British Soldiers to Get Solar Powered Uniforms

Photovoltaic cells are combined with thermoelectric devices to create new uniforms for British armed personnel. The uniform will be able to power battery operated devices, cutting the weight of battery packs in half. It also absorbs light across the spectrum, reducing the ability for infrared detection.

The high tech gear could be ready within the next 2 years.

Nuclear Power or Solar Power? You decide.

Nuclear power is a hell of a way to boil water. -Einstein

The devastation of the Japanese earthquake and the massive loss of life is a tragedy of such epic proportions that it is hard to assimilate the true magnitude of human suffering. The nuclear threat posed by the damage to Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant promises to escalate the already desperate situation. Gaping holes in statements released by the government do little to quell the fears of the Japanese people. With traces of radiation discovered as far afield as California, British Columbia and Iceland, the fear has spread and the very future of nuclear power plants is being called into question.

At this precarious time in the evolution of nuclear energy, it seems incongruous, insensitive even for hearings by the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) on the future of the Darlington nuclear plant to proceed. The hearings were orchestrated to entertain concerns about the two new nuclear reactors planned for the Darlington nuclear facility and the refurbishment of ten reactors at the Darlington and Bruce Power stations. The project will cement the province’s reliance on nuclear power for the next 20 years. The proposed refurbishments were originally estimated to cost $6 billion, but have since ballooned to a mind-blowing $33 billion dollars; a sum that will double hydro bills by the time the project is complete. A number of NGOs and citizens have voiced their opposition to the project. Green Peace protestors chained themselves to tables in an attempt to delay proceedings until a full investigation into the disaster at Fukushima in Japan could be conducted. A Greenpeace spokesman, Shawn-Patrick Stencil said that the protestors wished to prevent the hearings as they were only being held to legitimate the process.

Their argument that opposition to nuclear power is not heard by local government holds weight. When the Canadian Safety Commission gave permission for 64 decommissioned steam generators to be transported through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence waterway to Sweden, massive protests ensued. Mayors from cities en-route and tribal chiefs opposed the initial shipment of 16 generators. The commission heard protests, but gave the green light despite the fact that no environmental assessment had been carried out.

Do the NGOs have a point? Are incidents like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima unlikely or is nuclear power unsafe? Wade Allison, a nuclear and medical physicist from the University of Oxford, joins the ever-growing horde of proponents of nuclear power whose litany of assurances sounds remarkably like those issued by the Japanese government. The consensus is that the radiation, as a result of the Fukushima disaster, is not in levels that pose a danger to the public. This contradicts actions by the Japanese and American governments, who recently banned foodstuffs from the affected area and advised parents that the Tokyo water supply was not safe for consumption by minors. Allison argues that the fallout from Fukushima is only 1% that of Chernobyl. He says the acceptable rates of exposure are set too low at 1 mSv per year when a British person is already exposed to 2.7 mSv per year and that a cancer patient is exposed to 20 000 mSv to combat tumours. He suggests that the cells of cancer patients are able to regenerate and that this proves the body’s resistance to radiation. He also stated that no one died at Three Mile Island and that only 28 people succumbed at Chernobyl with a further 15 cases of childhood thyroid cancer which could have been prevented had the children been given iodine tablets.

Helen Caldicott, an outspoken opponent of nuclear energy, cites a New York Academy of Science study which places the death toll of Chernobyl at over a million. Radiation is insidious and may take years or decades to appear as cancer, birth defects and diseases that are difficult to tie to the original exposure. She agrees with experts that claim that surface radiation is low and is akin to radiation experienced during an X-ray. However, this radiation is absorbed into plant and water ecosystems and, consequently, by the animals that live in these systems. These are ingested by humans with disastrous consequences; “A very very tiny amount can mutate a single regulatory gene in a single cell to give you Leukemia in five years, or cancer 15 years later.” said Caldicott. Mutations in ovaries and testes result in birth defects and genetic diseases, thereby passing the legacy of exposure to future generations.

