QUEST 2014

Back from Vancouver where attended QUEST 2014 Conference and Trade Show. I will share more when process all the information which was a lot. Here are some of the impressions from the conference.  

Saskatchewan - More Lessons To Learn

I hate to sound negative and say "I told you so" but in fact I did. The fire at the pump station in Prud'homme Saskatchewan showed that not only electrical power grid is susceptible to failure with wide and costly impact, but the same with potentially more dangerous consequences applies to a gas and other pipeline grids.

And we still want to build more pipelines ... 

Is 3D-printing a Disruptive Innovation, part 2

Connecting Technologies in action: 3d Printing and Renewable energy - a crowd-sourced project AirEnergy3D

... to a 3d printed jet engine (well, turbine blades for now)

Is there a future for Biofuels?

I must admit I have been always skeptical about bio-fuels. Growing corn or sugar cane to make fuel ? It may be "renewable", but it takes the land and resources out of agriculture in the world where hundreds of millions of people are starving. And is it any better than greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels from oil and gas? 

United Nations Energy Future Coalition says cellulosic ethanol is cleaner and does not drive food prices up because it is produced from wood waste or other non-food plants.

A Canadian company, Iogen Corporation, which specializes in industrial enzyme production, is operating a pilot plant in Ottawa and is planning to build a commercial plant in Idaho. Brazil has started construction of a commercial biomass-to-ethanol facility using Iogen's cellulosic bio-fuel technology.

And of course processing waste into bio-fuel works two ways - reducing amount of refuse disposal while providing a relatively inexpensive and less polluting source of energy...

Energy: Choices We Make, Part 3

This is a continuation of the discussion started previously. 
If you browse through the article World's Largest Solar Power Plant in Arizona, do not stop at the end of the article - read the comments. You can find other "largest": the largest floating solar farm in Singapore,  largest wind farm etc etc.

Why are we obsessed with the gigantic projects? They are financial overkill, they - even if promoted as  "clean" - inevitably harm environment, they need power generated to be transmitted, which mean losses and additional cost, they bring instability into grid and they are vulnerable to terrorist attacks or natural disasters.
     
We need not the gigantic centralized power plants, but distributed networks of small nodes - agile and flexible - see Energy: Choices We Make  Part 1 and Part 2.
How flexible? Each house or building can have its own autonomous energy generation and even plug-in electric vehicle batteries can be used to store energy and then charge back the building: Leaf-to-Home.

Great concept from tirelessly innovative Nissan. They should have put the car in a carport covered with solar PV panels though ...

Where Evolving Technologies Meet

Back from Toronto where I attended this year's Canadian Conference on Electrical & Computer Engineering (CCECE).

CCECE is a major conference under the IEEE Canada umbrella for researchers and industry professionals in the area of electrical,  computer and control engineering from Canada and around the world to meet annually in a Canadian city to disseminate their research advancements and discoveries, to network and exchange ideas in order to strengthen existing partnerships and foster new collaborations. Last year the conference was held in Regina, Saskatchewan. This year it was hosted by the Ryerson University in Toronto. Next year it will be held in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Ryerson University

CCECE 2014 with the theme "Electrical and Computer Engineering - The Enabler of the New Economy" covered wide spectrum of topics related to electrical and computer systems, optimal control, intelligent networks and other areas.

I had a chance to attend a number of sessions from different streams, including Renewable Energy, Control & Robotics, and Cognitive Radio. It was interesting and enlightening to see how interconnected today's research in seemingly different areas has become. For example, in wireless networks researchers are looking for inspiration at Darwin's theory of evolution, utilizing genetic algorithms (even borrowing terms from the biology vocabulary like population, ancestry and chromosomes) and cultural studies (memetic algorithms). In quest for optimal solutions for multiobjective problems researchers emulate other nature-inspired ideas, e.g. raindrop algorithm etc. From the other hand, Black-Scholes financial model for option pricing is finding its use in the area of alternative energy.       

Diversity of the studies presented was also broad - from new type of keyboard for mobile devices to global data mining, and from aerial robots to submerged energy generators using marine currents.

I was reaffirmed again in my conviction that time of gigantic centralized systems has passed. Multitude of small but interconnected cooperating (synergetic) systems offers the advantage of flexibility, reliability and evolvability - be it an intelligent network of distributed energy modules, or a swarm of micro-satellites.

The next crucial step should be to connect what is envisioned and published in the papers with real world stuff "enabling the new economy". 

Fuel Cell vs Solar

Continuing the subject of future mobility (see also 90% Rule) here are a couple more examples, which are hopefully not a very distant future after all.  

Toyota is pushing its FCV hydrogen fuel cell concept car. (A side note - it doesn't look like your typical Corolla, does it?)

Ford comes up with a solar powered car, charged by a special canopy with Fresnel lenses.

Interesting to see which technology will eventually become a disruptive innovation?

Should some day write about self-driving cars...

