Showing posts with label Energy Efficiency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy Efficiency. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

CERA Interviews What Appears To Be A New DOE Secretary Rick Perry - Wow!


Source: Fstoppers



Over the last few years, Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry has been on an educational journey into the variety of ways which the United States will meet the energy demands of the future.  At the start of his tenure as Secretary of Energy, the major opinion of his knowledge was less than stellar  -- especially on the contribution which renewable/clean energy will play on the world table in the future.  With that being said, Secretary Rick Perry has since started to shy away from our dependence on coal (fossil fuel) based dependence and shifted toward Liquified Natural Gas (LNG).  I must commend him on changing his view over time through educating himself.



Recently, the annual conference on energy was held in the heartland of energy -- Texas -- named CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates) with the following mission:


In 1983, Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) was founded in Cambridge, Massachusetts by Daniel Yergin and James Rosenfield. The energy research and consulting firm quickly became known for its critical knowledge and independent analysis on energy markets, geopolitics, industry trends, technology and strategy. Each year, CERA clients gathered for a few days in Houston, Texas to attend the executive conference where they gained insight into the energy future while connecting with their peers. Over time, the program was expanded to five days of informative sessions and networking opportunities—and named CERAWeek. More than three decades later, CERAWeek by IHS Markit has become the world’s premier energy event. The conference is distinctive in the extraordinary depth and breadth of its content and the quality of the dialogue among participants. 


The top minds of energy development along with the customers to the policy makers gather to discuss the future of energy.  A wide range of topics are covered including some which might at first sight seem unrelated to the global discussion of energy.  Some of these will be discussed in the video below and are worth considering as part of the larger picture of energy demand as the United States along with other nations move into the future of energy.  Let's listen to what Secretary Perry has in mind for the future in a brief interview below.



The video below is taken from the conference series CERA which is an interview between Carlos and DOE Secretary Rick Perry (which is 10 minutes in length):


Note: Click lower right hand side of the video screen to 'fullscreen' the video.




The future is exciting to say the least.  Energy transition encompasses more than meets the eye when the average American considers the wide range of technologies which energy support (namely nearly all).  Without energy, the world does not operate.  We do not operate on a daily basis.  How energy transition takes into account the changing global conditions such as climate change are the present topics to discuss and incorporate solutions into tomorrow's policy making decisions.  Secretary Perry shows the growth needed as a high ranking government official to entertain the parameters needed to make the energy transition a reality.  We should commend him on his growth through education.



Related Blog Posts:



President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts


President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???


President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!


Thursday, September 6, 2018

Thoughts: Pause before reacting to news regarding 'Proposed Changes' to EPA and other Federal Agencies


Source: EPA (Twitter)



One model of the popular news is based on 'fear' -- propagating/inciting fear -- to get the most 'eyeballs' on a given story.  The thought is to produce news which is extremely controversial in nature and install fear into the story, while receiving the most 'eyeballs' from a given audience.  Don't forget to run ads on the sides of the articles to generate revenue.  Each of us react differently to news.  Take for instance the headline shown below of a recent news article from USA Today shown below:




Source: USA Today




Regardless of the degree of reaction (negative/positive), each of us would be well served to take a pause and consider the degree of threat each story poses to our daily life/safety or to our environment.   In the blog post below, I offer a video in which a former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency offers an opinion on the degree of truth behind news bites regarding 'Proposed' changes by either a federal agency (EPA, FDA, USDA, CDC, etc.) or a presidential administration (such as President Trump's administration currently).



Repeal or Not Repeal?




The news is good at producing eye-catching headlines like the one displayed above.  Further, at first sight the headline implies that the 'proposal' to 'repeal' or 'make changes' is absolute and without question.  In previous blog posts on this site, this is not the case at the outset.  More complications come into play when changing or repealing a law which has been enacted.  I came to the understanding of this reality last year while listening to a series of online webinars from the American Association of the Advancement of Science(AAAS).  The Facebook page for the AAAS has a series of webinars which can be viewed on demand.



Dr. Rush Holt, the current CEO of AAAS engaged in a discussion in which he described the reality of repealing or changing a current law enacted by a federal agency or congress -- which was extremely informative.  But why should we be listening to Dr. Rush Holt -- the CEO of AAAS?  The reason is that prior to a career spent in research at Princeton University, Dr. Rush Holt (who is a physicist) served as a U.S Representative for New Jersey's 12th congressional District from 1999 to 2015.  During his tenure in congress, Dr. Holt learned a tremendous amount regarding the processes which turn the wheels moving the country forward on a day to day basis.  Therefore, when Dr. Holt says that laws are in place which can only be replaced by laws which are "better" for the environment -- then I tend to believe him.



