These technologies have many advantages over conventional thermal power plants that convert ‘stored sunlight’ kept in fossil fuels into electricity and heat via combustion. They:

• Are zero emission during the usage phase of their life-cycle.
• Do not deplete finite fossil fuel reserves during the usage phase of their life-cycle.
• May encourage lifestyles more in harmony with the biosphere as they must be integrated over wide areas of countryside.

Renewables (diffuse environmental energy converters is a bit of a mouthful) also have some disadvantages:

• Low power densities below those of modern living spaces (cities) (i.e. we’ll have to cover a lot of countryside in them to power current cities).
• Non-dispatchable – they cannot be switched on and off (except hydro and some clever solar thermal systems with heat storage). I’d argue that this is more a problem with modern society’s demands, but it’s still a disadvantage for most people.
• Currently require large inputs of finite resources (including the fossil fuels they’re trying to replace!) to design, test, manufacture, transport, install, and decommission. An energy transition will have to make each of these phases powered by renewable energy, a major (but potentially liberating) engineering challenge.

Amongst these conflicting pros and cons, one thing is clear: we will not be able to run industrial civilization, in its current form, on renewables alone. Currently the economy wastes vast amounts of energy everyday because the true costs of energy resources are not reflected in their price. People complain about high energy prices, but energy services today cost a fraction of their average price during the 20th century. Just consider how long it would take to generate 17 penny’s worth of electricity (1 kWh): 10 hours on a pedal generator! Now compare that (1 kWh is like leaving a small light all day – an event that happens all the time) with the true worth of fossil fuels: our precious fossil endowments took more than 100 million years to make.

The central message that emerges from all this: If you aim for a 100% renewable energy sector, you are better off reducing energy wastage than just building more energy harvesters.  This is well illustrated by they Germans: they have some of most advanced research centers, technologies, and policies in the world. They have pushed hard for 2 decades for renewables, yet still only a fraction of their total energy consumption comes from environmental energy fluxes. And of course, the current batch of ‘renewables’ are still based on unsustainable industrial processes: they are energy intensive and deplete non-renewable resources in their manufacture. It is not my intention to say that investment in these technologies is bad – its a crucial step towards living more in harmony with the biosphere – just that by building them we do not magically shift into harmony with the biosphere.

Here’s a graph of the growth of electricity production in Germany:

They’ve reached 17% of all electricity produced, just from the wind, sun, water and plants around them (some biomass may be imported however, a bad idea). This is impressive indeed compared with other countries. It is important to remember, however, that we’re only looking at electricity: if we assume that electricity accounts for 1/3rd of energy use in Germany, the proportion becomes onlyl 6%. And remember we’re talking about one of the most technologically advanced nations on Earth.

If the Germans had also invested heavily in energy conservation and reduced its energy demand, its share of renewable energy would be far higher. Again, the best way for organizations to support renewable energy is to first reduce their energy demand.

This post shows that in terms of moving away from fossil fuels, Germany has come a long way but have much further to go. The rest of the world is lagging considerably in terms of per capita renewable energy production, but many have the advantage of lower per capita energy consumption, which will make the shift away from fossil fuels easier. In conclusion, that the best way to reduce your dependence on fossil fuels is not to put solar panels on your roof, but to improve the efficiency of your energy uses.

Data is from here: http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/ren-Strom-D/index_e.php

The spreadsheet I used to make the graph is available here:  http://ubuntuone.com/1lR0G8sM2x6uarXygfhix3

PPMposter3

First-flying. I’ve tried to keep a no-fly policy since I became aware of the scientific consensus on climate change and oil depletion – burning our amazing fossil resources to send an ephemeral metal tube through the sky seems morally unjustifiable. I hate the feeling of flagrantly burning a resource that could be useful to future generations of unborn children. And I hated the experience. Cooped up in a horrible Sleazy Jet bombing precariously in the sky and being force-fed Sleazy snacks the whole time is not nice. Hypocritical I know, but I’m even more convinced now than before that flying is no longer an appropriate behaviour for responsible citizens.

Impressions of Turkey

Arriving in Istanbul, the traffic was hectic. We ground to a halt every so often and spent a good deal of time drifting between lanes with undertaking, beeping, and flouting of traffic signals common practice. The sheer size of the place took my breath, and with a population of 13 million (the 5th biggest city in the world), it is little surprise that it seemed crowded.

A couple of nights in Istanbul was enough for me, as we hit-up the usual tourist locations such as the Basilica Cistern, the Blue Mosque, and the Grand Bazaar. Although official figures say over 99% of Turkish citizens are Muslim, independent research referenced in wikipedia suggests that the true figure is 97-98%. My own observations concur with this lower rate (it was stated hat people were less religious in the West of Turkey), and I suspect that, like Christianity in much of Europe, the influence of Islam over Istanbul and Yalova is becoming more cultural than religious, especially for the young people we were with on a daily basis.

