DIY Charger for iPhones etc

How to make a solar iPod/iPhone charger -aka MightyMintyBoost
by Honus
Complete instructable (spread over several pages) HERE

How-to-make-a-solar-iPodiPhone-charger- 1

intro How to make a solar iPod/iPhone charger -aka MightyMintyBoost
I wanted a charger for my iPodTouch and the MintyBoost was definitely my first choice. I wanted to take it a bit further and make it not only rechargeable but also solar powered. The other issue is that the iPhone and iPodTouch have large batteries in them and will deplete the two AA batteries in the MintyBoost rather quickly so I wanted to increase the battery power as well. What I really wanted was a MightyMintyBoost!

Apple has sold over 30 million iPodTouch/iPhone units- imagine charging all of them via solar power…. If every iPhone/iPodTouch sold was fully charged every day (averaging the battery capacity) via solar power instead of fossil fuel power we would save approximately 50.644gWh of energy, roughly equivalent to 75,965,625 lbs. of CO2 in the atmosphere per year. Granted that’s a best case scenario (assuming you can get enough sunlight per day and approximately 1.5 lbs. CO2 produced per kWh used.) Of course, that doesn’t even figure in all the other iPods, cell phones, PDAs, microcontrollers (I use it to power my Arduino projects) and other USB devices that can be powered by this charger- one little solar cell charger may not seem like it can make a difference but add all those millions of devices together and that’s a lot of energy!

How-to-make-a-solar-iPodiPhone-charger- 2

There are some really nice features about this charger:

It’s solar powered!
It’s small.
Large battery capacity- 3.7v @2000mAh
On board charger charges via solar, USB or wall wart. Accepts input power from 3.7v to 7v.
Remove the solar cell after charging and you have a nice compact USB power supply.
Unplug the solar cell and use the Velcro to secure the MightyMintyBoost inside a backpack or messenger bag- now plug in a larger solar cell attached to your bag for even faster charging. Using a slightly larger solar cell (6v/250mAh) you can generate enough power to fully charge an iPhone in about 5.5 hours and an iPod Touch in 4 hours.

How-to-make-a-solar-iPodiPhone-charger- 3

Building this is really easy and straightforward- it only took me around an hour so follow along and build one for yourself!

Safety note and general disclaimer: Be careful cutting the Altoids tin as it can have some really sharp edges- file them smooth if necessary. Assemble this at your own risk- while it is really easy to build, if you mess something up there is the potential to damage the electronic device you are trying to charge. Be careful in your assembly and soldering work and follow good safety practices. Only use a type of battery charger specifically designed for the type of battery you are using.

step 1 Tools and materials
Here’s what you’ll need to build your own MightyMintyBoost:

Tools:
Soldering iron
Scissors
Wire cutters
Pliers (or muiltitool)
Multimeter
Metal shears
Clear packing tape

Materials:
MintyBoost kit
Lithium Polymer battery charger
3.7v 2000mAh Lithium Polymer battery
JST connector/wire
Small solar cell
2″ x 3″ adhesive backed Velcro
Small double sided adhesive squares
Altoids tin

How-to-make-a-solar-iPodiPhone-charger- 4

Some notes:

The single cell Lithium Polymer charger can accept input power that ranges from 3.7 to 7v maximum. When the cell reaches full charge the charger will automatically switch to trickle charging. When charging using the mini USB port, the charging current is limited to 100mA. When charging using the barrel plug jack, the charging current is limited to 280mA.

The solar cell maxes out at approximately 5v @ 100mA in bright sunlight. If you need faster charging simply use a larger solar cell- a 6v cell @ 250mA would work very well and they are easily obtainable and inexpensive. I used the size of solar cell that I did because I wanted it to be super compact.

How-to-make-a-solar-iPodiPhone-charger- 5

I could not find out from the manufacturer if the solar cell I used has a blocking diode. A blocking diode is used in many solar charging systems to prevent the solar cell from draining the battery during low light conditions. Instructables member RBecho pointed out that the charging circuit used negates the need for a blocking diode in this application. You can tell when the solar cell is producing enough power because the little red LED on the charger will come on during charging.

step 2 Build the Minty Boost kit
First build the MIntyBoost kit according to its instructions. It’s really easy to assemble- even a complete novice can do it.

Instead of connecting the battery holder in the kit, we’re going to solder a JST connector to the MintyBoost PCB. This tiny connector will then allow the MintyBoost circuit to connect to the Lithium Polymer battery charger circuit. Make sure you get the polarity correct!

Test the MintyBoost by connecting the battery pack (make sure the battery pack has a charge) and charger circuit. The MintyBoost connects to the connector marked SYS on the charger board and the lithium polymer battery connects to the connector marked GND.

Now cut a notch in the Altoids tin for the USB port and use some double sided adhesive to mount the PCB to the Altoids tin.

step 3 Add the battery and charger
Now cut a notch out of the other side of the Altoids tin to fit the charger and secure the charging circuit to the bottom of the Altoids tin with double sided adhesive. Reconnect the battery and the MintyBoost PCB to the charging circuit. Make sure nothing on the bottom of either one of the circuit boards is touching the bottom of the Altoids tin.

