Man, I love low tech magazine, but they really do have a thing for unscalable, impractical ideas with worse environmental impact than the things they would replace. For the amount of power...
Man, I love low tech magazine, but they really do have a thing for unscalable, impractical ideas with worse environmental impact than the things they would replace. For the amount of power generation you can get off a thermocouple, you'd be much better off with a hand crank generator, let alone a bicycle generator. And the amount of batteries you'd need to store enough solar energy to have a competitive amount of on demand power isn't that significant either. You could beat thermocouples with maybe 2-4 18650s, and that's without having to search for firewood and deal with its particulate pollution.
If it's wood and the forest regrows then it's technically zero-carbon. But it's a very dirty fuel. I grew up in a house where we had a wood-burning stove (due to the house originally being...
If it's wood and the forest regrows then it's technically zero-carbon. But it's a very dirty fuel. I grew up in a house where we had a wood-burning stove (due to the house originally being all-electric, the energy crisis, and being in a semi-rural area) and I wouldn't do that, too much work and I don't like the smoke outside.
The biomass cycle depends on there being room for plants to take up the carbon, and untouched trees are one of the best recapture systems (carbon capture in undisturbed agricultural soils, or...
The biomass cycle depends on there being room for plants to take up the carbon, and untouched trees are one of the best recapture systems (carbon capture in undisturbed agricultural soils, or carbon enrichment, are among the others). Unfortunately, land clearing, lumbering, conventional agriculture, and rampant exogenous pest spread are preventing that.
Since I've now got years of firewood stocked up from 30+ dead ash trees, I think it's more complicated than that. Much of that agricultural land is populated with tree species (ash, oak, hemlock,...
Since I've now got years of firewood stocked up from 30+ dead ash trees, I think it's more complicated than that. Much of that agricultural land is populated with tree species (ash, oak, hemlock, pine, etc.) vulnerable to multiple concurrent disasters - novel imported pests, diseases, and changes in climate. Dead trees don't take up carbon. This is a global problem affecting forests everywhere.
Also, whatever net tree cover gain there might be in the northeastern US, it's offset by huge forest losses elsewhere.
Yeah, a lot depends on how you count. If you're just cutting trees on your own land and it's growing back (and then some) then you could argue that it's carbon-neutral. But once you look beyond...
Yeah, a lot depends on how you count. If you're just cutting trees on your own land and it's growing back (and then some) then you could argue that it's carbon-neutral. But once you look beyond that, a lot more needs to happen.
A lot of people in poor regions use wood burning (or, worse, dung burning) stoves. It's important to get them using better stoves because the stoves they're using at the moment release a lot of...
A lot of people in poor regions use wood burning (or, worse, dung burning) stoves.
It's important to get them using better stoves because the stoves they're using at the moment release a lot of smoke and inefficiently burn the wood. This pollution causes huge amounts of harm in the developing world. If these new stoves can provide trickle charging for mobile phones that's an added advantage.
But this doesn't mean they should stop using solar panels. Stove-electricity isn't going to replace anything.
I think the key is that the target households will need to be burning biomass whether they electrify their homes with solar or TEG. In that case, the biomass emissions are a sunk cost, and the...
I think the key is that the target households will need to be burning biomass whether they electrify their homes with solar or TEG. In that case, the biomass emissions are a sunk cost, and the life cycle cost of the power system becomes the most important factor. LowTechMagazine also puts a lot of emphasis on disposal (something we need a bit more of), so having easily recyclable TEGs vs difficult or impossible to recycle solar panels/batteries is big from their perspective. Plus, the TEG setup won't have to be oversized and may not have storage since it matches usage patterns closely, especially if a blower is used for more efficient combustion, which I think could be argued to lead to a net reduction in emissions compared to either the no electricity or solar electricity cases.
Well, if you're looking for a really expensive way to power your electronics with all the downsides of solar then it's a great idea. You just steal 5% of your heat and turn it into electricity....
Well, if you're looking for a really expensive way to power your electronics with all the downsides of solar then it's a great idea. You just steal 5% of your heat and turn it into electricity. Unless Google lied to me, efficient TE systems are in the $10/watt range in large quantity, not including fuel or battery storage. Solar is $5/W not including battery storage.
Both require special conditions for power generation (stove/heater running or sun shining). Both require batteries because you can't/don't run those items 24/7. So you're paying twice as much for the system and you get an extra 5% particulate pollution to boot.
I love Peltier coolers/TE generators - I've played with them on and off since the 90s. They're very cool tech, and maybe useful as a supplemental source in some locations - or possibly in conjunction with solar - but this application just seems like an expensive way to avoid solar and sell more batteries (since the only time you would have power outside of the heating season is during cooking).
Thermoelectric system efficiency is going to be really dependent on locally available biomass. It's probably fine for people in rural or undeveloped places where there's ready harvest of...
Thermoelectric system efficiency is going to be really dependent on locally available biomass. It's probably fine for people in rural or undeveloped places where there's ready harvest of agricultural waste or downed trees, but I can't imagine that transporting these fuels any distance is efficient or carbon-reducing.
