Google Funds Transphorm Energy Efficiency Breakthrough

http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=1365

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with this. For example, when converting DC from photovoltaic generation to AC for use in a house, inverters use solid state devices to create the AC by switching it. It sounds like they've found a combination of elements that enable far more efficient switching. Less heat created and lost to resistance than from a typical Silicon material, evidently. I can't wait to see this in use.

Please let it be true.
Please let it be true.
Please let it be true.
Please let it be true.
Please let it be true.
Please let it be true.

That says it all, along with the chart:
http://www.transphormusa.com/technology.html

As far as I am concerned, this is where its at. Not solar, not wind, (which are important) but reducing the vast amount of waste that escapes as thermal energy, not just from electricity conversion, but from freaking EVERYTHING. I was shocked to learn that about 85% of the energy in gasoline escapes as heat, and does not drive the car at all. We can do better than 15%, and that would dramatically reduce gas consumption. Insulation on homes could save vast amounts of energy, and on and on.

The key is, there is NO WAY we can transition our current civilization with all its thermal waste to wind and solar. What we have to do first is get the fossil fuel things incredibly efficient and our use way down, then the smaller supply of clean energy can actually rise up and power a more efficient world.

There are laws of thermodynamics that rule this stuff. Things like ambient temperature that isn't at absolute zero. And only being able to operate the combustion of the engine below that which melts it. The internal combustion engine is futile.

I agree that we really sandbagged this thing. We couldn't even go metric in this silly country. Getting 40 miles per gallon is a joke. But everyone wants 400 horsepower more or less. We got what we wanted. And what they shoved down our throats.

Too much propaganda. Too much hype. Too ignorant a mass of consumers. Too cheap a price of oil. It's still too cheap, or we'd be scrambling to do something else. Well, that is happenening. But way the hell too late.

I'll you why I think that: The hose connector on my radiator broke not too long ago, and I was shocked at how instantly my car overheated without the capacity to circulate steam through the radiator. And the entire function of the radiator itself is to distribute heat from that steam over the largest surface area of metal possible and into the air. The difference between the ambient temperature (air coming in front) and the steam is exploited massively to cool the engine, it won't run long without it. Yet that difference between temperature, in terms of thermodynamics, is the very definition of low entropy, the capacity to do work, and its being wasted, released as heat.

BMW exploited what I'm talking about with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosteamer
And got a 15% increase in gas efficiency (think of that alone in terms of gas savings for all the cars in the world) But that was only from the exaust heat, not the radiator or the rest, which I imagine accounts for more than 20% like that line reports: Just look at the mileage on the Prius, due in large part to the fact it reharvests kinetic energy on braking rather than releasing it through friction heat on braking pads. Also important, I think there are improvements that can be made in terms of steam engines and have been...But not yet in mobile engines. I read somewhere of a stationary power plant getting 93% efficiency from a kind of multi-stage steam design. (energy expenditure includes refrigeration to control ambient temperature) So this stuff is out there. Of course I could be wrong for technical reasons I don't understand, but I believe we could be doing much better. And also this is of course all negated if we had better batteries, then you just get it all from that 93% efficient power plant with pure electric cars.

But all my nerdery aside, its your second paragraph that really gets at the truth: we've sandbagged ourselves, and this isn't about tech. We know we could be doing better, but we aren't. We haven't prepared for the future. But my question is, where are the financiers? Where are these brilliant Wall street guys who get rich off guessing the future, and why can't they see this coming as a group, at least enough to make themselves profit off the coming crisis by being the ones who own the infrastructure the world will soon need? I just don't get it.

No matter how efficient a gasoline engine gets, it still burns and emits carbon. Eventually, we have to stop burning carbon completely.

So the question is do we want to spend our R&D money refining a technology that will eventually have to go away?

In 7 words: There is no replacement for fossil fuels. Only massive development in nuclear could compete as far as energy output, and this means hugely expensive development that will also have to go away, as peak uranium is also coming though the nuclear waste never will. The fact is Wind and solar can't touch coal, nat gas and oil as far as energy output.

That's why talking about the "green" revolution where we all transition over to wind and solar is almost impossible...They just don't produce enough juice. What we really I think is 3 revolutions:

1) The Cool Revolution, where we get rid of all the thermal waste and low level inefficiencies, cutting off the waste and lowering consumption.
2) The Smart Revolution, where we lower consumption further by integrating IT better into all things energy, that means logistics, some smart grid stuff, etc.
3) The Clean Revolution, where we use all the energy savings to enable us to move to the new, lower producing renewable forms of energy.

The fact that the engine needs a radiator is all the indication we need that it's inefficient. A perfectly effiecient engine would not need a radiator. It would turn all of the burning fuel into work. There is the problem. Both radiator and exhaust. So it doesn't matter much if you use the heat to make hot dogs or even run it back into the engine, because only so much of that is also going to be used for work. The turbo is pretty good. I designed and built my first turbocharged car back in 1979. That was fun. Until I cartwheeled it.

I am an engineer. But it has been 20 years or more since I was working with this stuff. Basically, if I remember, efficiency is greatest when the temperature difference of operation is greatest. That would be super hot on one side, and zero on the other. Exhausting to zero. The more heat one takes from the system, the less work is being done. The less efficient. That's one thing the turbo does so well. People have wrapped engines to keep the temp as high as possible, and increase efficiency.


Aha. I found what I couldn't think of- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

Well there you have it, from the engineers mouth. Now 20 years ago how much was gas at the pump? I'll bet these things didn't matter as much then, so dollars and sense decisions were made not to worry about it. But it matters now, and I really believe we can change things.

Gas had just gone UP to 35 cents per gallon. My dad's dad had a gas station. He said it was something like 11 cents. For all of that value, it's worth $30 a gallon to me.

The turbocharger doubled the efficiency. And what I said about the laws of thermodynamics is still true.

Using renewable energy sources, suddenly efficiency isn't an issue.

We need to regulate emissions to push people towards renewables, while we strive for efficiency. Renewables and efficiency each reinforce the justification of the other.

Studies indicate that efficiency gains by themselves simply allow market forces to find more (often crass and frivolous) ways to consume fossil fuels, and there is no net gain with regard to greenhouse gasses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_nitride

Nice technology, but greater efficiency isn't going to solve our greater environmental problems.

Not having a car at all is far, far, better than any "more efficient" car. That's Jevons Paradox.

I drive a 1984 car about 20 miles a week. If I bought a new hybrid car I would not be improving earth's environment. If I was able to rearrange my city in a way that made it more desirable not to have a car than to have one, then I would be improving the environment.

Nevertheless, improved power conversion technologies are a good thing, especially in support of the internet and other communication technologies. I'm still the sort of optimist who believes universal electronic communications is hazardous to tyrants and empires.