FUTURE ENERGY: Sun Catalytix hopes to turn this system for splitting water into a power plant for your home.
Image: © David Biello
More In This Article
-
Photo Album
Inventing the Future of Clean Energy Tour
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.--At least three forms of security depend on inventing a future of cheap, clean energy: national, economic and environmental. President Barack Obama launched the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) in 2009 to fund innovative research in the hopes of delivering such technologies.
"We need a second Industrial Revolution," U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu argued. "A revolution that gives the developed and developing world the energy they want and need but that can also be clean energy. It is important for our national prosperity and posterity."
ARPA-E is holding its third annual summit this week, where it is showing off the 180 projects it has funded to help seed that clean revolution—as well as many others. "We are also showcasing those teams we could not fund," ARPA-E founding director Arun Majumdar said. "We want them to succeed as well."
View a slide show of ARPA-E technologies
ARPA-E's current projects include genetically engineering plants to improve photosynthesis and finding less costly ways to capture the carbon dioxide released by coal-burning power plants. Upcoming efforts will focus on creating cheap technology to turn natural gas into fuel for cars as well as a potential open call for proposals with no guidelines. "Give us your best ideas," Majumdar said. "We will see if it works."
Already, ARPA-E has begun to deliver. One of its first awardees--Envia Systems--has now developed a lithium ion battery with the highest energy density in the world, potentially enabling long-distance electric cars in the future. Those electric cars--combined with improvements in the fuel efficiency of existing internal combustion engines, new hybrid power trains and even fuel-cell vehicles--could begin to reduce the roughly $1 billion a day the U.S. spends on imported oil. "We are engaged in the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world, from the industrialized countries into oil producing regions," FedEx chairman Fred Smith said. "The U.S. cannot operate as a growing industrial society without access to low-cost energy."
It's not just for the U.S., of course. "Cheaper energy is on the list of three to four things you would most want to happen for the poorest people in the world," former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates noted. "Having energy determines whether they can afford fertilizers or lighting…. Without advances in energy they stay stuck where they are."
At the center of that effort to invent a brighter, cleaner and cheaper future for energy is ARPA-E. "Pound for pound, dollar for dollar, it's hard to find a more effective thing government has done than ARPA-E," Smith added.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentI wonder if it is possible to harness the energy of the world's spin?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a lot of clean cheap renewable energy sources out there. One thing that can be used for both home and car is the nuclear battery that uses cheap abundant Thorium. Eight grams of Thorium can power your car over 300,000 miles and a thousand grams can power your home, under normal use, for 100 years. Thorium is also safe to use and be close to when encased in stainless steel and there are no radiation leaks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWestinghouse has already developed a Thorium mini nuclear plant that can be built on a production line and one can power a city the size of Boston and can be placed in the space of a two story home. They are cheap enough where you can place one or two in every city in America for the price it would take to build one conventional nuclear power plant. That would give you a never ending power supply for your cars, buses, and boats and create millions of high paying jobs. Since these mini nuclear power plants can be built on a production line and transported by train to anywhere in America, it only makes sense to start mass producing the plant and battery and we will be away from dirty fossil fuel forever and the oil producers can start using their crude for cleaner purposes.
The geothermal power plants we already have can be used to produce power and we can also extract the minerals from the brine like gold, silver and lithium to build our economy and high tech products. A geothermal power plant in California is already extracting those minerals, but they are being sent to China to help and boost the lithium battery industry. We will no longer need the lithium batteries if we start producing the thorium batteries.
CAPTURING CARBON sounds like a noble idea, but before advocating this methodology, a full "system analysis" must be done to determine how much energy it would take to do this. The required energy to power the very large compressors to inject high pressure CO2 into the ground would likely be surprisingly high, potentially compounding the CO2 problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it were possible to harness the energy from the spin of the earth, it would be at the expense of our 24 hour day. Since energy can not be created from nothing, the spin of the earth would gradually start to slow down, and after many years, the earth would stop spinning, because we have used up all of the energy stored as angular momentum. Not a very sound idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBill Gates: It’s ‘Crazy’ How Little Is Invested in Clean-Tech
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/02/29/bill-gates-...
Your article feels like big oil / utility is close to you? Do you think you know more about the subject than Mr. Gates?
I like the link below...
"New sewage gas station in Orange County, CA may be world's first"
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/loc...
"It is here today and it is deployable today," said Tom Mutchler of Air Products and Chemicals Inc., a sponsor and developer of the project.
Impressive!
