A year in green tech: Electricity from solar energy

NREL

A discussion of green technology cannot ignore the clean energy solution with greatest potential:  solar photovoltaic.  The energy from the sun that hits the earth could power the planet thousands of times over, so harnessing even a portion of its power would solve most of our energy problems.  Over the centuries, we have developed many ways to use the sun's energy to our advantage: direct heating of water (solar thermal energy capture), reflection of sunlight to provide illumination, photosynthesis in plants to produce sugars for our consumption, and direct conversion of incoming solar energy into electricity.  Even wind energy comes, at its heart, from solar energy since wind derives its energy from the pressure differences in the atmosphere, which in turn develop because of the earth's rotation and the uneven heating of the planet by the sun.  Although we can discuss many of these technologies, we first must understand the most promising in terms of energy potential and possible ease of distribution: solar PV or solar photovoltaic.

The science behind photovoltaic energy sources dates back to the 19th century.  Scientists such as Max Planck and Albert Einstein contributed to a body of work that developed an understanding of how certain materials behaved differently when bombarded with light.  Light, until then considered to behave as a wave, now had discrete packets of energy (called quanta), which under the right conditions would cause electrons in certain materials to jump away from the atom structure and move freely through the material.  This understanding of light as both wave and discrete unit (sometimes called the "wave-particle duality") forms the basis for quantum physics, and for the development of technologies based on the photoelectric and photovoltaic effects.

In standard electrical circuits, we need a potential difference to drive electron motion, then a method to channel that electron movement through the circuit we choose so that we can harness the power and use it to drive some piece of equipment.  For the better part of a century and a half, that source came from rotating magnets causing oscillating current flows, with the magnet rotation coming from a shaft that spins through the high-temperature, high-pressure introduction of steam to a series of blades surrounding the shaft.  This electricity alternates direction, and therefore led to the designation as alternating current.  As useful and profitable as alternating current power has become, it no longer holds the ubiquity in our lives it once did.  For most of the first hundred and twenty-five years we have harnessed electric power, we generated AC electricity, and made use of it in devices that rotated.  Most of us that remember grammar school science remember electric circuits that rely on the electro-chemistry of batteries to drive the current flow in a circuit.  These sort of direct current (or DC) circuits do not have the ability to deliver power over long distances in the same way that AC systems do, but they do produce consistent electricity that works well especially in digital circuitry.

This understanding of what causes the potential difference that creates electricity flow, and the manner in which our electrical infrastructure has developed, helps place the development and implementation of solar photovoltaic energy systems into context.  The Department of Energy has a useful website with much information about how specific materials produce electricity.  The basic system contains a material that absorbs sunlight, and uses the energy packets to release electrons into a conductive layer.  The material with the free electrons is paired with a layer of material that draws the free electrons.  By separating these materials, we create an electric potential that drives the electrons to flow from one material to the other.  During this trip, we channel them in the manner we desire and put them to use.

On the surface, the description suggests that by now, we should have solved this relatively simple technology.  The process of transferring the energy in a packet of light energy into electrical energy has several direct and indirect hurdles.  First, we do not have large quantities of the materials that currently make up most of the solar photovoltaic panels.  This scarcity drives up the retail price of the material, and therefore the price of the cells.  Second, the photovoltaic panels produce DC electricity, and our building infrastructure relies heavily on AC electricity.  Third, the current mix of materials, construction, and operation have a low efficiency as measured through comparing the amount of incident light energy that the solar cell (the core component of the panel) against the actual electricity generated.  Last, the use of the electricity from solar photovoltaic panels has not yet gained widespread support among grid operators.  These technicians need stability, and the thought of hundreds of thousands of electricity panels sending varying numbers of electrons with varying energy  levels into their infrastructure scares them.

Material selection and construction
The last ten years has seen great advances in the materials that produce electron movement when bombarded with light.  Currently, relatively rare elements like cadmium and hard-to-work-with materials like silicon, comprise most of the working part of the panel.  Recent research seeks to adjust the manner in which the conductive layer harnesses and moves the electrons.  Additionally, we have seen advances in ways to use more readily available materials.  We could be only a few years from such an advancement.  Research and development into solar photovoltaic systems also has produced consistent reductions in the size and weight of panels.  The length and bulkiness of the standard panel construction creates a mess of structural system, and recent advances in thin-film systems (those only a few micrometers thick) and material construction have increased the use of lighter and less material to produce the desired result.

