From Eurekalert, this inanity. What next, calls to reduce the beam power of NEXRAD weather radar systems so they are more “green”? I’m all for power efficiency in remote sensing, but leave it at that. Calling it “green” just sounds ridiculous in the headline context. – Anthony
Greener disaster alerts
Low-energy wireless sensor networks warn of hurricanes, earthquakes
New software allows wireless sensor networks to run at much lower energy, according to researchers writing in the International Journal of Sensor Networks. The technology could improve efficiency for hurricane and other natural disaster warning systems.
Wireless sensor networks (WSNs) are used to monitor ecosystems, wild and urban environments. They have been vital in predicting events that threaten species and environments, including gathering information from animal habitats, in volcanic activity monitoring, flash-flood alerts and environmental monitoring. Wireless sensing in densely populated urban communities can be invaluable not only in monitoring the physical environment, but also for focusing on the impact people and their vehicles have on that environment through mobile emissions monitoring. Such sensing allows consideration to be given to such factors in planning for sustainable development. Unfortunately, the benefits of WSNs come at a price – they require energy.
Computer scientist Patricia Morreale of Kean University in Union, New Jersey and colleagues Feng Qi and Paul Croft of Kean’s School of Environmental and Life Sciences, explain how a mesh network of wireless sensors reports data to a central site for environmental monitoring and risk identification. They have developed such a system that reduces the energy requirements compared to conventional WSNs.
The new approach to WSNs is, they say, considered green because of the reduced energy demands in use and by the overall network as well as its actual application. It is designed so that environmental information can be obtained and communicated through periodic updates rather than the usual “timestamp synchronization” approach of conventional WSNs. “This reduces the amount of communication required between network nodes, resulting in an overall energy saving, while not compromising the nature of the data gathered,” the team says. “The sensor network applications provide an outstanding representation of green networking as sparse but sufficient environmental monitoring, accompanied by real-time data analysis, and historical pattern identification permits risk identification in support of public safety and protection.”
The software underpinning the new approach can monitor and check incoming sensor data against an existing database and produce charts predicting the sensors’ next most likely reading. The team explains that by implementing a system that monitors and distinguishes between normal sensor variations and underlying patterns it can be used to generate real-time alarms, the moment a pattern or new event emerged. This is critical in early warnings of potentially catastrophic and fast-moving natural disasters, the team says.
The GWSN – green-WSN – can, at the moment, only predict the next reading based on past values. The team is now working to optimize the software to allow it to estimate future readings for any date and time.
“A green wireless sensor network for environmental monitoring and risk identification” in Int. J. Sensor Networks, 2011, 10, 73-82
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad.”
“Such sensing allows consideration to be given to such factors in planning for sustainable development. Unfortunately, the benefits of WSNs come at a price – they require energy.”
One for the “you gotta be kidding” category. (Otherwise, consideration, I suppose, would not be given…)
Each unit comes with its own “green” micro wind turbine, despite conservationist complaints that the blades shred too many mosquitos. 🙂
Couldn’t find the original paper to see what it was really about, but the press release makes absolutely no sense. Probably another example of someone using the “green” word in the hope of getting more funding. I suspect that there may have been some errors in the translation of technical terms to everyday English.
Distributed sensor networks are already about as low power as one can be running on CPU’s taking microamps of power in sleep mode, advanced power management algorithms and able to use solar power or other exotic potential energy sources that really only make sense in a situation like this. There are all sort of network topologies that allow the sensors to talk to one another and the main factor in reducing power consumption, IMO, is to only send data which are relevant and this is something that will vary based on the application. The problem one gets is that if one eliminates handshaking between sensors, then one doesn’t know if data has been passed on. I have no idea what they mean about estimation of future readings for any time or date – perhaps they are recycling climate prediction software.
Energy is good. We need more energy, not less.
Ultimately the “Sustainable” movement winds up as 12 Monkeys.
Inanity or Insanity…
What about green war machines, green nukes, green bullets…
Pathetic.
One thing is omitted from this press release: the numbers.
How much energy is being used today versus how much will be used in the “green” system.
I am sure that as soon as people see the numbers they will realize it is just another exercise in futility.
I think we will be finding soon that through Google news/search you will no longer get ANY negative AGW stories as those 21 AGW appointees start to really get into those Search algorithms to weed out any non religious items. This is probably one of the greatest threats/affronts to free speech ever. See Revkin NYT
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/online-climate-explored-at-google/
What we need is maybe a tidal powered tsunami alert !
How green is that?!?
So, how much energy does the sensor network use? How many sensors, over what distance, etc. Then how much will be saved with the new system? Are we talking thousands of watts, or 10s of watts? Why not tie them to solar?
