Jeff

• my site for this class

11.16.06 Battery charging through USB Look at the link to old class

• lime.com
• lohas.com
• green wikipedia
• Texas Instruments Power solutions
• nuplot or new plot
• the wiki stuff project
• doria fan website
• Green Arch Data Set (Alice)
• Stefan is using a USB battery charger chip
• Instructables...
• Union of Concerned Scientists Green Living How-To
• Core the pcomp related projects

You know part of the issue not always very much raised in comments about people buying less stuff, is jobs and what people do for work.

10.31.06 .. I have been very lazy lately, which isn't good. So here is what I am going to do (Note other people may very well have done some of this stuff already):

• Energy Audit
  • Put existing numbers into a spreadsheet on google docs
    • Note it's u: sustain.at.itp p: typical for itp
  • Test if google spreadsheets transfer nicely to say openoffice
  • Look at total picture and look at missing elements
  • Attempt to create numbers for general items (say computers, lights...)
  • Re-look at total
  • Take a close look at the conference room
• Solar panels
  • Document how to use the battery chargers
  • Document how to use the batteries to run say things like lights
  • From there...
• Energy and Circuits
  • Document how to figure out how much energy your project is using
  • Document my simple voltage sensor
  • start researching and building simple power switching circuts

10.4.06

.. I am interested in working two related projects. One is to look into power draw etc of pcomp projects and alternative ways to power them. The other is in investigating the solar cells on the roof.

9.12.06

Aight, so let me start...

.. First, regarding Andrew's proposal. I think it is an admirable and realistic thing to aim for, but I would qualify it slightly. The first thing we have to do before taking any part of ITP off the grid is to understand ITP's power consumption in general. I believe very strongly that the first step in sustainability is not new technologies but reevaluation of existing practices. So, how much power do the lights/computers draw? Are they left on all the time? What are the energy costs of that? What kind of fixtures do we have? How well insulated are our windows. In other words, what is the total energy "budget" and energy "behavior profile" for the floor. Significant savings could come out of that kind of a study before even the tiniest alternative energy source is introduced.

.. And even if we are at max efficiency here (doubtful), knowing this overall picture will help implement any plan, give the hard facts we would need to convince the administration, and to help us evaluate our experiment. These are very good reasons to do this project, because we will be making people aware and giving people a clear picture of how much power (cardboard, paper...) we actually use and where it goes.

.. Even if we find that taking a part of the floor off the grid doesn't change anything, or even is more expensive, we should still do it. We should do it no matter what, but we should do the above first. We should do regardless because, well I want to know how. And in 10 years (let us hope) when super efficient solar cells are introduced we can just take down our old one and presto!

.. In general, what I think is very interesting about this class versus the vast majority of other ITP offerings, is that in order to do sustainability well you must be analytical about it. The world of energy is all about making trade-offs. For example, solar cells are expensive (in part because it takes a lot of energy to make them, which incedently is most likely not renewable) but may provide essentially free power once they are installed. But you need good batteries unless you only are going to have electricity when it's sunny, they are a pain to maintain in certain climates, etc. Take this in contrast to just taking power off the traditional grid, which has no high overhead cost and in general is very reliable. Which is better? In my mind the answer is not clear cut and depends on a whole host of situational factors and assumptions about the future. The only way to sort through those is to be methodical, analytical, and dogged. To me that is the kind of thinking that ITP hasn't always created forums for, so I am happy about this direction we are exploring for what it will add to the ITP mindset.

.. Some of my goals, in addition to the above

• I am very interested in the global picture of sustainability, particullarly energy, and I want to create a resource that helps put what we do in that perspective.
• I want to work with small scale solar, wind, and fuel cells in ITP scale electronics and understand how best to use them.
• I want to understand what could become the base for a small company in a sea of many modest to massive sized players.

.. So on to things about this whole issue that annoy me. Oh boy..

