Connect with us

Published

on

For Greg Glatzmaier, the road between innovation and implementation runs along a dusty stretch of highway about a dozen miles south of Boulder City, Nevada, where his patented idea could solve an industry problem. The destination for his idea is Nevada Solar One, an outpost in the desert where 186,000 parabolic shaped mirrors tilt to capture the sun’s rays.

Greg Glatzmaier tests the high-temperature thermal/mechanical stability of sealants that are being used in equipment installed at the Nevada Solar One power plant. The process reduces trace levels of hydrogen in the power plant and maintains its original design efficiency and power production. Photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL

“When the plant first opened, there was nothing around it but open desert with mountains to the west and east,” said Glatzmaier, a senior engineer in the Thermal Energy Science and Technologies group at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). “The only other landscape feature is a dry lakebed north of the plant.”

Since Nevada Solar One began operations in the summer of 2007, other utility-scale solar power plants have opened in that lakebed. Nevada Solar One is the only concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in the region, however, and the technology faces a unique set of challenges.

The CSP facility uses concentrated beams of sunlight to heat a fluid flowing through 20,000 tubes to as high as 752 degrees Fahrenheit. The process creates steam to spin a turbine that powers a generator and produces electricity. Over time, however, the heat transfer fluid begins to break down and form hydrogen, which reduces the effectiveness of the process. Tiny metal pellets in the tubes absorb the hydrogen, but after about seven years they become saturated and cannot be removed and replaced. Glatzmaier developed a method to address the hydrogen problem.

“To try to go in individually and address the situation for each tube is not really practical,” Glatzmaier said. “So, the method that I’ve developed, and what’s in that patent, and what this project has been all about, is to reduce and control the level of hydrogen that’s in the heat transfer fluid.”

NREL applied for a patent on Glatzmaier’s invention in the fall of 2017. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last May granted patent protection to what is simply called “Hydrogen sensing and separation.”

Laboratory Filed 188 Patent Applications

Glatzmaier’s patent was merely one of the 40 U.S. patents issued to NREL during fiscal 2020, a bump from the 32 issued during the prior fiscal year. Of the 269 disclosures filed with the laboratory’s Technology Transfer Office as the first step toward either patent or copyright protection, 153 fell in the category of a record of invention and 116 in the area of software.

“We continue to see strong engagement from researchers who submit their ideas for evaluation, with especially strong growth in software,” said Anne Miller, director of NREL’s Technology Transfer Office. “It’s great to see such growth because it tells us that the outreach to the lab to get people to report their innovations and work with us in getting them protected and deployed means that it’s working, that people know who to contact. Hopefully, it means that they have some confidence in our ability to be helpful and steer them in the right direction.”

Anne Miller, director of NREL’s Technology Transfer Office, speaks to laboratory employees at a 2019 event. Photo by Werner Slocum, NREL.

NREL filed 188 patent applications in FY20, up from 124 the year before.

Lance Wheeler, a research scientist at NREL, has about a dozen patent applications in the pipeline tied to the discovery several years ago of a way to turn windows into solar cells. The technology relies on perovskite solar cells that enable the glass to darken and generate electricity, and also switch back to a clear pane. The most recent patent approved, for “Energy-harvesting chromogenic devices,” was granted in November, or almost four years after the provisional application was filed.

“It’s much different than writing a paper because you can write a paper and get it published within months,” said Wheeler, who shares credit on the patent with colleagues Joey Luther, Jeffrey Christians, and Joe Berry. “You’ll never get a patent awarded in months. It’s usually at least a year, and three is not crazy.”

Buildings across the United States account for nearly two-thirds of energy used, so the notion of using these “smart windows” to take advantage of sunlight could bring that energy consumption down.

The patents issued so far for Wheeler’s dynamic photovoltaic windows cover foundational aspects of the technology and sprang from the initial research. A series of patent applications followed.

“When you write the first patent application, you don’t know everything,” Wheeler said. “As you learn more and especially for very particular market needs, or what a product might look like, you learn what’s important and you continue to protect the things that are working. Then you make more discoveries, and you patent more things, but they’re all aligned in the same area.”

Perovskite Composition Earns Patent Protection

Alignment, as it turns out, is a key part of making perovskites most effective in capturing the sun’s energy. Unlike widely used silicon, which is a naturally occurring mineral, perovskites used in solar cells are grown through chemistry. The crystalline structure of perovskites has proven exceptionally efficient at converting sunlight to electricity.

