional heat is supplied as necessary by the furnace. The coil must be large enough to transfer sufficient heat to the air at the lowest operating temperature of the collector.
Michael Ioffe is a retired Designer Engineer with 25 years of experience. He used to work 5 years as a teacher of Physics in High School. He has eleven patents and ideas for more than hundred of new patents, which can revolve Economy of USA, Mexico and Canada. More than 8 years he is studying Global Warming, Peak oil production, Dependence of our economy on foreighn oil, Weather disasters in North America. He solved these problems seven years ago. You can read hundreds of his articles on www.willyoujoinus.com under user name mioffe_2000. Last year he stopped publishing his notes on this site, because he understood that he was wasting his time there. Chevron Company is using this site only for public relationship.
Please read all his articles and he will answer to any of your question.


How we can use knowledge about global warming for huge profit
In economy, energy independence and reduction weater disasters

I am the best speechwriter for the next President.

Why it is only for next? I badly tried to reach President Bush, but speechwriters who surround him kick me back even didn’t answer. I send tens email without any result.

In my speech I will not write about Russia, Georgia, Irak, India, Pakistan or others countries in the world. I will not blame or advocate our foreign policy, I will mention globalization, and how it helps or destroyed our jobs?

I will write about Physics. GE great manager Jack Welch is great, because he know Six Sigma. He knows how to treat smart people, who work for the Company. He always made Inventors happy.

In one of his Company I saw work of his week followers. They implement the same Six Sigma but didn’t understand spirits of inventions, but they still want to receive the same honor as Jack Welch. This is became problems not only for GE but for many others Companies in USA. Managers who create baubles became disaster for our Economy.

In one small town in Ohio I worked only for three days in March, 2001 and was fired, because I mention in the paperwork which was written to Manager of Human resources that I have three ideas of Invention that corelated to direction of this Company.

I was invited to ofice and directed to disclose my ideas. I agree to do that in letters to myself, which I will wrote in their office and put in envelope, which they signeed.

Lawyer of that Company fired me. Company was wrong.

Not lawyer in Cleveland, or Governor of Ohio (at that time it was Mr. Taft) did help me.I have ideas, which can revolve businesses in Ohio. I wrote about that to Governor. It was in vain.

In USA Companies poorly treat Inventors. Everybody knew that in Companies few Inventors received profit for their Invention. It is business as usual that Inventors received $100-$1000 for Inventions which feed these Companies for years.

I was so devastated by the attitudes to Inventors that even wrote letter to President Bush.

Of course, my complaint was send by one of his stuff to the same people which ruined my career.

In speech to next President I will write to change attitude to Inventors. In many cases Entreprenors and Inventors are different. Some persons can be good as Inventors and bad as Entreprenor. Not Companies – Government need to pay for invention, because inventions create new possibilities and new jobs (new taxes). Inventors no need to work like slaves for their Companies and wait for next Jack Welch.
In speech to the next President I will write: didn’t send tax relief money to families to save Economy. If Economy goes down we have reason for that. Economy is sick and when money will came to the same busineses, which not perform well we make situation worst.
We need to put Government money to create new possibilities.
In speech to the next President I will offer new direction for our Economy, which will stopped complains that jobs go overseas because of Globalization. Globalization is a gift to change the world, to prevent wars between nations. Countries, which received profit from trade will not go to war, will be more friendly to others people in the world. It is job and more opportunities to developed countries. China Olympic game confirms that better than something else.

What we need to do is create new possibilities for scientist, engineers, worker, and farmers in our country.

The President as the good Manager of all country needs to learn more Physics:

We can look on problems with global warming, prices for barrel of oil, and weather disasters in North America as correlated with each other and found very profitable solutions to be winners in all these directions.

                     
Global warming
Our efforts in fighting global warming can be more productive if we will reevaluate what we are writing and speaking about it. I found interesting that mass media:

1.      Very often changed carbon dioxide equivalent of all greenhouse gases only on carbon dioxide.

Forget that “Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation”. Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 for they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, and then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are.”

3.   Mention only that greenhouse gases absorb heat in the atmosphere.

4.   More important processes that cool the atmosphere and they are completely ignored by mass media.

Absolutely misunderstand role of water vapor in cooling of the Earth, despite that it is also greenhouse gas.