NO MORE ATTORNEY / POLITICIAN / LOBBYISTS... NO BIG OIL / UTILITY
Actually, mankind has already affected the rate of rotation of the Earth through the use of large hydro-electric dams. NASA geophysicist Dr. Benjamin Fong Cho has discovered that the Earth's rotation has sped up by 8 millionth's of a second since the 1950's due to the compounding of water in large reservoirs, a re-distribution of mass. The melting of the polar caps, especially that of Antarctica, will have a similar effect, only the other direction, slowing the Earth's rate of rotation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNone of these processes, however, affects the net angular momentum of the Earth -- just like a spinning ice-skater stretching out her arms and pulling them back in, her spin rate falls and rises, but her angular momentum stays the same.
Processes that do sap the angular momentum of the Earth are wind farms, tidal power generators, and plans to harvest energy from the ocean currents. Each of these energy sources is driven in part by the Earth's angular momentum and extracting energy from them will necessarily have an impact on that angular momentum.
All that said, our own moon extracts an enormous amount of the Earth's angular momentum every day in comparison to what we are planning to do. As the Moon orbits the Earth, it raises a tidal bulge on the Earth beneath it. But since the Earth's rate of rotation is faster than the Moons orbital velocity, that bulge pulls out ahead of the Moon all the time. Since the bulge represents a great deal of mass, it acts to pull on the Moon, dragging it forward in its orbit and speeding it up, widening the orbit by about 3.8 cm per year (as published by NASA). But, while the Moon gets faster and moves further away, the Earth's angular momentum must drop, and it has been dropping. The measured impact on our rotation rate right now is about 15 millionths of a second per year.
On a side note, all of the world's space agencies "borrow" from the Earth's angular momentum almost every time they orbit a satellite. It is no coincidence that most launches are to the East as the Earth rotates from West to East. It is also no coincidence that space facilities like to be near the equator, where the angular velocity of the Earth is greatest. Such launches take energy from the Earth's rotation and use it to decrease the fuel costs of a launch. If the satellite returns to Earth, the loan of energy gets repaid. If the satellite never comes back to Earth, the energy is gone for good.
Sure we could harness the energy of the worlds spin but we would slow the spin. There is sooooo much energy from the sun hitting the earth. That is the best source. Put solar panels on every roof and we would have to spend time trying to figure out how to use all that energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan hear the environmentalists now, don't slow the planet man. I think the problem is that anything that would be driven by the rotation of the earth would be fixed to the frequency of the earths rotation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot sure why you say thorium is safe. It is toxic if ingested or inhaled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalso, it is radioactive and is very dispersed in the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo mention of Renewable solar and geothermal energy? A 'kite' for wind power? Injecting a gas engine with Hydrogen wins a 'prize'? And oh yea, 'clean' coal - if you believe that I've got one for you that really works: two tin cans and a string makes a damn good phone! What a ridiculous sham. Obviously bought and paid for courtesy of the Big Energy Companies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReal Renewable Energy Solutions: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/solutions/renewable_energy_solutions/
What hyperbole! A U.S. government agency is funding the the development of battery technologies in China - why don't I feel more secure, already?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo James Davis :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThorium isotopes are very radioactive. If this technology worked we would still run out of phosphates in 20 years time. No phosphates...no cereales, so we will starve to death even if we get thorium-powered energy!
It truly amazes me how people in these forms are so ill informed; hydroelectric dams are slowing the earth? To think that we, as a species have any effect on the planets rotation is ludicrous and arrogant! Our Planet is moving 490,000 miles an hour through space, and to think that such a small amount of energy (a dammed river) would have an effect on the tremendous amount of energy that surrounds us for billions of miles in all directions is absurd ! We “people” effecting the larger cycle is crazy, and I might add, the sun drives our planets climate (it is constantly changing) not Co2 Or any other Heat trapping element, all of the gasses, that are here now, have always been here, and will be here long after mankind is gone!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo think we are still even discussing this just goes to show how nothing will ever progress and get better, the same “hot button” emotional issues will lead the debates and the corporations, will tax the people more and more until mankind is in abject poverty in the name of saving the earth. Look up Agenda 21 my friends! Good Day
That might well slow down the spin and make it unlivable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat might well slow down the spin and make it unlivable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, I was thinking of the incredible benefit if we could harness some of the spin in all of these articles (and reader comments) on 'Clean Energy'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Differing levels of heat on the surface of earth is the main cause of wind, also the spin of the earth adds a small amount of winds and the orbiting pull of the moon causes some winds (even more the tides.)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_causes_wind
So by using wind power we are in fact harnessing some energy from the spin of the Earth.