NREL researchers have explored possible combinations for perovskite formulas to find the best. That work resulted in a patent issued in April 2020 for “Oriented perovskite crystals and methods for making the same.” The process begins with a small crystal that’s attached to another crystal and then another and on and on. The crystals are also oriented in the same direction. Kai Zhu, a senior scientist and one of the inventors, uses bricklaying as an analogy.

“You lay one layer down, you put one next to another, you align them perfectly,” he said. “You have to do this in order to build a very large wall. But if you have some randomness in it, your wall will collapse.”

The patent, which covers the composition of the perovskite, was issued to Zhu, Berry, and Donghoe Kim of NREL and to a scientist in Japan. NREL filed the patent application in 2017. Compared to a perovskite solar cell made of crystals allowed to grow randomly instead of in a specific orientation, the NREL-developed composition has been proven to have fewer defects and able to move charge carriers quickly. The result is a perovskite solar cell capable of reaching the highest efficiency.

“This represents the current best performing perovskite composition for the single-junction solar cell,” Zhu said.

Software Filings Reach New Record

NREL’s Technology Transfer Office received 116 software record (SWR) disclosures in fiscal 2020, establishing a new record and marking a big increase from 72 the prior year. The growth in submittals is partly due to more software being developed and authorized for free open-source release. One software record approved for closed-source licensing last year and now available for commercial users is the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Projection tool, or EVI-Pro. A simplified, open-source version, known as EVI-Pro Lite, also has been released.

The core of EVI-Pro allows users to forecast the demand for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in a particular area. The predictive nature of the software also enables users to determine in advance how an influx of electric vehicles might affect the grid and energy demand. EVI-Pro relies on real-world information.

Eric Wood, the NREL researcher who oversaw the development of EVI-Pro, said it is not enough to simply consider how many charging stations were installed in an area previously and make an educated guess based on that information.

“That misses some key points,” he said. “The vehicle technology is evolving. The charging technology is evolving. And the behavior of individuals that own these vehicles is evolving.”

Early adopters of electric vehicles could charge them at home, in their garage. As the market expands, Wood said, people living in apartments or who have to park on the street need to have a place to plug in.

“The role of public charging infrastructure is going to continue to elevate as the market grows,” he said. “Continuing to develop the software with an eye on reflecting the latest situation in the market is one of the challenges that we face, so keeping EVI-Pro relevant and current is important.”

From the Laboratory to the Outside World

For Glatzmaier, the journey to see how well his invention could perform at isolating and removing hydrogen from the concentrating solar power plant was not a quick one. Grounded from flying because of the pandemic, last year he made four trips to the Nevada site by car. Each trip took about 13 hours one way.

Scientists typically keep close to their laboratory space, with companies able to license ideas that sprang from the inventive minds at NREL. Often, with license in hand, a company will conduct research using its own people. In Glatzmaier’s case, Nevada Solar One signed cooperative research and development agreements that have kept the scientist and company working closely together since 2015.

Glatzmaier initially planned to address the hydrogen buildup using two processes: one to measure the amount of the gas, and a second to extract it. Laboratory-scale tests showed his ideas would work, but he still expected some hesitation from company executives when it came time to trying out the devices on a much larger scale.

“I was thinking, they’re going to be very reluctant because companies tend to not want to make changes to their power plants once they are up and running,” he said. So he proposed installing the mechanism to only measure hydrogen buildup. Instead, the company wanted him to move ahead and tackle both problems at once. From the initial idea to installation has been a long road, but it does not end in Nevada.

Glatzmaier said 80 concentrating solar power plants exist around the world, and talks are in their final stages to license the technology for its use in these plants.

Learn more about licensing NREL-developed technologies.

—Wayne Hicks

Article courtesy of the NREL, The U.S. Department of Energy.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

If you think electric bikes are bad, there’s a much bigger menace hitting our roads

Published

on

By

If you think electric bikes are bad, there’s a much bigger menace hitting our roads

Electric bikes are a menace. They go almost as fast as a car (if the car is parking), they’re whisper quiet (which makes them impossible to hear over the podcast playing in your headphones), and worst of all, they’re increasingly ridden by teenagers.

By now, we’ve all seen the headlines. Cities are cracking down. Lawmakers are holding emergency hearings. Parents are demanding bans. “Something must be done,” they cry at local city council meetings before driving back home in 5,000 lb SUVs.

