Replacing wires

With copper selling at >$3.50 a pound and energy costs skyrocketing it might be time to rethink the way buildings are wired. Last time this happened they decided to Aluminum wires, however this proved to be a poor idea. Aluminum is not as good a conductor as Copper, so thicker wires were needed, plus the expansion coefficients of Aluminum are so different from Copper and Brass that reliability issues quickly cropped up as connections worked loose and in extreme cases there were electrical fires. I am proposing something completely different; I propose we make the logic part of the system separate from the power supply. For example currently light switches are wired with 14 or 16 gauge wire in a complex web that makes it possible to control a single light with multiple switches. So the switches and wires provide both the power and the logic. Fiber optical lines and a small microprocessor could take the place of the logic and control a relay that connected to a "home” run line that lead directly from the circuit panel to light. The home run minimizes the amount wire used, and by putting the logic in the socket or in a box next to the socket even the fiber optic runs would be minimized. The logic of the system could be as simple as whether or not the light from a tiny LED in the control box was returned from the switch or not. If the light was LED based the power wire could be cheaper low voltage lines perhaps even Cat 5. By replacing 50% of the wiring in a house with fiber, plus the shorter distance of the home runs the cost savings could be thousands of dollars in materials and labor. Plus by having shorter runs, the voltage drop could be reduced so the system would be safer and save electricity, allowing the savings to compound over time.

What I think is stopping people is there is this mystic around fiber optics, and people assume they are expensive and fragile. But if you think about it fiber optics are embedded in kid’s toys and Christmas trees. These low cost plastic fibers may not be able to transmit Gbs per second, but they can transmit the on/off signal to control a light bulb, and they are very cheap and durable. Even higher quality fiber optics is very affordable. Right now bulk fiber is cheaper or the same per 1000 feet with Romex 14 gauge wire. The cost difference is in the connections, since fiber cannot simply be crimpled.
Wireless also has great potential but the issue with a wireless light switch is how do you power it? Most people don't want to have to have to remember to recharge the light switches or change a bunch of batteries every year. If you have to run even low voltage wiring then what's the point of wireless, so how do you power them? The answer to the problem is wireless power. As anyone who even built a crystal radio when they were a kid knows there is actually a great deal of power to be had from seemingly thin air. So it is possible to build small power supplies that charge on 2.4 GHz and then can intermittently run a device like a light switch transceiver. For devices that need to run more often or require larger amounts of power it is possible to capture the extremely powerful RF from radio and TV broadcasts and use that power for something as large as an LED night light. I am sure the radio and TV stations would not be happy about it but they are transmitting a couple watts into you house, why not use it? With self powering wireless it would be possible to have a normal looking light switch on the wall but no wires running to it. You turn it on or off it sends a signal, the receiver in the bulb or socket picks up the signal turns the light on or off, and replies to all the switches it has synced with that the light's state has changed and makes the switch stop sending.

The biggest issue with wireless is you are counting on a transmitted signal to carry your information, so it can be intercepted, spoofed or jammed. This loss of control over basics functions like lighting, security or HVAC will be unacceptable to many. So the compromise could be wireless power supplies to run LEDs in the control units that interact with people, transmitting the information via fiber optic lines to the units being controlled. In the section above I made it sound like a simple task to bounce a light beam back up a fiber to the control unit however it is not. Making a system to accomplish this task and be robust enough to with stand years of abuse both from people and the environment is actually monumental. However, having one way communication paths with the light source directly connected to the fiber, and the switch or button being separate, makes it far easier to engineer a robust system. If fluid lens technology was commercially viable, then the high cost of connections would come down and fiber could compete head to head with copper for information and control infrastructure. Another possibility is using conductive polymers to transmit ultra-low power signals. Imagine jacketed conductive polymer threads that carry infrequent packets of information or bursts of power over short distances. I am not sure that this would be allowed in the current version of the NEC but considering that any over voltage would cause the fiber to fail it would not represent a shock or fire hazard.
I am imagining a fiber optic line that could transmit small amounts of power, or even better a conductive paint that could be put underneath regular paint on the walls. The issue with this is usable life span. Can conductive polymers or paints last 20 years? I don't know, but then again considering the quality of modern construction I am not sure some of the houses being built today will last 20 years without significant maintenance.
Overall, I think it is time we begin considering other means of transmitting information inside buildings besides copper wires. An investment in fiber now can also help future proof a home, since after 1800P TV there is 4K TV which to my understanding requires a minimum sustained speed of 500Mb/s/feed. However, a good first step would be to replace the line voltage logic of the light switches with line voltage home runs and Cat 5 based switch logic.