Misunderstand that any source of energy – nuclear, wind, hydro, solar cells, hydrogen, geothermal in condition when greenhouse gases anyway will increased by others processes will heat the atmosphere as heat pollutant.

Misunderstand possibility of conservation of energy and its limits.

If we will look carefully on result of these misunderstanding we will found dangerous situation when high respectful authors asking us to do what in reality will bring more harm than good things.
Let look in Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2007 (126 Edition) page 577, table 897.

“Energy consumption by End-Use sector in quadrillion British thermal Unit (BTU).

Total-1970 year –67.84 (67,840,000,000,000,000)---2004 year-99.74

Residential --------1970 year –22.11               2004 year-38.6            38.6/22.11=1.745      

and commercial

Industrial-----------1970 year –29.64              2004 year –33.25         33.25/29.64=1.121
Transportation-----1970 year –16.10               2004 year –27.79         27.79/16.10=1.726
Our consumption of energy in the 2004 compares with 1970 almost double in residential and commercial, and transportation. Industrial energy did not grow in the same rate only because most industrial production moved to China and others developed countries.

Without any doubt to live better we need more energy.

In the world media idea of conservation of energy by increasing efficiency of all equipment and appliances prevail. Is it true?

If we will increase efficiency of our motors, equipment, appliances, home heating and cooling systems, etc. from average 25% right now to impossible 100% it will mean only that four times more people will live on the same level as middle class in USA today. It is not enough even for USA population, not mention all countries in the world.

Demand for better living in the world will increase faster than our ability to increase efficiency of our equipment, etc.

If carbon dioxide is main factor for global warming we have very narow way how to escape global warming? It is only one way-conservation of energy!
Conservation of energy is not a solution. It is always good direction but not enough.

Nuclear energy, geothermal energy, wind energy, solar cell energy even if they will emit zero carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the Earth (everyone knew that it is not true) still will heat air in situation where greenhouse gases in the air will be increased anyway by others processes.

It is possible to use these energy sources, but it is not true that those solutions to fight global warming are nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar cell, hydrogen cell or many others or very expensive or not so effective sources of energy.

Nuclear and geothermal source of energy will additionally to Sun heat air of the Earth.

By David Fleming, April 2006:

“It takes a lot of fossil energy to mine uranium, and then to extract and prepare the right isotope for use in a nuclear reactor. It takes even more fossil energy to build the reactor, and, when its life is over, to decommission it and look after its radioactive waste.

As a result, with current technology, there is only a limited amount of uranium ore in the world that is rich enough to allow more energy to be produced by the whole nuclear process than the process itself consumes. This amount of ore might be enough to supply the world's total current electricity demand for about six years.

Moreover, because of the amount of fossil fuel and fluorine used in the enrichment process, significant quantities of greenhouse gases are released. As a result, nuclear energy is by no means a 'climate-friendly' technology”.

http://www.uow.edu.au/eng/phys/nukeweb/index.html
http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/nuclear_power.htm

Many scientists can confront David Fleming opinion, but they still need to agree that nuclear source of energy will additionally heat the air and will work as heat pollutant.

As you can read in Tim Flannery book “The Weather Makers,” 2006:

“Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation”.

“Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 they are in balance, releasing CO2   as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are.

If we will follow Tim Flannery, we can say, that all one-year vegetation wills rots during one year. In nature they are rots slowly, providing during vegetation period nutrition for new growing plants.  Together with others vegetation on the Earth they create balance during millions years, when in air we had 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide.

Growing population, industrial revolution changed this balance. It is inevitable: we harvest food from almost all land in every state and bring it to huge cities, where rots of waste haven’t enough plants to take back carbon dioxide.

If we will grow corn, grass, etc. for ethanol or others so called “green sources of energy” we will bring to ethanol production place every year increasing amount of plants from which we extracting ethanol. We need energy to plant and harvest these sources.

Research shows that it takes about 0.75 BTUs (British thermal units - a measure of energy content) from fossil fuels to create 1 BTU of ethanol, compared to 1.23 BTUs to create 1 BTU of traditional oil-based gasoline (Dr. Wang, et al). So ethanol is a more efficient energy source than oil.

