November 9, 2010
Host: Ted Simons
Arizona Technology and Innovation
- We kick off a new series on the latest in the high-tech arena. The first “Arizona Technology and Innovation” segment looks at how researchers at the University of Arizona are working on capturing wasted heat energy and turning it into electricity using quantum effects. Researchers Charles Stafford and Justin Bergfield will explain the concept.
- Charles Stafford
- Justin Bergfield
Ted Simons: A tremendous amount of heat is produced when you use your car. And it's not free. You pay for it at the pump. Now researchers are looking at a method to recapture wasted heat from any type of energy production and convert it to electricity using a quantum effect. Tonight we'll take a look at that research as we debut our new segment "Arizona Technology and Innovation". It's a multimedia effort that focuses on the people, ideas, businesses and technologies that are shaping Arizona's future. In these segments, you'll learn how Arizona is on the leading edge of high-tech innovation and how discoveries made today will impact lives for generations. I will talk to two University of Arizona scientists about their research. But first, Mike Sauceda tells us more about thermoelectricity.
Mike Sauceda: Whenever power is produced, much of it is wasted in the form of heat. Cars lose a lot of horsepower through engine and muffler heat. Solar panels are rendered less efficient because of waste heat. But scientists at the University of Arizona are working on ways to capture much of this heat making the production and use of energy more efficient. Thermo-electrical would use a quantum effect to recapture that heat and turn it into electricity with no moving parts. Right now the research mostly exists as a computer model but scientists are optimistic that the concept can be applied easily in the real world. Researchers take advantage of an effect called quantum interference. It's similar to the noise cancellation effect used on some headphones where two sound waves that are exact opposites cancel each other when they meet. Except instead of using sound waves, researchers use electrons which are conveyors of electricity. Those electrons even though composed of matter can exhibit wave-like properties. In the computer simulation, electricity is sent through a forest of polyphenyl ether molecules made of benzene rings. They act as molecular wires. The electrons falling down, split when they encounter a ring. The ring can be made so the electrons have to take a longer path on one side and that causes one side of the flow to arrive later than the other. When the two flows meet, they cancel each other out through quantum interference. More benzene rings means more electricity. A temperature difference is applied and that can float through the singular layer of molecules but the electricity cannot and it has greater voltage. A single layer of the molecules painted on metal electrodes would act as a thermo-electric device producing electricity.
Ted Simons: Here now to talk about his research into thermoelectricity is Charles Stafford, an associate professor of physics at the University of Arizona. Also joining me is Justin Bergfield, a doctoral candidate in the U of A's College of Optical Sciences. A doctoral candidate. I don't want to rush past that. That's a pretty big -- thank you for both joining us on "Horizon".
Charles Stafford and Justin Bergfield: Thank you.
Ted Simons: Capturing wasted heat, turning it into electricity. Is this a new idea?
Charles Stafford: Actually, no. It goes back quite some time. The problem is capturing it to make it useful.
Ted Simons: We had steam engine or something like that?
Charles Stafford: The steam engine is analogous to what we've come up with. Instead of steam, it's the electron waves themselves which are the medium. You heat up the electron waves and rather than do mechanical work, they do electrical work.
Ted Simons: Before getting into the nuts and bolts, this could have an impact on cars, power plants, factories. Tell us how.
Justin Bergfield: Basically there's waste heat from all sorts of factories. Like you said car exhaust, engine is typically warmer than the ambient air around it. The fact that you have a conversion and you take temperature and convert it to a voltage which can power any number of electrical devices you may be interested in powering.
Ted Simons: We have heat into voltage, voltage into power. We have the quantum thing out there. The minute people hear quantum, all of a sudden it's randomness. Talk to us about the quantum law that applies here and how it applies.
Charles Stafford: Okay. It's a tough one. It's a tough one to explain because it basically comes down to the fact that the electron can be a volt as a particle and a wave. As a wave it can interfere with itself. That interference affects the flow of charge and of heat differently and basically to get a thermo-electric voltage, you need to have a lot of heat to carry a per unit of charge. So essentially that's what is going on. Because of this quantum nature of the electronics, it's able to be a very efficient exchange of heat medium.
Ted Simons: You're talking about and correct me if I'm wrong, and benzene plays part of this as far as the conductor if you will. You're seeing what could be particles and/or waves going into a certain direction and boom, they collide and that's when things happen.
Justin Bergfield: In a sense, yeah. Matter, the things that we touch and the things we see are basically light and electrons, most of chemistry and all the things we're interested in. If you connect through a benzene ring and a so-called meta-configuration, you have two paths interfere and using the wave-like nature of the electrons that it gives a complete cancellation to the flow of charge. So if you were looking as an electron wave into this thing, it would basically reflect back. The interesting aspect is that heat is inherently incoherent. It has a disorder to it. It can't quite cancel completely. This gives a very efficient thermo-electric response.
