Scientists Create First-Ever Circuit Powered By Light

For the first time, scientists have created a circuit that can power itself, as long as it’s left in a beam of sunshine. Created by scientists from the University of Pennsylvania, the world’s first photovoltaic circuit could eventually power a new line of consumer devices or even model the human brain.

Right now the creators can only coax minuscule amounts of electricity from their photovoltaic circuits, far too little to power consumer electrical devices, although those amounts could quickly skyrocket.  There are plenty of other ways they say that they can squeeze more electricity from light. Right now only about 10 percent of the photovoltaic circuits on a glass side work. Increasing that number will boost the power output.  Another way to get more power is by turning their 2D structures into 3D structures. Stacking multiple layers of light-collecting and electricity-using circuits would also boost power.

The photovoltaic circuit is a scientific breakthrough, not a technological one. These new circuits will most likely never replace their silicon counterparts.

Photovoltaic circuits could be ideal for other applications, however, such as powering tiny robotic devices or running computer calculations at the speed of light.  Far into the future, these circuits could even be used to set up as artificial neural networks that could model the brain.

At their most basic, computers represent data as on or off, a “0″ or a “1.” Using light instead of electrons, these photovoltaic circuits could store data from, say, one, two, three or four. Each number would correspond to a certain wavelength or color of light — red, green, blue and yellow, for example. To model the human nervous system, each color of light could correspond to a different neurotransmitter, say red for dopamine and blue for serotonin.

The potential applications of the technology are huge, but will take years to develop into any kind of practical equipment.

www.news.discovery.com

The Road to Recovery

Economic recovery, job creation, whatever you want to call it, everyone is trying to figure out how to get employment numbers back up and get the economy back on track.  Seems that the situation is pretty severe, and we’ve managed to export it to all of our trading partners.  But there is controversy over the information being reported.  The news is in the position of impacting the tone, so they can make things sound bad, or not, depending on who’s data they use and how they phrase their comments.

Many analysts have commented that the reporting of employment data in the US has been manipulated over the last few years and, for example, there is a whole category of people who are unemployed and are not being counted because they are assumed to have quit looking for work.  (How’s that for cynicism)   And China has been accused of artificially holding it’s currency value low in order to minimize the impact of decreased exports.   Interestingly, US exports are up significantly due to the weak dollar, so there’s at least some silver lining to the clouds of an economic downturn.

But the real road to recovery is based on real value.  Technology is great, it enables a lot of new product concepts that make our lives more convenient.  But the root is in the value that is delivered.  That value can be something compelling, like the iPod, which offers the convenience of incredible portability and simplicity in delivering entertainment media, or a major improvement in the energy storage capacity of batteries which makes hybrid cars possible.  The value that a product delivers is what makes it attractive and drives a customer to own it.

This means that technology cannot be dissociated from it’s economics.  The electric car is still a challenge because a cup (about 20 cents worth) of gasoline contains enough energy to move a 2 ton car down the road to the gas station when you’ve run out.   Which is a very cost effective exchange instead of you and several of your friends pushing your SUV to the next station to fill up.  So an electric car should cost about the same to operate as a gasoline car unless there are many people who are willing and able to pay a premium to drive electric.  And it’s getting there, and there are quite people who will pay the premium.  About 300,000 a year now.

But there is no product on the market that is immune to improvement.  So the thing that will really get the economy moving, and get people working, is product development.  Any improvement that enhances the value of a product is important to the success of the US as a nation.  That means everything.

That’s why the current dialog in the alternative energy sector is so important.  Significant improvements such as direct drive generators in the wind market and lower cost tracking technology in solar offer big advantages in the overall economic performance of these technologies.  This will reduce the amount of tax dollars that have to be used to subsidize the emerging industries.  And I’m betting there are a lot more improvements to come.

So the road to recovery is improving value.  In any product, in any market.  And that’s change we can really count on.

Defining Green Jobs

The American Solar Energy Society (ASEA) reported a staggering forecast of “37 million jobs resulting from Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in the US by 2030″.  That’s pretty exciting stuff.  In fact, the numbers are so big, I had to get a closer look.  37 Million new jobs would certainly fix things in this, or any, economy.

I know from having lived in Colorado that there is a lot going on there because there are 300 sunny days a year, so it’s a great place for solar power projects.  Many businesses like the Whole Foods company and other large retailers have projects going on and the Federal Center is putting in major solar power arrays to reduce their electrical demand .  The National Renewable Energy Labs are in Golden Colorado, near Denver, and they have huge campuses with thousands of people working on all sorts of energy related topics.  Public Service, the local power company has major wind farm projects going on in the state.   And there are major wind testing facilities that have recently sprung up to support the wind industry in Colorado.