This research does not include energy to harvest corn, grass etc and bring it to plants for ethanol production and also does not include energy to produce oil and bring it to gasoline production plants.

It will increase amount of carbon dioxide in the air despite our good intentions. “Green sources of energy” is a disaster for environment and as soon we will agree on that we will not spend money and efforts in wrong directions. Green sources of energy will not save civilization from global warming.
Wind and solar cells energy are very expensive and need batteries to store their energy in times when we haven’t wind or Sun.

If we still want to use them it is better for windmills directly found job, perhaps pump water from places where we have flooding to places where we need water. This will reduce significantly price for wind energy (we no need devices to change kinetic energy of the wind to electrical energy, electrical transformers, lines, motors etc). It also will increase efficiency of windmills. In this case it is not so important timing of pumping water.

Solar energy is better to use to feed population-to grow vegetables, corn, wheat etc.

The best way to use Sun for energy is to grow forests. Trees are the champion in the world between all plants and grow faster than any others plants. They collect Sun energy during hundreds of years. Wood from the trees can be the cheapest source of energy for power plants and will give all their energy for electricity and heat production.

All emissions from these power plants can be without any harm sequestrated back to the land by water and will be together with ash the best nutrition to grow the same trees.

Instead of harvesting every year corn, grass etc for ethanol production we will harvest wood for electricity production from forest in area at least 100 times less than in case of harvesting grass, corn, etc for liquid fuel. It will be the closest to customer source of energy and therefore cheaper than coal. Coal right now the cheapest source of electrical energy.

It takes one ton of coal to generate an average of 2500 KWH of electricity.

It takes less than 1.6 ton of wood to generate the same amount of energy.

Needs for energy in the world, as amount of greenhouse gases in air will grow despite all good resolutions and all inventions.
We intensified style of our life. We need to intensify process of cooling air in the Earth.
From Earth Science, Baron’s Educational Series, Inc, 2001

“Solar radiation reaches the upper atmosphere at a fairly constant rate of about 200

Kilocalories per minute/square meter. About 1/3 of this radiation is reflected back into space mostly by clouds. Ozone, carbon dioxide, and water vapor in the atmosphere absorb or reflect most of Earth’s infrared radiation; the rest go through the atmosphere and out into space. Solar energy reflected back into space by thick clouds – 75-90%, thin clouds – 30-50%, water – 10%, grassy field - 10-30%, fresh snow – 75-95%, forest – 3-10%…

The atmosphere consists mostly of gases, but also contains water, ice, dust and others particles. In dry air we have 78% of Nitrogen, 21% of Oxygen, almost 1% of Argon. In air we have traces of other gases: Neon, Helium, Krypton, Xenon, Hydrogen, Ozone, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxide, and Methane. 

Molecular mass of N2 = 28, of O2 = 32, of H2O = 18. Since the lighter water molecules displace heavier air pressure decreases as humidity increases. HUMIDITY UP, AIR PRESSURE DOWN, HUMIDITY DOWN, AIR PRESSURE UP

Wind blow from region of high air pressure to region of low air pressure as in sea breeze, land breeze.

Climate influences a REGION’S NATURAL VEGETATION.

The roots of plants absorb water that has seeped into the soil. Then the water is transported to their leaves, and released back to the atmosphere, as water vapor. Each day an estimated 15 trillion litters of water in the form of rain or snow fall on the United States alone.

The atmosphere which now has a total mass about 5,000 trillion tons is held in place by Earth’s gravity and extend several hundreds kilometers into space.

A number of factors control the amount of solar energy that an area absorbs or reflects including the angle at which incoming solar radiation-insolation-strikes the surface, the length of time each day, that insolation is received, and a nature of the surface.

Most insolation passes right through the atmosphere to Earth surface, where it is absorbed and changed into form of energy that atmosphere can absorb by conduction, convection and radiation.

Most of the energy radiated by Earth’s surface is infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases absorb or reflect most of Earth’s infrared radiation; the rest goes through the atmosphere and out into a space.

Thus short-wavelength can readily enter the atmosphere, but long-wavelength cannot readily escape a phenomenon known as greenhouse effect.”