AC versus DC
Ever since the battle for the grid was won by Westinghouse and Tesla over Thomas Edison, our method for delivering electricity over long distances has been AC.  In order to now integrate solar photovoltaic electricity into this system, we must convert it from DC into AC...a process that results in lost energy.  The devices that perform this transformation, called inverters (because they shift the oscillating wave of electricity into a steady flow, thus "inverting" part of the pattern) used to take up large amounts of space and require significant infrastructure while wasting energy.  Newer micro-inverters cover a smaller portion of each system, but also have better performance, and increase the ease of maintenance since having several smaller points of failure means more of the system stays active than when we have a single point of failure.  The next step in maximizing the performance of solar photovoltaic systems may come in the exploration of the DC grid.  As more of our systems rely on DC power (electronics, computers, communication equipment), some have considered installing microgrids of DC power, especially in large buildings and campuses.  This shift would improve the economics of solar photovoltaic, and ease transition.

Overcoming hundreds of years of infrastructure
For better or worse, we have an electric grid based on large, utility-scale electricity generators connected through large transmission lines and substations to areas of population that use electricity.  This relatively small number of generators makes it relatively ease to keep the grid stable and electricity flowing where we want it.  If every building were to have a photovoltaic array on the roof, and during period of low electricity use, all decided to send their electricity into the grid, it could (not would, but could) cause an instability that could disable the system.  Edison and others who favored a DC grid, foresaw the need for battery systems throughout the grid to help stabilize the system, and much effort (including out at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago) has gone into the development of better, and more easily deployed battery technology to provide this stabilization.

In addition to the grid infrastructure, the physical and virtual infrastructure of our construction processes provide obstacles to solar energy deployment.  The improved material selection has certainly affected the weight of the panels, and thus lowered the cost and need for structure to support the panels.  We have extended this to now building the photovoltaic material into other building components (like windows, roofs, and wall sections) in what we have termed building-integrated photovoltaic (BIPV).  In addition, the simplification of the electrical components has lowered the complexity relative to integrating the electricity into the building systems and even into the local grid.  Even with these significant improvements, municipalities and local utilities still introduce costly permitting processes that hurt the economics of the systems through requiring unnecessary equipment and materials, and through limits on the production from the panels.

NREL

Even with many of these obstacles, the cost of solar panels has dropped significantly over the past five years, and with new advances regularly, this decline looks to continue for at least another five years.  With the potential for solar electricity in America at least as large as it is in Europe, where the number and production of solar panels dwarfs that of the US on a per capita basis, and costs declining, we approach a tipping point where new electricity installations will have to compete with the long-term benefits of solar: no commodity to purchase, low maintenance, and no moving parts.  Over the course of the year we will look at ways in which we seek to improve upon solar photovoltaic electricity systems, and create the backbone of a new energy economy with the technology.

Friday Five: January 17, 2014...Seeing double?

I recently heard a great twist on an old saying: "Those who learn from history are destined to sit back and watch all of us repeat it."  We have yet to learn from the Law of Unintended Consequences, and instead maintain unreasonable confidence in our own genius.   
A century later, the expensive lesson of reversing the Chicago River
"$18 billion sounds like a lot of money, an especially huge amount for a deadlocked federal government to put aside for what on the surface sounds like an environmentalist’s pet project. But an accounting of both the costs and benefits, as well as the history of what’s already been put into this project, makes a compelling case for figuring out a real solution to the problem."
To tackle inequality, the first priority is to fight climate change
"...the divide between environmental and social is mostly artificial, and that's especially true with climate change. Our changing planet is the ultimate social issue, since those with the fewest resources are least able to adapt."

Could we have foreseen that releasing carbon into the atmosphere would raise temperatures?  Maybe.  Could we have predicted that rising temperatures would have melted thousands of years of built up sea ice?  Likely not.
Are we salivating at the economic benefits that come from this?  Absolutely.
Do we really grasp the costs that come with those benefits?  I doubt it.
Arctic passage opens challenges for US military
"As the ice surrounding the North Pole retreats, officials say, commercial shippers will be able to eventually move goods faster between Asia and Europe. More open seas will also give energy companies greater access to offshore oil and gas in regions controlled by the U.S. and estimated by military officials to be worth $1 trillion."
Arctic sea ice gaps drive toxic mercury conveyor belt
"The gaps, which come as the region shifts from perennial ice to thinner seasonal ice due to climate change, drive convection currents in the lower atmosphere that cycle mercury and ozone from higher levels toward Earth’s surface, where oxidation converts the mercury into a more toxic form, according to the study published online Wednesday in the journal Nature."

