Clean Energy - Blog Posts

It’s National Composites Week! Wait, what’s a composite?

This week, we’re celebrating National Composites Week, which CompositesWorld says is about shedding some light on how “composite materials and composites manufacturing contributes to the products and structures that shape the American manufacturing landscape today.”

What exactly are composites and why are we talking about them?

Composites are building materials that we use to make airplanes, spacecraft and structures or instruments, such as space telescopes. But why are they special?

Composites consist of two or more materials, similar to a sandwich. Each ingredient in a sandwich could be eaten individually, but combining them is when the real magic happens. Sure, you could eat a few slices of cold cheese chased with some floppy bread. But real talk: buttery, toasted bread stuffed with melty, gooey Gouda makes a grilled cheese a much more satisfying nosh.

With composites—like our sandwich—the different constituent parts each have special properties that are enhanced when combined. Take carbon fibers which are strong and rigid. Their advantage compared to other structural materials is that they are much lighter than metals like steel and aluminum. However, in order to build structures with carbon fibers, they have to be held together by another material, which is referred to as a matrix. Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer is a composite consisting of carbon fibers set in a plastic matrix, which yields an extremely strong, lightweight, high-performing material for spacecraft.

Composites can also be found on the James Webb Space Telescope. They support the telescope’s beryllium mirrors, science instruments and thermal control systems and must be exquisitely stable to keep the segments aligned.

We invest in a variety of composite technology research to advance the use of these innovative materials in things like fuel tanks on spacecraft, trusses or structures and even spacesuits. Here are a few exciting ways our Space Technology Mission Directorate is working with composites:

Deployable structures on small spacecraft

We’re developing deployable composite booms for future deep space small satellite missions. These new structures are being designed to meet the unique requirements of small satellites, things like the ability to be packed into very small volumes and stored for long periods of time without getting distorted.

A new project, led by our Langley Research Center and Ames Research Center, called the Advanced Composite Solar Sail System will test deployment of a composite boom solar sail system in low-Earth orbit. This mission will demonstrate the first use of composite booms for a solar sail in orbit as well as new sail packing and deployment systems.

Nano (teeny tiny) composites

We are working alongside 11 universities, two companies and the Air Force Research Laboratory through the Space Technology Research Institute for Ultra-Strong Composites by Computational Design (US-COMP). The institute is receiving $15 million over five years to accelerate carbon nanotube technologies for ultra-high strength, lightweight aerospace structural materials. This institute engages 22 professors from universities across the country to conduct modeling and experimental studies of carbon nanotube materials on an atomistic molecular level, macro-scale and in between. Through collaboration with industry partners, it is anticipated that advances in laboratories could quickly translate to advances in manufacturing facilities that will yield sufficient amounts of advanced materials for use in NASA missions.

Through Small Business Innovative Research contracts, we’ve also invested in Nanocomp Technologies, Inc., a company with expertise in carbon nanotubes that can be used to replace heavier materials for spacecraft, defense platforms, and other commercial applications.

Nanocomp’s Miralon™ YM yarn is made up of pure carbon nanotube fibers that can be used in a variety of applications to decrease weight and provide enhanced mechanical and electrical performance. Potential commercial use for Miralon yarn includes antennas, high frequency digital/signal and radio frequency cable applications and embedded electronics. Nanocomp worked with Lockheed Martin to integrate Miralon sheets into our Juno spacecraft.

Composites for habitats

At last spring’s 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge the top two teams used composite materials in their winning habitat submissions. The multi-phase competition challenged teams to 3D print one-third scale shelters out of recyclables and materials that could be found on deep space destinations, like the Moon and Mars.

After 30 hours of 3D-printing over four days of head-to-head competition, the structures were subjected to several tests and evaluated for material mix, leakage, durability and strength. New York-based AI. SpaceFactory won first place using a polylactic acid plastic, similar to materials available for Earth-based, high-temperature 3D printers.

This material was infused with micro basalt fibers as well, and the team was awarded points during judging because major constituents of the polylactic acid material could be extracted from the Martian atmosphere.

Second place was awarded to Pennsylvania State University who utilized a mix of Ordinary Portland Cement, a small amount of rapid-set concrete, and basalt fibers, with water.