What are the most important lessons from these two books?

1.    Clouds reflect huge parts of solar energy back to space: thick clouds-75-90%, thin clouds-30-50%;

2.    Forests contain much more carbon than does grass and they also absorb more sunlight and produce more water vapor, which affect cloud formation.

3.   Water vapor is one of the lightest gases and has tendency to go up to cloud level. Water has another properties it takes a lot of energy to evaporate water. To evaporate one kg of water we need 339 kcal of heat. We need one kcal to increase temperature of 1 kg of water on 1ºC. Evaporation of water will cool air temperature. Despite that water vapor is greenhouse gas, it tendency to go up bring them on cloud level, where distances between molecules bigger and heat will go to space more easily than on ground level. No others greenhouse gases have these properties. Drop of rain when falling down partially evaporated and go back to cloud level, but more important they dissolve a lot of carbon dioxide and others “heavy” greenhouse gases from the air and soil and feed all plants on the Earth.

4.    Of course, reduction of carbon dioxide in the air will cool the Earth. Water vapor will produce the same effects of cooling the Earth. We need increase evaporation of water. It is significantly cheaper then efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. Drops of rain at the same time will clean air from carbon dioxide better than any efforts of conservation of energy.

5.   Sun is the best source of energy to evaporate water from growing trees, and not only cool the air of Earth but also produce the cheapest, really “green” source of energy, which can be used in any time during hundreds of years.

6.      White fresh snow reflects to space 75-95% of Sun radiation. White cars, houses, roads will do the same.

 

 According to Tim Flannery only new forests collect carbon. Tim Flannery wrote also about absorbing sunlight to grow and also produce water vapor. Trees are the best and cheapest pumps in the world. They use Sun energy to evaporate huge amount of water. It is the cheapest way to cool the air of the Earth. Drop of rain on cloud level is the cleanest and the best solvent of carbon dioxide and will reduce amount of carbon dioxide in the air better than any others human efforts in these directions.

Increasing of evaporation of water will do more to reduce carbon dioxide in the air than any attempt of conservation energy.

How we use energy?
 

For economical and profit reason we are building our power plants so huge that more than 80% of their overall energy – heat energy - we can’t use.

“The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel is converted to motion.
For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range.

The maximum power theorem applies to generators as it does to any source of electrical energy. This theorem states that the maximum power can be obtained from the generator by making the resistance of the load equal to that of the generator. However, under this condition the power transfer efficiency is only 50%, which means that half the power generated is wasted as heat inside the generator. For this reason, practical generators are not usually designed to operate at maximum power output, but at a lower power output where efficiency is greater.

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995, and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998.”

If we will calculate waste of energy to produce source of energy together with using energy we can conclude that more THAN 80% OF ENERGY WE ARE LOOSING IN VAIN.

If we will start new energy policy to make small power plants where we can use not only electrical energy but also heat energy we will increase efficiency of using fuel energy at least three-four times. In this situation wood will provide more useful energy than the same amount of oil products or coal, which we using right now in big power plants.

Small power plants surrounding by forests will use the cheapest and closest source of energy. Ash from burning trees can be used as the best nutrition to grow these forests. All carbon dioxide of these plants can be solved in huge amount of water to watering these forests. Additional nutrition from that water as evaporation of water by forests will provide us with energy sources and cooling of the air of the Earth. Here we need to remember that rain in Amazon Basin over 120 inches per year. It means than more water we will use to watering these forests than more rain will be in area of these forests. Watering trees under some conditions can provide more water in form of rain than we use to start process. Watering trees also will prevent forest fire.

We need to pay attention that most automotive and small aircraft engines have 25-30% thermal efficiency range. Because this efficiency apply to move not only passenger but and heavy cars, real efficiency of cars where we are mostly alone moving to job and back will be less than one percent.

Mass transportation will not help, because we are increasing distance to place where we are going and most important- time. Mass transportation takes more energy on short distances between stops for one or two persons.

Perhaps mass (m) of car 2,000kg, mass of driver 100kg and speed (V) of car 65 miles per hour, or 110.5 km per hour, or 30.7 m per sec.