And it’s true – some e-bike riders don’t follow the rules. Some ride too fast. Some are inexperienced. These are real problems that deserve real solutions. But if you think electric bikes are the biggest threat on our roads, just wait until you hear about the slightly more common, slightly more deadly vehicle we’ve been quietly tolerating for the last hundred years.

They’re called cars. And unlike e-bikes, they actually kill people. A lot of people. Over 40,000 people die in car crashes in the US every year. Thousands more are permanently injured. Entire neighborhoods are carved up by high-speed traffic. Kids can’t walk to school safely. But don’t worry – someone saw a teenager run a stop sign on an e-bike, so the real crisis must be those darn batteries on two wheels.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

It’s amazing how worked up people get over a few dozen e-bike crashes when many of us step over a sidewalk memorial for a car crash victim on the way to the grocery store. We’ve been so thoroughly conditioned to accept car violence as part of modern life that the idea of regulating them sounds unthinkable. But regulating e-bikes? Now that’s urgent.

To be clear, this isn’t about ignoring the risks that come with new technology. E-bikes are faster than regular bikes. They’re heavier, too. And they require education and enforcement like any other mode of transport capable of injuring someone, be it the rider or a pedestrian bystander. But the scale of the problem is what matters – and the scale here is completely lopsided. Let’s take New York City, for example. It’s got more e-bike usage than anywhere else in the US, and there are still only an average of two pedestrians per year killed by an e-bike accident. That number for cars? Around 100 per year in NYC. It’s not complicated math – cars are 50x more lethal in the city.

And yet, the person on the e-bike is the one getting the stink eye.

We’ve become so numb to the everyday destruction caused by automobiles that it barely registers anymore. Drunk driving? Distracted driving? Speeding through neighborhoods? It’s just background noise. But the moment someone on an e-bike blows through a stop sign at 16 mph, it’s front-page news and a city council emergency.

Here’s an idea: If we want safer streets, how about we start by addressing the machines that weigh two and a half tons and can hit 100 mph, not the ones that top out at 20 or 28 and are powered by a one-horsepower motor the size of an orange.

But we don’t. Because cars are familiar. Cars are “normal.” Cars are how we built our entire country. And so we turn our attention to the easy target – the new kid on the block. The same old playbook: panic, overreact, and legislate the hell out of it.

Sure, an e-bike might startle you on a sidewalk. But a car can climb that sidewalk and end your life. Which one do we really need to be afraid of?

This isn’t a strawman argument, either. Cars are literally used as mass casualty weapons. It happens all the time. It happened last night in Los Angeles when a disgruntled car driver deliberately plowed into a crowd outside a nightclub, injuring over 30 people. And that wasn’t the only car attack yesterday. Another car rammed into pedestrians on a sidewalk in NYC yesterday morning, leaving multiple pedestrians dead. These aren’t exceptions. This is the normal daily news in the US. It’s depressing, but it bears repeating. This is normal. These are everyday occurrences. Twice a day, yesterday.

While we’re busy debating throttle limits and helmet rules for e-bikes, maybe we should also talk about how tens of millions of drivers still routinely speed, blow stop signs, or scroll Instagram at 45 mph in a school zone. Or how car crashes are the number one killer of teenagers in America. Or we can continue to focus on the kid who forgot to put his foot down at a red light while riding an e-bike to school.

This isn’t satire anymore – it’s just sad. It’s a collective willingness to avoid a real, genuine threat to Americans while simultaneously scapegoating what is, by comparison, a non-threat.

The truth is, electric bikes aren’t the menace. They’re a solution. They’re one of the few glimmers of hope in a transportation system drowning in pollution, congestion, and daily tragedy. They make mobility cheaper, cleaner, and more accessible. And yet we treat them like an invasive species because they disrupt the dominance of the automobile.

It’s time to stop pretending we’re protecting the public from some great e-bike emergency. The real emergency is that we’ve accepted cars killing people as a fair trade for getting to Target five minutes faster.

So yes, let’s make e-biking safer. Let’s educate riders, build better bike infrastructure, and enforce traffic rules fairly. Those are all important things. We absolutely SHOULD invest in training programs to educate teens on safe riding. We absolutely SHOULD cite and fine dangerous riders who could threaten the lives of pedestrians. But let’s stop pretending that e-bikes are the problem when they’re clearly a symptom of a much bigger one.

