When it comes to technology we like our complex solutions and have run the gamut with alternative energy these past few years. Everything from the collection of atmospheric static energy to 300 foot turbines on tethers . The complexity of these concepts is so great they require tens of millions in development testing to even consider them practical yet alone to build someday in our lifetimes.

A recent publication, Metropolis Magazine, challenged its readers to present a solution to fix our energy addiction. Though thousands of ideas were thrown into the mix of all but a few well thought out propositions the winner was so simple it’s dumbfounding we don’t already do it!

Three French designers proposed the concept to simply place turbines right directly on existing power infrastructure towers. How many electricity towers are in the US? I couldn’t seem to find the answer to that question but I’m sure it’s an immense number in the hundreds of thousands. In my search I did find this great page of some interesting tower pictures from a photographer. Add cellular towers to the mix and the number of available generator towers for simple plug and play wind generators almost doubles.

Unfortunately the response to this simple solution was bombarded with structural integrity issues, tie in to the transformer problems and more importantly who then maintains them. But in my opinion these burdens are substantially less than those faced by most alternative energy solutions with millions in government funding being spent daily.

For the full article: http://www.metropolismag.com/nextgen/ng ... le_id=3824

Or… simply more taxes for Californians already faced with the highest state taxes in the nation. We are all alternative energy fans but to what extend does it get out of hand? A start-up company BrightSource is under contract by PG&E for the installation of 1.31GW deal in California. Their alternative energy solution is plucked right out of the Sci-Fi books. BrightSource will build a “Power Tower” that uses a field of mirrors or heliostats, to concentrate sunlight to heat water atop a central tower to generate electricity from a steam turbine. All they need now is 007 dangling from the side in a tooth and nail battle for the safety of all mankind.

California has been a leader in alternative energy initiatives producing over 10% of its energy from green resources currently with an aggressive goal of 33% by 2020. Though 33% seems quite impressive it could be achieved by 2012 with proven technology and smart planning.

The Renewable Energy Atlas of the West estimated the annual wind electricity generation potential in California to be 45 billion kWh providing California with an abundant very inexpensive, substantially less than solar, resource for alternative energy.
Are we in such a crunch to produce energy that we need to fund start-up companies with unproven technology at a cost of hundreds of millions when in an economic state of crisis? California is underway to be the first state to go bankrupt – this state’s investment in these types of startup solutions is exactly why.

Saving energy through efficiency is the only realistic economic solution and substantially less expensive than building new technology power plants.

This is very controversial topic with only one inevitable result. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Have you seen this device advertised, Power-Saver 1200? For about $300 you can save upwards of 30% on your residential energy bill.

This product is based on the claim that it adjusts your energy usage to reduce I2R losses and a low power factor. The cost savings of managing power factor and I2R losses is perfectly legitimate but the truth is neither applies to the common US household. The average household doesn’t see or recognize a low power factor, so the residential customer isn't charged for it, so eliminating it will not save you any money.

Typically the companies that sell these devices use a video showing a motor drawing significantly less amperage with the device (capacitors) connected. All true but very misleading to the residential power consumer. This demo and angle is overdramatized and dramatically misleading. Truth is, you buy this thing, install it, improve the power factor by some amount (they don't state the KVAR value of the device) and not only save nothing but incur the cost of the unit, installation and the required fuse. You will never save 5%, 10%, or "up to 30%. Utility companies in the US do not charges residential customers for low power factors and don’t measure such usage.

In the commercial markets the utility company will charge the cost of delivering demand energy plus the adjusted profit the markets and the public utility commissions will normally apply to high demand. This is how Power Factor applies in determining your bill based on how much extra current must be carried by the transmission lines during high demand. But the residential market doesn’t measure power factor in the utility billing process unless you possibly live in a commercial market and are a business client. Businesses, however, benefit greatly from power factor correction. The utility has a separate device attached to the meter to measure it but the meter itself still measures only "true power".