These innovative habitat concepts will not only further our deep space exploration goals, but could also provide viable housing solutions right here on Earth.

Student research in composites

We are also supporting the next generation of engineers, scientists and technologists working on composites through our Space Technology Research Grants. Some recently awarded NASA Space Technology Fellows—graduate students performing groundbreaking, space technology research on campus, in labs and at NASA centers—are studying the thermal conductivity of composites and an optimized process for producing carbon nanotubes and clean energy.

We work with composites in many different ways in pursuit of our exploration goals and to improve materials and manufacturing for American industry. If you are a company looking to participate in National Composites Week, visit: https://www.nationalcompositesweek.com.

Make sure to follow us on Tumblr for your regular dose of space: http://nasa.tumblr.com

Currently, the Earth is facing a natural resources crisis. Natural resources are being used at a rate faster than the Earth can replenish them. The use of natural resources is essential to human life, which means there needs to be a way to ensure that these natural resources can continue to replenish themselves. Overuse of fossil fuels and overexploitation of water and soil contributes to the growing climate change crisis.

Developing a sustainable plan for managing natural resources is one way to ensure that everyone can continue to use and benefit from natural resources. Sustainable management of natural resources involves using natural resources in a way that both maintains and improves the resilience of the environment and the many benefits they provide. It focuses on the sustainability of industries like agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, among others.

Nikolas Perrault shares why it is crucial that proper storage solutions are developed for renewable energy.

The cost of offshore wind in America is dropping, from 24¢/kWh for the operational Block Island wind farm, to 13¢/kWH for two proposed projects in MD, to an expected 10¢/kWh for two projects in MA. But German offshore wind is only 5¢/kWh. Why is German offshore wind so cheap, and how can US offshore achieve those prices and compte with natural gas (~7¢/kWh).

The biggest factor is perceived risk by financial backers due to regulatory uncertainty. A clear national policy on offshore wind, and a national commitment to developing offshore wind resources, could drive those costs down.

Also increasing cost is the lack of a domestic supply chain and infrastructure. If the US invests in a domestic supply chain, including ports to service offshore wind (as is being done in New Bedford, MA), US offshore wind could become cost competitive with natural gas.

Original Article

As Trump casts himself as a savior for the coal industry, the red states that voted for him are adding most of the nation’s clean energy,

From JUSTIN GILLIS and NADJA POPOVICH in the New York Times:

The five states that get the largest percentage of their power from wind turbines — Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma and North Dakota — all voted for Mr. Trump. So did Texas, which produces the most wind power in absolute terms. In fact, 69 percent of the wind power produced in the country comes from states that Mr. Trump carried in November... These red states are not motivated by a sudden desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... their leaders see tapping the wind, and to a lesser degree the sun, as an economic strategy. The clean energy push allows their utilities to lock in low power prices for decades, creates manufacturing jobs, puts steady money in the hands of farmers who host wind turbines, and lures big employers who want renewable power.

(continued from previous post)

The big story in Houser and Mohan's study is where these cleaner forms of energy are coming from that are responsible for half of the drop in emissions. It's generally assumed that the drop is a result of cleaner and cheap natural gas pushing out dirty coal. However, Houser and Mohan show that we shouldn't be counting out reneables.

Plumer:

Natural gas is indeed pushing out dirtier coal, and that makes a sizable difference (burning natural gas for electricity emits about half the carbon-dioxide that burning coal does). But wind farms are also sprouting up across the country, thanks to government subsidies. What’s more, industrial sites are burning more biomass for heat and electricity, while biofuels like ethanol are nudging out oil. All of that has done a lot to cut emissions.

Brad Plumer in the Washington Post explains a new study on the dramatic drop in carbon emissions in the U.S. over the past five years. This graph shows a hypothetical level of emissions that were projected based on trends from 1990-2005, compared to the actual level of emissions in 2012. It then breaks down the causes.

Plumer explains:

The recession and financial crisis, obviously, made a big difference. A weaker economy has meant less demand for energy — that was responsible for more than half the drop compared with business as usual.

