Scientists invent spray-on battery

Scientists in the United States have developed a paint that can store and deliver electrical power just like a battery.

Traditional lithium-ion batteries power most portable electronics, and while already compact, they are limited to rectangular or cylindrical blocks.
But researchers at Rice University in Houston, Texas, have come up with a technique to break down each element of the traditional battery and incorporate it into a liquid that can be spray-painted in layers on virtually any surface.
"This means traditional packaging for batteries has given way to a much more flexible approach that allows all kinds of new design and integration possibilities for storage devices," Pulickel Ajayan, who leads the team on the project, said.
The new rechargeable battery is made from spray-painted layers, with each representing the components of a traditional battery: two current collectors, a cathode, an anode and a polymer separator in the middle.
The paint layers were airbrushed onto ceramics, glass and stainless steel, and on diverse shapes such as the curved surface of a ceramic mug, to test how well they bond.
Neelam Singh, who worked on the project, says the technology could be integrated with solar cells to give any surface a stand-alone energy capture and storage capability.
The researchers tested the device using nine bathroom tiles coated with the paint and connected to each other. When they were charged, the batteries powered a set of light-emitting diodes for six hours, providing a steady 2.4 volts.
One limitation of the technology is in the use of difficult-to-handle liquid electrolytes and the need for a dry and oxygen-free environment when making the new device.
But the researchers are looking for components that would allow construction in the open air for a more efficient production process and greater commercial viability.
The results of the study were published on Thursday in the journal Nature Scientific Reports.
Reuters


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-29/scientists-invent-spray-on-battery/4099494

Flowers could prove alternative to fossil fuels

Plant researchers at the CSIRO in Canberra may have developed an alternative to fossil fuels by researching flower seeds.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-25/scientists-research-flowers-for-fuel-use/4089788

 

Adrienne Francis

Source: ABC News | Duration: 1min 54sec

Carbon tax won't hurt much but we don't want to know

When psychologists study those sects that predict the end of the world on a certain day, they find the leaders rarely willing to admit they were wrong and their true believers rarely willing to admit they were duped.
Rather, the sect members find some dubious rationalisation. It was our prayers, brothers and sisters, that interceded for this wicked world and persuaded the Good Lord to stay his hand.
Since the day he won the leadership of the opposition on the strength of his willingness to switch from supporting to opposing putting a price on carbon, Tony Abbott has been predicting the carbon tax would wreak devastation on the economy, wrecking industries and destroying jobs.

 

