Consultants

Add a Comment

18 Comments

Comment by George Hope on October 30, 2009 at 12:24pm

Greetings,
Im involved with Business Development in the area of electro-mechanical interconnects.
Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
Regards

Comment by Richard Reis on May 24, 2009 at 10:07am

Conservation and efficiency are prerequisites for using alternative energy, because alternative energy is diffuse and more expensive than conventional energy (ignoring external costs such as pollution and global warming). Still pocketbook issues are important business considerations. My engineering practice, Conservation Engineering is devoted to helping businesses benchmark their current efficiency and achieve higher efficiencies and lower utility costs through better practices and cost-effective investments.

Comment by Ron Bader on December 24, 2008 at 11:58am

With over 31 years of extremely broad-based experience in the analysis, design, and development of multi-disciplinary systems, I help companies insure the timely and cost effective success of their product developments from feasibility through pilot production.

I am also an experienced forensic consultant and have served as an expert witness and technical consultant in a number of high technology intellectual property, product liability, and contract related litigations.

The services I provide include feasibility studies; project planning; product development; design reviews, troubled project analysis and turnaround; hardware/software/firmware design, analysis and troubleshooting; reverse engineering; forensic support and expert witness services.

My clients include Medical, Industrial, ATE, Computer equipment manufacturers and others..

I have extensive experience in:

* Hardware, software and real time firmware design, analysis, integration and troubleshooting.
* Embedded microprocessor / microcontroller, programmable logic, digital, analog, mixed signal circuits, sensors and electro-mechanical device interfaces.
* Signal Integrity measurement, analysis, modeling and simulation in PSPICE, HSPICE and Hyperlynx
* Printed circuit board engineering, stackup definition, design rule specifications, layout management and oversight
* Programming in C++, C, FORTRAN, BASIC, various assembly languages and microcode
* Electronic equipment power distribution, high speed/power backplanes, and custom busbar systems.

I earned my MSc. in Engineering (dual major in EE and CS) from U.C. Berkeley; my B.S.in Engineering Science with Highest Honors and an A.A.S. Electronic Technology both from the City University of New York. I am an named inventor for three US Patents and one patent pending, a Senior Member of the IEEE, a Senior Member of the Professional and Technical Consultants Association (PATCA) and a member of the IEEE Consultants Network of Silicon Valley (CNSV).

If your company, your client, or someone you know can benefit from my services, email or call so we can arrange a no cost initial consultation.

Ron Bader
www.BaderEngineering.org
Boulder Creek, California

Comment by bandit Gangwere on December 3, 2008 at 12:36pm

I specialize in mission-critical systems, mainly embedded data acquisition and control systems. I do device drivers that work - all the time, correctly. I can do part of the system, from the "close to the iron", to the entire application.

I have experience in such diverse fields as: semiconductor manufacturing equipment, avionics, telecom, public safety, graphics, virtual reality, disc drives, scientific experiments, and medical devices. I have over 30 years of experience, from mainframes to microprocessors.

Simply put, I control hardware and schlep bits.

I create test benches and automated test procedures. Often, this is the only method possible to properly test embedded systems.

I enjoy R&D projects, both in the lab and conducting field experiments.

I like to work closely with the hardware engineers, preferably at the hardware definition stage. I have done both device and board level design. I understand the limitations and strengths of both hardware and firmware, thus I can help design reliable and easily controllable hardware.

I have designed and implemented hardware systems to a medium level of complexity for clients, from schematics to PCB's to the controlling firmware.

I can port RTOS's and applications to embedded systems. I have done Board Support Packages (BSP's) for ThreadX, QNX, pSOS, and others.

QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY

Been on many projects 'womb-to-tomb', with an excellent record of shipped products. Literate in both software and hardware. Possess superior systematic problem solving skill coupled with creative evaluation and original thinking abilities. Maintain detailed log of all career work for reference and documentation. Work effectively in team and individual efforts. Able to 'zero in' and focus complete attention in design and troubleshooting processes. Excellent synthesis and communication skills.

Skills: Firmware, Embedded controllers, Device drivers, Diagnostics, Research and Development, Field Testing and Evaluation, Troubleshooting, Documentation, Structured and Object-oriented design, Finite Automata, Prototype systems, simple Digital hardware, Test processes, Mass manufacturing

Tool Creation: Interpreters, Compilers, Parsers, Filters, Assemblers, Emulators, Editors

Languages: C, Assembler (Motorola, Intel, 8051, PIC, DSP, Others), Forth, LEX, YACC, Perl, Shells, Horizontal Microcode, Basic, Pascal, Others

Operating Systems: uCos, QNX, ThreadX, Linux, Nucleus, OS-9, pSOS, UNIX, Win98, NT, XP, DEC, PRIMOS, MS-DOS, Others

Machines: DEC Systems, Motorola (56000, 680x0, 6833x, Coldfire) and Intel (8088, 8086, x86) Microprocessors, PowerPC, Z80, Z8000, 8051, ARM, PIC, Sun, PC, FPS-164, Stratus, Others.

