Clean Energy

[Defender2516]

EAST AMWELL, N.J. - Mike Strizki lives in the nation's first solar-hydrogen house. The technology this civil engineer has been able to string together ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ solar panels, a hydrogen fuel cell, storage tanks, and a piece of equipment called an electrolyzer ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ provides electricity to his home year-round, even on the cloudiest of winter days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Strizki's monthly utility bill is zero ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ he's off the power grid ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ and his system creates no carbon-dioxide emissions. Neither does the fuel-cell car parked in his garage, which runs off the hydrogen his system creates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It sounds promising, even utopian: homemade, storable energy that doesn't contribute to global warming. But does Strizki's method ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ converting electricity generated from renewable sources into hydrogen ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ make sense for widespread adoption?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to some renewable-energy experts, the answer is "no," at least not anytime soon. The system is too expensive, they say, and the process of creating hydrogen from clean sources is itself laced with inefficiency ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ the numbers just don't add up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strizki's response: "Nothing is as wildly expensive as destroying the whole planet."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Life free from the power grid

 

 

 

Strizki lives with his wife in a rural section of Central New Jersey. His 12-acre property is surrounded by trees and his gravel driveway leads to a winding country road. His 3,500-square-foot house has all the amenities, including a hot tub and a big-screen TV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It was here, four years ago, that Strizki set out to do something that's never been done in this country ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ power his home completely through a combination of solar and hydrogen. "My motivation was, I saw what fossil fuels were doing to the environment," he says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strizki works for a company that installs solar panels. In previous jobs, he's helped integrate hydrogen fuel cells into cars, a boat, a fire truck, and an airplane. His latest project, the one involving his house, is an extension of that expertise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The solar-hydrogen house took longer to complete than Strizki expected ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ a strict local zoning officer and the state permitting process caused delays, he says ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ but in October 2006, the system finally went online. The total cost, $500,000, was paid for in part with a $250,000 grant from the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is how it works

 

 

 

On sunny days, solar panels on the roof of Strizki's detached garage generate more than enough electricity to power his home. The excess electricity powers a device inside the garage called an electrolyzer, which transforms a tank of water into its base elements ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ oxygen and hydrogen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The oxygen is released into the atmosphere, while the hydrogen is stored in 10 1,000-gallon propane tanks on Strizki's property. In the winter, when the solar panels collect less energy than the home needs, that hydrogen is piped to an air-conditioner-size fuel cell, located just outside the garage, which generates electricity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The final piece of the equation is "The New Jersey Genesis," a hydrogen fuel-cell car Strizki helped design and now maintains for the New Jersey Department of Transportation. He can fill up the Genesis with hydrogen from his electrolyzer and drive it pollution free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strizki understands that few people can afford to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for clean energy. Now that he's demonstrated his idea works, his goal is to make the system better and less expensive. (For example, the 10 propane tanks could be replaced by one high-pressure hydrogen tank buried underground.) With mass production, he believes he could get the price of the system, not including the solar panels, down to about $50,000. (A new solar panel system can cost as much as $80,000, Strizki says, but some states, including New Jersey, have offered rebates that cover up to 70 percent of the cost.) Strizki is seeking government grants and private donors for funding, and he's started a company, Renewable Energy International, which he hopes will one day market his product. He says he's already heard from potential customers: "We've been called by some A-list Hollywood types interested in powering their islands."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hydrogen hurdles

 

 

 

Strizki's project proves that carbon-free living is possible right now, but renewable-energy experts are skeptical that hydrogen houses with hydrogen-run cars in the driveway will catch on anytime soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"There's no way your average person is going to want to buy five expensive pieces of hardware," says Joseph Romm, a former Department of Energy official who analyzed clean-energy technologies during the Clinton administration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the high cost of the equipment, there's another huge hurdle that must be overcome if hydrogen is to become a viable clean energy: Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it doesn't exist alone in nature; you can't just bottle it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To get at hydrogen, it must be processed from another source, such as natural gas, oil, coal, or water. According to the National Hydrogen Association, 95 percent of the hydrogen produced in the United States is made through steam reforming natural gas ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ a process that releases greenhouse gases into the air.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strizki's method for making hydrogen is totally clean, but suffers from a different problem: Electrolyzers are only 50 percent efficient. By the time the electricity from his solar panels is converted into hydrogen, and the hydrogen converted back into electricity in the fuel cell, half of the clean energy he started with is used up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Romm thinks it's a waste. That electricity would do more good toward reducing pollution if it was sent into the main power grid to displace other energy, he says. "[strizki's system] doesn't get you that much environmentally," he says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Romm is an advocate for clean-energy use ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ in recent books and articles he advocates a sharp cut in greenhouse-gas emissions within 10 years ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ but he's characterized hydrogen as an overhyped distraction that isn't ready yet to help toward that goal. He supports continued hydrogen research, but other technologies that are more developed could help the Earth much more and much sooner, he says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not ready for prime time