Caldicott appeared at the Darlington hearings with stern warnings about the safety of nuclear power. She claimed that small amounts of radiation leech from nuclear plants increasing background radiation in the air and water around them. She also pointed out that nuclear power is touted as ‘clean’, but the mining and enrichment of uranium is a wasteful process that produces a plethora of greenhouse gases.

Safety is not the only argument against nuclear power in Ontario. A recent study by NC WARN showed that the cost of solar energy has dropped to less than 15₵/ kWh while nuclear power costs 20₵/kWh. This does not take into account the cost of refurbishment and construction of nuclear facilities in the province. This makes the actions of the McGuinty government and its stalwart support of the nuclear programme even more baffling. Solar has proven to be reliable and clean and no one has ever died of solar fallout.

Voice your support for solar energy by joining the Stand Up for Solar initiative.

You can also protest the Darling nuclear initiative by signing the Greenpeace petition.

New York Academy Study of Chernobyl

NC WARN study which shows solar as being cheaper than nuclear

Greenpeace petition to stop Darlington

Stand up for Solar

Solar Powered Hats

Currentwear manufactures and markets a line of solar caps that provide light when the sun goes down. The 2C Solar Light Cap is a perfect example of new Photovoltaic technology matched with durable construction and ultra-bright LEDs for self-powered light when you need it – using clean renewable energy as the power source!

Retractable Solar Panels

Japan recently released these slick solar mobile units. The handheld units feature a retractable solar panel and a battery. They produce a total of 40 Watts; 16 from the solar panel and 24 from the battery. These nifty panels weigh only 3kg and can be connected together to produce more electricity when necessary.

Solar or Biodiesel?

Making a case for renewable energy

The human race consumes 400 quadrillion Btu’s of energy a year. The need to produce this energy by means other than fossil fuel is patently obvious. The question is; which renewable resource will give us the most bang for our buck?

Biofuel has long been touted as a possible alternative to fossil fuels. The idea of growing energy appeals to the struggling agricultural sector. All manner of crops have shown themselves viable; chief among these are corn and soya. An added benefit of biofuel production is that plants absorb CO₂, thereby reducing greenhouse gases by absorbing carbon into the soil. Biofuel also produces animal feed as a by-product which in turn saves fuel.

There are several draw-backs to biofuels. It takes energy to make energy as tractors, transportation, processing and agricultural equipment require fuel and produce greenhouse gases. Rapidly increasing world populations mean that agricultural land is spoken for. New land will have to be cleared in forests and wilderness areas. Let’s look at two of the most prolific biodiesel crops; jaropha and sugar cane. They produce 6 000 barrels of fuel per square mile annually which amounts to 55 million Btu’s of energy per square mile annually. This would mean that we have to use 10.8 million square miles of arable land to grow enough biofuel to meet the world’s energy needs. Our current 5.5 million square miles of arable land falls woefully short.

The alternate is to create new farmlands to grow biofuel; a process that, according to a recent study by The Nature Conservancy, causes the production of more CO₂ than it saves. The energy expended in clearing forests or grasslands is great. Plants store carbon in soil and roots and the destruction of forests and grasslands leads organic soils to decompose and release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: “Our study found that the carbon lost by converting forests, grasslands and peatlands outweighs the carbons saved by using the resulting biofuels….” said Joe Fargione, a scientist for The Nature Conservancy.

A solar array of 143, 872 square miles in size would be sufficient to provide all the energy for human consumption. This is only a quarter of one percent of the surface of the earth. Solar power systems do not have adverse effects on the land or soil. New technologies see the price of PV cells decrease every year to the point where solar energy recently became cheaper than nuclear energy in some US states. Floating solar panels, solar paint and organic solar materials all offer increasingly attractive options. Companies in Europe have begun to act on the idea of a solar powered future with a 400 billion Euro proposal to build solar arrays in North Africa and the Middle East. These arrays would provide 15% of Europe’s energy by 2050. The UAE has drafted plans for massive floating solar arrays off the coast to take care of its growing need for energy; prototypes are already in testing phases. Solar energy is the clear winner in the race for renewable energy.