But, if I am right in saying this transition away from adherence to religious dogma is taking place, the shift is at an early stage and facing a potent backlash such as the repealing of the ban on religious headgear in Turkish Universities. I was astonished at how easily ubiquitous symbols of individualistic capitalism (e.g. Mercs, MacDonalds and night clubs) sat next to traditional symbols of Islamic power (Mosques, prayer mats, and veils). Such clashes are illustrated below.

Islamic Ablution in the Grand Bazaar, a large tourist attraction in European Istanbul.

The car park outside the prestigious Blue Mosque was packed by luxury cars. Presumably their owners simultaneously advocate the values of free market capitalism and Islam.

On the other side of the Marmara Sea lies Yalova, where we spent most of the trip. This place, with its spanking new University, beach-side bars and booming commercial streets seemed even more European to me. Especially talking to the young people we met, it seemed like a place in transition, with people questioning the extent of literal interpretations of the Qur’an such as creationism, abstinence, and taxing prayer duties. I’m not sure if this sense of cultural transition can be found in other parts of Turkey, although I was told that it is much different in the eastern states. In my more cynical moments I would say that capitalism is simply replacing Islam as the dominant ideology in parts of Turkey, with no objective way of telling which is more enslaving. However, the people I met illustrated that the situation is more complicated than this: Turkish society is under transition, and the effects of the swirling torrents of Islam, expanding markets, internet, and Western media (displayed on energy major street) are yet to be seen.

Energy transitions and energy policy

In Western European and American progressive media there seems to be  a pretty widespread understanding of an energy transition as a necessary step to take us away from an unsustainable energy system – one that will collapse – to a sustainable one – one that won’t. In Turkey, it was apparent that the priority was on getting more power first in order to drive economic development. The whole debate about growth – it’s negative social and environmental effects and alternatives – did not appear to be present and the overwhelming assumption seemed to be that growth is good.

This was clear from Turkey’s past energy policy, which favoured acquiring cheap energy over anything else. However, Taner Yıldız, Turkish energy minister, seems to have a pretty strong sense of transition and global cooperation, according to this article.

The most shocking part of the trip was visiting Aksa’s acrylic textile factory in Yalova. There the manager told us of the power stations they had installed there and it was scary. The place had 70 MW installed which was enough to power the whole city. Even worse, they planned to add 100 MW through a coal-fired power station which had received local opposition. When the director announced this we just sat there silently – if it was in the UK someone would have heckled but I felt strangely helpless – awed by the power structure set up by such a huge enterprise. Or perhaps I was thinking ‘well they need to develop too’, even though I knew very little benefit would go to Turkish people, except for already rich stock-holders.

That was a wake-up call, and made me think of the phrase ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” in relation to energy: it’s OK for ‘good men’ to sit around creating sustainable alternatives, but this will be for nothing if they stand by and allow the fossil fuel corporations to continue their great climate experiment even though signs say it may be headed for catastrophe.

Thessaloniki

The heaviness of that experience was overcome somewhat with the trip to Thessaloniki by bus. Unlike the horrible flight this was well-fun, with each seat having its own media pod, smooth riding and plenty of space. Is it really beyond our wit to create decent coach systems as a low-energy long distance alternative to cars and planes? I asked as we sped Northwest. Unfortunately Thessaloniki’s transport system was not so utopian, with cycle paths and cars invading pavements all over. It was great to be the guest of Orfeas and Sofia during this part of the trip and they showed me an amazing time with Rakomolo, Greek food, and dancing.

The whole trip opened my eyes to travelling again and made me realise that global problems need global solutions.

The starting point is that technology is a double-edged sword. It can be used to oppress, or used to liberate. The greatest problems facing people across the world, including poor health, environmental degradation, and poverty have been both tackled and aggravated by technological advances of the 20th century. Antibiotics contributing to superbugs and over-population, cars providing rapid transport to a few, but fumes, traffic jams and resource depletion to everyone, and computers allowing amazing data-handling capabilities while reducing our capacities for calm contemplation are a few pertinent examples. So the challenge is to produce technology that benefits people directly, without any of the downsides that tend to accompany technological advance.

A puny pedal machine may quiver at the size and weight of these problems and it would be pure arrogant if it suggested that it had the potential to tackle them alone. However, trying to tackle intractable problems head-on is not the aim of the game. The point is to provide a stepping stone, a test-bed, and food for thought. The need for better use of human muscle power is obvious in both rich and poor places, as the former is facing obesity, unemployment and anxiety, while the latter struggles under the physical toil of everyday life. Our premise is that pedal-powered machines could tackle both sets of problems. Tackle several birds with one stone. Provide meaningful exercise, employment and increased environmental awareness for the rich, and labour-saving, affordable kit which significantly reduces toil for the poor. Pedal-powered machines can be used by anyone. Perhaps they could also be harnessed to tackle growing inequality. At the risk of dwelling on such conjectures, let’s proceed with key stages in the design process.