Kinetic energy of this car will be:
E=mv2/2=2100x30.7x30.7/2=2100x942/2.

As you can see in this case mass of car and driver change amount of kinetic energy twice time more than speed.

It is not so important when cars drive on strait road long distance. If cars will stop on every block, reduction of mass for car would be very important.

In case of public transportation mass of bus will be around 10,000kg. If this bus will held perhaps 100 persons with average mass 100kg it will be additional 10,000kg. If bus will stop on every light and on every bus stop after few blocks, situation will be almost 20 times worse than for usual cars. Public transportation is not good solution to save energy.

If we will remember that resistance from air for every moving object increased proportionally area of it greatest section including tires we will found easily weapons to increase mileage per gallon-small cart for one person and roads without intersection.

Huge amount of concrete needed for nuclear energy better to spend on three levels of roads, without intersections. Truck and cars with huge mass will be on first level. Small carts will be on next levels.

Let make analysis how we make all liquid biofuel, where we extract small parts of energy, from corn, grass, sugar cane etc., and trough away wet waste material which will almost simultaneously oxidized. We will understand that liquid biofuel is disaster for environment and not so green as advertised. All plants take half of carbon from the air CO2, another half they take from the soil. How we can make liquid biofuel green in these conditions?

 
Why we need liquid fuel to loose 99% of that fuel in vain?
Why we need hydrogen fuel cell with the same efficiency?

We need to grow forests in USA, Canada and Mexico instead of corn for ethanol.

If we will pay attention to growing trees in the same level as growing corn we will increase production of wood in forests many times.

Sun is only one nuclear power plant, which will work for millions years and mankind no need to worry about its waste, or proliferation, or others form of disasters.

Trees will work as huge pumps to evaporate water-using energy of sun. Water vapors as lightest than most others gases will go up to clouds levels, where latent heat capacity of producing droplet of water will easily escapes to space. This is natural source of cooling the Earth surfaces. More clouds will reflect to space more sun energy and additionally cool the Earth.

North America is only one huge land from France to Japan. Cooling air with help of forests in places where we growing corn or grass for ethanol production all around USA, Canada and Mexico will mild climate in North America. It will reduce power of weather disaster and more important reduce movement of air from south to north-main reason of melting ice in Greenland.

We will create source of energy to power plants-wood energy-the cheapest and closest to consumer source of future energy.

If we will build small power plants to use not only electricity, but also heat we will use almost 100% of energy of the wood, not 20%. That means we will need to use three- four times less energy sources.

Of course we need time to build these small power plants, but we can grow trees as fuel for these plants right now all across USA. They will start evaporate water immediately.

From “Atmosphere. Clouds. Rain. Snow. Storm” Vincent J Schaefer/John A. Day, 1981:

“The remarkable “year without a summer” of 1816 is thought to have been caused by massive volcanic eruption and is an indication of what could happen-volcanic ash particles serve as excellent nuclei for ice crystal formation. This factor, plus the reduction in solar radiation caused by volcanic dust cloud in the stratosphere and upper troposphere is thought to have been responsible for the widespread change in the weather America and Europe experienced in that time.”

We can provoke volcanic eruption. We can send mirrors particle on the orbit, by the rockets. What we will do depend of our common sense and willingness to spend money on projects. Growing forests for evaporation of water is cheaper and more controllable way to stop global warming. Woods, as source of the cheapest energy will pay all our spending bills in future. Pumping of water from flooding area to watering these forests will pay our spending bills right now. Instead of distribution of tax relief money to support our economy it is better to create new jobs for thousands of scientist, engineers and millions of workers. They can design and build water distribution systems, plant new forests, build new small power plants, new roads for small (10 kg) carts, new carts industries. Coal companies, power plants companies will pay bills right now, because nobody will ask them to participate in stupid projects of carbon dioxide reduction.

It is future of our energy and transportation systems, which will give result right now!

Conclusion

We need to change our transportation systems. Cars are perfects, but they are relicts of previous century.

We don’t need spent Government money to improve cars industry. Simple Physics is against it.

It is impossible to collect greenhouse gases from millions of cars. We have only one environmentally friendly direction of transportation-electrical transportation. We know that efficiency of electric motors more than 85%. In this direction we can make instead of car weighting more than 2000 kg cart with weight around 10 kg. It is correct-10 kg cart for one person.