Although, what if people (readers) choose not to believe him.  Fair enough.  You may choose to believe the next source I have to provide.  Below is a video of a recent interview between veteran reporter Stephanie Ruhle and former EPA Administrator Christine





Wow.



In the video above, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out the overall complications with the previous EPA Administrator - Scott Pruitt.  Namely, that on a day to day basis, Administrator Pruitt would announce publicly that he was going to 'repeal back an Obama administration regulation'.  Although, as pointed out by former congressman Rush Holt above, that statement is usually followed by legal action -- especially, if the new guidelines put the nation at greater risk of environmental damage.



Remember, to repeal or replace a regulation, the new proposed regulation cannot due more damage to the environment than the previous (or replaced) regulation did.



Additionally, former EPA Administrator Christine Whitman points out that the overall approach to changing (repealing or modifying) an existing regulation has to be done by the following approach: "This is why we think that the existing regulation is bad for the environment and here is the study to back up this assertion" -- along that avenue of reasoning.  Otherwise, the regulation will not be changed at all.



Example-Court Rules against Electric Companies?




Yes, the headline is written correctly.  For all of the news of 'roll-backs' or 'repeals' happening in the Trump Administration, the reality is the opposite.  An example is a lawsuit just ruled against by a panel of judges in Massachusetts.  Here is the news brief from 'Politico Energy' sent yesterday morning via e-mail to subscribers:



COURT SAYS MASSACHUSETTS CARBON CAP APPLIES TO UTILITIES: Massachusetts' top court on Tuesday ruled that electric utilities are indeed subject to the state's major climate change law, including a shrinking cap on carbon emissions imposed last year following an order from Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. The New England Power Generators Association and GenOn argued that the cap cannot apply to the electric sector because it is already regulated under another part of the state law. But the seven-member Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the two parts of the law "complement each other," adding: "Given that the electric sector is one of the largest in-state greenhouse gas emission sources, it would make little to no sense for the Legislature to have excluded it from the critical emission reduction requirements."



The case did not meet the criteria for a reversal or repeal on the ban.  Why would it?  As former EPA Administrator points out correctly, a large percentage of large (huge) corporations are actually falling in line with new environmental regulations (even those set in place by the Obama Administration).   Only the 'outliers' who are in jeopardy from not keeping up with the changing (sustainable) measures are crying out and lobbying the Trump Administration.  Which is attempting to 'roll back' or 'repeal' to protect these dying companies.



In fact, a critical statement made in the video above is that the 'route' or 'method' taken by the Trump Administration is not correct and often fails in courts (i.e. a legal battle) - which is not surprising. I have been saying all along over the past two years that the greatest threat to the Trump Administration is the lack toward attention to detail.  Which specific departments like the State Department and other federal agencies can greatly assist in creating legislation which will actually challenge existing regulations.  Although, the change has to be grounded in 'sound science'.



Speaking of regulations and emissions, in the same e-mail sent yesterday by Politico Energy, a short poll was taken on emission standards and pollution linked to higher adverse health incidences.  Here is the excerpt as reported by the journalist shown below:



HOW ACE IS PLAYING OUT: EPA's own estimates on its proposed Affordable Clean Energy plan to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants is turning off voters, a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll found. When asked whether EPA "estimates that the proposal could, in some scenarios, increase annual premature deaths from certain particulate emissions by up to 1,400 by 2030" would make voters more or less likely to support the plan, 30 percent of respondents said it would make them "much more likely to oppose" the plan. Fifteen percent said it would make them "somewhat more likely" to oppose the ACE plan, while 9 percent and 13 percent said it would make them "much more likely to support" or "somewhat more likely to support" the plan, respectively.

Asked a similar question about agency estimates that the proposal could reduce 2030 carbon dioxide emissions by as much as 1.5 percent from projected levels without the existing Clean Power Plan, 15 percent of voters said that knowledge would make them either "somewhat more" or "much more" likely to oppose the plan, while 45 percent said the opposite. The poll was conducted Aug. 28-31, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. It surveyed 1,964 registered voters.



Not surprising to say the least.



Conclusion...




The overall approach by the Trump Administration has met considerable opposition in courts.  Which is not surprising given the lack of evidence to support such repeals.  If the science was questionable, then a reasonable argument could be made.  But as I mentioned above and in previous blog posts which can be found here, the efforts have been largely unsuccessful -- especially since large corporations are already moving toward investing in sustainable energy technology Shell announced earlier this year such efforts.  Still, the Trump Administration chooses to argue with congress over science which is settled.