It would have been nice if the article talked about this – then again, if the savings is only in the 10s of watts category, the article would have seemed absurd for all the effort going in ( . . perhaps that’s why it wasn’t mentioned . . .? . .just asking . . . )
I have a rather complicated construction project this weekend. These seem to be just the people I want on my team./
Because our tsunami/hurricane sirens, already 200′ above sea level, with a back up system at sea level, operating with battery/solar/and generated power, in effect since 1984, seem insufficient to them. And while we have strained to come up with something even more redundant, the nuclear power plant for each siren was rejected.
So these geniuses must have a lot to share.
Sounds strangely reminiscent of global circulation models and CAGW. They make predictions about future events too. However, when the readings don’t match the predictions, they don’t sound the alarm. How about that?
And again, the entire root of this is because they believe CO2 is harmful. Well, a tornado bearing down on people is a LOT more harmful than any CO2 that might be emitted due to the energy consumption of the RADAR units.
But aside from that, nobody has shown that the CO2 emissions, while increasing, are harmful in any way. All of this is based on a hypothesis backed up by a computer program that is fed data that is “adjusted” to provide the desired result.
Nearly the entire year of 2008 saw global temperatures below the 30 year average. Where’s the “global warming”?
I believe that many remote sensors are in places where connection to the power grid is troublesome or impossible. And one would probably prefer that some of the sensors that could be grid powered keep on running when the power grid is down.
So what do they use? In many cases, solar with battery backup. Lower power means smaller solar arrays and smaller backup batteries. Lower cost. Fewer siting problems
I am afraid that word smithing will go to its final phase: AGW,Climate Change, Climate Disruption, …,Greening Climate 🙂 .
That is green because I believe the colour of dollars is still green? Helps for getting grants?
“The team is now working to optimize the software to allow it to estimate future readings for any date and time.”
– wow saves all that pesky sciencing, we can just predict the future now?! aaaargh!
I agree all this green this, sustainable that, eco greenwashing talking points is getting rather sickening. I’m fine with the fact it uses less energy or is made with recycled material or it’s actually saving me money, just don’t force it. Nothing turns people off more when you emphasize the altruisticness of the subject of choice, no matter what it is.
Sounds like ‘more‘ hurricanes Better detection? (Doplar rada, satellites)
Get ready for an ‘increased‘ frequency of environmental disasters. ;O) If only all these tools were around in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.
Sounds like ‘more‘ hurricanes better detection? (Doplar radar, satellites)
The trouble with the term ‘green’ it is indeterminate and emotive. All technological development from the Newcomen engine to present technology has followed a path of improving efficiency, or pursuing the aim of more bangs for bucks. I prefer the terms ‘more efficient’ and/or ‘less polluting’. It is possible to measure against these terms as opposed to something that is ‘green’ and improvements can continue as they always have done.
In addition what is this trying to say? “Unfortunately, the benefits of WSNs come at a price – they require energy.” There is no ‘unfortunately’. It is a system that provides (hopefully valuable) weather warnings. Period.
I must be getting old. Surely it’s “greenest” to connect the sensors back to the base unit with old-fashioned copper wire, rather than to equip each one with its own local interface, transmitter and (now necessary) power supply? My old (“supermarket grade”!) weather station used wire to its external sensor and one battery; my newer one is wireless linked and needs two batteries. I rest my case.
“The GWSN – green-WSN – can, at the moment, only predict the next reading based on past values. The team is now working to optimize the software to allow it to estimate future readings for any date and time.”
The next logical step when actual measurements fail to prove AGW, model the sensor input. Now the AGW crowd can create any instrument record they need.
I’m quite sick of people hyping up miniscule energy efficiencies as if they made any real difference. Apple sells a battery charger, and its main bragging point is that it draws significantly less current than a typical charger when you’re not charging batteries. A quick calculation yields that the power savings in a month are equivalent to turning off a 60 watt light bulb for a few minutes.
My cell phone nags me to unplug the charger to conserve energy. It’s ridiculous. It makes people feel like they are making a difference when it makes absolutely no difference at all.
I’ll bet these new gadgets reduce power consumption by about .000000001%. Let’s have a party!
Steve Schaper said June 28, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Energy is good. We need more energy, not less
And ther eyou have it; the enviromentalists are anti energy, especially electricity. For them, the use of fire is mankind’s Origial Sin.
“The GWSN – green-WSN – can, at the moment, only predict the next reading based on past values. The team is now working to optimize the software to allow it to estimate future readings for any date and time.”
Errrm, unless they have a time machine then you can only ever base predictions on past values (and the present value of course)… Optimization cannot change that, it only optimizes what you have! What they mean is that they are changing the *model* that predicts/estimates future values. Like running a Kalman filter forward without any update steps… but that soon goes wild. Who do they think they are kidding with this “any date and time” nonsense??? And really, what has that got at all to do with wireless sensor networks??