The History of Innovation - Part 2 "Christensen Effect"

Recently I was introduced to a series of lectures by a Harvard Business School Professor Clayton Christensen, who is considered an architect of the Disruptive Innovation concept.
I must admit, I got somewhat addicted to the Clayton's soft manner of speaking and often subtle humor hidden under his serious voice. Good example: Innovator's Dilemma.
The main idea he is promoting seems so obvious after you hear it, perhaps also due to the illustrative way he delivers it.
However, while it is very immersing to listen to Professor Christensen, and his ideas together with his illustrations seem to make sense, the terminology he is using appears to be arbitrary (what else would you expect from the economist? :) 
Sometimes however, he uses more technical language, e.g. simplify complexity, integration vs. modularity - then things become much clearer. In the recent interview at Davos he even talked about "common language" and "common framework" - which are exactly the words used to describe Systems Architecture.

Let's talk however for a while about the "Christensen Effect" as the former Intel CEO Andrew Grove called it. Professor Christensen asserts that there are 3 types of innovation.  "Sustained innovation" is when the existing products or services are getting better and better to serve the existing customers with "newer", "bigger", "luxury" products. This is what mostly big corporations are doing. It is a natural thing, but does not generate new jobs. "Efficiency innovation" on the other hand results in producing the same goods or services with fewer resources and cheaper. This is a "low-hanging fruit" sort of things, pays back quickly, and it creates capital rather than utilizing it, while it does not create new jobs - rather it needs less people. Finally, "disruptive innovation" results in a new generation of technologies, products and services. It generates jobs, moves the progress, but requires a significant investment of capital and time (in his estimate 5-10 years).

Prof. Christensen gives a number of examples in different industries - from steel manufacturing to cars and even stock investing (Learning to Pivot). Here is one of my favorite examples.

40-s and 50-s was the time of a lamp radio - big bulky and heavy box put on the table, with a speaker, lots of handles etc, - practically a piece of furniture. I still remember from my childhood (back in the Soviet Union) how my parents were discussing buying a radio as a big deal and finally we went to the store a bought one on credit, and everybody in a family was proud of the purchase.  At that time transistors have been in existence for quite a while, but they were considered impractical because they could not handle the power required by big radios. Then Sony came out with a tiny transistor radio, which could fit in the pocket and cost $2, so even a teenager could buy one. And it was okay (for a while) that the quality of sound wasn't great - it gave one unbeatable advantage - in addition to being affordable - mobility!

Christensen also almost invariably uses the example of computers. First computers were huge mainframe machines, taking entire room, costing hundreds of million dollars and requiring high level of skill to be able to operate them. Then came mini-computers, they were much smaller and much less expensive, so almost any company can have one (remember punch cards, remember Algol, remember Fortran?) Then came personal computer, and now iPhone fitting in your palm has more power then the first mainframes did. Did you notice the trend toward mobility?

Look at the telephone evolution - from turning the handle then talking to the "girl" asking her to connect you with the desired party on the other end, to rotary and dial phones, then Motorola came with the first mobile phone, 40th anniversary of which was celebrated recently - "the brick", heavy and exorbitantly expensive. Look at what we get now - light, sleek, multi- functional device easily fitting in your pocket. And again, mobility was the vector of evolution.

Let's turn now to the sustainable energy technologies (Clayton Christensen mentions in one of his interviews that he came to rarely use the word "innovation" because it used often so broadly that practically lost its meaning. For the same reason I am trying to avoid using the word "sustainable" - it is not only overused, but often abused, however for the lack of the commonly accepted alternative term I will have to use it). We know how progress in electric vehicles is slowed by the absence of light, compact and cheap batteries.  The progress in developing not long ago hyped fuel cell technology is disappointing to say the least. One recent announcement by Redox Power of them having developed a compact and inexpensive fuel cell technology worth mentioning. If proves to fulfill its promise, it may become one of those disruptive technologies.  

What about the Photo-Voltaic technology? Despite significant improvements in efficiency and a recent dramatic drop in price of the PV modules, they are still expensive, require huge unobstructed roof area and without ideal conditions unable to contribute anything significant into the building's energy demand (not even talking about the payback period of 15-20 years in the absence of subsidies !)

Solar thermal technologies, especially with the advent of vacuum tube collectors, due to their much higher efficiency do not require as big area as PV does. However they still require large enough space, not easily integrated into the building. And of course, the plaque of all solar technologies - they work only during the day, it has to be a sunny day and most of the energy we can collect during few hours around noon rather than in the morning or in the evening. There is a solution however. For example, we may try to use collimated light the way it is done in the SunCentral technology for day lighting. There are other technologies which nicely complement solar, like air-to-water heat exchange and high-efficiency thermal storage. Connected in the optimally configured way and controlled using adaptive algorithm, they can dramatically reduce the cost and the size of the system.  

Would such composite energy technology / solution utilizing principles of Systems Architecture, providing adequate performance in a compact, easy to handle, even mobile package, herald the ascent of the next "disruptive innovation" ?

I think so.  

              

Ascent and New Mobility

A couple of interesting modular concepts came across my view recently - accidentally, from the opposite parts of the globe.