 

 

 

Robert Boehm, director of the Center for Energy Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, has studied renewable energy for the past 35 years. His reaction to Strizki's home project is tempered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Does it make sense in the present environment? Probably not. Does it make sense as a sustainable thing in the future? It very well could," Dr. Boehm says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boehm predicts that it will be at least a decade before hydrogen energy is ready for the mainstream, and then only if enough money is put into research and development.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"In any of these new technologies, they need a lot of government support," he says.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boehm sees the most immediate potential for a system like Strizki's in places far from a power grid, where selling renewable energy back to a power company is not an option.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strizki isn't dissuaded by criticisms that his system is too expensive or too inefficient to be practical. He's determined to push technology ahead toward an end goal ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ totally clean energy ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ and he sees renewable hydrogen as the best solution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It's the way that makes the most sense, and we have to start somewhere," he says. "If you look at it, no one has said what I'm doing doesn't work."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What makes me upset is the people who are Nay Sayers. If we don't start now... when do we start?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 years down the road they will still be saying "nope, not its time". Thats only because no one is start to begin with!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

[Lionheart_0]

The seeds have been planted... we will just have to allow some time. If we got those hollywood people to get these products, it would be possible to help influence normal society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even things like companies that have huge buildings that take up alot of electricity. If they adopted this (Which would get around the 1 billion mark probably), it would save alot. I think we need to start big and slow first, then we will work our way to our part of society.

[unknownmasterofnothing]

wow thats pretty cool. Now you need to find a cheaper way to do this.

[Mercifull]

Not everyone house is in an area where they can efficiently harness the power of the sun or the wind. Personal windmills need optimum conditions right now to get only a 20% power generation. What really needs to be invented it a new type of energy storage system so that power can be generated at times of high sunlight or wind to be used at a later date. Right now if you arnt home when your windmill is purring away you get no benefit when you come home and the wind has stopped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its the energy companies that need to sort out renewable energy sources because they are the ones able to make the large investments on a grand scale. The average person putting solar panels and windmills on their houses is only really making themselves feel better and is not really making any economic sense. There are some excellent developments going on for home scale energy generation but I think we are still a few years away yet before it becomes cost effective for all.

[warri0r45]

I remember seeing something interesting on an Aussie science program recently; solar panels made out of super-thin slivers of silicon (the prominant material in normal solar panels). Aparrantly, this set-up of small sliver like panels makes it 5 or so times more efficient and looks pretty shmick on windows. It'll probably take a few years to fly, though.

[Faux]

Let's just get rid of livestock around the world. Majority of the greenhouse gas emissions = gone

[Mercifull]

I'm doing my part by eating them! :D

[Death_By_Pod]

The person had a 12 acre property and spent $500,000 on the project, this has absolutely no viability (no one has the space or money for such a system).

[Errdoth]

The seeds have been planted...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Vaguely remembers a popular science article about a house that you plant and shape it as it grows*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

linky

[stan18]

big strides have been made. There is already an effective, safe, and efficient way of turning trash into energy. so why isn't it in use? not enough funding, obviously. I have an article about it (its a long article...), maybe ill find it later...

[rocketman089]

The person had a 12 acre property and spent $500,000 on the project, this has absolutely no viability (no one has the space or money for such a system).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Computers used to be the size of your house, think where that kind of thinking would have led us.

[jemathonical]

Let's just get rid of livestock around the world. Majority of the greenhouse gas emissions = gone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would suck and I like my steak!

[Zonorhc]

You can bet this concept is going to cop some flak from oil companies trying to protect their interests.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Computers used to be the size of your house, think where that kind of thinking would have led us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The amount of light per square metre is a constant, so this doesn't exactly hold. There physically isn't enough room in a suburban/residential environment (due to high population densities) to support the population's energy needs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not to mention how polluting mass producing solar cells would be since its production is energy intensive (It takes a couple of years for a solar panel to produce enough energy to balance the energy used in production) and the process requires heavy metals (including toxic ones such as Cadmium).

[Necromagus]

All these new techniques, including solar and wind, are still far too inefficient to sustain humanity as a whole. As much as people hate to hear it, the only solution to the CO2 emission problems is nuclear power. Contrary to what the bleeiding hearts would have you believe, there are only two ways nuclear power can be dangerous. Criminal neglect or criminal stupidity. The human element is where the danger lies in nuclear power.

[lotuslord212]

The person had a 12 acre property and spent $500,000 on the project, this has absolutely no viability (no one has the space or money for such a system).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you look at wha he said, He has Zero electricity billl..wont he be able to recover that money over time by not paying bills???

[KCHughes]

There's a new project out there for converting ocean tides into mechanical energy and into electricity.