The world is composed of many parts moving at varying speeds.  Different nations move at different speeds with regard toward implementing more sustainable policies at various levels within their respective government.  The United States is one nation moving forward -- not necessarily leading the sustainability future.  Although, over the past few years, investments into a more sustainable world have been made and are continuing to be realized.  We should be investing in a green future.  With that being said, the next time that news is aired which is counter toward forward progress, take pause and think about the probability of the adverse impact actually becoming a reality.  There are certain steps in place in congress to ensure that forward progress is inevitable. That is where we should spend our focus and energy on.



Related Blog Posts:


EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards


Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!



























Friday, December 23, 2016

How Do LED Christmas Lights Work?

Pre-Merry Christmas!  Christmas is practically upon us.  If you have been outside, then you have undoubtedly noticed that certain houses and buildings have 'Christmas lights' draped on their structures.  A transition is taking place in the 'lighting industry' from a traditional incandescent bulb toward a 'light-emitting diode'.  Light-emitting diode sounds futuristic.  And in some forms appears to be futuristic due to the narrow bandwidth of light -- precise wavelength.  Some people complain that the traditional 'glow' is gone with the transition from 'incandescent lighting.'  I would say to that statement: hold on -- technology is improving at light speed.



Traditional Christmas Lights




As I mentioned above, the traditional "Christmas lights" were a glass bulb and bulky among other difficulties associated with them.  One major hassle associated with setting up Christmas lights was the inspection of each light bulb on a string of lights in order to determine the culprit (faulty light bulb) before lighting the string.  The laborious process was time consuming and resulted in great frustration.  Although, after hanging Christmas lights up, the seasonal glow that is felt upon viewing them is inexplainable and worth all of the trouble.



How is the 'Glow' generated in old Christmas lights?



Traditional Christmas tree lights are incandescent light bulbs.  Incandescent light bulbs have dominated the market over the last century.  Here is a picture of an 'incandescent Christmas light bulb' shown below:








As you can see, there is a wired that is asymmetrical (wounded irregularly) in winding in the center of the glass bulb.  The operation of the bulb is described as follows:



The incandescent light bulb or lamp is a source of electric light that works by incandescence, which is the emission of light caused by heating the filament. They are made in an extremely wide range of sizes, wattages, and voltages.


As current travels through the wire, heat due to resistance is generated.  Eventually, the heat is given off as light.  There is still heat given off too.  The warm glow produced by the incandescent light bulb remains to be a large challenge for Light-Emitting Diode makers.  Although, the downside of using incandescent light bulbs is the heat loss associated with the operation.  This could be problematic with lights on a Christmas tree.  The heat from the incandescent light bulbs dries the Christmas tree out.  In the extreme case, the heating could cause a fire.



The above explanation was part of the motivation to produce a more efficient light bulb that does not over heat with continued operation over a long period of time.   Despite the move toward greater use of Light-Emitting Diode lights, the traditional incandescent light is still in wide use today.



Light-Emitting Diodes?




Technology has improved greatly with the introduction of the semiconductor.  Other spin-off technologies are numerous (and I do not need to go into them).  Anyways, typically, when the technology is discussed, the usual turn-off of attention is achieved on the part of the listener.



For example, new Christmas lights are made of "light-emitting diodes".  The "wikipedia" contains the following definition of LED:



A light-emitting diode (LED) is a two-lead semiconductor light source. It is a p–n junction diode, which emits light when activated.[4] When a suitable voltage is applied to the leads, electrons are able to recombine with electron holes within the device, releasing energy in the form of photons. This effect is called electroluminescence, and the color of the light (corresponding to the energy of the photon) is determined by the energy band gap of the semiconductor.
An LED is often small in area (less than 1 mm2) and integrated optical components may be used to shape its radiation pattern.[5]
Appearing as practical electronic components in 1962,[6] the earliest LEDs emitted low-intensity infrared light. Infrared LEDs are still frequently used as transmitting elements in remote-control circuits, such as those in remote controls for a wide variety of consumer electronics. The first visible-light LEDs were also of low intensity and limited to red. Modern LEDs are available across the visible, ultraviolet, and infrared wavelengths, with very high brightness.
Early LEDs were often used as indicator lamps for electronic devices, replacing small incandescent bulbs. They were soon packaged into numeric readouts in the form of seven-segment displays and were commonly seen in digital clocks.
Recent developments in LEDs permit them to be used in environmental and task lighting. LEDs have many advantages over incandescent light sources including lower energy consumption, longer lifetime, improved physical robustness, smaller size, and faster switching. Light-emitting diodes are now used in applications as diverse as aviation lighting, automotive headlamps, advertising, general lighting, traffic signals, camera flashes, and lighted wallpaper. As of 2016, LEDs powerful enough for room lighting remain somewhat more expensive, and require more precise current and heat management, than compact fluorescent lamp sources of comparable output. They are, however, significantly more energy efficient and, arguably, have fewer environmental concerns linked to their disposal[citation needed].