Comment by Tony on December 3, 2008 at 7:56am

I am consulting in the commercial telecommunications sector. Primarily with CATV operators, interexchange carriers, and electric utiliities. The primary focus of my practice has been broadband access and transport along with IP networking. For details of my background you may visit my web site at www.adaptiveengineer.com.

Regards,

Tony Satcher, P.E.

Comment by Jimmy Moore on July 29, 2008 at 5:46am

The best place to start with Tesla research is by reading his bio, "Tesla, the man out of time," by Margaret Cheney.

Comment by Jimmy Moore on July 20, 2008 at 7:28pm

Mr. Johnson,

That is an interesting article for conventional thinking, Unfortunately, Tesla discovered that empty space is not empty, instead it is full of a new kind of highly pressurized electricity - called radiant electricity. This radiant electricity can be easily converted to conductive electricity, the kind that we use in our homes. He discovered this in 1890, almost killed over it, and then was ruined financially. What this means is that we never needed oil, nuclear, coal, natural gas, solar, wind, geothermal, or any other energy source. We have electricity already hitting us in the head all day long. It is already electricity, only in a slightly different form than we are used to. This radiant electricity is also safe for living thi

Comment by C B JOHNSON on July 17, 2008 at 7:59pm

Here is a recent paper that I gave on "Energy Challenges." Unfortunately the figures did not copy into the window. If anyone would like the whole paper, please contact me.

---


Energy Challenges

C Bruce Johnson
Johnson Scientific Group Inc
www.JohnsonScientificGroup.com

Presented at;
American Physical Society
Four Corners Section, Fall Meeting
Northern Arizona University
Flagstaff AZ
19-20OCT07
Paper-J4.00002


Abstract

Without energy (E) there is nothing, m=E/c2. Without sufficient energy the various global economies will collapse. In fact, these economies generally require more energy every year. Where will this energy come from? How much will it cost? What are the expected impacts of the various energy sources and uses on the environment? Brief summary answers to these questions are presented, and a plea is made for more renewable energy R&D at our national laboratories and within the industrial community.





Introduction

Without energy (E) there is nothing, m=E/c2. Without sufficient energy the various global economies will collapse. In fact, these economies generally require more energy every year. Using the wrong kinds of energy will cause us to smother and cook in our own effluent. In fact, world energy usage increases year after year. The world population increases annually also. Where will the energy come from in the future to feed the world’s economies? How much will the energy cost? What are the expected impacts of the various energy sources and uses on the environment? These various issues will be discussed, and an urgent plea is made for more energy R&D at our national laboratories and within the industrial community. For future energy planning, energy conservation will be an important factor. The final conclusion is that the new energy must come from renewable resources.

Historical and Projected Energy Use

To begin to understand the scope of the new energy development challenge, consider the past use of the major sources of energy. Figure 1 shows how wood, coal, petroleum, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear energy resources have been utilized in the US, in the period from 1650-2000 . This chart is borrowed from the Basic Energy Sciences program within the Department of Energy (DOE). The mission of this program is to support the R&D related to “new and improved energy technologies, and for understanding and mitigating the environmental impacts of energy use.” Note the significantly increased consumption of most of the sources of energy in recent years.

Figure 1- US energy consumption by source

Various units of energy and metric prefixes are used in this discussion. They are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. A commonly used unit, for a large amount of energy, is the “Quad,” which is a quadrillion BTU, or 1E15 BTU. A handy energy and work converter can be found at www.unitconversion.org. Just to have a practical grasp of what a Joule of energy represents, it takes 271 Joules of energy to raise a 200 pound (90.7 kg) person, or object, 1 foot (0.3 m) off the floor. Also, the energy in 1 cup of gasoline, 8.42E6 J, is equal to the energy required to lift a 200 lb person from sea level to an altitude of 31,000 feet. It is no wonder that we love gasoline.


Table 1-Various Joule (J) energy equivalents
1 BTU 1055 J
1 W h 3.6E3 J
1 kW h 3.6E6 J
1 cup gasoline 8.42E6 J
1 ton TNT 4.2E9 J
1 g of matter 9E13 J
1 Quad 1.055E18 J
World use of energy in 1970 2E20 J
World use of energy in 2004 4.72E20 J
World receipt of solar energy 5E24 J
Moon’s kinetic energy of translation in its orbit 3.63E27 J
Sun’s daily output of energy 3E32 J
Earth’s kinetic energy of translation in its orbit 2.57E34 J

“The energy equivalent to conversion of one gram of matter, for example, is
9E13 J, which is approximately
2.5E10 watt-hours, or the energy derived from the explosion of
20 kilotons of TNT, or the energy released in the complete fission of
one kilogram of uranium-235 .”