How-to-make-a-solar-iPodiPhone-charger- 6 - Fitting the box.

step 4 Add the solar cell
There are a couple of different ways to connect the solar cell. The first is by simply shortening the connector leads and plugging the barrel plug into the barrel jack on the charging circuit.

The second method is to replace the connector with another JST connector and plug it into the third connector marked 5v on the charging circuit. I didn’t have another JST connector handy so I just soldered a salvaged two pronged connector to the charging circuit where there are two open pins on the 5v line.

Using the second method certainly is a bit cleaner since you don’t have the big barrel plug sticking out of the side of the tin.

How-to-make-a-solar-iPodiPhone-charger- 7 dont let any connections touch metal box.

Now attach the solar cell to the top of the Altoids tin using some 2″ wide Velcro. I wrapped the battery pack with a layer of clear packing tape to help protect it. Then the battery pack is simple set down on top of the two circuit boards- it’s a near perfect fit.

Now set your MightyMintyBoost out in the bright sun and charge it up! You should see a little red LED on the charger board light up. Once it’s fully charged connect your iPod/iPhone/USB powered device and enjoy!

How-to-make-a-solar-iPodiPhone-charger- 8 Connect PV

================================================================================
How to make a solar iPod/iPhone charger -aka MightyMintyBoost
by Honus
step 5 FAQ and additional info
Here’s a list of frequently asked questions:

Q: Is it possible to overcharge the Lithium Polymer battery?
A: No- the charger will automatically switch to trickle charging and then shut off.

Q: Is it possible to drain the Lithium Polymer battery completely and damage it?
A: No- the battery has its own low voltage cut off circuitry that will prevent it from completely discharging- the low voltage cut off is around 2.8v

Q: Does the solar cell have a blocking diode to prevent it from draining the Lithium Polymer battery?
A: No blocking diode is necessary- the Lithium Polymer charger prevents the battery from leaking current.

Q: How long will it take to fully charge the Lithium Polymer battery and how long will it take to charge my iPod/iPhone?
A: How long it will take to fully charge depends on the amount of sunlight available but as a rough guesstimate it would take around 20hrs using the small solar cell in direct sunlight. Using a larger solar cell could easily take half if not one third the amount of time. Those same figures would apply if you were charging it over USB or using a wall wart power supply.

Charging your iPod is much faster. How fast it does it depends on your device’s battery capacity. An iPod Touch has a 1000mAh battery so it should fully charge it in around 2hrs. A 3G iPhone has a 1150mAh battery so it will take slightly longer and a 2G iPhone has a 1400mAh battery, so it will take around 3 hrs.

Q: The Lithium Polymer charger has an input voltage range of 3.7v minimum to 7v maximum- what if I want to use a higher output solar cell for faster charging?
A: To use a solar cell with a voltage output greater than 7v, you need a voltage regulator to drop the voltage to a level that the charger can handle. You could use a 7805 voltage regulator to limit the output to +5v -they only cost about $1.50 and are very simple to wire up. The 7805 will give you as fixed +5v and is usually good up to 1A current. You could also use a LM317T which is an adjustable regulator, but it would involve a bit more circuitry to use. Some people also use diodes to drop voltage, since many diodes have a voltage drop of .7v

There’s a lot more info here:

The other option would be to use a 6v/250mA solar panel. This will stay within the current input range and voltage input range of the Lithium Polymer charger. Remember that you can also connect smaller solar cells in parallel to increase the available current- two 5v/100mA solar cells connected together in parallel will give an output of 5v @200mA

Q: What if I want to use a charger with a higher input current limit?
A: Sparkfun does have a Lithium Polymer charger that maxes out at 1A:

Q: How would I connect the more powerful charger- there doesn’t appear to be a clear way to do this?
A: To use the more powerful 1A charger you would need to wire a two way switch to the battery so that in one position the battery would be connected to the charger and in the other position the battery would be connected to the MintyBoost circuit.

Q: Will this work with USB devices other than iPods and iPhones?
A: You bet! There’s a list here:

Q: Won’t the inside of the Altoids tin short out the circuit?
A: No- using double sided foam tape to mount the circuit boards keeps the bottom of the board from coming into contact with the inside bottom of the tin. If you’re really worried you can cover the inside bottom of the tin with clear packing tape.

Q: How much does this cost? Can I build it for less? Is it cost effective?
A: If you buy everything as listed it would cost $70.75 (not including the Altoids tin or shipping.) If you wanted to scratchbuild it using the MintyBoost PCB from Adafruit, building your own charging circuit and supplying your own parts from various sources you can save quite a bit. Both the charging circuit and the MintyBoost circuit are available online- just go to the web pages listed in the tools and materials section- they’re also listed at the bottom of this page.

Both Maxim and Linear Technology supply free samples (according to their websites) of their ICs so you just need to provide all the other bits (available from places like Mouser and Digikey.) Using a slightly smaller solar cell and a 2200mAh battery it is possible to build it for a lot less:

2200mAh battery
solar cell
MintyBoost PCB

After adding up the small parts for the MintyBoost circuit, a small blank PCB for the charging circuit (you would have to etch the board yourself) and a mini USB connector, you could conceivably build this for around $21.00 (not including shipping or an Altoids tin.) It wouldn’t be exactly the same of course, but it would be functionally the same. I don’t know if the 2200mAh battery would fit into an Altoids tin either. It would be a LOT more work of course, and there could be a fair bit of troubleshooting if you’re not experienced in building these types of circuits or soldering surface mount components.