Ted Simons: Take that thermo-electric response in what we've just heard. You both described, how did you get from that to this?
Charles Stafford: Well, it was quite -- it was serendipitous I would say. So Justin discovered it in this kind of meta-connected benzene ring you showed earlier. He found a very big voltage, about 20 times as big as anything that's been seen in these kind of junctions heretofore. Then we looked at if instead of one ring you had two rings. It went up to 300 volts per Kelvin. If we put in more rings, you could get bigger and bigger voltage. It became something that is technologically interesting.
Ted Simons: What we're looking at here -- what are we looking at here? Looks like you have a little bit of cancellation. What is happening here?
Justin Bergfield: The two big things on the left and right-hand sides are gold electrodes, for example. STM tips or something like that. It can be a broken fragment of wire. There's a biphenyl molecule in the center. It's a 3, 3 biphenyl junction, it's two of these meta-connected benzene rings. The electron wave if you consider coming from the left-hand side, sort of circles around and cancels out the bridge between the two. That in turn cancels I guess you could say, that's not entirely --
Ted Simons: Sure.
Justin Bergfield: But the point is the thermo-electric response, you increase -- a number of these rings increases, so you can have a scalable thermoelectric device which is a big advantage of this technology.
Ted Simons: How do you get more volts? Is it bigger rings? What?
Charles Stafford: Essentially making bigger rings will not increase the voltage. But putting more rings in series. Like making kind of a necklace with more and more rings, that makes the voltage go up, even more than in proportion to the number of rings.
Ted Simons: And the heat, the temperature variation makes a difference as well, correct?
Charles Stafford: Yeah, the more temperature variation you have, the more voltage you can.
Ted Simons: I think we've got it as far as the quantum aspect. Take us from that to, again, the concept of applying this on an everyday item, like a car.
Justin Bergfield: So we're interested in general and single molecule electronics. We're interested in basically when they connect to a single molecule, which is very hard to do. A fellow here at ASU is one of the leaders of it. So what we propose is basically you can deposit these as a mono layer or a layer of molecules where you've engineered the chemistry that one end bonds to one conducting plate and the other bonds to another one. I showed on the side of a factory a cartoon whereby I had one plate on the hot side of the exhaust fan or exhaust of a factory and the other on the air. So if there's, say, you know, 20 degrees Celsius temperature variation between those two, based on the thermo-electric response, you can generate a large voltage potentially.
Ted Simons: What kind of size are we talking about? If you're going to further it on the car, it has to be pretty small.
Charles Stafford: Well, the idea would be ideally with the correct chemistry you could just make like a polymer that could be painted on, literally coated on your surface, any metal surface and then you would just put another electrode on top of that and that would be your device.
Ted Simons: That wouldn't be much at all, would it?
Charles Stafford: It would be very thin, you're right. It would only be a few nanometers thick.
Ted Simons: How far have you gotten in the lab on this? What are you seeing?
Justin Bergfield: At the moment we're talking with various chemists and they say that mono layers of this type are, quote, easy to make. They assure us that it's doable and that this is mostly a conceptual breakthrough whereby in the lab engineering may have associated pitfalls but at least to their eye they see it being a fairly straightforward technology to test.
Ted Simons: How soon before we can see some maybe real world tests?
Charles Stafford: A matter of months I would say.
Ted Simons: Really?
Charles Stafford: Yeah.
Ted Simons: I know solar is a big deal in Arizona. A lot of folks are trying to make it a big deal. This could be a big deal regarding solar, could it not?
Charles Stafford: It could. The solar spectrum peaks in the near infrared. Infrared is what we call heat, right? So most of the light is not useful for photovoltaic conversion because it's not above the band gap of the semi-conduct silicon they're using. You could focus it with a mirror lens on to a little thermoelectric device and that would convert the heat directly into electricity. That part of the spectrum which is just wasted by normal photovoltaic.
Ted Simons: Are you sensing that as small and as portable as it might be right now, you could even make it smaller and better?
Justin Bergfield: Well, maybe. It's only a few nanometers --
Ted Simons: Can't get much smaller, can you?
Justin Bergfield: Can't get much smaller. They're solid state. They're small. A lot of cars have solid state heating or your wine cooler has a solid state cooler in it. This principle, this device works in both ways in terms of being able to refrigerate and being able to extract from a heat difference electricity.
Ted Simons: And the idea of no moving parts has to be huge, correct?
Charles Stafford: Right. Yes. But I mean the key I think is cost. Because, as you said, the thermo-electrics do exist. BMW and Volkswagen have demonstration projects where they've upped the overall efficiency by 5%. The problem is these semi conductor thermo-electrics are expensive and not efficient. Our materials on the other hand should be cheaper because they're like rubber-like polymers and they're much more efficient. That could be the key, you know, to going big with thermo-electrics.