If you’re really worried about the dangers on our streets, don’t look for the kid on the e-bike. Look for the driver behind them, sipping a latte and going 20 over the speed limit.

Now that’s the menace.

Image note: The first and last images in this article were both AI-generated, and represent everyday car/bike interactions

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

The Dodge Neon deserves a comeback – and Stellantis could do it tomorrow

Published

on

By

The Dodge Neon deserves a comeback – and Stellantis could do it tomorrow

The first all-new compact Mopar since the malaise-era K-Car, the Dodge Neon was a revelation. Its fun, approachable face, its “Hi.” marketing campaign, all of it was pitch-perfect for the uncertain times it was launched into. Now, a generation later, Stellantis faces similarly uncertain times – and a new Neon could go a long way towards helping the old Chrysler Co. do what it does best: come back from the brink.

If they wanted to, Stellantis could make it happen tomorrow.

Today, Stellantis is in trouble. Much like it was in the early 90s, the company is hemorrhaging cash, fighting with the unions, and struggling to sell higher-end cars. Today as then, what the company needs is an affordable, simple new car to get people in the showrooms – and in 1994, that new car was the Neon.

In the mid-late 1990s, the Dodge Neon was everywhere. It was affordable, fun to drive, and more or less reliable. It was also economical and fuel-efficient, but it wasn’t that way. It was sold as a fun, smiling face with funky round lights. In R/T and ACR spec, it was sold as an even more fun, smiling face, and offered serious performance chops that still get the grizzled Gen X guys at the SCCA/NASA track days excited.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Stellantis is selling a car right now, today, that meets all that criteria. It’s the right size, it’s reasonably affordable, and it’s got the right tech – available as both a PHEV and a pure EV – for its time.

It’s even got some funky round lights!

Lancia Ypsilon HF


Spec SOHC Neon DOHC Neon Hybrid Y EV Y HF Y
Wheelbase (mm) 2642 2642 2675 2675 2675
Overall Length (mm) 4366 4366 4080 4080 4080
Engine Size (L) 2.0 2.0 1.2 NA NA
HP 132–136 150 100 156 280
TQ (lb-ft) 129–133 133 129 192 255
0–60 mph (s) 7.6–8.5 7.6 9.3 8.2 5.6
MPG (comb.)/EV range 28 28 ~50 425 km 370 km

As you can see from the specs, above, the first-gen Neon is pretty close in terms of size and performance, with the modern Ypsilon offering significantly improved emissions, technology, and safety upgrades compared to the OG Neon, which didn’t even offer anti-lock brakes (ABS) as standard on its base or Highline models (it was standard on the Sport and, later, R/T trims).

There’s even a modern allegory for the ultra track-focused ACR version of the Neon, which shipped with its adjustable suspension, anti-sway bars, disc brakes, and close-ratio transmission. That’s the Lancia Ypsilon HF, a 280 HP sporty compact EV that made its debut last week and originally inspired this article.

Check out the original launch ad for the 1995 Plymouth Neon, below, and tell me they couldn’t do a shot-for-shot remake with a rebadged Ypsilon and make it immediately relevant to car buyers in 1995 in the comments.

Plymouth Neon launch commercial from 1994


Original content from Electrek.


If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Does Faraday’s FX Super One show us how Chinese EVs will get into the US?

Published

on

By

Does Faraday's FX Super One show us how Chinese EVs will get into the US?

Faraday Future unveiled its upcoming FX Super One MPV on Thursday, which appears to be a rebadged Great Wall Motors Way Gaoshan.

Which brings us to the question: is this how we might see more Chinese EVs make their way to the US?

The EV market in China has grown rapidly in recent years, not just in terms of total sales and revenues for its largest companies, but also in terms of the hundreds of EV companies vying to survive the current highly competitive market there.

But despite massively rising EV sales in the country, EV production is still scaling even faster. This has led to a price war within China due to this glut of cars, and also to Chinese companies seeking more buyers overseas.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

These affordable EVs have been shipped around the globe, leading to rapidly rising EV sales in Europe and in the “rest of the world” – though, as of yet, not really in the US. Due to excessive tariffs, the US has made itself into an island where few Chinese EVs are allowed.

The ones that have made their way into the US are those built by Western brands that were bought up by a Chinese conglomerate, like Volvo and Polestar under parent company Geely. Some of their models are assembled in Chinese factories, but most of the ones making their way to the US are built in European or US factories (largely due to the domestic sourcing efforts in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, creating millions of US jobs which republicans are currently doing their best to send back to China).