So is it cost effective? Absolutely- it just depends on the amount of work you want to do. Either way, you get a very useful and versatile solar powered charger.

Q: How did you calculate the power usage and equivalent CO2 values?
A: Here’s the math-
3.7v (LiPo rated voltage) x .1A (solar charge current)= .37W
.37W x 12.5hrs (charge time based on average battery capacity) = 4.625Wh
4.625Wh x 365 days = 1688.125Wh per year
1688.125Wh per year x 30,000,000 units sold = 50,643,750,000Wh total used per year (50.644gWh)
50.644gWh per year x 1.5 lbs CO2 produced per kWh used = 75,965,625 lbs. CO2 produced per year

Granted these are more or less maximum values but they clearly show some potential for some serious energy savings. A 12.5hr solar charge time per day isn’t realistic for the majority of the planet but if you shorten the solar charge time to approximately 4.5hrs at a 280mA current the results still remain the same.

General information about the Lithium Polymer charging circuit as well as a circuit diagram and data sheet can be found here:

A complete description and documentation of the MintyBoost circuit can be found here:

The Electrifying Pace of Wind Power Development in China

The Electrifying Pace of Wind Power Development in China
by Louis Schwartz, China Strategies
Published: June 28, 2010
Pennsylvania, United States — While President Obama continues to exhort Congress and the American public to move ahead with legislation that will put the U.S. on a path to rapid and sustainable development of renewable energy, China is building a formidable renewable infrastructure. China’s wind industry is a case in point.

In 2008 China’s total installed capacity to produce wind power was the 5th largest in the world and by the end of 2009 China had the 3rd largest installed base of wind power in the world (at ~22,000 to 24,000 MW). As of year-end 2010, China most certainly will have comfortably surpassed Germany to be the world’s 2nd largest wind power powerhouse. The weak performance of the United States’ wind industry so far this year, which RenewableEnergyWorld.com’s own Stephen Lacey described in his podcast, “Why the Wind Market is Hurting,” increases the likelihood that China will lay claim to the world’s largest installed base of wind power by at least 2011.

Recently we highlighted the invidious competition that is brewing in the Chinese wind equipment manufacturing industry and pointed out how such competition was driving down costs for wind farm developers. Falling equipment costs coupled with an increasingly favorable policy environment for wind farm development in China is producing a rush of wind capacity development that is mind-boggling.

The case of Gansu Province breathtakingly illustrates how China’s wind industry has hit its stride: as recently as 2006, the total installed capacity of wind power in Gansu Province was a negligible 110 MW; wind power development has proceeded at such a pace that since May, 2010 Gansu Province has been installing an average of 40 MW per day!

As of the end of 2010, Gansu Province’s total installed capacity — 5160 MW — will exceed the goal for total installed wind capacity for all of China, which Beijing established in September 2007 in the {Mid to Long Term Plan for Renewable Energy}. Understanding that Gansu is one of seven regions in China that are all developing wind power capacity of at least 10,000 MW (the others are the Hami region of Zhejiang, Eastern Inner Mongolia, Western Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Jilin and the coastal regions of Jiangsu Province), crystallizes our appreciation of the scope of wind power development in China today.

As we have demonstrated here, when China blew past the wind capacity goals for 2010 and 2020 that were first established in 2007, Beijing simply established more ambitious goals. The 2007 goal of 5000 MW by 2010 became 10,000 MW in 2008, and now is 35,000 MW by year-end 2011 — seven times the original goal set less than three years ago! And the 2007 goal of having 30,000 MW of installed wind capacity in China as of 2020 is now an astonishing 150,000 MW — a five-fold increase in planned capacity! We have no doubt that even these lofty goals will be surpassed.

Certainly all is not roses and lavender in the Chinese wind industry. In addition to China’s familiar nemesis — over investment in capacity with the attendant waste of investment capital — there also are issues surrounding the growing uncertainty of the CDM regime, an important additional source of funding for the Chinese wind industry. And setting rational prices for energy, a conundrum that has plagued Chinese policy-makers for years, continues to vex Beijing.

Perhaps the most significant issue facing the Chinese wind industry is that the explosion in installed wind capacity has outstripped the development of grid capacity in China. This phenomenon is displayed rather starkly in Gansu Province; while the maximum capacity of the power grid in the Hexi Corridor in Gansu Province is 600 MW, the installed capacity of the Jiuquan Wind Farm alone already has reached 2000-3000 MW!

As of last summer, China’s installed capacity of wind generation was 14,740 MW nationwide, 5000 MW of which was said not to be grid-connected; this level of wind power that is “dozing off” amounts to approximately 50 billion Yuan in capital investment (or ~$7.4 billion U.S.). At present the estimates are that 16,000 MW of wind power is now grid connected out of a total estimated installed capacity of at least 25,000 MW. According to Shi Pengfei, the Vice Chairman of the China Wind Power Association, more incentives by the Chinese government directed to grid companies will help alleviate such disparities.