Of course we need to use everything what we have right now till time when it is economically working.

As our strategy goals:
We need change transportation system.

We need to reduce size of power plants, which we will build in future to use not only electricity, but also heat energy for industry and greenhouse gases.

1.     We need in nearest future use electricity as only one source of energy for heating (cooling) of homes and for transportation.

2.     We need grow trees around power plants as only one source of renewable energy and solvent all gases from power plants in water to watering growing forests. Instead of supporting liquid fuel production - a disaster for environmental, our government need to support growing trees.

3.     We need to build systems to relocate water from flooding areas to watering these trees. Instead of spending money on result of flooding we need spend them to prevent flooding.

4.     We need start design small power plants with mandatory of using not only electricity but also heat. These power plants can use any kind of energy sources but after some time need to use only wood as main source of energy. All greenhouse gases from power plants need to be solvent in huge amount of water to watering forest. Of course quality of water for watering needs to be checked by scientists.

5.     5-10 years is more than enough time to make this happen.

In these directions we have possibilities to create new industries with 100% of employment for scientists, engineers, farmers and workers despite that many jobs positions goes abroad. It is normal process of globalization.

Here’s how some of our major energy sources stack up based on the average cost in dollars per million Btu for 2007 (annual average for the full year):

Coal — $1.78
Petroleum liquids — $9.21
Natural gas — $7.45

(You can take a look for yourself at www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm.pdf)
Net Generation Shares by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors),
Year-to-Date through March, 2008
Coal- 50.4%
Hydroelectric Conventional-6.5%
Natural Gas-19.0%
Nuclear-19.8%
Other Energy Sources-3.3% 
Petroleum-1.1%
Facts and Figures

Even if all possible arable acres of land in the U.S. (~427 million acres) were devoted to growing corn for ethanol production, at current yields ethanol would satisfy only 12% of transportation fuel demand;

Similarly, if all soybean crops currently produced were to be refined into biodiesel, only 6% of U.S. diesel demand would be met;

Ethanol currently represents just over 2% of gasoline sold;

Studies indicate full scale CELLULOSIC (not corn-based but developed from switchgrass, woodchips, etc), ethanol could be produced for 60 cents per gallon (NRDC Biofuels Study);

Research shows that it takes about 0.75 BTUs (British thermal units - a measure of energy content) from fossil fuels to create 1 BTU of ethanol, compared to 1.23 BTUs to create 1 BTU of traditional oil-based gasoline (Dr. Wang, et al). So ethanol is a more efficient energy source than oil.

Pros of Use

Biofuels can be domestically produced from a number of available agricultural products (e.g., swithgrass, woodchips, animal waste, etc);

Biofuels burn cleaner than most traditional fossil fuel sources;

Biodiesel can utilize current distribution systems and run in current diesel motors.

Cons of Use

At some point (arguably happening currently), food supplies are compromised and food prices rise as a result of additional agricultural products being sold for the creation of biofuels;

Limitations in the total transportation fuel supplied by biofuels exist using current technology;

There is not a readily established, high volume distribution system in place for the transport of ethanol as there is for oil (which currently enjoys a national pipeline system);

Ethanol requires the use of slightly modified, "flex-fuel" engines.

 

 

 

When we completely understand all previous let’s look on “Pickens Plan”, and try to understand where he is wrong?

“Pickens Plan”

America is addicted to foreign oil.
It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties our hands as a nation and a people.
The addiction has worsened for decades and now it's reached a point of crisis.

In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil.

Today it's nearly 70% and growing. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that's four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

America uses a lot of oil. Every day 85 million barrels of oil are produced around the world. And 21 million of those are used here in the United States.
That's 25% of the world's oil demand. Used by just 4% of the world's population.

Can't we just produce more oil?

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn't enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.
What's the good news?

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power.
Studies from around the world are showing that the Great Plains states are home to the greatest wind energy potential in the world — by far.

The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.

Today's wind turbines are standing up to 410 feet tall, with blades that stretch 148 feet in length. The blades collect the wind's kinetic energy. In one year, a 3-megawatt wind turbine produces as much energy as 12,000 barrels of imported oil.