Table 2- Metric prefixes for numbers larger than unity. Note 1E3=1,000, 1E6=1,000,000, etc.
Prefix none kilo mega giga tera peta exa zetta yotta
Symbol none k M G T P E Z Y
Name one thousand Million Billion Trillion Quadrillion Quintillion Sextillion Septillion
Value 1 1E3 1E6 1E9 1E12 1E15 1E18 1E21 1E24

Next consider the increasing world population, shown in Fig 2. This indicates that the population is expected to increase significantly in the next 40 year period, and beyond. Figure 3 shows both estimates for world population during previous eons, for the present historical periods and estimates for future years out to 2025. The sharp increase in world population in the last century is putting an increased stress on world economies to find sufficient sources of inexpensive energy. Also, the extensive use of fossil fuels during this recent period has caused the levels of greenhouse gases to accumulate in the atmosphere to concentrations higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years . The global warming issues are tied directly to the increased us of fossil fuels by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).


Figure 2-World population for the period 1950-2050



Figure 3 – World population growth through history

World power usage for the period 1965-2005 is shown in Fig 4. Note the steady increase in power demands for each of the major sources.


Figure 4-World power usage for the period 1965-2005, Power (TW) vs Year

The energy usage, power production and population curves look like they can be expected to increase for years to come. When will these curves top-out? The probable conclusion from these figures is that the world’s energy demand will increase dramatically in the next half century. How will the world’s energy requirements be met in this period? What are our energy generation choices? How do these choices affect our environment, our economy and our general well-being?

Regarding the use of fossil fuels, Dr James Hansen, a NASA climate scientist, has studied global warming in detail, and he, as well as many others, believes that the earth’s climate system is approaching a tipping point. He also points out that an effect called global dimming may be masking the full effects of global warming. This is in general agreement with the recent United Nations report on climate change and global warming, due to the use of fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. Others suggest that the tipping point has already been reached. One of his most recent papers is entitled “Climate Catastrophe.” For more information on global warming, the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” presents a compelling case for global warming resulting from human activities. The most extensive recent study report on this subject, entitled “Climate Change 2007,” has been prepared by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was set up jointly by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.

The general thrust of this discussion is to focus on R&D related to renewable energy resources, and away from fossil fuels. Some background regarding fossil fuels is given first, so that we can better understand the magnitude and scope of the effort required to displace fossil fuels wherever possible.

Fossil fuels

Oil

The study of oil resources is a huge undertaking. Oil and natural gas account for about 77% of energy used in the US. Only a few general remarks will be given here. For those interested in learning more about this subject, two recent books are recommended reading; one by Matthew R Simmons and another by Kenneth S Deffeyes . Both contain extensive references for further research.

A word about Hubbert’s peak theory , that applies to the extraction of resources. In the case of oil resources for example, his theory is that for any particular oil field, or for the earth as a whole, the oil production rate curve will be a bell shaped curve. For a young field the production rate increases as the infrastructure is developed and decreases as the resources are depleted. Between these extremes there is a peak. This may not seem very profound at first, but when the curve for the whole earth is considered, it becomes apparent that there is a limit to constantly increasing production. In fact, his methodology can be used to predict when production will be negligible. Along with this limited resource realization are the consequences of higher oil prices, impacts on life styles, economic downturns, etc. Fig 5 shows the record for world production of crude oil and natural gas liquids for the period 1990-2007, along with various projections for the period 2007-2020.


Figure 5-World production of crude oil and natural gas liquids. Note: mbpd = Million of barrels per day, CO = Crude Oil + lease condensate, NGL= Natural Gas Liquids (lease condensate + NGPL), IEA = International Energy Agency.

The US has more total oil wells than any other country, but US oil production is not keeping up with the needs of the nation. Just as all bleeding eventually stops, all oilfields eventually run dry. Approximately 85% of the energy used in the US comes from fossil fuels, ie coal, petroleum and natural gas. Today, more than 75% of the petroleum needs of the US are met by imports. Figure 6 shows the US oil production, imports and total usage for the period 1950-2005.