We need look no further than our continued, and expanding, reliance on a finite resource, and the "sigh of relief" that comes from the latest (and even more damaging) method to extend our addiction.  Peeling back the euphoria, we see that our future is far from certain...and that it will cost us even more than we think.
Big oil gambles and we all lose
"The decline rates of all conventional crude-oil fields producing today are spectacular; the International Energy Agency projects output falling from 69 million barrels per day (bpd) today to just 28 million bpd in 2035. Current total global production of all types of oil is some 91 million bpd."
Four states confirm water pollution from drilling
"The Associated Press requested data on drilling-related complaints in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas and found major differences in how the states report such problems. Texas provided the most detail, while the other states provided only general outlines. And while the confirmed problems represent only a tiny portion of the thousands of oil and gas wells drilled each year in the U.S., the lack of detail in some state reports could help fuel public confusion and mistrust."

There are some glimmers of hope that the economic engines that have driven our push to pursue damaging practices might shift toward opportunities to improve quality of life for all, not just some.
Wall Street giant backs away from Washington coal export project
"New York-based Goldman Sachs has sold its stock back to the companies proposing to build the Gateway Pacific Terminal. If built it would transfer 48 million tons of Wyoming coal each year from trains to ocean-going vessels bound for Asia."
Time for investors to move out of high carbon assets, says UN official
"'The pensions, life insurances and nest eggs of billions of ordinary people depend on the long-term security and stability of institutional investment funds. Climate change increasingly poses one of the biggest long-term threats to those investments and the wealth of the global economy,' said Ms. Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)."

Even more hopefully, our realization that our genius within, and not instead, of nature's genius might provide the surest path to sustained quality of life.
Why some mushrooms may be magic for climate change
"They found that soils dominated by ecto- and ericoid mycorrhizal (EEM) fungi contain as much as 70% more carbon than soils dominated by arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi. That’s because the EEM fungi produce more nitrogen-degrading enzymes, which allows them to extract more nitrogen from the soil."
Just add compost: How to turn your grassland ranch into a carbon sink
"The grasses were drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and transforming it into sugars, which the cows were transforming into meat: An alchemical conversion of air into brisket. If that was possible, why couldn’t he also turn carbon into dirt?"

Happy Friday!

If you make a mess, clean it up...don't make a bigger one

Photo:  Skyonic

I am not a fan of geoengineering, the proposals to modify the planet and/or atmosphere to counteract the negative impacts of climate change.  It has always seemed to me a dangerous "sit-com like" response to a problem caused by our own actions.  Instead of just changing our behaviors away from damaging ones to beneficial ones, we instead seek to continue doing damaging behaviors, then try to engineer nature to mitigate the bad response...kinda like eating all the fat and sugar one wants, then taking a pill to keep us thin.

Through this lens of skepticism for geoengineering solutions, I must look interestedly at a solution that has gained momentum, and just recently received support from the UN: extracting gases that cause climate change from the atmosphere.  Unlike solutions that seek to add particles or chemicals to the atmosphere, or install infrastructure to prevent some of the worst flooding and damage from sea-level rise, this one has it's roots in nature.  

Prior to significant human interaction, plants and animals lived in a delicate balance relative to the combined needs of water, air, and fertile soil.  Animals breathed air and exhaled carbon dioxide, and at the same time ate plants (and other animals) and drank water, producing waste products.  Plants absorbed the carbon dioxide, and using water, produced oxygen and the sugars animals (including us) need.  In the process, some of these plants, inconjunction with microbes and small animals, processed the animal and plant waste products into useful form.  This balance developed over billions of years to an efficient albeit not perfect method of sustaining life.

