December | 2015 | Steve Woods

Wifi from wee

12/12/2015 Steve WoodsBristol, Oddities, Tech

Bristol boffins have developed a pair of socks embedded with miniaturised microbial fuel cells (MFCs) and fuelled with urine pumped by the wearer’s footsteps that have powered a wireless transmitter to send a signal to a PC. This is the first self-sufficient system powered by a wearable energy generator based on microbial fuel cell technology, the University of the West of England (UWE) reports.

Microbial fuel cell socks

This world first feat is described in the scientific paper, ‘Self-sufficient Wireless Transmitter Powered by Foot-pumped Urine Operating Wearable MFC’ published in Bioinspiration and Biomimetics.

How the set-up works

This paper describes a lab-based experiment led by Professor Ioannis Ieropoulos, of the Bristol BioEnergy Centre at the UWE. The Bristol BioEnergy Centre is based in Bristol Robotics Laboratory (BRL), a collaborative partnership between the UWE and the University of Bristol.

Soft MFCs embedded within a pair of socks were supplied with fresh urine, which was then circulated by the human operator walking. Normally, continuous-flow MFCs would rely on a mains powered pump to circulate the urine over the microbial fuel cells, but this experiment relied solely on human activity. The manual pump was based on a simple fish circulatory system and the action of walking caused the urine to pass over the MFCs and generate energy. Soft tubes, placed under the heels, ensured frequent fluid push–pull by walking. The wearable MFC system successfully ran a wireless transmission board, which was able to send a message every two minutes to the PC-controlled receiver module.

Professor Ieropoulos says, “Having already powered a mobile phone with MFCs using urine as fuel, we wanted to see if we could replicate this success in wearable technology. We also wanted the system to be entirely self-sufficient, running only on human power – using urine as fuel and the action of the foot as the pump.”

“This work opens up possibilities of using waste for powering portable and wearable electronics. For example, recent research shows it should be possible to develop a system based on wearable MFC technology to transmit a person’s coordinates in an emergency situation. At the same time this would indicate proof of life since the device will only work if the operator’s urine fuels the MFCs.”

MFCs use bacteria to generate electricity from waste fluids. They tap into the biochemical energy used for microbial growth and convert it directly into electricity. This technology can use any form of organic waste and turn it into useful energy without reliance on fossil fuels, making this a valuable green technology.

Originally posted on Bristol Wireless.
LibreOffice 4.4.7 released

11/12/2015 Steve WoodsOpen Source, Open Standards, Tech

Yesterday The Document Foundation announced the release of LibreOffice 4.4.7, the seventh and final minor release of the LibreOffice 4.4 family. LibreOffice 4.4.7 is the “still” version, which is aimed at more conservative users and enterprise deployments.

The Document Foundation recommends the deployment of LibreOffice in enterprises and large organisations with the backing of certified professional support.

LibreOffice 4.4.7 is available for download from http://www.libreoffice.org/download/libreoffice-still/.

The next release of the more cutting edge LibreOffice 5.x series will take place early in 2016.
No fossil fuel power plant in St Werburghs

11/12/2015 Steve WoodsBristol, Politics

On Wednesday councillors on Bristol City Council’s Development Control Committee B voted overwhelmingly – by 8 votes to 2 with one abstention – to accept the planning officers’ recommendation to refuse an application filed by UK Power Reserve Ltd. for 14 gas-fired generators with 11 metre high flues for a site off Gatton Road.

The recommendation for refusal was soundly based on both national and local planning guidelines for reasons of noise and air pollution, plus visual amenity.

One of the 14 generators refused planning permission

The application attracted nearly 700 objections and over 50 personal statements by members of the public, including your correspondent, whose statement is reproduced below.

I have been a resident of the Easton area for nearly 4 decades.

I have read the case officer’s report on this application and am pleased to note he has recommended its rejection since it contravenes both local and national planning policies in many regards.

It should be pointed out that this speculative application – one of 3 for fossil fuel generating plants in Bristol’s less prosperous communities – is being driven by central government’s ideologically-driven mismanagement of electricity production in the UK.

I live downwind of the proposed facility and feel the air quality in my part of Easton is already bad enough with the traffic pollution from the M32 and Stapleton Road, plus diesel fumes from the nearby railway line.