Though the development of wind generating capacity continues to outpace the build out of a modern power grid in China and that gap is widening, a race between generating capacity and grid capacity is the type of problem most nations should relish. The value of China’s alternative energy development certainly has caught the attention of investors: it is not coincidental that the world’s largest IPO of an energy company in 2009 was China Longyuan Power Group Co., Ltd. (00916.HK), China’s largest alternative energy developer.

At 40 MW per day, the wind equivalent of one 300-MW coal-fired power plant is being developed in Gansu Province every week (this compares with a construction period of one and a half years for every coal fired power plant). Depending on the rate of growth of China’s GDP and energy consumption, with the blistering pace of wind power development in China, it is conceivable that China might succeed in significantly increasing the proportion of renewable energy in its energy mix, which in turn may presage the beginning of a steady and statistically meaningful decline in energy output from coal-fired plants.

Lou Schwartz, a lawyer and China specialist who focuses his work on the energy and metals sectors in the People’s Republic of China, is a frequent contributor to RenewableEnergyWorld.com. Through China Strategies, LLC, Lou provides clients research and analysis, due diligence, merger and acquisition, private equity investment and other support for trade and investment in China’s burgeoning energy and metals industries. Lou earned degrees in East Asian Studies from Michigan and Harvard and a J.D. from George Washington University. He can be reached at lou@chinastrategiesllc.com.

The Real Disaster for New Orleans.

For over 5,000 years, people have built settlements. They gathered together for safety and economy, and formed societies to share resources and responsibilities. While the earth and its civilizations are vast, people and the settlements they built are remarkably similar. Very early on, humans recognized that the impermanence of life could be overcome through a society’s built legacy – and that what they built formed lasting impressions about their civilization.

No matter what country or culture, what geography or climate, permanent villages, towns and cities shared (and still share) particular design characteristics thanks to the similar aspirations and physical makeup of their inhabitants. The way they grew was organic and naturally sustainable.
Building followed eight simple rules that ensured people’s and community’s needs were met:
• Settlements were close to food and water sources to nourish inhabitants,
• They were easily accessible to better foster society, governance and commerce,
• People were able to meet their daily needs within easily walkable distances,
• Buildings and public spaces were safe and secure,
• Land use and buildings were frugal to conserve resources,
• Buildings and public spaces were durable and enduring so they lasted for generations,
• Buildings were flexible so that interiors could be accommodated for changing times, and
• Places were built to be beautiful so they were lovable, comfortable and made people happy.

Lasting settlements grew at choice locations near abundant natural resources. These locations and the settlement layout maximized environmental and geographic conditions to offer protection from wild animals and human enemies. They were strategically accessible for trade by land or water, and shared paths for exploration.
When people settled, they built communities in compact configurations that leveraged available resources and provided internal safety for the people and their possessions. The design they chose expressed the favored customs and aspirations of their society. They set aside key sites – the highest and best land – for important buildings and shared spaces, and the most fertile land for grazing and farming.

Early builders developed geometries for stable buildings with locally available materials. Their designs maximized assets of light and air, while minimizing impacts of rain, harsh sun and wind. More valuable permanent materials, difficult techniques and ornamentation were saved for buildings that housed important community functions so that the cultural, social, spiritual and economic longevity of the society could be furthered for posterity. Shared housing was substantial. Individual houses were less permanent, a characteristic that paralleled the mortality of individual residents.

As settlements grew and prospered, people organized their buildings in more formal and sophisticated configurations that favored efficiency, accessibility and ambiance, and that brought comfort and delight to inhabitants. Street widths and spaces between buildings were appropriate to the climate and topography, as were building heights and details. Street size and connectivity facilitated mobility and way-finding by pedestrians, and paired with strategically placed buildings, generated a comforting sense of enclosure. As early as 2,000 BC, dimensions were codified into regulations to ensure all building was compatible and to promote “equal ability to enjoy property.”

Public space was balanced with private to support social mores and customs and reinforce the importance of common goals. Special public gathering places were carefully selected at central intersections so that all paths lead to them. Bounded with the most important buildings, these spaces were beautifully framed and ornamented like grand outdoor rooms. Physically and symbolically they were the centers of community, and provided a stage for gatherings.

Comfortable arrangements of houses, shops and religious, government and institutional buildings reflected important economic relationships. Shops were situated at intersections and congregated together for easy access and visibility. The majority were at the centers near key gathering spots and public buildings. Housing surrounded this urban core of activity. Most were raised above the streets in upper stories above modest shops and offices where residents made their living.

Buildings closest to the center shared permanent materials, and accommodated as many people as comfortable in close proximity to the center where they could enjoy the vast array of services and civic life. Houses further away were less permanent, and less defensible. Street intersections were punctuated with shops to provide daily necessities. The urban fabric eventually feathered into less-formal arrangements of sheds, farms and fields at the settlement’s edge, beyond which wilderness reigned.

The organic growth of settlements followed geography and topography. As growing populations and the need for services increased, compact neighborhoods were replicated, growing next to one another so that new and more precious resources could be shared at their edges. The overall pattern that formed towns and cities resembled a constellation, with satellites of smaller commercial nodes encircling the major center. All were connected and easily accessible, generally equidistant from the center and one another, with numerous pathways to get from one place to another.
The natural inclination of early settlers and builders to build sustainably is what architect and town designer, Steve Mouzon, calls, “the Original Green.” Every decision about how, why and where the community and buildings were formed was guided by rational environmental, economic and cultural reasons. The organization of spaces and the building techniques that worked best were replicated, modified and enhanced, then replicated again by successive generations. Successful solutions eventually became what we call, traditions.