First, this is not a "hippy" thing. This is about civilization. I am interested in this issue because I love getting on planes, watching baseball, going to the park, riding in cars. All these are possible for the most part because humans burn an immense amount of fossil fuels. Todays Civilization and Fossil Fuels are basically inseperable. And our dependence on these fuels is a problem for a whole host of reasons:

• Much of the fuel is in unstable areas. That's why we are in Iraq, for better or for worse.
• Many people believe we are reaching a point where production of crude oil will peak and then decline, just as demand is soaring. This is a very contentious point, but my opinion is better live on the safe side while you still can.
• Global warming. Burning of fossil fuels is the major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
• The developing world is massively hungry for fossil fuels, which could result in a few things: greater competition and potential conflict for control of them, higher prices, other countries beating us to creating more efficient products thus undermining US technical leadership, which is the basis of US prosperity (Thomas Friedman regularly rants about this).
• We will have to do it at some point in the next 100 years when we begin to experience a serious decline in crude oil production (everyone agrees on that time scale).
• We can make stuff in China because it is cheap to ship it across the Pacific, which is that way because oil is cheap. So we are in China not just because labour is cheap there, but because transportation on an enormous scale is cheap too. That's how Walmart thrives. So maybe it is more sustainable to make things here? I'm a globalist but I wonder sometimes about the trade offs.

The subtleties regarding these issues and the different forms of fossil fuels (crude oil, coal, natural gas) are too complex to get into here, but if anyone is interested I'd be happy to talk with you or point you to the books I have read on this. It is endlessly interesting.

Second, I am a little skeptical about the massive spread of new technologies in this field (biofuels, fusion, solar, wind). People make what I consider a dubious connection sometimes about the advances in other areas of science (medical, computers) and say we will see a similar thing happen in energy. I don't believe it for a few reasons. First we have been working on energy issues for longer than either of those other fields. Second, energy issues are constrained by very fundamental laws of physics, while these other fields aren't constrained by similar laws that we know of. And if I'm wrong about fusion (ask Dan A about giant lasers) well it won't matter since there will be free power for everyone. Still all of the things mentioned in the first sentence will play their role, but I don't think any are the "answer". Plus everytime in history that the price of oil has dropped it has killed off investment in alternatives (at least in the US). I hope we are past that short term thinking, but who knows.

Third, moving from the second point, We don't really need new tech(not even solar or wind right now) to solve energy issues and climate change. Futhermore, it is dangerous to rely on them coming (such as the "hydrogen economy"). We have all the technologies we need now. What's more this is a question of behavior and altering consumptive patterns as much as it is an issue of new energy sources. Mandating efficiency standards for appliances, transport and pricing things "correctly" (gasoline for example) will go a long way towards making people make better choices. Of course that is something we really need the government to do (and at least California is taking a lead). Tech Review series on this

Fourth, No Blood for Oil. This is a hot button topic, but I don't believe the previous statement is realistic. Our adventures abroad are tragic, and it is an absolute and utter shame we haven't tried harder to find better ways to achieve our goals in the world. That said, our need to do some of these things is prescribed by the extent to which we have tied the functioning of our civilization to certain resources in certain places. I think we as a society need to be much more realistic about that.

Fifth, We need to be analytical. I just love math I guess. But as a serious example of this Tom Friedman had an article in the nytimes today (9.15.06) about ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil and how awesome it is. Which is fine but his article had only two figures: that in Brazil 33,000 stations offer ethanol while in the US only 700 do, and that ethanol per weight gives only 70% of the mileage that gasoline does. What drives me crazy is that in my mind you cannot say how awesome something is and give me only these paltry facts. How hard would it be to say what percentage of Brazil's fuel is currently ethanol based, and give me a projection or two on future growth? I don't know if 33,000 stations is a lot or a little...

Sixth, being annoyed that American's are so damn stupid sometimes. We can't do that, I don't think it's proper. The incentives people have are screwed up because of how our society has developed over the past 50 years. That's not a Republican or Democratic thing, and we can't just blame companies. It's the partisan nature of this debate and mistrust of big business that drives me crazy. We have to change incentives, not minds. Only incentives will change minds. That's my belief at the moment at least. I am curious to know what people think.

There's more but I'll close for now. This is an issue that I am extremely passionate about, as well as opinionated, and often in ways that might ruffle what I see as the general political view of students at ITP. I hope my zeal helps to drive the discussion and doesn't put anyone off. It's all towards actionable information. Just tell me to shut up when I get out of line. I think this is going to be a fantastic class and I am truly looking forward to exploring it with everyone.