The new nuclear power and modern alchemy

Given the current state of the energy market combined with the environmental worries we are facing, plus the average age of the reactors in the US it is time for nuclear power to make a come back. We have had nearly 30 years since the last major accident with a nuke plant in the US. Massive improvements have been made in design and safety. If the NRC can create a program to pre-certify a set of stock gen 2 designs so they can be built as "cheap" prefab units, and reduce the hassles with site selection we can reduce our need to buy hydrocarbon fuel from outside the US and reduce the need to burn dirty but home sourced coal.
I do not agree that we have figured out what to do with spent fuel. Burying it is likely not the right answer, but reprocessing might not be right either. So while we figure out what to do with the spent fuel, we shouldn't waste the heat it produces.
As for the matter of proliferation most of the fuel "burned" in US reactors has so much Pu240 that you would get nothing but a fizzle. Interestingly this very property could reduce the spent fuel problem and create a way to “peak” with nuclear power.
After removal, the fuel rods are placed in pools to cool off, since the residual radioactivity they contain produces a vast amount of heat. With a low boiling point working fluid as a secondary coolant significant energy could be recovered from the waste heat in the pool and used to spin "steam" turbines during periods when peaking power is needed. By moving the rods closer in the pool the increased amount of subcritical fission could keep the rods hot for a long time and reduce the amount of fissile material in the rod.
The optimal solution would be an element that could be made into sheathing for the rods that went struck with a neutron would produce a high energy alpha or beta with a very short half life, with a nonradioactive decay product. The issue is the best material for this job is Gold, but Gold is too expensive so Cadmium 114 could be used since Cadmium 115 has a short half life (3 days) and after a beta decay produces Indium and lots of heat. Cadmium 114 isn’t hard to get since the control rods of nuclear reactors are rich in it after a few years of neutron bombardment. Interesting while after decay the Gold turns to Lead, the Cadmium ($10/Kg) decays into Indium ($1,000/Kg), sounds like alchemy doesn’t it? With a Cadmium sheath the rods could be very close, and creating lots of heat but never reach critical mass. However, given the high neutron cross section of Indium the sheath material would have to be changed out frequently to ensure high recovery of Indium.
The “peaking pond” would be built to allow the rods to be moved horizontally so that as the time that power would be needed approached the rods could be moved closer together so they could start really heating up again. Then just before the predicted “peak” demand was reached the rods would be separated again, since they will continue to heat up after being moved apart. During off peak times the power generated could drive the cooling pumps and accessory equipment, allowing the “peaking pond” to be self sufficient.
In case anyone from Westinghouse reads this I hope your lobbyists are working 24/7 to get something like what I suggested hidden in a bullet proof bill that can be passed and signed before next year.

New power lines for an old grid

The power transmission system in America is crumbling but NIMBY will make it hard to fix since we can't build towers and burying high voltage power lines is very expensive. That makes the best choice to find ways to use the ones we have more effectively. This is a problem for the material scientists, since to do this will require the steel the lines are made of to be lighter and more conductive. Thanks to the auto industry I am sure that the steel has gotten lighter in the past few years, but I am not sure much thought has been put into more conductive. This is a problem of alloying, forging and final shape. Since what the wire is made of, how it's made, and woven determines the electrical properties, it should be possible to increase conductivity of the wires significantly while not requiring exotic materials. By adding a fiberglass or carbon fiber core the line could be made lighter and stronger, and thanks to the skin effect nearly the same current capacity. With lighter lines it would allow for more lines to be strung on the same support towers. By changing crystal structure of the steel via what can only be described as vigorous machining, and adding a small percent of a metal like vanadium the steel will be stronger and possibly more conductive. Additionally by weaving cables of different diameter, with different properties it should be possible to greatly increase the strength and conductivity of the cables with minimal increases in material costs.