Figure 6-US petroleum production, consumption and imports for the period 1950-2005

As seen in Fig 5, the total world oil production is approximately 82 million barrels per day, or 3.4 billion gallons, per day. The US has 5% of the world’s population and consumes over 20 million barrels per day, or one forth of the world’s total production. This dependence on foreign oil is like an addiction, and the US is now subject to foreign energy forces outside our control. The old relationship between supply and demand is resulting in an increased cost for petroleum. This is not a good position to be in. To counteract this situation, significant renewable energy within our control can be forthcoming with sufficient effort to support a strong renewable energy R&D program.

A group led by Chevron Corp. has tapped a petroleum pool 270 miles south of New Orleans, and almost 4 miles beneath the ocean floor, in a region that could hold as much as 15 billion barrels of oil, or more than Alaska's Prudhoe Bay . It could be the biggest domestic oil find in 38 years. However, production is years away, and even then it won't reverse America's growing reliance on imports, or have any meaningful effect at the gasoline pump.

What about oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge? Two points can be made. If we don’t use it now it will be there later, if needed. Secondly, it is estimated to have about 10 billion barrels of oil, enough to fully meet our US demands for only about one year.

We’re told that we just need more refineries, and that the green movement is preventing refinery construction. That may or may not be true, but the fact remains that the oil refined will come primarily from foreign sources, not US controlled supplies.

A word about gasoline. Why do we love it? Because it packs lots of energy into a small volume, and, up until now, it has been very affordable. Here are some little known facts about the energy equivalents of familiar practical amounts of gasoline. One gallon (3.785 l) of gasoline weighs 6.15 lb (2.79 kg). A pound of gasoline contains an energy of 20,750 BTU, so that one gallon is equivalent to 1.28E5 BTU = 1.35E8 J. For example, a 31 gal tank of gasoline has the same energy as 1 Ton of TNT!

You put 19 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for
every gallon of gasoline that you burn in your car.

The worldwide distribution of petroleum resources, excluding the US, is shown in Fig 7.


Figure 7- Oil endowment (cumulative production plus remaining reserves and undiscovered resources) for provinces assessed . Darker green indicates more resources. Areas; 1-Former Soviet Union, 2-Middle East and North Africa, 3-Asia Pacific, 4-Europe, 5-North America, 6-Central and South America, 7 Sub-Saharan Africa and Antarctica, 8 South Asia. United States areas are not included.

In the petroleum area, the worst thing that could happen is that the US would miraculously find an unlimited amount of oil, eg a 500 year supply. We would forget about our environment, and global warming and global dimming, and go on our merry energy consuming way. Again, this would just cause us to smother and cook in our own effluent. The next worst thing would be for the US to rely on coal, with its devastating impact on the environment.

A word about global dimming. Some scientists have made measurements of the solar flux and have concluded that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling. If this is true then the reduced solar energy may mean that the effect of global warming is more serious than expected. The global dimming effect was first reported by Gerald Stanhill .

The US has a critical challenge to replace the use of petroleum with a mixture of renewable energy resources.

Coal

There are two major problems with coal, its hard to mine and its hard to burn. The US has lots of coal, but it is hard and dangerous to mine, and coal mining causes severe environmental damage. Coal is the most used fuel for electricity generating plants, even though coal produces the most toxic and greenhouse gas emissions. More than 90% of the fossil fuel reserves in the US are coal. After it is mined and moved to the use site it can’t be burned without expensive scrubbers, etc. Also, economical technology is needed to remove and/or sequester its pollutants. Some sample energy densities for common types of coal are given in Table 3.

Type BTU/lb J/kg
Anthracite 13,130 3.06E7
Bituminous 13,150-13,530 3.06E7-3.15E7
Sub-bituminous 8,580-10,330 2.00E7-2.41E7
Lignite 6,980 1.63E7
Table 3-Energy densities for some common types of coal



Natural gas

Oil and natural gas account for about 77% of the energy used in the US. The approximate heat content of natural gas is 1027 BTU/ft3, or 38 MJ/m3. Other gas energy densities are given in Table 4.

Gas Type BTU/scf
Natural gas 950-1050
Power gas 150
Synthetic natural gas 1000
Table 4-Gas energy densities

US gas production and imports are expected to grow in the near future, as shown in Fig 8.


Figure 8-National Academy of Sciences , “Sources of incremental natural gas supply for the period 2000 to 2025 in trillion cubic feet. The data include supplemental supplies. SOURCE: Mary Hutzler, EIA, personal communication, 2003. Data are from EIA (2003a).”

Averaging the US natural gas resources, “available for extraction,” from three different sources it is found that approximately 1286 Tcf (trillion cubic feet), or 36.42E12 m3, is technically recoverable today. As a rough estimate, assuming 2002 US production levels, the National Petroleum Council estimates that there is enough domestic natural gas to meet over 75 years of production.