To be fair, running scare campaigns against new taxes has always been accepted as a legitimate tactic by our ethically challenged political class.
Labor was happy to exploit the fears of the ill-informed in its opportunist opposition to John Howard's ''great big new tax on everything'', the goods and services tax.
The biggest difference is that Abbott's misrepresentations have been so much more successful.
But with the carbon tax taking effect from Sunday, the moment of truth approaches. Soon enough it will become clear that, for consumers and the vast bulk of businesses, the dreaded carbon tax will have an effect much smaller than the GST.
The retail prices of electricity and gas will rise about 9 per cent, but the increases in other prices will be very small.
Whereas the GST increased the consumer price index 2.5 per cent, the carbon tax is expected to raise it just 0.7 per cent.
Whereas the GST is expected to raise revenue of $48 billion in the new financial year, the carbon tax is expected to raise about $4 billion in its first year and about $7 billion in subsequent years.
Julia Gillard and her supporters have been hoping against hope that, as soon as this reality dawns on a fearful public, as soon as the magnitude of the Liberals' hoax is revealed, voters will switch back to Labor in droves.
I don't see it happening. It rests on an unrealistic view of the lack of self-delusion in human nature.
Political parties and their cheerleaders don't like admitting they've been dishonest - even to themselves. And you and I don't like admitting we've allowed ourselves to be conned by unscrupulous politicians and shock jocks.
So we look for rationalisations, no matter how tenuous. And in these the carbon tax abounds. With the GST, the object of the exercise was clear and simple: to raise more revenue. With the carbon tax the object is far from clear to anyone who hasn't done their homework.
For a start, it's clear the object is not to raise revenue, because much of the revenue raised is being returned to households as ''compensation'' in the form of a small cut in income tax for most people and small increases in pensions, allowances and family benefits.
But if the object is simply to discourage people from using emissions-intensive goods and services - which it is - why give back to most people the extra tax they'll be paying?
Because economists believe that to change people's behaviour it's necessary only to change the relative prices they face: to raise the prices of fossil fuels (particularly electricity and gas) relative to all other prices. It's not necessary to leave people out of pocket by keeping the proceeds from the tax you used to bring about the change in relative prices.
You may say you can't see how such a relatively modest rise in the price of electricity could make much difference to households' use of power. That's probably true, though it may encourage people to buy a more energy-efficient model next time they're replacing an appliance.
Actually, the price increase is aimed mainly at big industrial users of energy and, more particularly, the generators of electricity.
If the industrial users can be induced to eliminate wasteful use of power, this will make a difference. And if power companies can be induced to replace their present generators with less emissions-intensive models when the time comes, this will make a big difference. Raising the price of electricity produced by burning fossil fuels helps make the price of power produced from renewable sources more competitive.
But if those objections to the tax don't wash, there are plenty more. One is that the tax of $23 per tonne of carbon dioxide is way too high. I discuss this one in my little video on the website.
Yet another objection is that, since there's nothing an individual country can do to have a significant effect on global emissions of greenhouse gases, in the absence of a binding agreement to act by all the major countries there's no point in us doing anything.
Trouble with that argument is it increases the likelihood of failure. Only if enough countries demonstrate their good faith by getting on with it is effective global action likely to eventuate. We should line up with the good guys, not the bad guys - and we're far from the only good guy.
But if all else fails - if you can't find any other argument to confirm the wisdom of your original conclusion the carbon tax is a terrible thing - just tell yourself that, when the vast majority of scientists specialising in the area warn us continued emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to devastating climate change, they've got it all wrong.
Ross Gittins is the economics editor

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/carbon-tax-wont-hurt-much-but-we-dont-want-to-know-20120626-210f7.html#ixzz1yzZJMpQI

Carbon capture prompts quake risk fear

A proposed method of cutting harmful carbon emissions in the atmosphere by storing them underground risks causing earthquakes and is unlikely to succeed, a US study says. Photo: Reuters

A PROPOSED method of cutting harmful carbon emissions in the atmosphere by storing them underground risks causing earthquakes and is unlikely to succeed, a US study says.
The warning came in a Perspective article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, just days after another independent US study warned that carbon capture and storage risked causing earthquakes.
At present it is considered a ''viable strategy'' by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for pollution control from coal-based electrical power generation and other industrial sources of carbon dioxide, said the study.

But while no large-scale projects are yet under way, the huge volume of fluid that would need to be stored below ground for long periods make the notion unrealistic, argued the study by experts at Stanford University in California.
''There is a high probability that earthquakes will be triggered by injection of large volumes of carbon dioxide into the brittle rocks commonly found in continental interiors,'' said the article by Mark Zobacka and Steven Gorelick, professors in the departments of geophysics and environmental earth system science.
''Because even small-to moderate-sized earthquakes threaten the seal integrity of CO2 repositories, in this context, large-scale carbon capture and storage is a risky, and likely unsuccessful, strategy for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.''
The technique aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the air by capturing, liquefying and injecting them below ground at high volumes. For it to work on a global scale, it would need to eliminate about 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, or about the same volume as 28.6 billion barrels, said the study, noting that about 27 billion barrels of oil are produced yearly worldwide.
Underground injections of wastewater have already been linked to small to moderate earthquakes in the US in recent years, it said, citing one apparent case as early as 1960 in Colorado and others last year in Arkansas and Ohio.
''The situation would be far more problematic if similar-sized earthquakes were triggered in formations intended to sequester CO2 for hundreds to thousands of years.''
A separate study by the US National Research Council on Friday found the process ''may have potential for inducing larger seismic events.''
AFP

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-capture-prompts-quake-risk-fear-20120619-20m3x.html#ixzz1yzcSlISV

Lit Motors C1 - the future of motorcycling?