So as part of measuring the impact of Renerwable Energy and Energy Efficiency activities, the report from the American Solar Energy Society focuses quite a bit on the local Colorado situation.  I have heard that Colorado claims to have 10,000 new jobs in the renewable energy arena.  There is a long way to go to get from 10,000 jobs to 37 million.  More importantly, the report states that  5600 of those jobs are at NREL and other government or non-profit organization, like ASEA.  I don’t think you can count jobs that are paid for with taxes, they don’t produce revenue.

The methodology of the report includes under it’s definition of Renewable Energy category of business; wind, photovoltaic, solar thermal, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass (ethanol, biodiesel, biomass power), fuel cells and hydrogen.   That’s pretty broad by itself.

Then the Energy Efficiency businesses include; appliance, HVAC, insulation, automobile and other.  So on a statistical basis some of the appliance and HVAC businesses, which already exist, get counted for a certain amount of head count and revenue generated because portions of their product sales focus on energy efficiency.  Wow!  That means you can count a small percentage of almost everything else.  Personally, I don’t consider guys putting insulation into your home part of the emerging green economy.  But the folks at ASES do.

And jobs that are federal, state or local government that are related to renewable energy are counted as well.  Non-profits, trade associations, foundations, consultants, investment, and other related positions are all in the count if they are related to Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency.

So there is a huge gap between estimating the “impact” of the green economy and job creation based on the green economy.  Looking at the report from ASEA, they are clearly not the same thing.  If 56% of measured jobs in Revewable Energy in Colorado are in the government and non-manufacturing roles, then the claims for job creation can not be more that 4400.  And the size of the “green” job creation opportunity is significantly lower than the announcement would lead you to believe.

Worse still for the US economy, one of the dominant suppliers in wind power is Siemens, which means that a lot of the sales generated here, translates to revenue for Europe.  In the solar cell market Japan, Germany and China supply the majority of the market and several foreign suppliers have operations in the US.

We sure hear a lot about how the green economy is going save our economy.  I think some of the messages are exaggerated and taken out of their proper context.  The analysis needs to be based in terms of what we can really expect in Growth.

Response to Big Wind

There were a number of emails relating to the posting on Big Wind a few weeks ago and I would like to make some clarifications.  My numbers were off, primarily based on the fact that “retail” rates for electricity such as you and I pay, are much higher than the wholesale rate which utilities pay.  The actual cost of electricity is around 4 to 5 cents depending on a variety of conditions that can influence the rate.  Based on that fact, the estimated payback for a large scale wind turbine is 2.5 times longer than my estimate in the posting.

In an effort to check the facts, I visited the American Wind Energy Association website.  There is a brief article (www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf)  that goes into some detail on the costs of large wind projects.  I used some of that information for a reality check.  They put a utility scale project analysis in the article that starts with a 50 MW capacity.  They say that a project this size would probably cost around $65 million to install.  I put in the recently published national average $1.93 million dollars per megawatt and got $96 million, a whole lot more expensive.

If the turbines are located on a site with wind available 35% of the time, and that’s a big number, the site should generate 150 million kilowatt hours per year.  The revenue will be around $6 to $6.75 million dollars a year not including maintenance, property taxes, management costs, etc.  Best case, the project will break even in about 10 or 11 years.  Worst case, 15 or more. Don’t know if the life expectancy of the equipment is 20 or 25 years.  I’ll check into that.

And by the way, medium size photovoltaic projects operate on about the same basis.  They are too expensive to make it worthwhile to take your home off the grid.  So the DOE’s “Million Roofs on Solar” project is doomed.  You can legislate a program, but you can’t make it work unless it pays for itself.  And the government doesn’t have enough money to pay for it for you.

These are really big numbers to be tossing around, and it makes me uncomfortable that the mainstream press doesn’t report on the facts.  Maybe that’s too much to ask.  It is a somewhat technical subject.

OK.  Here’s the real point.  The projects have many financial incentives like State and Federal subsidies, accelerated depreciation and investment tax credits helping to subsidize the costs.  That’s how we get to payback periods of 6 to 8 years.    So my math was wrong, but the final results are as represented.