The link goes to their solar powered website. If that's down right now, try here. One important thing to note is that they propose thermoelectric generator equipped stoves primarily for people in...
The link goes to their solar powered website. If that's down right now, try here.
One important thing to note is that they propose thermoelectric generator equipped stoves primarily for people in developing nations who don't have grid electricity. Getting the surface area of TEGs needed to power a home in a developed nation would be a bit much, and those homes don't already have a biomass related heat source.
This could be a very useful piece of emergency technology as well. A lot of remote places have an abundance of burning material. This power source isn't dependent on wind or solar energy, both of...
the power output per module varies between 3 and 19 watts
This could be a very useful piece of emergency technology as well. A lot of remote places have an abundance of burning material. This power source isn't dependent on wind or solar energy, both of which can lack to the point of failure.
Man, I love low tech magazine, but they really do have a thing for unscalable, impractical ideas with worse environmental impact than the things they would replace. For the amount of power generation you can get off a thermocouple, you'd be much better off with a hand crank generator, let alone a bicycle generator. And the amount of batteries you'd need to store enough solar energy to have a competitive amount of on demand power isn't that significant either. You could beat thermocouples with maybe 2-4 18650s, and that's without having to search for firewood and deal with its particulate pollution.
Am I misunderstanding something here? Isn't the obvious answer, "No, because of greenhouse gas emissions"?
If it's wood and the forest regrows then it's technically zero-carbon. But it's a very dirty fuel. I grew up in a house where we had a wood-burning stove (due to the house originally being all-electric, the energy crisis, and being in a semi-rural area) and I wouldn't do that, too much work and I don't like the smoke outside.
This article was discussed on Hacker News.
The biomass cycle depends on there being room for plants to take up the carbon, and untouched trees are one of the best recapture systems (carbon capture in undisturbed agricultural soils, or carbon enrichment, are among the others). Unfortunately, land clearing, lumbering, conventional agriculture, and rampant exogenous pest spread are preventing that.
This depends where you look. in the northeastern US, forest land is growing as former fields revert to forest.
Since I've now got years of firewood stocked up from 30+ dead ash trees, I think it's more complicated than that. Much of that agricultural land is populated with tree species (ash, oak, hemlock, pine, etc.) vulnerable to multiple concurrent disasters - novel imported pests, diseases, and changes in climate. Dead trees don't take up carbon. This is a global problem affecting forests everywhere.
Also, whatever net tree cover gain there might be in the northeastern US, it's offset by huge forest losses elsewhere.
Yeah, a lot depends on how you count. If you're just cutting trees on your own land and it's growing back (and then some) then you could argue that it's carbon-neutral. But once you look beyond that, a lot more needs to happen.
A lot of people in poor regions use wood burning (or, worse, dung burning) stoves.
It's important to get them using better stoves because the stoves they're using at the moment release a lot of smoke and inefficiently burn the wood. This pollution causes huge amounts of harm in the developing world. If these new stoves can provide trickle charging for mobile phones that's an added advantage.
But this doesn't mean they should stop using solar panels. Stove-electricity isn't going to replace anything.
I think the key is that the target households will need to be burning biomass whether they electrify their homes with solar or TEG. In that case, the biomass emissions are a sunk cost, and the life cycle cost of the power system becomes the most important factor. LowTechMagazine also puts a lot of emphasis on disposal (something we need a bit more of), so having easily recyclable TEGs vs difficult or impossible to recycle solar panels/batteries is big from their perspective. Plus, the TEG setup won't have to be oversized and may not have storage since it matches usage patterns closely, especially if a blower is used for more efficient combustion, which I think could be argued to lead to a net reduction in emissions compared to either the no electricity or solar electricity cases.
Well, if you're looking for a really expensive way to power your electronics with all the downsides of solar then it's a great idea. You just steal 5% of your heat and turn it into electricity. Unless Google lied to me, efficient TE systems are in the $10/watt range in large quantity, not including fuel or battery storage. Solar is $5/W not including battery storage.
Both require special conditions for power generation (stove/heater running or sun shining). Both require batteries because you can't/don't run those items 24/7. So you're paying twice as much for the system and you get an extra 5% particulate pollution to boot.
I love Peltier coolers/TE generators - I've played with them on and off since the 90s. They're very cool tech, and maybe useful as a supplemental source in some locations - or possibly in conjunction with solar - but this application just seems like an expensive way to avoid solar and sell more batteries (since the only time you would have power outside of the heating season is during cooking).
Thermoelectric system efficiency is going to be really dependent on locally available biomass. It's probably fine for people in rural or undeveloped places where there's ready harvest of agricultural waste or downed trees, but I can't imagine that transporting these fuels any distance is efficient or carbon-reducing.
The link goes to their solar powered website. If that's down right now, try here.
One important thing to note is that they propose thermoelectric generator equipped stoves primarily for people in developing nations who don't have grid electricity. Getting the surface area of TEGs needed to power a home in a developed nation would be a bit much, and those homes don't already have a biomass related heat source.
This could be a very useful piece of emergency technology as well. A lot of remote places have an abundance of burning material. This power source isn't dependent on wind or solar energy, both of which can lack to the point of failure.
Interesting concept.