Ted Simons: Getting much attention out of this?
Justin Bergfield: We've gotten a lot of calls. We've talked to a lot of potential investors. We're excited. It's exciting.
Ted Simons: I guess folks listen to this and say hey, something is going on.
Charles Stafford: Yeah. Some forward thinking venture capitalists and companies are interested in pursuing this further.
Ted Simons: Always nice to slip in quantum physics on "Horizon". Thank you for joining us.
- Newly elected congressman David Schweikert, from Arizona's 5th district, talks about his plans in Washington.
- David Schweikert - congressman
| Keywords: legislature
Ted Simons: Good evening and welcome to "Horizon". I'm Ted Simons. Republican state representatives Bill Knopnicki and Cecil Ash are suggesting that the state's budget problems could mean reduced prison sentences to save money on corrections. Knopnicki says lawmakers in the past have been afraid to consider such a plan because they didn't want to be labeled as soft on crime. But the Department of Corrections now takes up 11% of the state budget with prison costs now ten times what they were 30 years ago. The third time was the charm for newly elected Republican Congressman David Schweikert. After two failed congressional attempts, Schweikert easily defeated Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell in Arizona's fifth congressional district. Now Schweikert will be headed to the capitol to be part of the new Republican majority in the house. Here to talk about his plans is congressman-elect David Schweikert. Good to see you again. Thanks for joining us.
David Schweikert: Happy to be here. I don't know how I ended up on a show where you will be doing quantum physics next.
Ted Simons: We do our best. We try. Two years ago, as you well know, folks were not happy with the Republican agenda. Now, all of a sudden, you're off to Washington. What you going to do?
David Schweikert: If you think about two years ago, I think there was this great optimism. You know, we often and I think a little too tritely say hope and change. Americans wanted a dramatically different direction. What they got I don't think they were prepared for. I heard over and over on the election trail, look, we're fearful be being bankrupt. You know, we're not happy with the direction we believe the health care reform is going and we want jobs. We want economic growth. So, you know, I've been elected. My obligation is, how do I deal with the excessive spending? And how do I start creating economic growth?
Ted Simons: Let's talk about jobs. October numbers are in. Jobs were added in five months. Education and healthcare sectors were leading the way. Private jobs added as well ten straight months. It seemed as though things are moving forward. Is it time to change that plan?
David Schweikert: It may be angling in the right direction, but it's no anemic. It's not enough to sop up those folks who desperately need employment. When you and I talk about a nine and a half, 9.7% unemployment, we over and over hear from the economists how much shadow unemployment. That may be in the high teens. The fact of the matter is we have to double, triple that rate of private job growth just to really make a dent in these numbers.
Ted Simons: The congressional budget office, which I'm sure you'll be become with back there in Washington, they're saying without the stimulus plan we would be pushing, in terms of real numbers, the obvious numbers, above ground numbers, 12%. They're saying the stimulus plan seemed to do something as far as unemployment is concerned. Talk about, are we ready for another stimulus plan? Because it sounds like the Republican majority of the House doesn't want any part of it.
David Schweikert: Heavens, no. The debate on those numbers is we grew government jobs. We grew very expensive government jobs. Some of the numbers we see say every federal government employee all in costs maybe $170,000. Could you imagine if many of those stimulus dollars went directly to try to create private sector employment where it would be sustainable, where it would have a multiplier effect? Government jobs don't have that same level of velocity.
Ted Simons: But when we talk about losing government jobs, which we would do if we cut enough in terms of government, especially as far as the country is concerned, those are jobs. Those are people who lose their jobs.
David Schweikert: There's the great battle. How do I create -- how do we create enough private sector economic growth so if there are government jobs that are going to evaporate, whether it been just as we saw the census or other agencies that curve on their growth is now going to have to be tailored back, we have to have private sector growth. Do you do this through the tax code? Do you do this through regulatory environment? Do you do this by freeing up excess I believe credit? The answer is you do it all.
Ted Simons: The Bush Era Tax Cuts, I know this is a big issue as far as Republicans are concerned. Some say you will add trillions to the next decade and companies, basically what they're doing, they're taking this money right now, whether it's large or small companies, whatever tax cut you want to talk about, whether it's corporate or individual or whatever, people are not spending. They're taking the money and hoarding. They're raising stock prices and not making jobs.
David Schweikert: You're nailing the problem. Would you take the cash you're holding in your business and spend it today in this environment where you don't know what your future tax liabilities are going to be? What's your capital gains rate? What is the death tax going to be come January? You create an environment where there's no visibility for future investment so what you do is you don't invest at all. The trillion number on the extending the Bush tax cuts is way off. You also have this basic economic theory. You never ever raise taxes while you're in the middle of a recession. So if we're after economic growth right now, we need to create economic visibility. That's also some tax stability.