A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.

Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.

That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.”

An economic revival for rural America.
A cheap new replacement for foreign oil.

Natural gas and bio-fuels are the only domestic energy sources used for transportation.

Cleaner

Natural gas is the cleanest transportation fuel available today.
According to the California Energy Commission, critical greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are 23% lower than diesel and 30% lower than gasoline.

Natural gas vehicles (NGV) are already available and combine top performance with low emissions. The natural gas Honda Civic GX is rated as the cleanest production vehicle in the world.

According to NGVAmerica, there are more than 7 million NGVs in use worldwide, but only 150,000 of those are in the United States.

The EPA estimates that vehicles on the road account for 60% of carbon monoxide pollution and around one-third of hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions in the United States. As federal and state emissions laws become more stringent, many requirements will be unattainable with conventionally fueled vehicles.

Since natural gas is significantly cleaner than petroleum, NGVs are increasing in popularity. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.

Cheaper

Natural gas is significantly less expensive than gasoline or diesel. In places like Utah and Oklahoma, prices are less than $1 a gallon. To see fueling stations and costs in your area, check out cngprices.com.

Domestic

Natural gas is our country's second largest energy resource and a vital component of our energy supply. 98% of the natural gas used in the United States is from North America. But 70% of our oil is purchased from foreign nations.

Natural gas is one of the cleanest, safest and most useful forms of energy — residentially, commercially and industrially. The natural gas industry has existed in the United States for over 100 years and continues to grow.

Domestic natural gas reserves are twice that of petroleum. And new discoveries of natural gas and ongoing development of renewable biogas are continually adding to existing reserves.

While it is a cheap, effective and versatile fuel, less than 1% of natural gas is currently used for transportation.

We currently use natural gas to produce 22% of our electricity. Harnessing the power of wind to generate electricity will give us the flexibility to shift natural gas away from electricity generation and put it to use as a transportation fuel — reducing our dependence on foreign oil by more than one-third.

How do we get it done?

The Pickens Plan is a bridge to the future — a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives, and buy us time to develop even greater new technologies.

Building new wind generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years. But it will take leadership.

On January 20th, 2009, a new President will take office.

We're organizing behind the Pickens Plan now to ensure our voices will be heard by the next administration.

Together we can raise a call for change and set a new course for America's energy future in the first hundred days of the new presidency — breaking the hammerlock of foreign oil and building a new domestic energy future for America with a focus on sustainability.

You can start changing America's future today by supporting the Pickens Plan. Join now.” 

I am sorry to tell that, but Mr. Pickens you are on wrong directions:

Mr. Pickens are writing about peak oil production (2005), huge price for oil - $700 billion dollars this year.

Solutions: wind power for electricity, Natural Gas Vehicles for transportation.

Will it work? Of course it wills it is working right now in small scale. If we will put billions in these directions we will work in huge scale as huge monuments all around our country for our stupidity and misunderstanding of global warming.

Let look how Pickens plan correlates with global warming?

Mr. Pickens as many others very famous persons in the world and mass media did not understand role of wind to cool the air. Wind energy evaporates a lot of water from any surfaces of rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans. It evaporates water from the grass, bushes and trees. Any uses of wind energy will reduce these cooling effects of wind.

Kinetic energy of the wind in the atmosphere sends hot air from the land or water surface to the high level of atmosphere where it is easy for heat to escape to the space.

Kinetic energy of the wind met the small droplets of water in fog, clouds, and all green vegetables, especially in leaves of trees around all atmospheres on the Earth. These processes produce water vapor that invisible greenhouse gas, which always go up to cloud level and cool the Earth better than anything else.

Mr. Pickens thinks that wind power did not produce pollution. It is not true. Production of millions wind turbines, batteries need energy. Electricity from these turbines is also pollutant –heat pollutant. In case when others processes in human activity will add greenhouse gases in the atmosphere any heat sources- wind, or nuclear, or geothermal and many others will increase amount of heat that will heat air and will be reason for global warming.

Any our attempt to produce source of energy without production additional sources of water vapor will heat the atmosphere and increase risk of global warming.