When politicians make policy without facts, it comes out wrong.  Wind is great.  I am an avid wind energy enthusiast.  But we cannot create these massive alternative energy industries with billions of dollars of commerce that require government subsidies in order to operate.

I have done some numerical analysis of the wind energy problem and there are solutions that will result in 2 year paybacks for investors.  We need more innovation that integrates financial responsibility in the equation.  This is the kind of engineering that is self sustaining and will result in new jobs without government subsidies.

Big Wind and the Absolute Cost of Technology

The American Wind Energy Association published results for last year’s spending on wind energy.  The US spent $16.4B on new wind tubines and installed 8500 megawatts of generating capacity.  That’s $1.93 million dollars per megawatt of capacity.  That’s a lot of money.  Especially when a megawatt of capacity of wind energy may only produce 300kW of actual power based on the amount of wind that can be harvested.

The efficiency rating of a wind generator is not related to the equipment, but rather to the average wind speed and number of hours out of a year’s time that the system is generating power.  So this number can vary quite a bit, and of course, the generated electricity varies with the wind.  So a lot of effort is put into the site survey to determine if a particular location can generate enough power to pay back the cost of the equipment.

At 30% efficiency the average power generated is 300kW.  This is enough electricity to power 231 homes if the homes are all using about 1300 kWh per month.  Personally, I have not been able to get my power usage under 200kWh per month, so it might be many less homes in actual practice, but you get the idea.  If you are paying 11.5 cents per kilowatt hour that’s only $149 per month in electricity.  So the revenue for 1 megawatt of capacity is $34,535 per month.  And since a wind farm has operating costs, usually estimated at 10%, the revenue minus operating cost is $31,082.  To pay off that $1.93 million invested will take 62 months.  Sure, it will go a lot quicker if the electricity rate is high like in California.  But it looks like everyone is making money at this alternative energy stuff except the consumer.

Texas has very low energy costs to begin with, and solar power has slightly lower net efficiency than wind power due to the number of hours of daylight, the number of days of sunshine, etc.  So the local utility has begun suggesting to customers that because of expensive investments in wind and solar alternative energy systems, that we (the customers) will have to pay increasing rates for power to “help shoulder the costs”.   Really?  I thought all this alternative energy stuff was going to lower our costs.

I’m not a financial genius, but I can tell there’s a problem.  Especially when no one in the alternative energy industry ever talks about return on investment. We have to focus on technology that has better financial performance.  And I think it’s out there, and my company is working on some of the solutions.  We’re just stuck behind the slow moving giants of the industry who are dominating the landscape.  It’s time for some of that Yankee Ingenuity to come to the forefront.

Energy Stimulus Debate

As “We the People” wait for Congress to do something to stimulate the economy we are flooded with information about “Green Initiatives” as part of the stimulus strategy.  And its really easy to get dragged along with the tide of enthusiasm.  After all, the electric car has languished in the shadows for over 70 years since the Baker company closed its doors.  So the idea of re-inventing even a small part of the automotive industry in the US is very appealing during a difficult period in our history.

We all share the concern that unemployment is up and many areas of the economy are slow.  But let’s be sure that when the government says its going to spend our money, that the decisions are based on sound strategy.  Maybe government spending money that it doesn’t currently have isn’t such a great idea. Read more

Robotic Kits for “Do-It-Yourself” Packaging System Design

Modular programming and articulating arm kits let you design your own robotic-based packaging system.

By Tom Jensen
Engineering Manager
ELAU Inc., a Company of Schneider Electric

For many years two factors gave robot designers and manufacturers a lock on developing equipment for the packaging market: patents and the specialized kinematic knowledge required to program robotic motion. While the robotic arms were under patent, the controls held the unique motion algorithms needed to handle the complex path planning, blending, and resolution of multiple trajectories to the same point. Thus, robot articulating arms and specific controls were exclusive to robot developers.
Read more

Solar Power, Mechatronics and Economics

At the recent Semicon show the big buzz was about the emerging Solar Energy industry. Lots of “new” products, lots of buzz. The big semiconductor machinery manufacturers who view crystalline solar cells as a stimulus to the demand for machinery and silicon have put in a lot of effort. The main goal? Get the cost of the solar cells down to where electricity produced with silicon is comparable to the cost of electricity generated by fossil fuel.

And, in fact, the industry is getting there. The current estimates are that solar power is costing about the same as peak demand consumer power, $.23/kWh. And with the current wave of investment and scale up, something which the semiconductor industry has always done well, there is serious forecasting that the cost of solar electricity will continue to fall. Read more