- so is gasoline !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- so is gasoline !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfosgene086, you might be confused by klkeegan's atrocious spelling and writing, including extra apostrophes, missing units, and misspelled names. It's perfectly plausible that impounded water can make the earth take eight millionths of a second longer per day or per year or per decade. Let's see which klkeegan meant, just by reading the implied citation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/03/news/dams-for-water-supply-are-altering-earth-s-orbit-expert-says.html
"Dams for Water Supply Are Altering Earth's Orbit, Expert Says"
Read the sentence therein: "Without lunar tidal drag, the reservoir effect would have reduced the length of a day by 0.2 millionths of a second a day for the last 40 years, Dr. Chao calculated."
Let's take Chao's supposed amount of water, 1E13kg.
The mass of earth is 6e24kg; its moment of inertia is 8e37kg*m^2.
The mass of water impounded is 1E13kg. In the ocean it has a moment of inertia of 2E26 kg*m^2 (2/3*(6E6m)^2*1E13kg). Raising that water 100m makes a increase of 33 millionths in its moment of inertia, or 7E21 kg*m^2, plus a factor of about 1.5 for doing it only near the equator, not the poles, so 1E22 kg*m^2. That's 1E-15 of Earth's moment of inertia. A change in the day of that factor would be 1E-10 seconds. Over 40 years (14610 days), that'd be 1E-6 seconds, or one millionth of a second, the order of magnitude of klkeegan's citation.
You can just read Chao's paper, if you like, for a better method:
Anthropogenic imapc on global geodynamics due to reservoir water impoundment by Benjamin Fong Chao. Geophysical Research Letters, vol 22 no 24, pages 3529-3532, December 15, 1995.
And your paranoia about us moderate environmentalists trying to destroy the economy is hilarious. I suppose angular momentum is just an evil scheme by a cabal of Al Gore worshippers? The anti-science attitude used to be funny, but it's just so tiring.
If we date the use of carbon with the construction of the first "OCEANOGENIC POWER" plant from today would ensure food production and capture carbon from the atmosphere by the 7 billion human beings, who it will return to earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy increasing the amount of human brain well fed, will increase the creativity we need to solve all other problems that dogs, cats, bees, ants and fish, can not solve.
Against the simple arguments of those who will not understand this, we put the simple and dramatic example of that to increase the chance of preventing that a fall of a stone exterminates us, plus lots of human technology, it will be very convenient, the existence of more and more people looking at the sky.
I see two interesting examples in Russia.1 million new small and cheep trees were planted for 1 month in one region. They give a shadow.Less electric power is necessary for conditioning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd planning and construction of the new city at once for(on) 60000 people.There is not any unemployment.All works and live in modern apartments.The losses of energy are smaller then in the old cities or towns.
James Davis: Please provide credible sources for your Thorium information. I find nothing on the internet that even faintly resembles your magical claims, and Westinghouse denies your statements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://challenge.ecomagination.com/ideas/OCEANOGENIC-POWER-Up-to-16000GW-of-Energ
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs waste water from fracking part of US clean energy future?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo: Panama has the bomb of peace and work: Cold Nuclear Fusion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B650oxtezmd9Y2EwNGZmMzEtZTkyNC00ZWUyLWE0YjUtYjdiNTE5MTIwZjJl/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
So: You are glad for the gifts of Truth? Or writhes in rage by envy.
The various nuclear options have not been mentioned at all. And if the emphasis is on cheap and clean energy they should have been seriously considered, after all, some of them are already proven to work. Most of the proposals in the slide show are very doubtful to ever work to any degree of efficiency.I actually can not believe, that a modern industrialized country, in competition with other such countries can ever run on solar and wind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnergy has to be cheap and affordable as Mr. Gates is quoted. The per capita consumption of energy is closely related to the wealth of a nation and the well being of its citizens.
FACTS:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOCEANOGENIC POWER: same distance from Three Gorges to Bejing and Shanghai.
Cost of superconducting line:
Florida: 2 billions; Texas: 3 billions; California: 4 billions; Spain: 8 billions; Japan or China, crossing USA: 14 billions.
CIF Cost: less than 10 cents the Kw-hour.
Cost of cleaning up the economy, and our planet: priceless.
For other strange fact; energy independence or security of USA: It is better to process and store radioactive materials, coal and remaining oil (USA and Canada?) for wartime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn peacetime: wind, solar, hydro, geothermal and Oceanogenic Power of Panama.