Meanwhile, Houser and Mohan find the U.S. economy actually hasn’t become vastly less energy-intensive over time (the blue bar). Yes, overall efficiency has gone up — Americans are buying more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, etc. But the country is also no longer shedding manufacturing jobs as quickly as it was during the 1990s. So the amount of energy we use per unit of GDP has generally followed historical trends, improving only gradually.

The real change has come in the type of energy that the United States is using. The country is now relying more heavily cleaner forms of energy than it used to, and that explains about half of the fall in emissions

Even as global carbon dioxide emissions hit a record high in 2012, CO2 emissions from energy generation in the United States fell to 1994 levels. This is a 13% decrease over the past 5 years. President Barack Obama has set a climate goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions 17% from 2005 levels over the next decade. By the end of last year, levels were down 10.7% from the 2005 baseline, meaning America is more than halfway towards that goal.

The reductions come from a variety of places. It is, in part, because of new energy-saving technologies. In part because of a weakened economy. In part because of a growing share of renewables in the energy sector. And in part because cleaner natural gas is displacing carbon-rich coal.

While this is good news, there are some important caveats. 1.) This is only the U.S. Emissions are rising rapidly in other parts of the world. 2.) This is only CO2 emissions from energy production. This is a big source of greenhouse gas emissions, but not the only one. 3.) This rate of decline is probably not fast enough to avert the worst of climate change.

From the Washington Post:

Map from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing how much electricity each state gets from wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. Maine was the clear winner in 2011, getting 27 percent of its electricity coming from renewable sources — a lot of it wind power and biomass. But Maine had a lot of renewable energy back in 2001, too. South Dakota and Iowa, at 21 percent and 17 percent, have seen far more impressive growth. Both of those states got almost none of their electricity from renewable sources a decade ago.

In the U.S., clean energy and carbon pollution regulation are very popular. What is the disconnect between public opinion on these issues, and Federal actions?

From the Washington Post:

"There are two ways to think about the cost of energy. There’s the dollar amount that shows up on our utility bills or at the pump. And then there’s the “social cost” — all the adverse consequences that various energy sources... end up foisting on the public."

"The blue bars represent the current market cost of various energy sources. On top of that, Greenstone and Looney have added estimated health damages from air pollution (the purple bar), as well as the cost of climate-changing carbon emissions that come with burning fossil fuels (the gray bar)."

"At the end of the paper, Greenstone and Looney argue that the government should put a price on the social costs of fossil fuels — either through a cap on emissions or a tax. “If firms and consumers faced the full cost of their energy use,” they write, “they would have a greater incentive to make more-informed and socially efficient decisions about energy consumption.”"

When thinking of ways to make renewable energy cost-competitive with fossil fuels, an important consideration are the market distortions caused by substantial government subsidies to fossil fuels versus subsidies to renewable energy. De-carbonizing the global energy sector will require removing subsidies for fossil fuels.

Numbers from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/sustainability-indicator-130-billion-pints-of-beer.html

Meanwhile, as coal's share of U.S. electricity production declines, wind power capacity has been increasing. By the end of 2010, total wind power capacity exceeded 40,000 megawatts, representing a cumulative investment total of $78 billion since the beginning of the 1980s.

*the slowed growth observed in 2010 is attributed to the delayed impact of the global financial crisis (which impacted the apparent availability of capital for 2010 projects that were being planned in 2009), low natural gas prices and a lower overall demand for energy

-VOTE-!

Yo Biden just announced an infrastructure devolopment/clean energy/environmental justice plan and it's honesty pretty fucking amazing and much more ambitious than I ever would have expected from him, goddamn. He's trying to Eisenhower/New Deal our way out of the economic collapse.

Some notable points addressed by this plan:

Expanding American railway systems

Fixing the crumbling roads, bridges, dams, etc. that haven't been kept up

Capping abandoned oil wells

Undoing Trump's financial bailout policies for unclean energy companies

Reinvesting in American-made automotive companies

Getting America to 100% clean energy by 2035

Fixing air, water, and ground pollution issues that disproportionately affect poc

Getting justice for victims of environmental racism

Reinstating a bunch of environmental and medical jobs Trump had cut

Getting the US back on the Paris Agreement/Climate Accord