As with oil, the US is a large natural gas consumer. For example, in 2002 the US used approximately 22.8 Tcf, or 6.46E11 m3. With 5% of the world’s population, we are presently using over 25% of the worldwide consumption. The US natural gas demands are met by relying on domestic production, imports of dry gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that 19 Tcf, or 5.4E11 m3, of dry natural gas was produced in the US in 2002, which was 84% of total consumption. The states of Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming produced about 80% of the total marketed natural gas production in 2001 in the US, according to the EIA. Although the US is less dependent upon foreign sources for domestic natural gas needs, resources are limited, this is still a fossil fuel and imports can be expected to increase in coming years.

Nuclear energy

The top 10 countries for electricity generation using nuclear energy are all in Europe. Nuclear energy provides 20% and 78% of the electricity needs in the US and France, respectively. New orders for nuclear electric generating plants in the US ceased 20 years ago. While not a renewable energy, the US does have enough reserves of uranium to achieve a large measure of energy independence for a long period. Challenges are to find safe ways to manufacture, transport, store and use the radioactive fuel rods, and later transport and store the spent fuel rods and waste products.

Renewable Energy Resources

Against this backdrop of traditional fossil fuels, with their finite supply problems, and issues with the environment, let us next consider the possibilities of obtaining energy from our renewable energy resources. The renewable energy resources available to us are those forms of energy that are continuously replenished by the solar flux. It is customary to also include the earth’s geothermal energy in this renewable category. Hydrogen fuel derived from these renewable resources is also included. The DOE’s FY08 budget request to congress for work in this area is shown in Fig 9, along with FY06 and FY07 budgets for comparison. Our National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is located in Golden, Colorado, and the NREL website describes the various renewable energy programs being worked on.



Figure 9-Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) FY08 Congressional Budget Request, $k

The purpose in showing these numbers is not to second guess or pick apart the various allocations, but to observe understand where the emphasis is being placed for the future of energy efficiency and renewable energy R&D in the US. Consider the following various areas in this figure.

In Aug07 the House of Representatives voted for a US Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) that would require electric utilities to produce 15% of their electricity from renewable energy resources and increased energy efficiency by the year 2020. This is not law yet, because the Senate has a different version. The challenge here is to support the house bill and set a reasonable goal for renewable energy resource development in the US.

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi

Hydrogen technology

The DOE’s hydrogen technology R&D program is focused on hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and fuel cell technologies. A key objective of this program is to enable the automobile and energy companies to opt for commercial availability of fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure by the year 2020. While EERE’s portion is $213M, the overall request in this technology area is $309M when including related efforts from basic hydrogen research in the Office of Science, coal based hydrogen production research in the Office of Fossil Energy, nuclear based hydrogen production research in the Office of Nuclear Energy, and hydrogen safety related activities at the US Department of Transportation. The critical challenge here is to develop practical ways to make use of hydrogen in a “hydrogen economy” from renewable energy resources.

Biomass and biorefinery systems

The broad R&D goals here are to find ways to efficiently transform the nation’s biomass resources into practical and affordable biofuels, as well as to “make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive by 2012.” An increased ethanol production capability will directly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Still, ethanol fuel leaves a carbon footprint in the atmosphere, and there is still a fossil fuel input in the equation for making ethanol. As a renewable resource, biomass does offer an option for providing us with a transportation fuel in the near term. A separate ethanol pipeline and fuel delivery infrastructure is probably required. The R&D efforts in this biomass energy area will have to take into account farm policies, feedstocks, crop price supports, fertilizer and weed killer requirements, harvesting practices, grain delivery and storage, ethanol plant designs, environmental impact, overall efficiency and a host of interrelated issues.

One particular DOE program has assigned three lead institutions, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, goals to find alternatives, soon, to imported oil and fossil fuels. Planning calls for the use of 35E9 gal of alternative and renewable fuels by 2017, and reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in ten years.

It is gratifying to see a 30% increase in the DOE’s requested funding for R&D in this area.

Solar energy

Solar energy R&D does not fare as well as the biomass program. This program funding request is actually $68,000 less than last year’s request! Our closest stable fusion energy source is not in a laboratory, or an energy plant, it is the sun, 93 million miles (150E6 km) away. Its spectral photon flux at ground level is shown in Fig 10. The power density of direct sunlight is approximately 1 kW/m2 at the earth’s surface. In a sense, the sun is both the source of global warming and its solution. It is what is causing the earth to heat, but we can use its energy to make power from its radiation and secondary effects like the winds, tides, and etc.