As mentioned in the excerpt above, the LED has taken over the world to replace conventional light sources.   One major reason is the large amount of energy saved by operating a LED compared to a traditional light bulb.  Additionally, the LED Christmas light has a more durable coating and therefore is more stable and longer-lasting.



After reading the excerpt above (first paragraph), you might still have an issue with understanding the operation of the LED.  In a recent article 'Compound Interests' titled "The Chemistry Of Lights" a simple explanation is put forth regarding the operation and design of the LED light.  I am a big believer in "not re-inventing the wheel."  Therefore, I love to share good explanations when I come across one.



Here is an excerpt regarding the operation and structure of the "light-emitting diode":



LEDs consist of two layers of semiconducting material. The layers are “doped” with impurities, which is to say that atoms of elements other than those originally in the semiconducting material are mixed in. This doping can create different types of layers: p-type layers and n-type layers. The n-type layer has a surplus of electrons, whereas the p-type layer has an insufficient number of electrons, and as such has what are referred to as electron ‘holes’: positions in atoms where an electron could be, but isn’t.

When a current is applied to the LED, the electrons in the n-type layer and the electron ‘holes’ in the p-type layer are driven to an active layer between the two. When the electrons and electron ‘holes’ combine, energy is released, and this is seen as visible light. While this explains how light is produced, we have to look a little more closely at what’s going on to explain how different colours can be obtained.

The colours obtained from LEDs are determined by the semiconducting materials used. As you can see in the graphic, there’s not just one material used for all of the different colours, but a range of possibilities. By using different materials, and adding different impurities to these materials, we can change the size of the band gap – that is, the size of the energy difference between the n-type layer and the p-type layer. The bigger this band gap, the shorter the wavelength of light produced by the LED. So for a red LED, a relatively small band gap is required. For blue LEDs, a larger band gap is needed.




Simply beautiful!



 What does such a structure look like?



That is a trick question since the title of the blog post is Christmas lights!  Below is a diagram taken from the 'wikipedia' page for 'LED':








The image above appears to resemble the traditional Christmas lights that are seen draped on houses and buildings around town.  From the outside, this may be true.  Although, on further inspection of the image above, there is no 'filament' as we saw above in the picture of the incandescent light bulb.



Why not?



According to the two descriptions of the Light-Emitting Diodes above, the structure is slightly different compared to an incandescent light bulb.  Remember terms 'p-n junction' etc?  A structure of an LED was taken from 'wikipedia' for clarity and is shown below:





Source: S-kei



According to the picture above, if the current (in the form of electrons) travels through the 'n-type' material toward the interface of the two types of material 'p-n junction' (in the center at the boundary of blue and yellow), the corresponding 'hole' moves toward the 'p-n junction' from the blue side.  At the boundary layer, the two are combined.  The combination of the electron and the positive 'hole' at the junction corresponds to light emitted.



Furthermore, if the 'p-n junction' is changed (made larger or smaller) the frequency of light (color) is changed too.  Therefore, the light given off at the 'p-n junction' is precise.  As I mentioned above, one downfall of the LED compared to the incandescents light bulb is the lack of 'glow'.  The factor which gives the light a glow is the 'broad spectrum' of wavelengths (mixture of colors).  In an LED, the interface -- i.e., 'p-n junction' is precisely tuned to give a sharp and very well defined frequency.



The above description was off of the site 'Compound Interests' whose design to display information is in the form of a 'poster' like the one shown below:






I chose to expand on the description given in this poster.  The producer of the above infographic did such a great job, that I felt the need to share this with the public at large.  This infographic went out to the science community last week.  Here are some closing thoughts...



Conclusion...




The movement toward LED technology is on the rise.  There are benefits toward using either type of Christmas light.  LED lights give off a very well defined wavelength (or frequency) of light which results in a crisp sharp light.  Whereas the traditional incandescent lights give off the warm 'glow' made up of a few different color components.  Secondly, there is less heat given off with an LED light compared with the incandescent light bulb.  Which results in greater efficiency.  Finally....



As you travel the world during the holidays, hopefully, your viewing of the many different Christmas lights will be enhanced by this blog post.  Try to identify which Christmas lights use LED technology and which use incandescent light technology.  I hope that each and everyone of you have a wonderful and safe Christmas.  Cheers!



Until Next time, Have a great day!