Let look how Pickens plan uses energy sources?

Natural Gas Vehicles for transportation need huge investment to change our cars, where real efficiency in most cases will be less than 1%.

We need destroy all power plants and their distribution lines, which right now produce electricity-using energy of natural gas

If windmills produce electricity we are loosing around 50% of wind energy on resistance of batteries, when we charge them. When we use bvatteries around 50% of their energy

 

will be loosing when power from batteries will go to customers. Efficiency of this process is around 25% in best case.

We still have room for cooperation with Mr. Picken.
Windmills can work directly pumping perhaps water to grow forests. Efficiency of using wind power will be increased at least tree times. We will have useful job without complication of electrical energy production.

GE can design and build small power plants (for ten-hundred thousands of people), which will use natural gas, where we can use as electrical, as heat energy and look forwards to use in the same power plant as natural gas as wood as source of energy.

GE can design and build 10 kg electrical carts for one person as main transportation system of our future (I have ideas how to make it happen).

GE with cooperation with Companies which specialized in building road systems, working together to build new completely automated transportation systems in North America with three levels without any intersection on second and third level.

These directions can not only solve independence from foreign source of energy, but also global warming problems and reduce weather disaster problems.

These directions will give jobs and new opportunity for all North America citizens with 100% of employment for nearest hundred years.

Of course it will be the best example to the world.
Everybody who understands that, who have power to reach Mr. Picken, or mass- media, please tell them about these possibilities. I am sure that these directions are working and need less investment with huge profit possibilities than anything else.

I will be glad to work together on these directions with everybody who agreed with me.

Let look at “How Siemens does it.”

Wind power is the fastest-growing energy source in the world. Siemens is rapidly expanding its manufacturing capacities in this exciting new business with powerful offshore wind parks, growing much faster than the market. With more than 6,300 wind turbines around the world, Siemens helps to save up to 10 million tons of CO2 emissions per year. As the market leader in offshore wind energy, Siemens offers the largest serially produced offshore wind turbines, with rotor blades sweeping an area bigger than a football field.

The world's largest gas turbine, the Siemens SGT5-8000H, is also the most powerful. Its capacity of 340 megawatts roughly equals that of 13 jumbo jet engines. In combined cycle operation, plants powered with this new gas turbine will generate 530 MW - enough to supply three million people with energy. A higher than 60 percent efficiency rate in combined-cycle applications (an increase of two percentage points) sets a new benchmark for efficient power generation and results in a reduction of CO2 emissions by up to 40,000 tons per year.

Superior technology for long-distance power transmission is key to generating the thousands of gigawatts of electricity required by our growing planet. But how can we efficiently transport it from remote power plants to populated areas, where it is needed? To overcome the limitations and energy losses of conventional alternating current (AC) transmission, Siemens built high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) transmission links, which are a more economical and ecological means of transporting electric power over distances of 600 km or more.

Buildings account for nearly 40 percent of global energy consumption. To address this massive challenge, Siemens offers measures that help reduce energy costs by 20 - 40 percent, on average. Through energy performance contracting, Siemens plans and installs new intelligent building systems that guarantee savings in cost, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Under such a contract, Siemens identifies the potential for saving energy in a building through modernization and energy services. The investment pays for itself through the energy savings, with no added costs incurred.”

The same as Mr. Picken, Company Siemens make mistakes in wind production. Please read everything, what I wrote in my answer to Mr.Picken.

The world’s largest gas turbine, even with higher than 60 percent efficiency rate (Congratulation for that achievement) will loose more than 70% of gas energy in vain.

To use as heat as electricity energy we need design not more efficient huge power plant, but smaller power plants. Power plants, which served to area around 15 km will use as heat as electrical energy. We can transfer electrical energy on 600 and more km we can’t do the same with heat energy. The world’s largest gas turbine will be one of the many others huge heat pollutant, which will prevail reduction of carbon dioxide emission.

If real speechwriters will write speech to real Candidate for President in these directions it will be a winer speech as for him, as for USA, as for the world.

Sincerely, Michael Ioffe. 

 

Copyright 2007 by Ductwork installation   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement
DotNetNuke® is copyright 2002-2010 by DotNetNuke Corporation