Among the otherwise prideful suggestions of how we as humans can solve the problem, the idea of extracting CO2 (and potentially other damaging gases) from the air has promise.  First, the natural mechanisms for removing CO2, the action of plants, would require a significant expansion of planted areas and targeted implementation.  Once carbon dioxide levels decline, it would leave us with more plants than needed for the balance, and the natural decay would release methane into the atmosphere...an even more potent driver of climate change.  If we can find a way to mimic the processes that extract CO2, restore a reasonable balance in the atmosphere, then shutdown these systems, we can address the problem without creating unforeseen ones.

Flashes: January 15, 2014...How long do we wait?

The telephone was invented in 1877...

     by 1930, 9 out of 10 American buildings had one.

The television was invented in 1927...

     by 1960, 9 out of 10 American homes had one.

The personal computer was invented in 1965...

     by 2010, almost 8 out of 10 American homes had one.

The first commercially available solar panels were available in 1959...

     by 2014, almost 1 out of every 500 American homes has one.

Enjoy the journey!

One person's convenience is another person's catastrophe

A friend posed a question on social media looking for recommendations on choosing between two stores at which to stop.  Many offered economic preferences, several offered social justice preferences, and some offered service preferences, and one person offered the following preference...

"Whichever is more convenient."

For decades, corporate America has sold us on the idea of consumption to update our life with all of the "modern conveniences".  We moved from developing cities in which people could live without a car to a society in which each household requires two cars to survive.  A TV in every home moved to two or three, at least.  A single phone line gave way to multiple lines and call waiting with caller ID, which has further given way to individual cell phones.  The family computer that introduced itself to American households in the 80s and 90s has become the family of tablets and laptops.

This proliferation of conveniences has counterbalanced the significant increases in efficiency of large appliances, automobiles, and home design, maintaining the US as one of the largest per capita consumers of energy.  Only in the last five years has our appetite for energy stabilized even as population continues to rise.  While much of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (those against whom our economy compares best, and compared with some of whom our quality of life pales) survives and even thrives on half of the per capita consumption of the US.  Our continued desire for more conveniences (including entertainment) drives two prime factors that hinder our ability to get smarter about energy use and quality of life:

We see any reduction as a sign of less convenience, and we put our head in the sand when confronted with the impact of our energy use...mostly because most of us do not directly feel those impacts.

(AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

Three stories from the last six months highlight this latter point.  In Colorado, significant flooding at the change of seasons from summer to fall last year placed surface water in jeopardy when as many as 80,000 fracking wells and their support infrastructure (including surface ponds of both supply and waste water) fell underwater.  Nearly four months after the flooding started, officials still cannot determine if, or how much, pollution occurred and where.  Over the past several years, on the southeast side of Chicago and northwest Indiana, refineries have stored pet coke - a powdery byproduct of the refining of heavy crude like tar sands - in large, uncovered piles.  Prevailing winds have spread the substance over houses, patios, and depending on the day, even a neighborhood of family barbecues.  Last week, in West Virginia, the storage containers for a chemical used to clean coal failed and leaked 7,500 gallons of 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) into the water supply for as many as 300,000 West Virginians.

All of these processes - the pressurized fracturing of rock to draw out gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons stored within, the transformation of heavy liquid hydrocarbon into the form we most frequently desire, and the chemical processing of solid hydrocarbons to reduce emissions - require complicated steps with chemical and energy inputs that result in waste heat, pollutants, and residual matter along with the usable energy.  In each of the cases noted above, the victims of the catastrophe represented a fraction of the people who benefit from the convenience the energy provides.  Their individual and combined voices will not, and cannot, sway industry to make changes...no market-based mechanism gives them the power to affect the corporation.  Even with significant empathy (that does not seem to have awoken, even with mine collapses, coal dust pollution, and increased earthquakes added to the list of catastrophes), our addiction to energy, and the services it provides, tempers our emotions so that we may pray for those affected, but not recognize our own role in the matter, and certainly not drive us to act in ways that will help them.

The solution offered by government regulation holds little hope to provide significant relief.  The knowledge and workforce required to keep up with the vast fossil energy industry would require a government much larger than the current political climate would allow.  Even if politics allowed for such a significant regulatory infrastructure, it would lag the innovation and development of industry, rendering it nothing more than a CSI unit determining guilt but not preventing damage.

We need to have a tough national discussion on how willing we are to sacrifice the lives and health of our fellow citizens of the world and country, and within that willingness, how much value we truly place on the lives of others.  Can we truly say that our choices place equal value on other lives relative to our own?  If you buy natural gas to cook or to heat your home, gasoline to power an automobile (or take a bus or commuter rail to work), and/or electricity to enliven your TV and refrigerator, the answer can be no better than "maybe".