Figure 10 - Solar spectral photon flux and corresponding current density in spectral interval (0,λc) for device with 100 % quantum efficiency , ASTM E892-82

Incoming solar radiation, or insolation, is the term used to specify the amount of solar energy received on a given surface area in a given time. Figure 11 shows a map of the contiguous US with various insolation values depicted. The southwestern region has some areas with insolation values as high as 8-9 kWh/m2/day. As an example of how much solar power is available, the peak solar power received in an area the size of Maricopa County (2.4E10 m2), where Phoenix, Arizona is located, is 2.4E13 W, or more than the total average continuous power used by the whole world! The southwestern US has a tremendous renewable resource from solar energy alone.


Figure 11 - US map showing average insolation ranges

Consider another example, that of homeowners in the southwestern US with 2500 ft2 (232 m2) homes, in regions where the insolation is 6.5 kWh/ m2/day. If only about half their roof area is devoted to photovoltaic solar energy panels having an energy conversion efficiency of 15%, a total energy of

(116 m2) x (6.5 kWh/m2/day) = 754 kWh/day = 2.7E9 J/day

can be produced, which is 100 times more than the average home uses per day. The average US home uses 1E10 J/yr = 2.7E7 J/day.

The DOE’s Solar Energy program focuses on R&D “solar power that will reduce our demand for natural gas and promote a cleaner environment.” A key part of this program is the Solar America Initiative (SAI) designed to focus on photovoltaic (PV) systems having more efficiency and reliability, as well as lower cost. A target is to produce “5-10 gigawatts (5E12 1E13 GW) of new grid-connected electricity generating capacity by 2015.” Another part of the proposed solar energy program is “to lower the cost of concentrating solar power technologies ($9.0 million) and to develop thermal storage capabilities that will enhance its value to utilities and allow solar to compete in large-scale centralized generation markets.” EcoBusinessLinks lists suppliers, prices and manufacturers of photovoltaic solar panels.

In addition to solar photovoltaic panels, for generating electricity, solar thermal energy panels and concentrators offer sizeable resources for a variety of applications like home heating, water heating, etc.

While all of the DOE’s proposed goals are steps in the right direction, the pace and magnitude of the goals should be greatly increased to move us away from all the fossil fuel issues, and achieve US energy independence, as soon as possible. The worldwide photovoltaic solar panel manufacturing output in 2006 reached more than 2E9 MW/year. The DOE FY08 budget asks for nearly six times more funding for fossil fuels than for solar energy programs. One of the clear initiatives should be to use excess solar generated electricity to produce hydrogen and promote an early entry into a hydrogen economy. There is a challenge here for us to put more emphasis on our development of solar energy systems for the US.

Wind energy

The DOE describes its wind energy program as follows.

“The Wind Energy program leads the nation's effort to accelerate the market penetration of wind energy by improving the performance and reliability of wind technology, reducing risks to project development, enhancing critical energy infrastructure, and advancing policies in support of wind energy. The program is aggressively working to remove wind energy barriers through government and private sector stakeholder collaboration and improve wind technology through industry partnerships and applied research and testing.”

The worldwide installed capacity of wind electric generators in 2006 is estimated to be 74,223 MW . At the present time wind energy is growing faster than any other source of electricity in the world. The five countries with the most installed capacity are listed in Table 5.

Country Installed Capacity, (MW)
Germany 20,621
Spain 11,615
USA 11,603
India 6,270
Denmark 3,136
Table 5 - Five countries with the most installed wind electric generator capacity7


The small number for Denmark is somewhat misleading. Today, Denmark produces 20% of its electrical energy needs with wind electric generators. By the year 2025 they expect to derive 50% of their needs from wind energy. Figure 12 shows the robust growth in installed global capacity since 1995.

Delaware residents have decided to have wind power generators installed instead of conventional coal and/or natural gas powered generators. “After analyzing the survey data and completing statistical analyses, we concluded that residents statewide would be willing to pay between $500 million and $550 million [extra] to have offshore wind as a source of power over coal or natural gas,” said Jeremy Firestone, a University of Delaware researcher and one of the authors of a survey made for the state. One of their concerns was a 59% rate increase in 2006 for conventional power, and what future price increases might be.






Figure 12-Global cumulative installed capacity 1996-2006, MW vs Year. From Global Wind Energy Council, Brussels, Belgium

According to the American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org, there are nine proven US wind electric generator providers. In Jun06 the American Wind Energy Association, the US Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory committed to develop an action plan focused on providing up to 20% of the nation’s electricity from clean, renewable wind energy.


Figure 13 is a list of the top 20 wind energy states and their annual wind energy potentials. However, in 2006 the estimated 25E9 kWh of electricity generated was less than 1% of the US electricity generation. In contrast, the annual potential for electrical generation from the wind is 10.777E12 kWh, or approximately three times the electrical energy being generated in the US today. Thus, there is a great potential for the development of wind energy development in the US.