This is the two-wheeled vehicle Lit Motors founder Daniel Kim hopes will be the future of transportation, and it's called the C-1.
What you have here is a gyro-stabilised electric vehicle which Lit Motors say will be on sale by 2014.
The two gyros - housed under the seats - keep the vehicle upright, even in the event of a collision according to Lit Motors. Which if true, is quite impressive.
The electric motor will be able to propel the C-1 to a claimed top speed of 120mph, with a range of up to 200 miles. Charging will take six hours on a 120V connection.
Despite its diminutive size, the C-1 has room for a driver and passenger. Like a bike it leans in to corners, but it also has seatbelts and airbags.
A small-scale production run will go on sale in 2014 for $24,000 (£15,445 at the time of writing), with a larger production run planned after, with a retail price of $16,000 (£10,294).
There's no doubting it looks cool - like something out of a sci-fi movie - but would you use one?
Personally, if range and speed were similar to traditional bikes as the company states, I think I'd be tempted. From the pictures it doesn't look too wide, meaning filtering could still be possible and weather conditions wouldn't be an issue.
Of course there is another question; is it really a motorcycle? The Wikipedia page for motorcycles says they are simply a two or three wheeled motor vehicle. So by that logic yes they are, but the C-1 has a steering wheel, roof and doors. Which to me and probably most motorcyclists means no.


http://litmotors.com/c-1/

http://youtu.be/Z0m-cUxMcJw


 

Robots in Cars Could Beckon Brave New Technology World

By Mike Elgan, Computerworld    Jun 3, 2012 1:26 am

 
Google's self-driving cars may soon appear on Nevada roads, where the state's Department of Motor Vehicles approved the nation's first autonomous vehicle license. (Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles/Handout) Futurists and science fiction writers have predicted for decades that one day smart robots would roll around town doing errands for us.
Today, that future seems still far off. But it's just around the corner. It's all thanks to Google, as well as car companies and universities that are making incredible advances in the technology for self-driving cars.

Google's Prius is already a better driver than you are
In 2004, I was invited by the Pentagon to cover a historic event in California's Mojave desert: The DARPA Grand Challenge. Google's self-driving cars may soon appear on Nevada roads, where the state's Department of Motor Vehicles approved the nation's first autonomous vehicle license. 
DARPA, the U.S. military's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, wanted to accelerate the development of self-driving cars for use on the battlefield. The agency challenged universities and private companies to enter their robotic vehicles in a contest -- a 142-mile course that had to be navigated by self-driving cars, trucks and even a motorcycle. The winner would receive a cash prize.
None of the entries made it even to the 10-mile mark.

While robot cars couldn't even handle a dirt road in the desert then, now they share the highways with us. Google, for example, has developed a fleet of eight self-driving cars, including six Toyota Priuses, as well as an Audi and a Lexus. A driver sits in the driver's seat without doing anything and a Google engineer in the passenger seat. This is a precaution and, it turns out, an unnecessary one. Google's self-driving cars have driven hundreds of thousands of miles on public roads without a single accident while under computer control. In fact, the most dangerous thing about Google's self-driving car is the human driver. Once he or she takes the wheel, the risk of accident increases.

Google's is just one of many successful self-driving car projects.
The major car companies -- including Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Ford, GM, Mercedes, Volkswagen and Volvo -- all have advanced self-driving car projects in the works. Many universities do, too. And of course, the Pentagon has been working on self-driving vehicle projects for decades.
Volvo demonstrated its self-driving car technology in Spain this month by the vehicles in a "convoy" in normal traffic. The convoy consisted of a lead truck driven by a professional driver, with a self-driving truck and three self-driving cars following.
From a technology point of view, the self-driving car is ready for wide-scale public use.
The only barrier to broad consumer availability is for governments to legalize them and for companies to build them and make them available for sale.