One of the most obvious historic patterns inherent in all communities throughout civilization and across all cultures is what planners today have named the “rural to urban Transect of human settlement.” It reflects the Original Green principles, and has been researched and analyzed internationally. It now forms the framework for policy and codes for community building that are healthy and sustainable.

The Transect is observable in all walkable pre-automobile and pre-zoning code communities, and in most places built before the era of Modernist urban and building design. It (or its remnants) is often recognized as the locations in today’s cities and towns that feel authentic and have a greater sense of place and local character. The Transect can be viewed in ancient Chinese scrolls, maps of 1700 London, illustrations of 1850 New Orleans and in photographs of 1900 San Francisco.
At its most simple, the Transect is a gradual change and undulation in character as one moves from the city center to the rural edge. More complexly, the Transect borrows from environmental study. It describes the city as a series of “human habitats” that like natural ecosystems are at their healthiest when they co-exist, are integrated, mutually beneficial and self-sustaining.

For planning and coding purposes, the Transect can be expressed as a hierarchy of “Transect Zones” that exist within a sustainable city from its center to its edge. Planners have identified six “T-Zones” that are evident in healthy, walkable places in varied mixes and patterns: (T6) Urban Core, (T5) Urban Center, (T4) Urban General, (T3) Suburban, (T2) Rural and (T1) Natural.
Transect zones do not exist alone, as monocultures, but rather work in concert with other T-Zones to form complete neighborhoods. The most delightful places are those in which transition from T-zone to T-zone is fine-grained and complex. Real neighborhoods are not subdivisions, but rather walkable places with a mix of uses, housing types and public spaces, such that people can meet their basic daily needs within a five to ten minute walk. Historically neighborhoods cover a ¼ mile radius “pedestrian shed,” which is an approximate five-minute walk from center to edge.

Here’s an example of the French Quarter’s T3:
All T-Zones share similar elements – they all have buildings, landscape, infrastructure, public and private spaces. However, the elements of each zone also have distinct characteristics that make each habitat or zone unique. For instance, while barns are common buildings in T2 Rural, they are inappropriate buildings for the Urban Center. Likewise townhouses belong in Urban areas, but are inappropriate in Suburban or Rural zones.
In general, as one travels from Urban to Rural areas, density, building height, the mix of uses and public amenities are reduced, and the natural landscape becomes more dominant. Important civic buildings, commercial and mixed-use buildings give way to sparsely sited houses, then to farms and agriculture, and there are fewer opportunities for entertainment, culture and socialization. Streets and sidewalks move from formal hardscaped boulevards and avenues to unpaved roads with swales and nature paths.

Here’s some of the French Quarter’s T4…
The characteristics of T-Zones, while sharing common elements and similarities, also vary in regions based on local geography, climate, social culture and building traditions. Their evidence can be observed, analyzed, measured and documented, and the most desirable characteristics entered into form-based codes and polices for new and infill development.
Planning, coding and (re)building a neighborhood with a mix of Transect Zones ensures that what came naturally at one point in city development – the places that people love and admire – can once again become the DNA of growth. Transect Planning is based on the premise that for people to be happy and healthy throughout their lives they must have access to the full diversity of rural to urban habitats within their community – ideally within walking distance. This mirrors the basic principles of the Original Green, and emphasizes the idea that sustainability and human happiness go hand in hand – naturally.

… and this is a sample of the French Quarter’s T5:
The goal for a city seeking sustainability is to nurture authentic places that accommodate the Original Green via a full set of Transect habitats. This gives residents the option to “age in place” by offering opportunities for children, young singles, families and those in their prime to safely live, work, shop and play within their neighborhood.
Just as the gulls on the seashore could not exist without the wetlands or upland forests, so man cannot exist without access to urban civilization or the rural landscape. Suburban places, no matter how seemingly pastoral, cannot exist as monocultures without farmland and wilderness or the greatest achievements of urbanity.
The Original Green and the Transect provide for places – and life – that is enriched with quality. This is the DNA of “Community Building.”

~Ann Daigle

Note: If any of the images above are useful to you, they’re available at high resolution for printing or download on Steve’s Zenfolio site. Just click on the image and it’ll take you there.

the Original Green and the Transect
Sunday, June 13, 2010

Original Green Book on Amazon:

Small Wind Picks Up Even as Economy Turns Down

Small Wind Picks Up Even as Economy Turns Down

How did the U.S. small wind turbine industry continue to dominate the world market throughout the recession?
by By Ron Stimmel, AWEA

Washington, DC, United States –
The number of Americans generating their own electricity with small-scale wind turbines (those with rated capacities of 100 kilowatts and under) increased by just under 10,000 last year despite an economic downturn that impacted the heart of the small wind market: homeowners and small-business owners.

Last year the U.S. small wind market grew 15% with 20.3 megawatts (MW) of new installed capacity, pushing the industry past the milestone of 100 MW in total capacity. Remarkably, half of these sales came within the last three years for an industry that has been around for more than 80. More remarkable still, for much of these three years the world’s economy crippled the finances of much of the industry’s primary consumers. How did this growth happen?