[warri0r45]

All these new techniques, including solar and wind, are still far too inefficient to sustain humanity as a whole. As much as people hate to hear it, the only solution to the CO2 emission problems is nuclear power. Contrary to what the bleeiding hearts would have you believe, there are only two ways nuclear power can be dangerous. Criminal neglect or criminal stupidity. The human element is where the danger lies in nuclear power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think people just have an uneducated stigma about nuclear power. We've come leaps and bounds since Chernobyl and I don't think the broader public realise this. Everyone worried about nuclear proliferation are just dragging everything down as well. Sure, it's a problem, but we've all come a long way since WW2 and the Cold War, too.

[Lionheart_0]

There is nothing wrong with nuclear energy. Its very clean for the environment (Now... dunno when the byproducts will affect us). But, as soon as something small goes wrong, a huge problem occurs. Heck it wasn't until 1 year ago, we learned that a nuclear meltdown almost happened in our city (Which would of affected Toronto as well) at the local university. Also, i don't know about anywhere else, but in Canada, about 5 billion a year is spent on the upkeep of nuclear plants (Materials, labor, repair, ect). Thats government money too (Did a research project about it in Canada, trust me)

[Flametrooper]

Popular Science ran an article about a machine that made trash into electricity by plasma gasification...God I hope that's true, that it works, and that it gets more mass-produced. Wouldn't that be sweet?

[ktmcf121]

All these new techniques, including solar and wind, are still far too inefficient to sustain humanity as a whole. As much as people hate to hear it, the only solution to the CO2 emission problems is nuclear power. Contrary to what the bleeiding hearts would have you believe, there are only two ways nuclear power can be dangerous. Criminal neglect or criminal stupidity. The human element is where the danger lies in nuclear power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is exactly what i've been saying all along. hydrogen and solar power have come a long way since the initial idea, but they are still ridiculously expensive and inefficient. solar power has all put peaked, it takes millions of dollars in research to produce a negligible gain in efficiency, and unless someone finds a huge breakthrough in hydrogen power very soon, it's heading for the same fate as solar energy - doomed to be a very expensive solution to a problem that people have blown way out of proportion.

[Barihawk]

Wind power is inefficient?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell that to the 35,000 residents of Swee[bleep]er, Texas. The city is entirely powered by wind energy only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Texas has almost 10,000 wind turbines that provide 45% of the region's electrical power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, many Texas oils wells are running dry (I drove by many today) and the smell of natural gas signals the beginning of a new era.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You might also want to research the Wal-Mart in McKinney, Texas. All it's parking lot lights are wind powered, signs are solar powered. It uses 85% less energy with a state of the art air conditioning system, and eliminates wasted heating by heating floor tiles instead of using central heating.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want green energy, Texas is PAVING the way. The first ethanol gas stations are starting to pop up, too!

[ktmcf121]

wind power is great, if you have the environmental conditions to support it. you dont dam up a small creek to get hydroelectric power, do you? wind power works the same way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

where it's feasible, wind and hydroelectric power are great options, until you get the EPA breathing down your neck for destroying the river ecosytem by damming, or contributing to soil erosion by removing trees to harness wind power.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

leave it to liberals to be hypocritical by advocating "clean energy" and then trying to shut down legitimate clean energy plants. :roll:

[Barihawk]

Well, the great thing about West Texas is that the large number of Buttes and Plateaus allow great spots for Wind Turbines.

[trapical]

Nuclear power is safer and releases less radiation then coal plants. My physics professor is a nuclear physicists from MIT and a day never passes in which he doesn't mention that nuclear power needs to be adopted like now!!.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lol, he has some good points though. For example in Chernobyl not only were the technicians uneducated but they were running criminally stupid tests to see "what would happen". Additionally, the Soviet military set up was "question your orders and you get shot". When they finally did stop the experiment, they started winding the control rods down by a winch, which took quite a bit of time, during which the reaction as going not according to plan. When the control rods did make it to the core, it had expanded from heat and the rods no longer fit the design since they engineers didn't think about core expansion :wall:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, not days things are a bit different.

 

 

 

1) Idiots don't run reactors nowadays. PhD grads do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2) Dangerous experiments aren't conducted in civilian reactors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3) There are so many fail safe systems, redundancies, and educated people working there that the reactor's levels are never off by more then a fraction of a percent (whereas Chernobyl's was operating at twice the designed temperature)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4) Core expansion is taken into account, so as long as the control rods can fall, there can't be a meltdown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5) Ha, get this: Regarding the descent of the control rods. Instead of a wimpy winch lowering them slowly downwards, they are raised up against massive springs and then a fail-safe manual pull lever releases the lock that holds them in case of an emergency. If something goes wrong the control rods don't only just free fall into the core, massive springs literally shoot them downwards with a muzzle velocity faster then some pistols \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control rods in = safer then a kitten.