Results

Will Lady Liberty’s torch one day be lit by electricity produced by an ocean wind farm?  If New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has any say in the matter, that day might come sooner rather than later.

And that might not be all Mayor Bloomberg has in store for the city of New York.  In a sweeping speech made earlier this month at the 2008 National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, Bloomberg announced that the city had released a Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) that challenges companies to come up with innovative ideas to help New York City develop renewable sources of energy.  Among other things, Bloomberg suggested that companies might come up with ways to produce electricity via geothermal energy, rooftop solar panels, turbines that take advantage of the Hudson and East River tides, wind farms atop skyscrapers and bridges, and wind farms in the Atlantic Ocean.

Bloomberg’s bullish stance on ocean wind farms for New York City is interesting given the controversy currently surrounding the Cape Wind Project in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound.  At first blush, Cape Wind sounds like the type of project Bloomberg has in mind for New York City.  If completed on time, Cape Wind stands to become the first offshore wind energy plant in the United States, capable of generating 420 megawatts of renewable electricity.  The $900 million project would supply approximately 75% of the electricity demands of Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha’s Vineyard, offsetting close to a million tons of carbon dioxide the consumption of 113 million gallons of oil annually.

While the Cape Wind Project might sound good theoretically, the project has plenty of opponents—some of them quite powerful.  And quite surprising, too, given the nature of the project.  Among those who oppose the Cape Wind Project are political progressives like Robert Kennedy, Jr. and U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), whose family compound in Hyannis, MA, is located within sight of the proposed Cape Wind site.  Among the reasons the Kennedys and others are opposed to the project include the notion of “aesthetic pollution,” or the notion that the size of the individual Cape Wind Project turbines, plus the lights they are required to display, will cause a sort of “visual pollution.”  Proponents of the Cape Wind Project dismiss this sort of argument as a thinly veiled form of “Not In My Backyard”-ism, or “NIMBYism,” intimating that well-heeled progressives are all for radical changes to the status quo—unless and until it affects what they perceive as their right to a certain quality of life.

With that in mind, it’s refreshing to know that Mayor Bloomberg—a man with a good deal of political cachet—is willing to consider innovative solutions to America’s energy woes.  For unless all Americans work together, and unless all Americans are all willing to make sacrifices—the well-heeled and hoi polloi alike—America will never solve the renewable energy puzzle, and will be dependent on foreign oil for generations to come.

Many major US stores are looking to cut costs for high energy bills by tapping into the unused real estate above their properties.  Attempting to cash in on government tax incentives, retail chains like Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, and Kohl’s are installing solar panels to harness the sun’s energy for heating and power needs.  While the cost per kilowatt are still not as competitive as other fossil fuel based sources, businesses are taking steps to be ready for an economy where fuel shortages could change things significantly.
 
“It’s very clear that green energy is now front and center in the minds of the business sector,” Daniel M. Kammen, an energy expert at the University of California, Berkeley told the New York Times.  With fuel oil hitting $4.00 a gallon this past summer, businesses with an eye for managing operation costs are seeing that there are some advantages to capitalizing on unused overhead, i.e. rooftop acreage.
 
Kohl’s recently announced  that its Oregon stores would begin installing solar panels this month.  “Kohl’s strives to be an environmentally responsible retailer,” said Ken Bonning, executive vice president of logistics for Kohl’s. “The addition of Oregon to our solar program demonstrates our continued desire to use cleaner energy and reduce our carbon footprint.”  Estimating that 25% of the stores energy needs would be supplied by the new solar grid, Kohl’s is pressing forward with a plan to install solar power systems at stores in California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.

 
Initially seen as inefficient and impractical, solar panel technology has made some significant advances.  Back in 1979, when President Carter first announced his alternative energy strategy, solar panels were mainly collectors that used the heat of the sun to heat water for use in buildings.  However, the idea of using that water to turn turbines and create electricity, while possible was very costly.  While fossil fuel burning power plants could generate a kilowatt of power for about 5 or 6 cents, solar power plants were only been able to generate a kilowatt as cheaply as $1.  Photovoltaics, or the process of converting the sun’s light into electricity, has made significant progress in bringing the price of solar electricity down.  Using photovoltaics, Nellis Air Force Base has managed to create solar electric power for the base at a cost of 2.2 cents per kilowatt.
 
Europe and Japan are leading the charge in solar power implementation.  Germany has so many store roof projects going on that the results are visible from satellite photos.  Japan initiated subsidy programs for homeowners to install photovoltaic systems.  According to a U.S. Department of Energy report, the result was an increase in Japanese solar generated power from 31.2 megawatts in 1994 to 318 megawatts in 1999.
 
American retailers seem to be profiting from the experience of other nations solar programs and the latest developments in photovoltaic science.  By studying Germany and Japan’s implementation procedures, American stores are able to weigh the pros and cons of which type of panels to install at which types of stores.  Regional weather patterns can make one solar collection method a better choice than another.  With a little persistence, and some government backing, retailers may quickly become the new energy experts.

There are still roughly 200 days to St. Patrick’s Day, but Anheuser-Busch is focusing on a different kind of “green” beer: the environmental kind.  In an press release from July, Anheuser-Bush declared “More than five billion 12-oz. servings of beer – or about one in seven beers brewed by Anheuser-Busch in the United States – are expected to be brewed using renewable fuel by the end of 2009*, thanks to environmental efforts at the company’s 12 U.S. breweries.”  (The asterisk refers readers to the calculation method used by the international brewing company to arrive at its one in seven beer ratio.)  Is it all hype or could the mega-brewer from Missouri actually mean to turn a new, more environmentally conscious, leaf?
 
The energy goals will implement two methods that are currently in limited use at other Anheuser-Busch sites:  BERS and biogas.  This is not the unfortunate result of a keg party featuring home-made chili.  BERS stands for bio-energy recovery system.  The biogas portion is the natural gas that is produced from a local landfill’s decomposing mass.  The Anheuser-Busch project harnesses the stored energy in wastebeer to fuel a biogas powered burner.  Anheuser-Busch predicts that 70% of its Houston plant’s energy needs will be filled using this type of system.  Other Anheuser-Busch plants across the nation will be following suit; utilizing wastebeer and alternative fuel sources such as wind, solar, and biomass.
 
“We have a long history of protecting and preserving the environment, and these projects will move us closer to our goal of running our U.S. operations on 15 percent renewable fuel by 2010,” said Doug Muhleman, group vice president, Brewing Operations and Technology, Anheuser-Busch, Inc. “It’s part of our pledge to be better environmental stewards of the world we share.”
 
This dovetails nicely with the environmental policies of InBev, the Belgian based company which recently merged with Anheuser-Busch.  In a 2007 Environmental Impact study, InBev analyzed the effectiveness of its current strategies.  The highlights of this report were:

• In 2006, 97% of total waste and byproducts are reused or recycled.
• Water use per hectoliter has fallen by 3.8% since 2005, and is down 8.9% over the last three years.
• Since 2005, the amount of energy required to produce a hectoliter of product has been reduced by 16.7%, with reductions of 21.9% over the last three years.
   

InBev was able to achieve these kind of numbers by finding innovative ways to re-use existing fuel sources that payed into its normal production requirements.  A first ever in the industry initiative is going to use the rice husks normally discarded from the brewing process to become fuel sources for its brewery in South America.  In addition, InBev was able to significantly reduce its NOx and SOx emissions over the past couple of years by about 1 million and 5 million tons respectively.
 
The brewing industry has other players interested in finding ways to convert waste product into viable energy sources.  As covered in a previous Talkibie article, Coors Brewing Co. will be the sole provider of ethanol for the 2008 Democratic National Convention.  The ethanol is produced from Coors stores of wastebeer that could either be turned into ethyl alcohol base or thrown away.  Instead, Coors is converting this wastebeer into fuel for Flex-fuel vehicles that the Democratic Convention will use to transport delegates, media, and candidates to and from the convention center.
 
The way to stay ahead in business is to maximize profits and mitigate loss.  In Anheuser-Busch’s case, the environmental factor cannot be ignored.  Businesses that can find a way to turn garbage into cost effective measures to operate will win in the end.  The Anheuser-Busch plan of implementing BERS and biogas is sure to be a win-win situation for everyone.  Their new partner, InBev, also brings a strong commitment to environmental measures along with additional ideas to minimize costs by maximizing the use of company owned resources.  In addition, the public relations spin can only help create an even stronger brand image for Anheuser-Busch.  That’s something everyone can drink to.

Ever wonder what happens to all the energy generated in public spaces like gyms, train stations, or parks? Right now, with few exceptions, nothing happens to it, but that may change. Every movement we make generates small amounts of energy that could be converted into electricity and stored. Pounding the pavement, running on a treadmill, or pedaling a bicycle could produce the electricity we use to run an iPod or watch a television. This idea, called energy harvesting, is starting to attract attention at gyms and in public spaces around the world.

In what’s being billed as a green technology, human-powered devices are springing up in many forms. A recent CNN article profiles Italian inventor Lucien Gambarota, who has designed equipment for California Fitness, a gym in Hong Kong run on energy harvesting technology. “One of the oldest types of energy used by people is muscular energy — so this is nothing new.” Gambarota created “exercycles ,” similar to a stationary bike but with one clever difference: it’s connected to a generator for storing the energy created by pedaling it.

The introduction of energy harvesting equipment in a heavily-used gym could generate enough electricity to run the lights, power TVs, or keep the music playing on the gym’s stereo system. In addition to California Fitness, a human-powered gym is slated to open in Portland Oregon this month. The Green Microgym expects to generate up to 750 watts per hour. Founder Adam Boesel told the L.A. Times, “We are creating a neighborhood gym that is as comfortable and effective as any other. At the same time, our members are doing their part to help the Earth.”

Gyms aren’t the only facilities looking to turn muscle energy into electricity. A “sustainable dance club” in the Netherlands is set to open in September. The floor itself will employ electricity capture-and-storage technology. Wheels underneath the dance floor will move slightly as dancers impact it, which will cause coils and magnets embedded in the floor to create electric charges. Another method of this technology has been used elsewhere; “piezoelectricity” utilizes crystals embedded in the floor to generate charges. Both of these technologies could be used in high-traffic public places, such as subway and train stations or airports. They may even jump to individual homes, where people will cycle to power their TVs and overhead lights.

While the amount of electricity generated by human power is small compared to other renewable methods, the idea is intriguing. All the small movements we do throughout the day could be captured and turned into a positive, free, and clean source of power. The idea of energy harnessing is attracting attention all around the globe, and while the impact of this renewable energy source may be small, it certainly is compelling.

With gas prices increasing and the constant threat of global warming taking over, people are looking for new ways to be more fuel efficient with their automobiles.  Enter the do-it-yourself electric car.  Instead of buying gasoline for fuel, the owner of this car can go home at night, plug his vehicle into an electrical outlet, and have it ready for use the next day.
 
Two Georgia men are trying out this concept separately.  Larry Horsley, the owner of a ‘95 Chevy S-10 says the conversion from gas to electric cost him about $12,000 according to an article on CNN.com.  David Kennington of the Atlanta area also thinks the conversion of his Honda Civic del Sol is worth it.  Not only does the conversion save gas money, but it also helps decrease the pollution of the environment.  Americans have been hoping for big-car manufacturers to deliver mainstream electric vehicles (EVs) like the Chevy Volt , but such cars have not come to fruition.  The American public is seemingly sold on the benefits of EVs.
 
Just imagine what electric cars can do.  They can help people save gas money while lowering gas prices.  Moreover, the maintenance for the car should cost less because it will not need regular oil changes.  These cars can also lower gas emissions to help the environment and reduce the global warming effect.  They might also solve the oil crisis of recent years.  If electric cars almost seem too good to be true, it’s because there are some serious downsides.
 
Detractors say that electric cars are not “the answer” for a few reasons.  Until these electric cars become more mainstream, people will have to deal with these do-it-yourself kits which cost a significant amount in time and money.  Horsley estimates that the total time to install his kit was three months, most of which he estimated was spent waiting on parts.  Another issue with electric cars is that they cannot be driven for long trips.  Kennington gets about 20 miles per charge, so he only drives it on short trips a couple times a week according to CNN.com.  Finally, battery packs tend to be very heavy and cause additional wear and tear on tires and breaks.
 
“I hope at some point that I will be able to drive it on a more regular basis and that it will be more useful,” says Kennington on CNN.com. “Do I expect it to someday to be my only car? No.”
 
Even though an electric car cannot be driven as far as anyone pleases per trip, people still show a significant interest in them.
 
Bob Batson who formed a company called Electric Vehicles of America in Wolfeboro, N.H., sells vehicle parts for those looking to convert from gasoline to electric. Electric Vehicles of America’s homepage has snapshots of every vehicle under the sun that can be powered with their conversion kits.  From boats to airport tugs, go-carts to farm tractors, truck to automobiles, Mr. Batson’s company can convert the powerplant from internal combustion to electric.  All it takes is time, money, and the desire to seek an alternative.
 
The do-it-yourself group may turn the electric car into a mainstream item.  Nothing will cause a business to change its approach faster than competition that is cutting into their profits.  Should do-it-yourself kits become easier to install and electric cars have a lower total cost of ownership, major car manufacturers may find competition with a new industry:  chassis-only manufacturers.  These do-it-yourself electric cars put the future of automobiles in the hands of the consumer.

A new current.com video is making the rounds on the web, and it reveals shocking statistics about our water usage in developed countries. Europeans use an average of 200 liters of water each day, while those in the U.S. use double that amount, 400 liters! However, people in the developing world average just 10 liters a day, and many of them do not have access to a consistent and clean water source.

Current correspondent Paulina Tervo challenged herself to cut down her usage to the level of most developing countries, living for an entire week on 10 liters per day. The video details her experience and highlights some of the problems faced by those without access to clean, sanitary water.

Aid organizations and entrepreneurs alike are answering the call for clean water around the globe. Most famously, perhaps, is the inventor of the Segway, Dean Kamen. His company, DEKA Research, has been working on a portable water purification system called the Slingshot. This easy-to-use, efficient technology could bring clean water to people living anywhere on the planet.

The Slingshot has been years in the making, and it was inspired by DEKA’s work on dialysis machines, which require purified water. Back in 2006, Kamen told CNN Money, “Eighty percent of all the diseases you could name would be wiped out if you just gave people clean water…Not required are engineers, pipelines, epidemiologists, or microbiologists. You don’t need any -ologists. You don’t need any building permits, bribery, or bureaucracies.”

The high-tech machine, approximately the size of a dishwasher, can take in any form of water, even highly contaminated water. Even raw sewage can be poured into the Slingshot, vaporized, and come out as pure, fresh water. Kamen said, “The water purifier makes 1,000 liters of clean water a day, and we don’t care what goes into it.” DEKA has tested the Slingshot in locations around the globe with great success. The system is powered by a generator which can use any local fuel, such as firewood or even animal dung. Locals will be trained how to use and maintain the technology.

The next step for rolling out the Slingshot will be the cost. Prototypes of the remarkable machine reportedly cost as much as $100,000 to build, but obviously this is not practical for global use just yet. The goal is to produce the water purification technology at a cost of $1000 to $2000 each.

Clean, fresh, and accessible water is something most of us take for granted, and technology solutions like the Slingshot will provide this luxury to the developing world. Reports like the one above can bring a level of exposure to environmental problems around the world, and those with good ideas like Kamen will have the information they need to take on major problems like clean water.

It’s rather amusing to see how standards of beauty change over the years.  In the 1950s, Chryslers came with bench seating spacious enough to be considered a mobile loveseat, and “getting under the hood” meant a mechanic could actually stand inside the engine area and work.  Marilyn Monroe was the hottest starlet out there and she wore a size 10 dress.  It’s 2008 and the recent sales figures are out:  America’s fancy has turned to compact cars with engines that sip fuel and are fitted into the frame with a shoe horn.  Gisele Bündchen wears a size 4.  It would appear that American’s interests are slimming, along with the amount of cash in their wallets.

According to a recent BusinessWeek report, small cars are moving off car lots in record numbers.  In the compact and subcompact class of cars, the Honda Fit alone has seen a 67% increase in sales alone.  Other notable sales winners are the Toyota Yaris and Scion xB at 39% sales increase, along with the Mini Cooper at 33%.  “But according to studies of initial quality done by J.D. Power & Associates, buyers aren’t targeting just high fuel economy. Close behind gas mileage is a desire for reliability, followed narrowly by workmanship,” explains BusinessWeek.
 
It should come as no surprise that brand name reliability plays a huge role in determining which 30+ MPG car to purchase.  According to Consumer Reports, “At about $17,500, a Mitsubishi Lancer could cost $4,000 less than a base Mini Cooper to drive home. But when you estimate the total costs of ownership for each car, the Lancer could cost you $5,000 more over five years.”  Insurance, labor, and parts costs are being weighed more consciously by customers.  Honda and Toyota brands carry a higher reliability rating in consumer’s minds than Dodge or Ford.
 
As the economy takes a downturn, Americans are more mindful of where their money is going.  It’s not just about a low price tag but total cost of ownership.  One commenter on The Truth About Cars recently purchased a 2007 Tundra Double Cab SR5 5.7.  He posted “Got the truck for $10K off sticker ($20740), nicely equipped.”  Most of the smaller cars are running in that range.  However, a $4.00 gallon of gas economy has most commuters looking at something which can give them upwards of 33MPG.
 
The car manufacturing companies have had varied luck in predicting what consumers want.  Japanese companies like Honda and Toyota accurately forecasted consumer interest is fuel efficient cars and hybrids.  Their retail locations report turnaround sales of models like the Fit or Prius in a matter of days.  Meanwhile, Ford, GM, and Chevrolet seem to have clung a little too tightly to Henry Ford’s view of marketing: “If I’d asked my customers what they wanted, they’d have said a faster horse.”  And so, the focus for American car manufacturing was more of the same midsize sedans, SUVs, crossovers and trucks.  This could explain Jeep and Chrysler’s sales numbers which are reported in vehicles per franchise…in single digits.
 
They do say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  When times are good, that which is opulent and grandiose is favored.  When times get lean, the beauty of simplicity and efficiency is more appealing.  Hybrid technology and alternate fuel systems are the next wave of automotive design.  However, existing internal combustion engines must change their packaging to meet the higher expectations of consumers.  If auto manufacturers are looking to court the consumer, they’re going to have to lose a few pounds and watch their reputation.

A sexy GE ad has sparked controversy and interest in what marketers are calling “clean coal”. The spot features Tennessee Ernie Ford’s protest song “Sixteen Tons” and attractive models posing shirtless as coal miners. A narrator asks us to, “Imagine if a 250-year supply of energy were right here at home…Harnessing the power of coal is looking more beautiful every day.”

GE is referencing a new process which supposedly reduces the emissions produced by using coal as an energy source. The process, called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) is supposed to convert coal into a fuel which burns cleaner and produces fewer harmful emissions. GE’s website claims, “Gasifying coal creates a syngas instead of burning the coal directly to generate energy. Pollution causing emissions are captured efficiently and effectively with minimal cost during gasification rather than treating the emissions after combustion. GE’s IGCC “Cleaner Coal” process emits less than half of the sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury and particulate matter of a traditional pulverized coal plant.”

While the IGCC process may indeed make coal a greener fuel source than it has been in the past, coal remains a fossil fuel. It is a limited resource, tremendously dangerous to extract, and harmful to landscapes. Some critics claim that clean coal is nothing more than a marketing ploy to distract U.S. consumers from the current fuel crisis.

A recent Washington Post article by Jeff Biggers underlines these objections. “Clean coal: Never was there an oxymoron more insidious, or more dangerous to our public health…this slogan has blindsided any meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy policy.” Biggers interviews an aging miner known as Burl, who suffers from respiratory illnesses and old injuries from the mines. “Don’t let anyone ever tell you that coal is clean,” he asserts.

Others applaud the efforts of GE and other clean coal advocates to reduce pollutants like soot, sulphur, and nitrogen. However, while the gasification process might help solve coal-related pollution like acid rain, it does not affect the amount of carbon dioxide produced by coal-burning. Carbon dioxide is the gas most associated with climate change. NASA scientist James Hansen told CBS news, “There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that’s the major long-term pollutant.”

It seems that clean coal really is simply a marketing term. Perhaps a more accurate moniker would be “cleaner coal,” which GE carefully uses on its Ecomagination marketing materials. Watch out for billboards, sexy commercials, and touchy-feely green ads for coal. It’s not a long-term, environmentally-friendly solution to our energy problems.

Armored vehicles, high occupancy bases, and temporary buildings: these are the facts of life for the U.S. Army, and they are not inherently earth friendly. Some are questioning just how much the Army contributes to global warming, and those in charge are listening.

The U.S. Army is trying to reduce its carbon “bootprint”, not only to do their part for the environment but also to reduce skyrocketing energy costs for the troops. Both operational bases at home and abroad are taking steps to increase efficiency and reduce usage. According to a recent article on Environmental News Network (ENN), the Army would like to cut carbon emissions by 30% by 2015. Said Tad Davis, deputy assistant secretary for environment, “What I’m interested in doing is finding out what the greenhouse gas emissions, this carbon bootprint, are for the Army in two to three years at the latest. We want to emit less that do that, hand in hand with reducing energy consumption from fossil fuels.”