Credit a cocktail of new and improved federal and state policies, optimistic equity investors, and determined consumers.

Sound Investments

The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (also known as the economic stimulus bill) expanded the federal investment tax credit for small wind turbines, allowing consumers to take fully 30% of the total cost of a small wind system as a tax credit. These few short lines of text breathed new life into a U.S.-born industry, and just in time to help stave off the effects of the flagging economy.

A growing number of states also offer incentives to help consumers overcome the still-steep cost hurdle of owning a turbine, which for a homeowner can range from $10,000 to $60,000. Governments at all levels are recognizing small wind’s economic potential and are paying closer attention. New Jersey, for example, this year joined eight other states (CA, WI, DE, VT, NV, MI, OR, and NH) in streamlining small-wind permitting procedures. Many industry members have come to view streamlined permitting as the single largest factor in the small wind market’s growth.

But government is not the only actor. Over the past five years an infusion of private equity investment of $250 million into 20 manufacturers worldwide (most of them U.S.-based) provided companies with the capital to ramp up production to meet a strong demand. Of that $250 million, $80 million was pumped into manufacturers during the economic gloom of 2009.

According to a 2010 survey by AWEA, these manufacturers were able to parlay this investment into sales. Even many of the companies without equity funding were able to sell more turbines than in 2008.

Consumers: The Ultimate Investors

Of course, the ultimate investor is the consumer, who has been relentless in seeking ways to cut electricity bills, become “personally energy-independent” and fight global warming in a tangible way. To 30,000 of these pioneers over the past three years, the solution has been owning a small wind turbine. In just a short amount of time, the base of small-wind consumers has diversified, evolving from green-hearted environmentalists and farmers to Home Depots and suburbanites. One consumer trait, however, has remained constant over the past 80 years: Americans buy from American companies, which dominate the global market.

Just 10 years ago no more than 50 companies in the world manufactured small wind systems. Today, 26 countries are home to more than 250 manufacturers, of which 95 are based in the U.S., and foreign companies are looking to position their operations on economically fertile American soil. In fact, 95% of all small wind turbines sold in the U.S. last year were made by U.S. manufacturers. The vast majority of these 95 U.S. companies are in start-up phase, but the leaders command roughly half the world’s market share.

Can this growth be sustained? Can small wind keep up with price-plummeting solar photovoltaic technology? Small-wind lags behind photovoltaics by around 10 years, in terms of U.S. sales volumes, but that may allow small wind to learn from solar’s growing pains. The annual 2010 AWEA Small Wind Turbine Global Market Study aims to address these and other questions about the market and can be downloaded here.

Ron Stimmel is manager of legislative affairs and small systems at AWEA.

This article first appeared in the June 2010 issue of Windletter and was republished with permission from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/06/small-wind-picks-up-even-as-economy-turns-down?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-July1-2010

Copyright © 1999-2010 RenewableEnergyWorld.com
All rights reserved.

Let the Sun Shine: Solar Decathlon Europe 2010 Winners

Every other year, some of the best and brightest college and university students come together to built amazing solar-powered home designs. Designs are judged based on their efficiency, their comfort, and their architectural structure, among other factors. The 2010 Solar Decathlon took place in Madrid, Spain, marking the first time that the competition was held in Europe. One of the main focal points of the contest is to highlight the fact that eco-friendly dwellings can be exceptionally modern and attractive, contrary to many assumptions. The designs that came out of this year’s competition were some of the most forward-thinking and creative solar homes that the world has ever seen; these five were the judges’ top picks.

Tourism Crisis as Visitors down 100,000 a Month. But S. Kerry strikes Back.

Tourism Crisis as Visitors down 100,000 a Month. But South Kerry strikes back.
The tourism industry lost a staggering 100,000 visitors each month this year, sparking warnings it will not survive if the fall continues. St Patrick’s Day celebrations failed to reel in the tourists as the numbers arriving in Ireland during March fell by over 3,500 each day. Overseas visitor numbers declined by 18pc in March to 434,200 and are down by a staggering 200,000, or 32pc, on 2008 figures.

The latest figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) reveal 317,000 fewer visitors came to our shores in the first three months of the year, a drop of 23pc on the previous year to 1.084m. Irish people are also making fewer trips abroad, but this fall is far less precipitous. People made 543,100 trips abroad in March, down 4pc since last year, and for the first three months of the year overseas jaunts fell by 7pc to 1.439 million compared to 2009 levels.

Tourism Minister Mary Hanafin said that the level of decrease in incoming visits was worrying but tourism worldwide had been hit by economic difficulties and the British market remained particularly challenging because of exchange rate issues. The CSO figures reveal nearly 200,000 fewer British visitors came to Ireland in the first quarter of the year than in 2009, a drop of 27pc, while there were 122,000, or 25pc, fewer European visitors.

“While the level of decrease is worrying, I understand that outbound travel from Britain to all eurozone destinations was also down in the first months of the year,” Ms Hanafin said. The number of tourists from North America held up quite well, falling by just 3pc for the first three months, while visitors from other long-haul destinations increased by 11pc in the first three months of the year, she added. Fine Gael tourism spokesperson Olivia Mitchell said that March was “supposed to herald an upswing in the number of tourists coming here, with the St Patrick’s Festival forming the centrepiece of the month”, but the reverse had happened. “The industry cannot possibly survive losing 100,000 visitors every month.