BYD has also put out feelers about building a factory in Mexico, but those plans are on pause, ironically because BYD doesn’t want its technology to be stolen by the US (put that one on for some perspective about how far we have fallen behind on EVs, fellow Americans).

But we haven’t yet seen the kind of Chinese EV that the rest of the world is getting – one of those many eye-openingly cheap numbers that could finally bring true affordability to the US market (or bring it back, that is).

That’s due to tariffs, and it’s intentional. There are various arguments given for tariffs’ existence, but they boil down to: the US can’t make cars as cheap as China, and wants to protect its auto industry, and therefore making Chinese EVs more expensive will forestall their entry into the US while we try to get better at making them. I personally find these explanations wanting and consider these tariffs unwise (and they have only gotten more unwise).

But in a world where these tariffs exist, and depending highly on what final form they take, companies will look for ways to minimize their exposure to them and to still bring cars into the US. Much of the EV industry is sourced through China (again, one of the issues the Inflation Reduction Act tried to remedy), so parts will have tariffs on them, in various amounts.

This is where I speculate that the Faraday Future FX Super One could come in. At last night’s unveiling event, it became quite clear that the car is strikingly similar to the Great Wall Motors Wey Gaoshan.

This similarity is not coincidental – Faraday told us that it is working with “a Tier 1 Chinese automotive supplier,” one that we have heard of, to build the FX Super One. That supplier will send stamped bodies to Faraday’s US factory in Hanford, CA, where Faraday will take care of the final assembly.

Faraday didn’t let us take pictures of the interior, even from the outside, but what we saw of the interior on a short ride around the parking lot looked quite similar to the interior of a Wey Gaoshan, just with different controls (for example, the the pull-out fridge in the bottom of this photo is identical to the one I saw in the FX Super One).

Faraday said the interior hasn’t been finalized yet, but also said that it thinks it can have 100-150 cars built by the end of the year. Which is less than half a year away, for a company that has to date built 16 cars (though those it built on its own). So there’s not a lot of time for further changes at this rate.

So, here we have a company that intends to sell a car in the US, much of which originated in China. This seems like it would run afoul of tariffs.

But, depending on how (or if…) these tariffs get edited or finalized, they might be much lower for parts and/or for vehicles that undergo final assembly in the US. So Faraday might be able to get away with importing something very similar to a GWM, doing enough to it here to qualify its way past tariffs, and getting it on the market at a price that doesn’t incorporate the however-many-hundred-percent the US has ridiculously decided to tack on this week.

Faraday also mentioned during its presentations about the FX Super One that it has a US-based software team, which has been at work for some time.

The software in Faraday’s previous vehicle, the FF91, is pretty good, despite being such a low volume vehicle. And it’s gotten much better between the first time I sat in it and when I had a short demo this month of Faraday’s newly-upgraded voice recognition system (now supporting 50+ languages) and swipe gestures for setting volume and HVAC.

We didn’t get to interact with the software on the FX Super One at all, but we would be cautiously optimistic about it based on prior showings.

But more importantly for the purposes of this article, Faraday’s software team is based in the US. And given current US threats to ban any and all Chinese software from vehicles, this too would allow Faraday to swap out some chips and memory cards and make a car perfectly legal from a US perspective.

So it’s possible that Faraday is on to something here, and has found a reasonable way to get Chinese EVs into America, while complying with US law, and while giving the company a much easier way to increase its scale than trying to get numbers up for the slow-growing FF91 project. Faraday does not have the resources to build out mass market manufacturing currently, so this is another option.

Now… this is no $11k Dolphin Seagull, the Wey Gaoshan starts in the mid-$40k range in China, and is considered a luxury model. And here in the US, Faraday is positioning the car as a premium model as well, though hasn’t yet announced pricing or really gotten its messaging straight on whether it’s a mass market vehicle or a VIP/Cadillac Escalade competitor.

But if this is Faraday’s plan, and if the plan works, it could give the US a taste of the EVs that the rest of the world is getting access to, and could show a potential way of getting those cars across the border. There are both pros (competition good, cheaper prices good) and cons (race to the bottom for manufacturing, loss of important American industry) for the US auto market here, so you’ll have to decide which side of that equation you land on, but this could be a harbinger of one way cars from the now-biggest auto exporting country in the world could make their way out into markets that have exhibited hostility to that idea.


The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending