Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Technology

CIA Investing in Modular Green Energy 178

Posted by samzenpus from the agent-hippie dept.
Paladin144 writes "The CIA's venture capital arm, In-Q-Tel, has announced a strategic development agreement with SkyBuilt Power Inc. The CIA seems to be interested in SkyBuilt's new Mobile Power Station, which can be parachuted into remote locations and be up and running in a few hours with only 2 people needed to set it up. The MPS harnesses both solar and wind power and is capable of up to 150 kilowatts of electricity. The devices uses off-the-shelf components and easily swappable parts to be cost-effective."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CIA Investing in Modular Green Energy More

CIA Investing in Modular Green Energy

Comments Filter:

  • Modular green energy, huh. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:44PM (#13832562)
    Is that similar to the free radical energy reverse-engineered from the spacecraft that crashed at Roswell?

    • No (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:48PM (#13832589)
      Modular green energy is made out of people!! PEEEEEOPPPPLLLLLLLEEEE!!!

      • Re:No (Score:3, Funny)

        by Fred_A ( 10934 )
        I'm sick of green energy, I want energy in designer colours.

        Yellow energy ! Blue energy ! Striped energy ! Polka dotted energy ! I want my energy to match my shirt !

        Say no to energy uniformity !
        • I'm sick of green energy, I want energy in designer colours.

          Yellow energy ! Blue energy ! Striped energy ! Polka dotted energy ! I want my energy to match my shirt !

          Say no to energy uniformity !

          You're thinking "Hypercolor" shirts. The ones where your armpits change colour before the rest of the shirt does.

  • Earth First! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:47PM (#13832580)
    I hope the CIA can use this green energy to help overthrow governments of oil-rich countries. Here we come, Venezuela!

  • These would have been Helpful in New Orleans (Score:5, Insightful)

    by twiddlingbits ( 707452 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:48PM (#13832585)
    The devastation in New Orleans and Gulfport, MS would have been an ideal testing location for these devices. And it could have been very helpful at the same time. If they didn't do well, you can just say they were "experimental". If they worked out, then you got your testing done for next to nothing. Either way it was a win for the CIA's tech firm and the population in the affected areas.

    I guess FEMA never thought about asking the CIA for help, they didn't ask anyone else either it seems!

  • As these devices improve.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:50PM (#13832603)
    As these devices improve, the cost will most likely decrease, thus making them suitable for deployment in homes and buildings all over. Such activities would no doubt cause financial problems for the existing energy providers. Considering the clout of such businesses, there is always the chance of DMCA-esqe legislation being passed to limit this technology. Indeed, let's hope that these developments are not stifled by existing energy firms.

    • Who needs a DMCA, just look at who's using this technology: the CIA. They'll just make it a matter of national security to keep it out of the average individual's hands.
    • As these devices improve, the cost will most likely decrease, thus making them suitable for deployment in homes and buildings all over

      This type of configuration is actually pretty common in remote parts of Australia. French island is close to my home in Melbourne but is made remote by being in the middle of western port bay. Every house has a wind turbine, a panel of photovoltaic cells, a battery pack and an inverter.

      In one house I did notice that the PC of choice is a laptop. They have a built in UPS, yo


      • Laptops also have efficiently engineered power electronics. They have to -- for battery life.

        On a standard PC the power supply (and the rest) is engineered for retail cost, not efficiency.

        Old underpowered laptops make excellent cable firewall/routers, too.

    • Come now. We already have have wind power, solar power, geothermal power, and more operating at the residential and community level all around the country. No need for the tinfoil, here.
    • improve? they are useful now! the thing holding them back is "acceptability" in neighborhoods.

      I have a solar heat collector I built that is 6' by 8' that I hang out my upstairs window on the south facing side of the house every year during the cold months. It's big, black and "ugly" as far as my neighbors are concerned. it reduces my heating bill by 25% and this year will save me huge $$$ because of natural gas prices going up.

      my neighbors try regularly to force me to not have it up there, they also bit

  • Green? (Score:4, Funny)

    by cdrdude ( 904978 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:52PM (#13832614) Journal
    I don't get it. Why does the energy have to be green? Why can't it be orange energy with purple stripes?
  • On one hand, I'm glad that one aspect of the government is finally embracing green power sources.

    On the other... does it REALLY have to be the CIA?

    • On the other... does it REALLY have to be the CIA?

      To be pedantic, In-Q-Tel is not a governmental agency, and while much of the funding it uses for VC moneys comes from the intelligence community, the CIA does not directly drive where the moneys are spent.

      Anyway, if you live in the US, you have no need to worry. :-)

    • Re:Mixed Reactions (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 )
      On the other... does it REALLY have to be the CIA?

      Sad isn't it?

      But, just imagine how much the CIA would be excited about being able to have self-sufficient installations in places where infrastructure is non-existent.

      Suddenly, you can set up listening posts where nobody will find you -- just as long as you can convince some helpful Air Force General to give you a couple of big planes or helos to deliver them when nobody is looking.

      • But, just imagine how much the CIA would be excited about being able to have self-sufficient installations in places where infrastructure is non-existent.

        Suddenly, you can set up listening posts where nobody will find you -- just as long as you can convince some helpful Air Force General to give you a couple of big planes or helos to deliver them when nobody is looking.

        I could see the army doing this, but I don't get the CIA's interest.

        A bit of googling reveals that commercial turbines capable of 150

    • the nice people who wrote the SELinux component found in most current Linux distros?
  • Is it soylent green energy? Is it made from people?

  • I want green power (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Barkley44 ( 919010 )
    I always mention to follow co-workers that we need to make green power available cheaply for everyone. Imagine each house with several mini wind turbines on the roof and the back roof with solar panels (to not take away from curb apeal :). Wouldn't it be great to run the AC as much as you want and not worrying the cost? So how much will these cost?

    • Good for backup, not quite there for economics (Score:4, Informative)

      by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:50PM (#13832912) Homepage Journal
      If you live in the right place, wind power is close to being economical.

      Solar is still kind of pricy. If you buy an extra-big system, sign up for time-of-day billing, and arrange to sell power back to the utility, you can do pretty well. The buy in is pretty big . . . tens of thousands.

      BUT . . .

      *B*U*T* . . .

      Don't think of wind and solar as an alternative to the grid. Think of them as a backup. An alternative to a noisy, smelly generator.

      A modest system that could (for example) power your refrigerator, a small TV, a few lights, and charge batteries for various items, would turn a days-long power outage from a miserable mess to a tolerable nuiscance. Such a system might be a couple of thousand.

      (You are better off using gas, wood, etc. for heating and cooking in emergency circumstances. A solar system [heh] that could run your electric range would be formidable.)

      (Oh . . . and A/C? Right out. VERY current-hungry. You'd need a huge set-up for that. But you could run exhaust fans and such.)

      Stefan
      • If you live in the right place, wind power is close to being economical.


        Actually, if you live in the midwest USA, wind power is now the cheapest option [latimes.com]. This is a welcome development, since "use environmentally friendly energy because its cheaper" is a much easier sell than "use it because it pollutes less".

      • (You are better off using gas, wood, etc. for heating and cooking in emergency circumstances. A solar system [heh] that could run your electric range would be formidable.)

        I've seen some really slick designs for solar cookers - both commercial and DIY - that might be preferable to cooking over fire if one is trying to save either $$ or the environment. Sorry I don't have links handy...

        A/C? Right out. VERY current-hungry.

        ... in fact, any sort of inductive motor load could be considered too "heavy

    • Imagine each house with several mini wind turbines on the roof

      Pointless. A little known fact is that it takes more energy to manufacture a turbine than it will ever produce in it's working life. They are like a weird form of battery power if you are thinking along the renewable energy lines.

      Here's hoping the manufacturing techniques actually get to the point where wind power isn't actually negatively impacting the enviornment more than the gain experienced!

  • Now by "off-the-shelf components" do you mean... (Score:4, Funny)

    by cdtoad ( 14065 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:04PM (#13832681) Homepage
    that I could walk into Home Depot and pick up the things required to build one of these suckers or do you mean easy for the CIA to procure? What secrets does the CIA have in finding someone to help you at Home Depot?

    • In-Q-Tel funding is public. The work that they fund isn't classified.

      Off-the-shelf means that, while probably not available at Home Depot or Lowes, components for the system are available on the OEM market and hence the final product does not require customized component engineering, with concomitant cost reductions.

  • wow. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mister White ( 892068 )
    This should be pretty interesting. A lot of natural disasters cause major outages which cannot be immediately repaired, and this would be beyond useful in those situations. Also could be a major help with military setups in 3rd world areas or places where we don't have or aren't welcome to use of the existing infrastructure. About time something decent comes along...

  • The CIA has a Venture Capital Firm? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bergeron76 ( 176351 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:11PM (#13832729) Homepage
    Does anyone smell something fishy here?

    How can _any_ government agency have a "Venture Capital" division, let alone the CIA?
    The CIA is can listen in on any conversation without any reason, yet they can create a corporation that 'invests' in other companies?

    What is happening to our country?! Dubbya's administration is trying to blur the line between The Government of the People and "Big Business".

    • Re:The CIA has a Venture Capital Firm? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Liam Slider ( 908600 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:21PM (#13832773)
      The CIA has tons of front companies it owns, and corporations in it's employ as well. They might as well actually...do something...while pretending not to be part of the CIA... Hey, at least this time they're doing something legal! And don't blame this on "Dubya" this sort of thing has been Agency practice for decades.
      • And don't blame this on "Dubya" this sort of thing has been Agency practice for decades.

        But this is Slashdot, where the motto is "Blame Bush!"
        • But this is Slashdot, where the motto is "Blame Bush!"

          Yeah, there are skeletons in their closet that go all the way back to when Bush senior was the director. To be fair, it goes back further than that. In fact, it was a scandal that led to his appointment to the post.

          But he (Bush Senior) is the one who "privatized" the agency. He had learned some valuable lessons on how to not get caught, and how to get away with it if you do.
           
        • If somebody has a good record and is seen to be trying most people will give them the benefit of the doubt on most things.

          The current POTUS is a POS, always has been always will be. The difference is that more and more Americans are now willing to say this in public.

          Personally, I blame the US public, I think they rcvd the goverment they deserved. I find it hard to have any remorse for a country whose people long ago gave up on each other and self reliance.
      • Fair enough. I think it's "The W'Dubbya Factor" that scares me. I can't help but think what our administration will do to my treasury bonds if "W" issues an executive order/war based on what the DHS/CIA tells him about Betty Crocker and her latest "goings on"!

        I stand to lose hundreds/thousands of dollars (that I could have donated to the Church) based on our poor [interpretation of] government intelligence. If that doesn't scare you, only the Lord can save us.
      • Half right. The CIA does have front companies, such as the one Valerie Plame "worked" for while being posted overseas ("non-diplomatic cover"). In-Q-Tel [in-q-tel.org] is not one of them -- check out the website, they've got their institutional affiliation literally splashed all across the front page. They perform a function similar to that performed by the NSF or DARPA -- they farm out government money to private industry/academia in hopes of getting basic research and technological advances which will eventually be u
    • Its just an outgrowth of one of the many front companies the CIA uses to manage its finances. Is the whole thing dodgy? Of course, but it fits with the way the CIA has operated for a long time.
      • It really doesn't make much sense. If they aren't allowed to operate inside the country, then who or what are they hiding from? Wouldn't it be better to set up a big barbed wire fence with armed guards, a big sign saying CIA - KEEP OUT, and just carry on like the FBI or military does?

        I guess the deal is they don't want foreign spys operating inside the US to identify their agents so that when they are deployed overseas they aren't recognizable (and shot).

        The generator doo-hickey sounds pretty cool though.

    • It seems a little out-of-band for the Central Intelligence Agency, or for any Intelligence agency. Shouldn't their focus be on humint? The corporations that these agencies use are usually cover for skullduggery not for basic research. Isnt "basic research" the remit of DARPA?

      It does some all of a piece with hiring security contractors in Iraq, and wouldn't surprise me if it was part of an "out-sourcing" effort.
    • Much like the government contracts out most of its services to corporations, so does the CIA. The CIA needs/wants some technology that doesn't exist. They could build it all themselves, or give the taxpayer a break by hiring a company with a similar product to make the changes they need.

      You want your government agencies to do this, it encourages efficiency (as bad as things are now, they would be worse without this process in place).

  • Patents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:11PM (#13832735) Homepage
    While SkyBuilt has 140 patent claims on its energy system, most of its individual component parts are widely available.

    Isn't this sickening? They piece together crap that anybody can buy, cram it in a shipping container, and claim 140 patents on it.

    I'm in the process of building an "energy system" that uses off-the-shelf components as well. Hope I don't infringe on any of their brilliant ideas.
    • Hey, if their patent claims are truly unique, original ideas that it took some amount of ingenuity to invent, I'm all for them making a reasonable profit by their invention.

      If it's something terrifically essential to my survival, I won't be held hostage to their greed. If it isn't that dire, then there'll be an agreeable, negotiable contract between us consumers and the inventor. No problem there.

      • Re:Patents (Score:3, Insightful)

        by FFFish ( 7567 )
        And might I remind the inventor that I truly believe we're on the cusp of destroying the earth. I don't hold much more than two generations before we must do something or be rendered extinct. I truly believe we're headed for a magnetic, climatic, and environmental flip-flop, and I think we may have accelerated a natural event with our polluting and destructive ways.

        If this is the case, and this technology is essential to my survival (or the survival of my children's children), then it's going to be just
      • if their patent claims are truly unique, original ideas that it took some amount of ingenuity to invent,

        Also, please don't forget that it also took public (taxpayer) money to invent (in this case). The inventions should be open and public domain.

        • Patents are open, in that details of the invention are disclosed in the patent filing, which is then available to the public. As far as the money to develop these things coming from the taxpayers, it seems that most venture capital is invested, whether as partial share of ownership or as an interest-earning loan. Either way, the taxpayers get the money back plus extra. Then, when the patent expires, the invention becomes public domain.

          We can now start quibbling about reasonable durations of patent protec

    • Re:Patents (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:13PM (#13833025) Journal
      Anybody can buy transistors, IC's, resistors, capacitors and inductors, but that doesn't make your portable radio any less innovative.
    • Wait, the feds can file patents? The federal government can't copyright things---consider the CIA World Factbook, released into the public domain each year. So why can they patent things? Wouldn't the same rationale apply?
    • While SkyBuilt has 140 patent claims on its energy system, most of its individual component parts are widely available.

      Isn't this sickening?
      ---------------------

      Not per se, no. It's a routine matter of invention and innovation to build brand new things out of well-understood pieces and parts. Your thought belongs to the family of fallacies called fallacies of composition. It appears to be your thinking that if something isn't made out of new components, the composition itself cannot be new. This is a non se
    • Ultimately everything is made just by putting enough atoms together, why should there be patents at all?

  • It is a growing movement (Score:5, Informative)

    by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:21PM (#13832778) Journal
    Thankfully, there has been building interest in renewables, principally photovoltaics and wind power. At this point, the lifetime cost of a wind power installation (of size greater than, say, 1 MW) is on par or even less than traditional energies like gas and coal-fired plants. Meanwhile, the market cost of 20% silicon-based solar cells [sunpowercorp.com] is down to something like $3-4/W, depending on how the market for semiconductor-grade silicon goes.

    One of the major setbacks in the deployment of such energy is the physical infrastructure in the capital cost. While the solar cells are becoming rather cheap, the structure to support/protect them, and the electronics to interface them with the grid cost at least as much. In both the case of wind and solar, since there is low maintenance and basically no consumables, the lifetime cost of and installation is 90% upfront capital cost. For a coal or gas fired plant, or nuclear, the upfront capital cost is something like 40% of the total cost of running the plant over its lifetime, while maintenance and the cost of consumables take up the rest.

    The end result is that people balk at the huge upfront costs of renewable power installations, even though the lifetime costs are nowadays comparable with traditional electrical power generation facilities. However, there are two situations that can give renewables an edge. The first we are already experiencing: the cost of consumables and maintenance are on the rise. Natural gas costs are increasing, coal-fired plants have to run cleaner, and nuclear is an ever-increasing headache.

    The second, and more relevant, situation that favors renewables (and the point of TFA), is that there are some situations where one really, really needs electrical power, and is faced either with the choice of an expensive installation cost for renewable power, or a really expensive cost for shipping in the consumable fuel (and someone who can work the power generator itself, which ain't as easy as it sounds). In the case of remote power generation (for relay stations on the side of a mountain, for instance), in very rural areas with little or no road access (developing nations like Afghanistan), or in a disaster situtation where the usual delivery infrastructure has completely gone to hell, the scales tip away from things like petroleum, gas, and coal fired generators and squarely into the arena of renewables.

    What these guys are doing is demonstrating that not only is the technology mature enough for long duration, high capacity, low maintenance remote power generation, but that it is rugged enough to be deployed anywhere, anytime, where it is needed. Bravo!
    • What ever happened to Steam Power?

      Heat can produce Steam. Steam can produce Power. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change form. Heat is a by-product of Engergy loss. Water has the lowest specific-heat-capacity on the planet.

      I'm an engineer, but I don't have all of the peices of the puzzle. Perhaps/Hopefully this post will spark an idea or more importantly dialogue...

    • Your premise is that renewables have an edge over fossil fuels in remote locations (including disaster zones), but I think that needs to be qualified a bit. That's probably true for a situation where a one-time delivery of fairly sizeable equipment is possible, but continuous supply of fuel would be challenging. There are certainly niche markets where this is the best solution right now. (I'm amazed by the fact that nearly every traffic counter you see on roadways is solar-powered these days. They're no
    • I am not familiar with the various costs of power generation systems, but I can see a potential big problem in your estimates. If the lifetime cost/power output is approximately equal in today's costs, but one system requires a more than double up front cost than the other, then the one with the larger upfront cost is actually less efficient. Why? Because money not spent right now is money earned (or saved). Power companies can take smaller loans to create these installations (or invest the surplus they

      • I understand the opportunity cost that you are talking about, but that's to varying degrees offset by inflation. Not just overall inflation, but also the added potential inflation of the cost of your consumables (look at the trend in oil prices, for instance).

        If all of your costs are up front capital costs, those are the 'cheap' dollars (rupees, euros, whatever). Money is going to have less purchasing power as time goes by. This effect is amplified by the fact that the consumables are commodities that a

        • If all of your costs are up front capital costs, those are the 'cheap' dollars (rupees, euros, whatever). Money is going to have less purchasing power as time goes by. This effect is amplified by the fact that the consumables are commodities that are prone to an increase in demand and decrease in supply.

          Isn't that backwards? If today's dollars are the "good" ones (that buy more stuff as compared to tomorrow's dollars), wouldn't you much rather spend tomorrow's dollars?

          More importantly, unless inflation ge

          • No, in this case, it's not backwards. If the same number of dollars are worth less in the future, you want to spend them now. If you spend them later, you have to spend more of them to get the same effect. This is because -in the context of the investment we are discussing- your view of inflation too limited. Go back and read the post you are replying to. The rate of increase in the cost of oil has far outpaced the overall inflation rate. You have to take that into account, since that will be a signif

    • >>and nuclear is an ever-increasing headache

      Increasing? Hardly. While it may be difficult to build a nuclear power plant in the US, its difficult to build any power plant at all. Further, modern reactor designs have come a long long ways since the Chernobyl days. Overall, much better that buying resources from our buddies in the middle east.

  • Up to 150 Kilowatts? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by can56 ( 698639 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:22PM (#13832783)
    How many square feet of solar panels, and how many wind-turbines, are need to produce an *average* output of 150 KW? When a blurb says 'up to', I wonder what's the 'down to'.
    • sunny day with hurrricane force winds and the stars in perfect allignment
    • From their Website (http://www.skybuilt.com/mps.htm [skybuilt.com])

      At the site, you can deploy solar panels or wind turbines in just a few hours, for self-generated power. Or, use diesel, propane, natural gas or gasoline-powered generators."

      I suspect the self-generated options are on the 0.5kw end of the spectrum while the 150kw is on the diesel/propane/natural gas end of the spectrum. Nothing new to see here. Move along...

  • Good idea (Score:4, Funny)

    by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:27PM (#13832805) Homepage
    Protecting the environment while you are electro-torturing terrorists for information at the same time. That's how the CIA butters up Democrats and Republicans during the budget hearings. A little something for both, green and mean.

  • They must be lying, or is it april fools already? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yartrebo ( 690383 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @10:30PM (#13832826)
    There is no way that a 10x40 ft container is going to produce 150kW of continuous power (for the uses they envision, it would have to be continuous).

    150kW using photovoltics requires about 1000 sq metres of space in the middle of the desert at high noon. You'll need about 4000-5000 sq metres of space and a massive battery system to deliver 150kW day and night with photovoltics (you can get away with as little as half the space if you spring for more efficient panels, but the price skyrockets and such panels are generally reserved for spacecraft and solar racecars and the likes).

    a 150kW wind turbine is huge, and 2 people aren't going to be able to build the foundation (necessary to keep a several hundred foot propeller from getting ripped away) on a moment's notice and without heavy machinery (a cement truck and a crane at the least). Once again, if you want 24/7 power, you'll have to install around a 450kW turbine in the best of conditions (say, on a mountain ridge), or as much as a 1.5MW turbine (about the largest built ... larger than the statue of liberty) under more ordinary conditions, like in Iraq.

    And let's not even get into the cost assuming this was true. Even without the standard military surcharge, photovoltics is about the most expensive renewable source of energy around and I couldn't even think of stuffing a statue of liberty sized wind generator into a standard packing crate and having it assembled by two people.

    I also couldn't envision a battery system capable of storing 2-4MWh (megawatt-hours) of juice and not bringing the helicopter or truck over its weight limit. That's like 2,000 heavy duty car batteries (No way you're going to use anything pricier than lead-acid for such a large battery). So that's around 60,000 to 100,000 pounds of weight. Too heavy for a truck, although a heavy bomber or cargo plane could carry the load. The parachute would be a sight to be seen to slow that lead weight on its way down.

    And lastly, what about the cooling tower and the inverters and the transformers. Such a large plant will need some heavy duty electrical equipment to deliver consistant frequency and voltage (assuming it gives out standard 110/220 volts, 50/60 Hz alternating current).

    As far as the patents go, assuming they really do have 180 relevent patents (at $30,000 a pop, I would be a little suprised), they're just an indicator of how much you paid your attorneys. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean it works or is even physically possible.

    • photovoltics is about the most expensive renewable source of energy around

      They are portable and trivial to set up - which is the design criteria here. Other things may be cheaper in fixed installations, but once you have to move them things get tricky.

      1.5MW turbine (about the largest built ... larger than the statue of liberty)

      I'm pretty sure I've seen the things in the 10MW range and they were not huge - where did you get these numbers from?

      And lastly, what about the cooling tower and the inverters and

      • A 1.5MW windmill is massive. You have never seen a 10MW wind turbine, none exist. The largest (larger than the statue of liberty) generate 4.5MW. You are probably thinking 10kW. 150kW is a LOT of power from wind or solar. There is simply no way a system that could fit into a shipping container could generate that kind of power unless it includes a large diesel generator.
    • Nice analysis. Looking at their website it says that it modular and can put out between 1kw and 50kw (with additional modules). Also can be augmented with generators and such. It really just looks like a standard shipping container with some solar panels on brackets and a wind generator. I'm sure it has a battery bank as well. It doesn't seem novel, just a nice ruggidized turn-key package. I wonder how much $$$ skybuilt has contributed to political campains or lobbyists. Then again, they may have jus
    • a 150kW wind turbine is huge, and 2 people aren't going to be able to build the foundation (necessary to keep a several hundred foot propeller from getting ripped away) on a moment's notice and without heavy machinery (a cement truck and a crane at the least).
      The turbines are mounted on redundant ICBMs, whereas the two people can deploy it instantly by inserting matching keys simultaneously in the control unit.