“Ms Hanafin talks a good game but action to reverse the trend in Irish tourism has not been forthcoming,” she said. Fianna Fail’s determination to continue with the farcical departure tax was hurting tourism badly, while new facilities such as the Conference Centre, the Aviva Stadium and the Grand Canal Theatre should be promoted, she added.

Tourism Ireland — which is set to spend €12.8m promoting Ireland in Britain this year and is targeting a return to growth by the end of the year — said that the first quarter of 2010 had been extremely difficult due to the recession and volcanic ash crisis. Tourism had also been hit by an 18pc drop in flights to Ireland as airlines cut costs. However, with over 60pc of foreign holidaymakers coming between May and September, “there is still everything to play for”, said Tourism Ireland chief executive Niall Gibbons.

Source: The Irish Independent

South Kerry Goes Green – New Eco-Certification Scheme

A group of 55 South Kerry tourism businesses have become the first in Ireland to be certified under the Green Tourism Business Scheme. This is the first eco-certification scheme of its kind in Ireland and is designed to help all types of tourism enterprises manage their operations in a more environmentally friendly way.

Why Go Green?

Research shows that initiatives such as the Green Tourism Business Scheme are vital for both the development and the sustainability of tourism in Ireland –

· 90% of overseas visitors cite the beauty of our landscape as the reason they visit Ireland
· International research also shows that environmental considerations are increasingly becoming a factor for tourists
· Research carried out by Fáilte Ireland has identified a strong need from the consumer for an eco-certification scheme for all sectors of the tourism industry
· Over 80% of businesses currently participating in the Green Tourism Business Initiative in the UK are already achieving cost savings. It is anticipated that businesses in South Kerry will benefit in the same way over the coming year.

John Pierse, South Kerry Development Partnership, highlights the benefits to businesses participating in the scheme – “Feedback from tourism businesses participating in this pilot has been overwhelmingly positive, with many businesses already reporting cost savings in their businesses.

As we all know, you can’t manage what you can’t measure, and businesses in this scheme have now been provided with the know-how is to determine where they are spending money on utilities such as energy, water and waste and how they can achieve cost savings in these areas.”

Fiona Buckley, Head of Operations for Fáilte Ireland in the South West congratulated the award recipients stating- “These businesses have taken steps from reducing their energy and water consumption, to improving their waste management and sourcing fresh seasonal produce from local suppliers. All of these measures help ensure that they carefully manage our natural environment, without compromising on the high quality experience that is delivered to visitors.”

Interested?

Businesses interested in becoming involved in the Green Tourism Business Scheme will have the opportunity to partake in this training this autumn and can contact Mary Stack, Environment Unit, Fáilte Ireland at 01 8847 201 or mary.stack@failteireland.ie to express interest or get further information. The scheme, which was piloted in South Kerry, included accommodation providers, activity providers, restaurants, bars and outdoor visitor attractions is run by Fáilte Ireland and South Kerry Development Partnership through the INTERREG IVB NWE COLLABOR8 project. A full list of winners can be found on http://www.greentourism.ie

Styrofoam concrete

Styrofoam Concrete
There are many concrete projects, such as benches for sitting and walkway fill, that can be made using light-weight Styrofoam Concrete. By substituting Styrofoam trash for store-bought gravel in the concrete mix, one saves on not only weight, but also on the cost of materials.

To the best of my knowledge, Styrofoam is not a popular material for plastic recyclers. Recycling it at home eliminates transportation costs for this bulky and low-value material. One to do this is to ‘crumble it’ and use between walls and under floors as insulation.

Many people don’t own the property where they live, so maybe the incentive to build a castle for the owner over time is not there. Instead of filling our dumps with this stuff, we could be building cities out of it, if we were motivated enough.

I live on an island, and our dumps are filling up fast. Taking waste and finding constructive uses for it is the best way to gracefully live with all the trash we generate.

Styrofoam concrete probably has good thermal insulation, compared to rock concrete. It might be a useful construction material in both hot and cold climates.

I’ve got problems Huston – go to link above to fer the full low-down and dirty on Styrofoam concrete

Hitler and the Invasion of Ireland

I picked up an answer to the ‘Invasion of Ireland plans’ . You might find of interest – I do as I’d completely left the U.S. out of the equation. I reckon the Yanks would Never have allowed an invasion of Ireland and of course Dev would have welcomed THEM with open arms

Interesting answer though because most forget (thanks to the movies) that 80% of the German army was not mechanised. Plus the argument is strong about a seaborne invasion of Ireland. – Subsequent invasions were nearly always airborne – paratroopers, gliders and sea-landing craft were used – a far cry from the ‘lighters and tugs’ landings envisioned in the WWl as told (to huge effect) in Erskin Childers “The Riddle of the Sands” a hugely prescient book that “shook the admiralty -to the core” Churchill.

Peter
What if Hitler had invaded?
Madam, – There was no possibility that Hitler could invade England, let alone Ireland, and succeed (Tom Clonan, Opinion, June 28th). This is a myth that seems to survive, even to this day. Whether the failure of the Germans to destroy the RAF made a pivotal difference is questionable. (Don’t forget, the navy was also still a power to be reckoned with.) Churchill knew the truth but allowed the English people to believe that an invasion was imminent. This would keep them “on their toes”. The perceived danger also kept massive aid flowing from the United States.