As an example of what the states are doing, independent of government programs, consider what Delaware has recently decided.







Figure 13-The top twenty states for wind energy potential. From the American Wind Energy Assoc, “Wind energy: An untapped resource”

Government, consumers and industry need to work together to tap this renewable energy. Some of the program needs are
• Development of transmission systems,
• Standardized national energy interconnection rules and “grid code” standards
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) needs to establish the infrastructure for removal of discriminatory barriers to wind energy market access, “conditional firm” contracts are needed to help wind farms get transmission access,
• Enact a national renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS).

The DOE has developed a “Wind Energy Multiyear Program Plan, 2007-2012” which needs our support . However, the DOE FY08 wind energy program budget request is for 8.6% less than the FY07 budget! This wind in this budget is blowing in the wrong direction. This same budget request asks for nearly 22 times more for fossil fuels than for wind energy. The urgent challenge here is to increase the more rapid development of wind energy resources in the US.

Geothermal and hydropower energy

These two renewable energy resources just did not make the budget. Not that there are not resources to tap in these areas. The DOE itself estimates that there is a US potential to develop up to 8 Quads per year (8E15 BTU/yr = 8.4E18 J/yr) of geothermal energy. Not bad. There is a challenge here to support geothermal energy R&D.

Is tidal energy, sometimes called marine renewables, R&D missing from the request? There is no mention of tidal energy in the DOE’s FY08 budget request. An Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) is studying tidal power, and they have found that “ … commercial wave energy installations in some locations within the territorial waters of the United States may be cost-competitive with current land-based wind capacity once the technology reaches a cumulative production volume of 10,000 to 20,000 MW.” A huge practical advantage of tidal energy over wind energy systems is that the amount and the timing of the available tidal energy are always known.

Energy efficiency

A former APS President and Nobel Laureate, Burton Richter, will head an APS study group to investigate energy efficiency for the US. The focus will be on energy use for buildings and transportation, which accounts for about 70% of the total US carbon emissions. Of course this is an important area, a penny saved is always a penny earned. However, efficiency will just cut our losses, it will not create new energy for driving an economy.

Energy Tradeoffs

There is no “silver bullet” that will solve all our energy needs. The plan should be to use the most renewable energy that we can, and augment that with other less environmentally friendly sources of energy, as required. At the same time, the development of renewable energy resources should continue. The best solutions depend upon the special requirements for each class of end user. For example, the electrical needs of a remote village may be better served by a stand-alone PV and solar energy system, wind electric generation and possibly diesel backup, than by connecting it to a power grid with transmission lines. On the other hand, large metropolitan areas will have to make use of most of the major sources of energy, while phasing in more environmentally sound energy systems.

Federal and State Energy Programs

With the help of over 100 scientists and engineers from academia, industry and federal laboratories and agencies, the DOE has prepared a plan for assuring a “reliable, economic, and environmentally sound energy supply for the future.” A summary report issued in 2002 and entitled “Basic Research Needs to Assure a Secure Energy Future” is available from the DOE describing the plan in detail. It is recommended that the urgency level for the intensity and commitment to carry out this program be the same as that given to the Manhattan Project. Unfortunately, this program is just limping along.

Perhaps the states can find resources necessary to carry out their own renewable energy programs. For example, Arizona has a tremendous solar energy resource that can be tapped immediately. Solar panels covering an area of Maricopa County, Arizona, could produce enough peak energy to serve the total energy needs of the entire world. If the funds could be made available from a combination of state, federal and industry sources to make, for example, photovoltaic solar panels, solar panel arrays, control systems and electrical generating plants, the state would have not only a new clean source of energy, but a new solar panel and solar generating system industry. At the present time, Arizona uses solar panels made by foreign suppliers. So far our state has developed some strong, and much needed energy programs, but so far the programs appear to be weak on results. Kristin Mayes , from the Arizona Corporation Commission, states that only about 200-300 rooftop solar systems are being installed annually within the state. She hopes to see this number increase significantly, eg to 12,000 solar systems per year, by 2011. System cost appears to be the major reason why more solar systems are not being used.

Energy reserves and the future
Various estimates are made to determine the reserves of fossil fuels. The Energy Information Administration makes available a detailed list of World Crude Oil and Natural Gas Reserves, January 1, 2006 . The various numbers are large, but not in comparison with our usage rate, and they are finite and irreplaceable for all practical purposes.
Where will the energy come from in the future to feed the world’s economies? The simple answer is that for fossil fuels it will come from the lists of crude oil, natural gas and coal reserves, and for renewable energy it will come from more local areas. One significant difference is that fossil fuels generally need to be shipped or transported, often over great distances, while renewable energy resources can usually be found in areas close to the energy users. Thus there are added costs for fossil fuels for delivery, storage and environmental damage, because of oil spills, chemical runoffs from coal mines, etc.

“Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
Niels Bohr, Danish physicist (1885 - 1962)

How much will the energy cost? It is, of course, is not easy to even make an estimate of future energy costs. One of the most reliable sources of oil industry information is Matthew R Simmons, an investment banker, and he has reliable insight into the future for the oil economy . Because of limited energy supplies and increasing demands, energy prices can only be expected to increase in the near future.

What are the expected impacts of the various energy sources and uses on the environment? The use of fossil fuels has an overall detrimental effect on the environment. The use of fossil fuels will probably continue until there is nothing more left to remove from the earth, for a price that we’re willing to pay. The renewable energy resources are inherently less detrimental to our environment, and they will slowly but eventually replace fossil fuels, as the costs of fossil fuels increase.

The Final Challenge

Global warming is a lot of hot air.

This is true no matter how you look at it. How we deal with this, in the face of increased energy demands, the broad range of energy tradeoffs and limited energy supplies, is another matter. On our local Phoenix TV news we heard a story recently about an old hydroelectric plant that was being decommissioned, with the caveat that we didn’t need it anymore because we can now just take our power off the network of power lines. Greater public and private awareness and understanding of the energy challenges facing the US is seriously needed.

The following broad recommendations are made for our future renewable energy R&D.

• We have already waited too long to develop our renewable energy resources without seriously damaging our environment. The sooner we get on with it, the better.
• Focus on renewable energy development using the sciences that offer the optimum payoff.

Is there a parallel to be made between the US energy challenge and the Sputnik revolution? Do we need some kind of a wake up call regarding our energy resources? Perhaps, but there are some differences. Sputnik was a launch of a satellite, a countdown to a timed event. At t=0 Sputnik’s launch sequence started, and the entire world woke up to this new object in orbit overhead. The event could not be argued. Every 90 minutes, or so, it passed by and sent out its little string of radio beeps to remind us that it was there. Our energy challenges are not as dramatic as this in the onset, the broad implications and interrelationships between energy, our economy and our environment have taken many years to develop. However, great events cast their shadows before them. Sputnik highlighted science and engineering shortcomings primarily between two nations. The energy challenges that we now face put the entire world at a tipping point for not only the environment, eg global warming, but also for the sheer survival of whole species of plants and animals. So far, the peoples and governments of the world have been too slow to understand the realities of energy use and global warming. At the minimum, a myriad of severe hardships are in store for humanity, as well, if we do not now wake up to the call for the use of renewable energy resources in place of fossil fuels. We have reached the countdown to t=0 for addressing our energy challenge. Now this inescapable challenge must be met.

The beep goes on.



References

Comment by Jeremy K. Raines, Ph.D., P.E. on July 17, 2008 at 7:51am

Raines Engineering provides consulting services concerning antennas, antenna arrays, and all subjects electromagnetic. Detailed information may be found at www.rainesengineering.com.

Comment by Jimmy Moore on July 16, 2008 at 2:04pm

Hi Guys thanks for responding. Tesla invented AC Power. Edison fought AC power his whole life, and on his dying bed, he admitted to his relatives that it was the biggest mistake he ever made [fighting AC]. Now one difference between the two men was that Tesla had a PhD in electronics in 1870's, and Edison had a 7th grade education.

When Tesla first came over to the USA he worked for Edison and doubled the output of his DC dynos. Edison promised Tesla a $50K bonus (back in 1880's) which he did not keep. At that point Edison and Tesla became life long enemies. Edison promoted the use of AC for the electric chair to make AC look bad. Morgan, a banker, interviewed Tesla and Edison at the same time and asked, " which power system is the best?" Tesla replied, "AC is, because I can transmit AC over 180 miles, DC will not even go half that." So Tesla wont the contranct to put the first generators under Niagra Falls and power the Chicago Worlds Fair in 1893.
Here is a good pic at this link.
http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bogdan/tesla/chicago.htm
Tesla AC theory was simple, but the machines were massive!!!
Anyway at that worlds fair Tesla shot 1,000,000 VAC thru his arms to prove that AC was safe. Of course, he was standing on a wooden platform about 3 feet thick and the signal was probably RF not 60Hz.

Now, I ask, how did Edisons name get put onto Tesla's AC company?
(warning, the answer may take several hours of research - there is much more to the story and I will keep asking questions until we get to the end)

Best, Jimmy
(P.S. Hi Mr. Deckert! I highly recommend Curt for any electro-optic projects.)

• 1
• 2