  • I want one too... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JeremyALogan ( 622913 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @11:22PM (#13833075) Homepage
    Blah blah blah... who cares about the CIA. Can I buy one? That's more than enough renewable energy to run my house off of.

  • I'll be recording the proceedings of a week-long conference on the tiny island of Maevo [positiveearth.org] in Vanuatu [wikipedia.org] at the start of next month. The place is largely undeveloped and power is a major concern of mine.

    A friend of mine and I have hacked together a little power kit that can be charged with a solar panel or a generator, and provide enough energy for at least a laptop and a few small peripherals, but I can't tell you how cool it would be to be able to power the entire conference with one of these things - especia

    • I went to the positive earth page with the maps of the island, and all I can say is "What the heck was the person who setup the conference thinking?". You are having a weeklong conference on an island with no/little electricity, and are worried about having power for your laptops?

      A couple of quotes from the travel pages from different bungelows: "Kaiwo has a water supply. Across the road from the bungalow there's a shower and water-seal toilet (bucket flush)."

      " The windows have screens and mosquito coi
  • so... why isn't this being parachuted into every state in the union now? Why are we still using fossil fuel? We have tons of sunshine here in so cal, put it to better use than giving people a tan. >.

  • hmmm (Score:2, Funny)

    by shop S Mart ( 755311 )
    "The devices uses off-the-shelf components and easily swappable parts to be cost-effective." Ddunno about you guys but the gov't\cia being involved in something that is easy and cost afective sounds too good to be true.

  • WTF? The CIA has Venture Capital?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by deranged unix nut ( 20524 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:05AM (#13833423) Homepage
    Umm, can someone explain how and why the Central Intelligence Agency has Venture Capital? ...or if they just contribute toward VC, how and why is this legal?

  • 150kW? I don't think so . . . . nor do they! (Score:5, Informative)

    by evilroot ( 156363 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:46AM (#13833582)
    This is either a typo or mistake of some sort. According to SkyBuilt's website (www.skybuilt.com), the device isn't capable of anywhere NEAR 150kW of power.

    "SkyBuilt Power® is your premier source for portable, modular, quick assembly, durable, solar, wind, and other distributed power--from 0.5 kW to 50 kW or more."

    Yeah. That sounds about right.

    Basically its just a shipping container with solar cells or small wind turbines tacked on the sides. Perhaps they did something fancy with the power conditioning or batery circuitry, which COULD make it interesting . . . but ony marginally so. The idea is that you use the inside of the container as a little office or listening post/etc, and it generates its own power. Or it can "use diesel, propane, natural gas or gasoline-powered generators" according to their info, which would seem to defeat the point. Either way I'm not impressed.

    Why am I seeing images of a laptop with a photoshopped 2TB "Quantum Memory Unit" in my mind?
  • I did an exclusive interview with SkyBuilt President & CEO, Dave Muchow. The story is posted here: http://pesn.com/2005/10/20/9600192_SkyBuilt_Plop_a nd_Go/ [pesn.com]

    Here is an excerpt:

    Muchow said that his inspiration and model in forming the company was the laptop computer, with its plug-and-play versatility of components, from the chips to the hardware and the peripherals. The open architecture enables a mixing and matching of components to suit the individual user so that they don't have more than they need,

  • CIA's Research Arm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SoopahMan ( 706062 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @03:08PM (#13838854)
    In-Q-Tel sounds to have a similar function for the CIA as DARPA does for the Army - they go out and fund and buy advanced technology for use in operations, or eventual use. It sounds like the CIA is both buying units now and funding further development, typical of how DARPA tends to work.

    I think the reporter was just exaggerating the numbers because exaggerating gets eyes to pop, measuring the "150kW" number - which is probably a peak production number, not sustained - as though it were sustained. That does this technology a disservice though, I think, because the blend of concerns here - portability, maintainability, renewable power - is a very smart one.

    For example, running Predator drones on pure electric, powered by recharging at this kind of dropped power plant, would be quite the cheap way to monitor a very wide area for a long time. Dropping several would give you redundancy should the enemy eliminate one, and with such a modular deployment that kind of redundancy would be far more cost effective than the money spent now on getting fuel to the reconnaissance front.

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close