A robot gets a driver's license
The state of Nevada legalized self-driving cars last summer, a law that went into effect in March. Just this month, the state granted the world's first driver's license to a driverless car -- one of Google's Priuses.
The legalization of robot cars isn't taking place just in Nevada. The California State Senate approved a bill last week that would legalize self-driving cars in the state. The notoriously fractious body approved the measure unanimously. The bill will be heard next by the state Assembly.
Arizona, Hawaii and Oklahoma are also considering the legalization of self-driving cars.
Within a year or two, regular cars will start coming on the market with an "auto-pilot" feature; it will work like cruise control, but take total control of the vehicle. The "driver" will be able to sit there and read a magazine on the freeway. At first, a human driver will be required by law to sit in the driver's seat, even while the car is driving itself.
Eventually, it will be so clear to everyone that the computer is safer without the human driver, that truly driverless cars will be legalized.

Which brings us to the robot revolution
So here's the thing about self-driving cars. The "car" part is optional.
A self-driving car is simply a robot with sensors for perceiving location, orientation, roads, traffic lights, obstacles, and other factors and a computer brain to manage all that sensor information and make decisions about how and where to move the vehicle. The "body" of that robot happens to be a passenger car. But that same technology could be easily built into a Segway-like robot, or a wagon or a cart or a humanoid robot.
The auto-balancing Segway form factor will be advantageous because it takes about the same space as a walking human. That would enable these robots to use not only roads, but bike lanes and sidewalks. They could even enter buildings and roll down hallways.
Once robots have the technology and the legal rights to use public roads as humans do, they'll be able to roam those streets at will, doing our bidding.

 This is especially interesting when you consider how it will intersect with another development: the rise of intelligent agents or assistants. Software like Apple's Siri or the many similar offerings available on Android phones combine voice recognition with artificial intelligence to figure out what you say. Then this capability will be applied to something called "agency" -- the ability to take action on your requests. The most basic kind of agency involves only bits on the Internet, actions like making restaurant reservations. The virtual assistant interacts between the human user and a databased-oriented computer service. You tell your phone: "Make me a reservation at a good Italian place tonight for around 7," and software figures out the details and make it happen.
Siri used to do this before Apple "improved" it. Apple will surely add this kind of agency back into Siri's repertoire of abilities. And if Apple doesn't, Google will.

Once robots are licensed to drive, agency can lead to change in the real world. For example, you'll tell your iPhone: "Siri, bring me another bottle of wine." Siri will know your preferences, know where you shop, know your credit card information, and a Segway-like robot will come flying out of your garage, drive to the store, pick up the bottle (stores will offer robot pick-up as a service) and bring it to your front door.
An alternative is that the wine store has its own fleet of delivery bots. In fact, local pizza restaurants will have them, as will grocery stores, dry cleaners, flower shops and all kinds of other local businesses.

 In just a year or two, self-driving cars will go on the market. A couple years after that, the robot brains that control those cars will be installed in all kinds of purpose-built rolling "bodies." They'll move around in the world, running errands for us and delivering things to us.
The futuristic sci-fi vision of robots sharing the roads and sidewalks with people is coming soon. They won't be plotting our destruction, but delivering our pizza.
Who knew that the robot revolution would be ushered in by a search engine company and a bunch of car makers?
Mike Elgan writes about technology and tech culture. Contact and learn more about Mike at Elgan.com, or subscribe to his free e-mail newsletter, Mike's List. You can also see more articles by Mike Elgan on Computerworld.com.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/256685/robots_in_cars_could_beckon_brave_new_technology_world.html#tk.nl_dnx_h_crawl