One tactic will go into place at training centers and bases in the United States. Fort Bragg, for example, is often home to complicated training exercises complete with mock town and realistic structures. These mockups can cost up to $400,000 to make out of new materials, just to be destroyed and rebuilt again. Now, says Davis, the Army is using recycled shipping containers for training exercises at just $25,000 each.

Another problem is fuel consumption, especially in combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. Convoys are deployed to bring fuel from refineries, and they are not only inefficient, but vulnerable to attack by roadside bombs. Using renewable energy sources nearer to bases, like wind generators or solar fields, could reduce the risk, expense, and carbon emissions of transporting it.

According to ENN, “A recent survey of U.S. forward bases in Djibouti, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan showed that 85 percent or more of the power was used for air conditioning to provide comfort for sleeping but also to keep communications equipment cool.” One way in which the Army has impacted this problem is using foam insulation on tents and buildings to improve their efficiency. Units can directly spray the foam onto tents for a 45% reduction in lost energy.

Clearly these small steps can have a big impact on the emissions created by Army operations. Other, more drastic changes could also be in store. Fuel-efficient vehicles, including tanks and large transport trucks, could be made in hybrid or biofuel versions. Stateside bases could provide their own power supplies with solar, wind, and hydro turbines. As the individual soldiers in the Army become more aware of their impact on the Earth, the U.S. Army as a whole will be a lot greener.

Physicist and former astronaut, Wubbo Ockels, in conjunction with the Delft University of Technology, successfully generated enough electricity to power 10 houses using a turbine powered by a single kite.  While most Americans associate kites and electricity with the old story of Ben Franklin and a lightning bolt, Dr. Ockels sought to harness the wind with his kites.  The demonstration, carried out earlier this month, was on a small scale, but the possibilities are exciting.

The idea of harnessing wind to power a turbine and generate electricity has been successfully accomplished in England, Japan, and to some extent in the U.S.  However, it has been generally frowned upon because the commonly wind farms rely on a series of fans at a static height.  The energy burned in turning the large fan blades, unpredictable wind currents, and general unsightliness of the massive constructs have made these wind farms impractical and unpopular.  The Laddermill offers a more dynamic and somewhat esthetically pleasing alternative.
 
As the Delft University website explains, “The kites used in the laddermill, generally called “kiteplanes”, combine the ascension characteristics of kites with the descension characteristics of aircraft. By creating a large loop of kiteplanes ascending and descending, a rotation can be created. In turn, this rotation can be coupled to a generator to create energy.”  In other words, as the kiteplanes climb they are using the kite characteristics to maximize airflow provided by the wind.  However, instead of having to be reeled back down to earth, and consume energy, a simple shift in their position will cause the kiteplanes to slowly glide back to earth.  Another flick of the control cables and the kiteplanes are soaring back up to the heavens.
 
The Laddermill solves a problem that traditional windfarms have not been able to successfully address.  Harnessing windpower for a sustainable measure of time has always been a problem.  Because kites are only limited by the lenght of their cable, adjustments can be made to get the most out of winds aloft, regardless of the altitude.  This means that electricity can be generated more often and for longer periods of time.
 
Two other companies are seeking ways to tap into the limitless potential of wind for energy.  Italian based Kitegen, suggests that a series of kite powered turbines run in conjunction with sophisticated tracking and monitoring software could generate enough electricity to power an entire city.  Another company, Makani, is based in the U.S. and is also pursuing kite-centric technology for generating power.  Unfortunately, Makani is still in the formative stages and keeping their ideas close to their chest.  “At this time we are not publicly discussing the details of our technology with the media. Please stay tuned for some future date when we will be releasing some details,” is the polite reply to media requests for information.

Kites have served mankind for almost 3000 years as a form of entertainment, communication, and power.  What was initially seen as a child’s plaything could be the solution to energy based on fossil fuels.  Perhaps this ancient form of creativity was just waiting for the computer programs that would enable engineers to perfect a design elegant enough to be manipulated.  The question of how mankind’s energy needs will be met in the future without coal, oil, or wood may find its answer blowing in the wind.