As for I2R losses if this device is mounted at the panel, it will not reduce I2R losses because the stored energy oscillates through the house wires between the inductors and capacitors. As this happens, current flows, and losses occur regardless.
I personally have tested now 4 devices and I have purchased a total of 7. I have sent several to professional testing facilities to be tested – everyone with the same conclusion. Additionally several were the exact same device repackaged and relabeled. All of course with a 100% guarantee unless you open the box. Ironically you need to open the box to see what’s in it. For the curious who want to maintain their money back option it apparently only houses a bank of capacitors and one actually had a pilot light in it which appeared to most likely eat more energy than it could possibly save.

In my opinion, do not be sucked into this “go green” with a Power Saver type device. Use your $300 to plant a few more trees around your home, take your kids to the park a few more times a year and simply turn off that light when you leave the room.

I’d like to be proven wrong and will immediately post my apology. I get emails, spam mails and claims about this device. Here’s my challenge, my electric usage is very consistent month to month, I don’t have AC and I never use the heater. Send me a unit, I’ll test it for one month and share with you my billing for the past few months, the current month I install the unit, then the following month without the unit. If my bill is reduced by greater than 10% I’ll retract my statements pay full price for your unit and praise your product. All data during the test phase, including my retraction if I am wrong, will be made public on this and other blog sites along with press. DyoCore will additionally pay you $1,000 for your time If the product proves to actually work with a proven saving of over 20%. This amount being midpoint in most of these product’s marketing data. To participate in my challenge email me at dave@dyocore.com.

Facts about True, Reactive, and Apparent power - http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html

Every day brings new reports of tens of millions of Federal, state and private dollars being pumped into Alternative Energy initiatives. But very little appears to be popping up at our local stores in the form of solutions.

With a $4 to $6 billion budget deficit, is this the right time to experiment or fund companies with “ideas” opposed to products ready to use?

Companies are springing up from every direction with their hands out for free development money to break into the alternative energy market. But are they really trying to break into the market or just get some free money for a few years. I’d estimate that less than 2% off all funding will actually result in technologies that will be available to the end consumer that will actually “reduce” their current energy costs and just as important have a green impact on their lives. Whereas 70% of the funding dollars will actually produce products that will increase our costs as direct consumers and in the short term create more damage to our environment.

A recent stimulus bill, 21.5 billion into science and technology, is the largest R&D investment in our nation’s history with a promise from Obama’s office to continue to build on these by expanding budgets for key agencies and making permanent the federal R&D tax credit to encourage private-sector investment in innovation, and launching a major increase in funding to support this growth industry opportunity.

Maybe a few of these companies will hire some engineers and possibly ramp up for a product run but I’m very skeptical on how many actual companies will sustain to the point of a real product on the market. If the funding ran out today would these companies continue forward? I doubt it. America is a country of opportunity. Though grants and easy funding definitely qualify as an opportunity, I think they send the wrong message at the wrong time. I don’t even think it could be considered robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s simply robbing Peter, the everyday taxpayer.

In my opinion if there is a “true” market and demand for “green” technology no stimulus money is needed, companies have all the incentive they need to build a good, reliable and cost effective product. That is the American way!

Recent DOE investment activity

U.S. DOE handing out $40M for two biorefinery projects

US DOE offering $33.8M for cellulose

U.S. gov't doles out another $23m for cellulosic ethanol

DOE putting up $114M for small-scale biorefineries

Bosch gets DOE funding for flex-fuel vehicle

U.S. DOE putting up $60M for solar thermal

and lots more...

“Renewable Energy for America” is an online tool to look at both existing and proposed alternative clean energy development facilities. The map, created by the NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council, provides an overview of the enormous potential for alternative energy solutions that reduce global warming emissions, protect critical environmental values and push the US closer to energy independence.

To see the map, visit https://www .nrdc.org/energy/renewables/default.asp.

The site also offers a few State Profiles, an assortment of Energy Facts and general government involvement in Alternative Energy solutions. If you’re a Google Earth user you can download a free Google Earth-based report from NRDC that provides similar green energy mapping information overlaid on the Google Earth application.