Ted Simons: The idea again, though, of finding a way of getting that deficit under control, are you looking at things like reducing payouts to social security and Medicare? Are you looking at things like raising taxes a little bit like Clinton did back in the '90s? Like Reagan did at one point.
David Schweikert: What you may end looking at is can you create some type of tax simplification that removes loopholes by lobbyists and special groups where you don't get it but some group who happened to have a good lobbyist got it? When the tax code is monstrous, one of the engines to economic growth is fine, time to do a dramatic simplification of the tax code.
Ted Simons: Is Congress ready for that?
David Schweikert: I think the House may be. I've been spending a lot of the last week, when the telephones aren't blowing up from my friends and family who all want jobs is to try to talk to some of the members of the new freshmen class. They're passionate about this agenda of the economic growth, about getting jobs. A lot of this in those discussions is how do we simplify the tax code? How do we deal with the regulatory burden? There's a desire.
Ted Simons: I want to get to the health care reform but before I do that I want to bridge this. President Obama has his agenda. The Democrats had their say. It looks as though in many ways the economy seems to be straightening out. In some respects it's going well. Is there, for better or worse, the Republicans have been considered a party of no. Right now we're hearing from the Senate side, the best thing we can do is get rid of President Obama as opposed to here are plans. Is there compromise? Can you compromise back there?
David Schweikert: I think there's a couple of problems in that scenario. One is the party of no, the party of no to things that just were absurd to the Republican agenda. It's going to be fascinating with the Democrats controlling the U.S. Senate, will they now adopt the party of no position?
Ted Simons: Should both sides become the party of maybe? Can both sides become the party of maybe?
David Schweikert: If it's the right thing to do. The battle is you don't compromise on principle. If there's rational things we can do to curb the spending and make economic growth, we'll step up and do it.
Ted Simons: Will you roll back health care reforms?
David Schweikert: Absolutely.
Ted Simons: Why?
David Schweikert: If you and I agree, I have a problem in portability, I have a problem in pre-existing conditions, I have a problem in the way the tax benefits flow, you fix those items. You do not nuke the entire healthcare system.
Ted Simons: You're saying you nuke the entire healthcare system. Are you saying those problems were fixable individually? Because a lot of folks were saying they weren't. It would take too long and you need to have this kind of -- as you're saying, a grand idea regarding tax code. They were saying a grand idea regarding health care.
David Schweikert: I have a very different vision of that. There was lots of folks and a lot of the healthcare economists were saying just the opposite. That you don't do it the way they did it. There are so many problematic issues within the, we'll call it, the Obamacare, health care reform that it's going to be devastating to us here in Arizona and to our congressional district which is made up of small businesses and entrepreneurs. There are better ways to do it.
Ted Simons: It sounds as though the increases initially and once 2014 hits, if the reforms stay in place, obviously the ball field changes. Initially and even then, we're looking at perhaps in terms of premiums for employer-based policies 1 to 2% changes up, down, sideways. That doesn't sound like much of a difference.
David Schweikert: I don't know where those sorts of numbers come from. If you remember, the promise was even going into 2011 you wouldn't see increases in premiums. The fact is, we're seeing dramatic increases in premiums. Much of that modeling and prediction we got from the Democratic majority wasn't right.
Ted Simons: The idea of bringing federal money to Arizona, earmarks, will you work to bring money to Arizona?
David Schweikert: I will never do an earmark. I will through the budget process make sure that Arizona stops being what they call a net contributor state where more of our tax revenue goes out than comes back. You use the appropriations process. You use -- you know, one of the things that the House of Representatives of representatives is to review, to look over spending. And when a congressman goes on and attacks something, often it doesn't create more money to the state. What it means is the money gets directed to someone you have a personal favor with. That type of patronage must come to an end.
Ted Simons: But you have to be part of that patronage. Why not go for it?
David Schweikert: Let's say a gentleman owns a piece of land next to one of my big contributors. Instead you let the professionals at the transportation agency at your state make the decision. The arrogance of a congressman thinking he knows where to direct the dollars down to that micro level. My job is to make sure Arizona gets its fair share but you don't do it through earmarking.
Ted Simons: Republicans have been very critical of unfunded mandates in a variety of ways. Critics will say what about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? That helped take us to where we are and where we were as far as deficits go? What do you see about funding the wars?
David Schweikert: They were absolutely a contributing fact, if you figure the stimulus bill of 800 billion. You don't run a military operation off the books. Put it on the books. Let the American people and make Congress deal with the real numbers.
Ted Simons: Good to have you here. Thanks for joining us.
David Schweikert: Very happy to be here.