With that as our best current response, we need to look toward a future that eliminates the risks.  That can take the form of an outright ban on fossil fuels phased in over an aggressive, but achievable, time period.  It can take the form of placing the burden on polluting entities to relocate all of those impacted negatively by their operations.  It can take the form of reinsurance that forces those responsible for a catastrophe to bear the burden, and not the public at large.

And it requires each of us opening our eyes to the damage caused by our pursuit of convenience.  Only then can we have the honest conversations that will lead us to a future where we achieve high quality of life for all .

How can we prepare if nobody can tell us where we are going?

Recently, the Energy Information Administration released the early release of the Annual Energy Outlook 2014.  In it, the following chart predicts what we can consider the future of energy consumption by source over the next twenty-five years or so:

US Total Energy Use by Type (quadrillion BTU)

With the following projection for the breakdown of energy use for electricity generation:

US Total Electricity Generation by Source (terawatt-hours)

Paying close attention to the electricity chart shows that after a 3% gain in share of energy production by renewable energy in the first twelve years of this century, over the next twenty-six years, we should expect....

Only 4% more.

And after coal has dropped by 15% over the same timeframe, it will continue its drop for another...

Whopping 5%.

Regardless of your point of view on coal and renewable energy sources, this should make no sense.  In a good analysis of the subject, this CleanTechnica blog post notes that the assumptions in the EIA Outlook lock in any policy currently codified in law (like subsidies and tax credits for fossil fuels), and assume that any policies or laws that need reauthorization (like the Production Tax Credits for wind and solar, or research grant programs for renewable energy) will expire without renewal.

Note also, that although the last five years have seen a relatively flat oscillation of total energy use, the next twenty-five years picks up the steep increase in total energy use that accompanies a projected increase of population (but an assumed stagnation in the per capita energy use).

If we follow some more likely scenarios, including:

1. Although population will continue to increase, at worst, we should expect energy use to remain approximately flat, because in either an economic recovery or continued sluggishness, increased costs of living will force the elimination of some expenses in order to survive, and energy is one of the few costs we can avoid with good planning.
2. As US car manufacturers meet new CAFE standards, as the number of electric vehicles increases, and as people continue to drive fewer miles per unit of GDP, usage of oil will continue to drop on its current trajectory.
3. The costs to maintain and build new coal and nuclear plants will continue to out downward pressure on the capacity of both in the electricity market.
4. Because of the amount of new natural gas generating capacity being brought on line, and the continued reliance on it for heating fuel in most of the country, we should expect it will remain a significant piece of our energy portfolio for the first half of this century (even though we could eliminate it over this timeframe easily).
5. Economics tells us that with the number and size of companies getting into the renewable energy markets, and with policies focused on energy production and not the production of goods (like turbines and solar panels), that politicians will not be able to whimsically eliminate the currently "temporary" subsidies for renewables...at least not while maintaining permanent ones for fossil fuels.  Although wind will not maintain it's meteoric rise of the past fifteen years, it will continue to grow, and solar can and will sustain an accelerated growth pattern for at least ten to fifteen years as new materials and improvements in efficiency continue.

With all of these in play, the future looks more like this:

Projected US Total Energy Consumption by Source (quadrillion BTU)

If you do not believe me, then look to the markets.  Investment banks like Goldman are bearish on new coal investments, while power suppliers in the Midwest are investing in wind and solar over natural gas.  The assumptions made to get to the modified projection do not assume imposition of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade policy, one that most corporate leaders see on the horizon.  With that sort of policy in practice, we can expect even greater reductions in coal and natural gas, with compensating increases in energy efficiency and renewables.  Note that the project above is not my opinion on what can be done, merely what appears likely to come about based upon trends.  We can eliminate all but a fraction of fossil fuel use in the next eleven years, with the economic benefits that come with it, if we so choose.

I would like to see more thought put into these projections.  I understand the need to show what will happen if we do nothing, but it does not help the public discourse to hide what will likely happen if we keep working on the path we have over the last twenty years.  We are on the right path, and the momentum favors a clean energy future...the only questions that remain are how quickly we will get there, and will it be soon enough?  Our national projections, the ones that garner all the media attention, should show what can happen if we do nothing, what will happen if trends continue, and what can happen if we do even more. 