Few of the barges to be used in the invasions were motorised. They would have had to be towed, and it’s unlikely they would have survived in rough seas. (It is said that even a fast warship sailing beside the barges would swamp them!) The greater part of the German army was horse-drawn. How would you get horses to England or Ireland? Also, the German army and navy did not have the capability to provide the logistics for an invading and occupying force. How would it supply oil, food (for the army and civilians alike) and all the other materials needed to support an invasion and occupation?

Had an invasion started, and appeared that it might succeed, no doubt Ireland would have been occupied by the United States (President Roosevelt wouldn’t have hesitated to do this, if he could), using Ireland as a platform for defending England. – Yours, etc,

PAUL BROSNAHAN,
Oakcrest Drive,
Framingham,
Massachusetts, US.

Strong earthquake hits Mexico, one dead: Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:34pm EDT

Strong earthquake hits Mexico, one dead Nadia Altamirano
Wed Jun 30, 2010 12:34pm EDT

Mexico (Reuters) – A strong 6.2-magnitude earthquake struck southern Mexico early on Wednesday, leaving one man dead and shaking buildings as far away as Mexico City but sparing infrastructure from serious damage.
WORLD | MEXICO | NATURAL DISASTERS
The U.S. Geological Survey said the quake struck near the town of Pinotepa Nacional, around 80 miles southwest of the colonial city of Oaxaca, Police patrols checking surrounding towns did not report fallen buildings.
In the small coastal village of San Andres Huaxpaltepec near the epicenter a falling beam crushed a 46-year-old man as he slept at home, said Luis Zarate, head of the emergency services service in the state of Oaxaca.
“It woke me up, I was scared too,” said Gilberto Mateo, another civil protection official in Oaxaca.
In the historic center of the city of Oaxaca people felt the tremor strongly and several hotels were evacuated briefly.
“It was pretty strong,” said Jorge Cervantes, a security guard at Hotel Las Gaviotas in Pinotepa Nacional. “Some guests went downstairs but the building is fine and nobody is hurt.”
The USGS reported the quake as magnitude 6.5 but later revised the figure to 6.2, also moving the epicenter slightly.
The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center had no warning or advisory in place and hotels in beach resorts like Puerto Angel also reported no damage.
Tremors awoke residents in Mexico City nearly 300 miles to the north, and cut power in some districts. Some people filed onto the street in their pajamas, but there were no reports of casualties in the city, where many have grim memories of a devastating earthquake in 1985.
Power and phone connections were still working.
Mexico is regularly shaken by tremors and nerves are strained since devastating earthquakes in Haiti and Chile earlier this year.
(Additional reporting by Armando Tovar, Pablo Garibian, Cyntia Barrera, Patrick Rucker andAdriana Barrera; Writing by Catherine Bremer; Editing by Alan Elsner and Doina Chiacu)

Hidden dangers of the daily shower

Hidden dangers of the daily shower with thanks to Pat Kiely;
And we’re not talking about Norman Bates..
Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:00 am GMT

© Valua Vitaly – Fotolia.com
Watching the classic Hitchcock movie Psycho may have given some of us a fear of taking a shower, but a new study suggests there may be more likely dangers lurking in the bathroom.
Scientists in the US used an ultra sensitive method to detect bacteria in shower-heads in bathrooms across the country.
Results showed that around 30 per cent of shower-heads had “significant amounts” of Mycobacterium avium, a bacterium linked to breathing illnesses that most often infects people in poor health but can also cause illness in healthy individuals.
These bacteria are often found in water. However, in shower-heads the bacteria tend to clump together to form a slimy “biofilm”, at a concentration more than 100 times greater than is found in ordinary water.
Professor Norman Pace, who led the study, said: “If you are getting a face full of water when you first turn your shower on, that means you are probably getting a particularly high load of Mycobacterium avium, which may not be too healthy.”
These results may also provide an explanation for the rise in Mycobacterium avium infections in recent years, coinciding with people preferring showers over baths.
“Water spurting from shower-heads can distribute pathogen-filled droplets that suspend themselves in the air and can easily be inhaled into the deepest parts of the lungs”, Dr Pace noted.
Symptoms of pulmonary disease caused by the germ include tiredness, a persistent dry cough, shortness of breath, weakness and “generally feeling bad,” Dr Pace said. People with compromised immune systems, like pregnant women, the elderly and those who are fighting off other diseases, are more prone to experience symptoms, he added.
This is not the first time that such dangers have been uncovered in public bathing waters. Previous studies by Dr Pace and his group found massive enrichments of the germ in “soap scum” commonly found on vinyl shower curtains and floating above the water surface of warm therapy pools.
A 2006 therapy pool study also found it in the indoor pool environment, which was linked to a pneumonia-like pulmonary condition in pool attendants known as “lifeguard lung”.
What this study means
This study took place in the US, where water quality standards are different from those of the UK. However, it does seem a good precaution to let the shower run for a few moments before entering, and to regularly clean the shower and the shower-head.
Also metal shower-heads seem to be cleaner that plastic ones according to Dr Pace.