One is Coodo. Simple, elegant, functional shape, multipurpose use and modular capability attracted my attention.

The Slovenian designers claim the module can withstand from -40C to +50C. I would be interested to know how they are going to provide that given large - although unarguably attractive - window surface area. I would like to know also what source of energy they use to maintain comfort and allow all modern conveniences from shower to TV and internet. I hope it is not a diesel engine and not the propane.

Ascent Systems offers a solution - compact and "green". It's Aero-Solar technology uses solar thermal energy as the main source with high-capacity ultra-compact thermal storage and super-efficient thermal booster. It reduces energy consumption by up to 80%, and because it requires very little electricity to operate, it can also be provided by solar PV modules integrated into the system making completely autonomous.

   


Another interesting concept is Romotow. This is a sleek foldable trailer, designed by the New Zeeland team from W2 Limited.

 

It can definitely benefit from utilizing the Ascent's technology to provide for its energy needs.

 

Moreover, I can picture it being used to house a packaged Aero-Solar configuration to provide energy for remote locations with no access to the grid or other sources of energy, like for example heli skiing camps.

 
And why not to attach it to electric tow vehicle and make the full thing totally "green" ?    Connecting technologies in action !

90 Percent Rule

I read a news about Tesla Working On 90% Autonomous Car.

It attracted my attention not only because Tesla makes very nice cars, and I also write about future mobility.
I liked Elon Musk's rule of 90 percent. It is very close to my rule which I apply to Performance Homes and integrated energy technology. I insist that we should strive to achieve 90% of efficiency. This is the most cost-effective target. If we want to move from 90% to 99%, we need to be prepared to spend the same amount of effort on top of it, i.e. double it. And what about the 100% efficiency (so called "net-zero" approach) ? You will likely need to triple or even quadruple the effort.  

Future Mobility

Inspired by the Insecta urban car concept presented by Moovee Innovations at UBC

and following some of my previous posts on high-speed rail, as well as on future marine and air mobility I decided to descend back to Earth and check out what is in store for the near future urban commuters. I discovered - no surprise - that the work has been done for me by Inspiration Green.

Over the past few years a serious buzz has built over the electric car. The high-profile marketing and release of the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf in the United States has prompted much of this attention while the mainstream press in Canada and the United States has been scrutinizing these products in  reports and editorials. Every car show around the world is featuring electric vehicles, and it seems that they could become the next big thing in personal mobility.
Electric propulsion of automobiles has been around for over 100 years, so why are electric vehicles only now making a serious run at the buying public?
One answer is that automobiles have become one of the most pervasive symbols of the fossil fuel economy that is devastating the natural environment. Cars have therefore become a regular focal point in environmental debates about “what is to be done” about green house gas emissions and climate change, issues that have now entered into mainstream consciousness.

A sense of urgency exists that action needs be taken by individuals, institutions and corporations in order to curb emissions. This has created a system where material objects are either perceived as friendly to the environment or damaging. The automobile industry is racing to capitalize on this notion with electric cars leading the way as the number one “green” solution.
In the United States, the confidence in electric cars shown by the traditional auto manufacturers is driven in part by President Barack Obama’s plan to help build the clean energy economy, which is seen by the administration as a key to the country’s competitiveness in the 21st century. The U.S. government has already invested US$5 billion to stimulate an industry and market for electric cars.

Ottawa, on the other hand, has yet to earmark significant funds to this industry, thereby leaving the country in a chicken-and-egg situation: without the government funds to foster an electric car industry and stimulate a market plus help develop the infrastructure to serve it [e.g. charging infrastructure], electric vehicles may not emerge as a viable option. In the event that electric cars come into general use, Canada’s well-established automotive sector — a major employer — could be adversely impacted if not properly prepared. More action by the Federal government to support this sector will be needed, or Canada could be left behind other auto-producing centres.
But should Canadian tax money be used to stimulate a burgeoning electric car industry, or would government funds be more successful in reducing emissions if they went to developing more accessible public transportation or create more and safer bicycle lanes like it has been done in Vancouver?
 
At first glance, zero emissions cars look like real solutions to stopping growing carbon emissions in a society and culture that is obsessed with cars as a prime form of transport. At this point we really do not have a lot of choice. In reality, however, the answer is much more complex and depends on whether one explores the collective versus the individual benefits of this technology, or, in other words, what overall impact the modest adoption of electric vehicles will have on cutting tail pipe emissions.

Also, depending on where you charge you electric vehicle, pollution could simply move upstream from the tailpipe to the coal-fired power generator. Another factor is that large amounts of lithium will be needed to power electric motors representing a horizontal shift in reliance from one extractive industry, oil, to another — lithium. And simply “greening” the automobile will do nothing to curb the destruction caused by roads, parking lots and traffic congestion.

Alone they are not a real solution, but viewed as part of an overall national strategy, the electric car, together with high-performance buildings and evolutionary transition to renewable sources of energy, could play a pivotal role in weaning society off of its reliance on fossil fuels.

Aptera electric car