Friday Five: January 10, 2014

Outside of the fact that I am a sucker for cleverness, this description of the workings of the movement of heat is one of the best I have read.  It highlights one of our great misconceptions: that cold moves.  Science tells us that heat moves, and it is that movement of heat that is at play this week.
Go home Arctic, you're drunk
"What is happening instead is the cold air mass that usually sits up on the Arctic during the northern Winter has moved, drooped, shifted, gone off center, to engulf part of the temperate region. Here in the Twin Cities, it is about 8 below zero F as I write this. If I go north towards the famous locality of International Falls (famous for its cold temperature readings often mentioned on the national news) it will in fact be colder. If I go even farther north, at some point it will start to get warm again, as we leave the giant blob of cold air that has engulfed us. In fact, it is relatively warm up on the North Pole right now. Alaska and Europe are relatively warm as well."

Advocates against renewable energy cite intermittency as one of the obstacles that the market will never overcome.  It is interesting that, as we have seen in Texas this week, "conventional" sources have their own intermittency.  Anything with moving parts requiring maintenance cannot run 100% of the time, and as anyone who has been inside a plant that produces steam can tell you, the systems have many sources of failure requiring attention.  They also have economic intermittency associated with the availability of fuels that have to be purchased.  When all is said and done, the reliability of conventional and renewable sources does not vary enough to make a difference in the marketplace.  Grid operators have to be ready for any source to be unavailable, especially as our weather continues to vary from what we knew to be "normal".
Cold pushes Texas power to use winter record
"Monday's power emergency lasted less than three hours, but was reminiscent of February 2011 when ERCOT was forced to implement rolling outages for several hours after dozens of power plants were knocked offline or were unable to start due to frigid weather and strong winds across the state.
One of the state's largest power plants, Luminant's Comanche Peak 1 nuclear reactor, is operating at 72 percent of capacity for a second day."

I have read many knocks against this technology because some assume the lights get turned off. As the article mentions, the technology reduces the lighting level so that in-person viewing remains intact, but the level needed for security cameras only comes into play when motion is detected.  In an era when we scrutinize every dollar spent in education and safety net programs, finding millions of dollars of savings in every city and state should be on the table.  Especially when the level of service does not change.
Clever? Smart street lamps light up only when needed
"The reason why street lamps are so bright, he explains, is to accommodate security cameras, which require a certain amount of surrounding illumination to make out people's faces and other vital details. The Tvilight modified street lamps supposedly do not interfere with these recording systems since they are sufficiently bright whenever someone is within view. Additionally, the dimming levels can be adjusted depending on the known traffic pattern of particular locations. Offhand, for instance, he states that busy intersections can be safely dimmed down by 30 to 40 percent, while that number can drop as low as 70 percent for vacant parking spaces and industrial lots."

How much chemical are you willing to put into your body to have a place to sit that will not burn?  Consider this against the reason for the practice in the first place was the frequency of people falling asleep while smoking?  Does my couch have to poison my daughter because someone else smokes?
This win against toxic couches will make you love seats
"The problem with the flame retardant is that it didn’t stay put. It dispersed into the air. It bonded with dust. The closer you were to flame-retardant treated polyfill or foam, the more you became, over time, part flame retardant yourself. Researchers found that children in the U.S. had seven times the levels of flame retardant in their blood as children who had recently emigrated from Mexico. In the Arctic, very far away from most of the world’s furniture, levels of flame retardant began to increase exponentially in seals."

Keep an eye on this idea.  It could mean the beginning of "The Matrix" and the end of our autonomy, or it could mean a much more efficient manner for us to live our lives.  One thing it will lead to is the efficacy of driverless cars as devices begin to communicate with each other.  One note: if you work in an office building, the systems that control temperature and ventilation already do this...so it's not new, just expanding.
Thousands of world's internet-connected things in one place
"A new website seeks to catalog all of the world's Internet-enabled devices. So far, they've got more than 2,000 listed, and they plan to add many more in the months ahead. There are fitness monitors, medical devices, sound-level meters, and all sorts of other gadgets ready for measuring and monitoring (thermometers, pedometers, and barometers, oh my)."

Happy Friday!