Robotic jet tugs and fuel savings

Besides circling the airport it is my understanding that the biggest usage of fuel of airlines is ground operation. Having a jet idle on the taxi way for 45 minutes is a huge waste of fuel. (In order to keep the fuel/air mixture right in the thick, oxygen rich air near the ground, the turbo fan engines burn vast amounts fuel.) However, the major cargo shipping ports have an answer, since they have found away to automate the movement of containers, using robotic trucks. It wouldn't work as well for landing aircraft but for getting planes to the takeoff point it could be very economical to have a robot tug not only push the plane out of the gate but take it to the runway too. Then the pilot could start the engines, a few minutes before take off and the aircraft roll onto the runway under its own power.To keep the system safe the pilot and the tower would have encrypted control over the vehicle and both would have to agree on the route to allow the system to operate. In case the communication was interrupted the robot could be controlled via a hardwired manual system. The route taken could be controlled via in ground markers, and UWB based transceivers to double check the position and relay it to the tower. In the event of total system failure the aircraft could still move themselves.I realize the system wouldn't be cheap but with fuel prices where they are the savings and reduction in emissions would be worth it. A small amount diesel or LP versus a huge amount of JetA would have a huge impact.

Luggage weight and fuel saving

I mostly fly American Airlines, which is famous for its finding ways to save on fuel costs. From not painting the planes to removing the olives, they will do anything to save fuel. However, the ways to reduce fuel costs are getting fewer and further between. There one seemingly obvious way that they have over looked. Reducing the weight of the bags people bring on. Sure some people pack by weight, but most bring what they need regardless. So the less the bag weighs the less fuel it takes to transport it.Besides working with luggage companies to reduce the weight of the bags, airlines should consider rewarding people for packing well under-weight. Either with coupons for airline related goods and services or extra frequent flier miles. Positive reinforcement works better in cases like this, since it encourages good behavior and doesn't lead to bad press that results from additional fees. They should also consider luggage trade in programs. By watching for and replacing bags that are very heavy by themselves the fuel savings could be significant. (By working with companies that make carbon fiber products it could be possible to use the scraps to make bags with less metal without reducing strength.Plus the cool factor, your bag was once part of an Indy car or a Dreamliner.) This program would be costly but the fuel savings would be significant. By standardizing the bags the loading of the bags could be greatly simplified. (They would create a thriving after market in bag customization, with "skins" being a way to ensure "many bags do not look alike".) Even with all the savings the airlines would never do something like this on their own. I suggest the government offer them carbon credits or tax incentives, to get them to help themselves.The other thing airlines could do is encourage people to lose weight, but I think helping peoples bags slim down is the more practical option.

Greening up America: Ground sourced heatpumps

Since not everyone knows what a heatpump is, it is exactly what it sounds like. All kidding aside it is an air conditioner that can run backwards in the winter. An AC unit only moves heat around, via the compression and expansion of a gas. In the summer a heat pump uses energy to move heat out of a building to the hotter outside. This is not a violation on the laws of thermodynamics since it uses energy to compress a gas making it much hotter then the outside temp. Then by cooling it with additional energy it can be reexpanded inside to remove heat inside. In the winter a heatpump does the opposite. It cools the hot compressed gas inside and warms the very cold expanded gas outside. This allows it to move or pump ~4 units of heat in for every unit of energy consumed. The issue with AC units and heat pumps is they have a range where they are best able to move heat. This ranges from 35 to ~80 F. Just outside that range they use a lot of energy, which makes them inefficient.
This why in the summer during the day there are brown outs. All the AC units are working hard but not efficiently. I once heard more than half the electricity us in the US goes to climate control. If the outside temp goes too far beyond the range AC/heatpumps simply can't move heat and cease to function. There is another option and it is below you feet. In most parts of the country below 6 feet down the ground temp is a steady ~60 year around. (This is way caves and basements are cool.)By burying a long coil in the yard or if space is limiting deep it is possible to ensure the heatpump or AC unit operates at peak efficiency, which reduces the running cost and ensures optimalcomfort. In new construction the hole for a buildings foundation can be dug over sized and the coils installed around the perimeter. Yes a ground sourced heatpump costs ~$7k but with oil and gas prices where they are and where they will likely remain for the next few years, it is likely the pay back period will be short enough that the risk will be low. As of this writing oil futures for 2016 delivery are selling for >$100 a barrel. If there was a tax benefit, it would really encourage adoption, and reduce the demand for oil and gas.The problem with a heatpump is they are power hungry (30 A at 240 V). This is actually a huge power savings, versus traditional AC units or hydrocarbon fueled heaters, but in many cases installing one will require upgrading the power system in the building. In some areas this will also require upgrading the power grid. (Which is needed anyways.) The upside is that the load increase will largely be base load, which is the cheapest power to generate.