1. Rear-mounted or front mounted. This is a key point in pedal-powered smoothie design. Rear mounts allow you to hook almost any bike to a blender, leading to simplicity of build, easy of transport, and low cost. On the other hand, they are often unstable, always awkward to use (you have to crane your neck to see the blender), and frequently flimsy. Having looked at both possibilities, we settled for front-mounted, following Maya Pedal, and Fender Blender designs.
2. Swapping the pedalling direction. Simply swapping the crank-arms on the bottom bracket allows a cyclist facing the old rear of the bike to pedal forward and power a rear wheel, provided the rear mech is flipped. This is approach used for the bici licuadora. In this design, we saved a bit of time but simply flipping the frame upside down. Originally the dropouts and rear-mech were left intact but eventually it was decided to re-weld the drop-outs to allow easy rear-wheel removal.
3. Folding or fixed frame. This was not so much a mulled design point as an inspiration: why not put swivel legs on the thing to provide stability in rough terrain (think festivals and undeveloped villages) and ease of storage and transportation.
4. How to transmit the power to the blender. Here (for once) we stuck to the well-beaten path of friction drives. These are simple, small, and already provide the large gear ratio needed to get the blender revving (well over 1000 rpm). Many devices are either on or off. However, James came up with a simple friction-pivot which pushes the friction drive onto the wheel. The advantage of this is that it is modular (anything could be pushed on) and the fiction/torque relationship at the interface between the tire and the friction drive can be optimised: drive slipping? Ease it on more. Too much friction? Ease it off a touch.
5. Simplicity and low cost. This went without saying but is worth mentioning. We wanted a design that could be copied around the world, so we tried to avoid expensive parts and anything more advanced than a welder.

So that’s the evolution of the idea, which continues to evolve. James has plans to fit a Magimix food processor on, and the basic concept – of a spinning wheel in front of the user – has many other potential applications. Hopefully the plans will inspire people to build more effective pedal-powered machines.

Renewable energy is by definition free and abundant. It is able to renew itself with each cloudless sunrise, gust of wind, or forest growth. Renewable energy may be able to renew itself over short time periods, but it cannot renew itself over long time periods. It is important to raise this issue early, many assume renewable means free energy forever.

Consider what happens when a wind-turbine breaks. Professionals drive to the site, climb the tower, identify the problem, purchase a replacement and install it. All of this takes energy, especially liquid fuel – a finite resource. When the fuel runs out, the wind-turbine repair man may no longer be able to get parts, let alone drive them to the site and install them. The same applies to all kinds of complex renewable energy systems, whether they harness energy fluxes through wind, solar, water or biomass media. So the term ‘renewable’ can be misleading, and most complex renewable technologies cannot last in the long-term, as they depend on fossil fuels for their manufacture and maintenance. I’m glad I got that off my chest, now onto how these technologies are supposed to fit into schools.

The main benefits are designed to be:

1. Reduced energy usage;
2. Contributing to more ‘sustainable’ schools;
3. Offering potential teaching resources.

These points provide a criteria by which renewable technologies in schools can be evaluated. A school-based renewable system which fails to provide any of the 3 benefits outlined above has failed completely; a renewable system which provides only one or two is failing to meet its full potential.

But why the focus on schools? I ask the inanimate document, which politely replies:

“School buildings are particularly important – they tend to have a long life span so should be future proofed in terms of energy use and fuel provision [note - add long-term provision of fuel to the criteria above].”

Schools should be provide “models of energy efficiency and renewable energy … in their communities and maximising their use of rainwater and waste water”. The government is clearly concerned about more than just renewable energy – an integrated approach aimed at sustainability is the vision, and renewable technologies are simply the most visible aspect of this vision.

As well as long-term fuel provision, and the three benefits listed above, there are two additional criteria by which renewable technologies in schools should be judged: Carbon savings – “all technologies will provide carbon savings compared with fossil fuel powered equipment” and economic benefits – “the cost-effectiveness of some renewable energy systems is not as good as many energy conservation measures initially, their symbolism and potential as a teaching resource for pupils may justify their greater capital cost” This is another key point to investigate.

Probably the most important thing to note about the drive to get renewable energy systems into schools is that it must fit into the broader picture of sustainability. I think for this reason the central report is structured in a way that reflects the energy hierarchy, an emerging concept in energy policy: Energy use (energy conservation), energy efficiency, renewable energy options, what 100% renewable would look like. Therefore, we now have 7 solid criteria, based on the DCSF (2007) report:

1. Reduced energy usage;
2. Contributing to more ‘sustainable’ schools;
3. Offering potential teaching resources.
4. Providing energy in the long-term
5. Environmental benefit
6. Economic benefit
7. Integration with other sustainability measures

Are these the right criteria? Which ones are most important? These are decisions that will have to be made as the report moves on.