By filing this application in the way it did, the applicant has shown contempt both for the local authority and local residents in St Werburghs and Easton.

Contempt to the local authority is demonstrated by the application’s filing during Bristol’s year as European Green Capital. Nothing further need be said on that point in respect of a generating plant powered by polluting fossil fuels.

As regards local residents, consultation has been minimal and I believe that the applicant is guilty of what is called “environmental racism”. This is a concept from the United States defined as: “is placement of low-income or minority communities in proximity of environmentally hazardous or degraded environments, such as toxic waste, pollution and urban decay”.

If this facility is so clean and aesthetically pleasing to the eye, why did the applicant not decide to site in, say, Stoke Bishop?

Any future applicant thinking of indulging in further environmental racism in Bristol’s inner city communities will be told very firmly what they can do with their applications and where they can stick their proposed facilities.

Three local councillors – Rob Telford and Gus Hoyt from Ashley ward – and Lawrence Hill’s Marg Hickman also spoke against UKPR’s plans.

There was only one speaker from the public gallery in support of the application; and that was from UKPR’s agent. He urged the committee to defer a decision to allow them to mitigate the air quality impact by fitting catalytic converters, reduce noise problems and reduce the height of the chimneys. However, the councillors on the committee gave this late concession short shrift.

Indeed, the only councillor on the committee to speak in favour of the application was Conservative Richard Eddy (described as a ‘dickhead’ by a fellow councillor. Ed.). He and fellow Tory Kevin Quartley voted in favour of the power plant, whilst Chris Windows, the third Tory on the committee, abstained.

Two further planning applications for similar plants powered by dirty diesel in Lockleaze and at Avonbank (posts passim) were withdrawn a few days before the meeting. Along with the St Werburgh’s application, they would have formed part of the STOR back-up energy programme subsidised by the Government.
Dirty diesel planning applications withdrawn

06/12/2015 Steve WoodsBristol, Politics

Good news has been received regarding the planning applications two diesel generating stations (posts passim) just a few days before they were due to be considered by councillors on the relevant Development Control Committee.

A diesel generating plant somewhere in Africa

Plutus Energy has withdrawn both its planning applications for diesel generating facilities in both Lawrence Hill and Lockleaze wards.

All 3 applications that were due to be considered by councillors had been recommended for rejection by planning officers.

Your correspondent objected to the application at Feeder Road in Lawrence Hill ward as follows:

The fact that the applicant has filed this application during Bristol’s year as European Green Capital shows the applicant’s utter contempt for the city’s aspiration to be a showcase for good environmental practice.

The applicant’s proposals will result in a loss of amenity for neighbours in terms of visual amenity and more particularly as regards air quality.

Visual amenity: standby generating stations featuring diesel generators and associated flues/chimneys are not the most aesthetic of facilities.

Air quality: the site is on Feeder Road and is crossed by St Philip’s Causeway. Both of these roads are already high levels of traffic with the associated repercussions for local air quality. Local air quality will be further impaired by the addition of diesel generators, not only in terms of carbon dioxide/monoxide and NOx, but also particulates. Diesel combustion exhaust is a source of atmospheric soot and fine particles, which is a component of the air pollution implicated in human cancer, heart and lung damage and mental functioning.

Lack of environmental impact assessment: although the site is below the threshold for conducting this assessment, such an assessment should be requested due to the nature of the facility proposed by the applicant.

Unsatisfactory noise impact assessment: the applicant has not carried out a proper noise impact assessment for the site. Edward Road was chosen for the noise impact. This ignores the fact that noise from the facility will have a significant effect on St Philip’s Marsh School, which is far nearer to the site than Edward Road. As the applicant has shown poor faith in this regard, the application should be rejected.

Impact on St Philip’s Marsh School: this proposal will have a negative impact on the amenity of this establishment in terms of noise, air quality and visual amenity, not to mention the possible effect of the poorer air quality on any pupils with respiratory problems such as asthma. For this reason too, the application should be rejected.

Safety concerns re 2 diesel storage tanks with a capacity of 22,000 litres: this represents a hazard to neighbours, both industrial and residential.

Finally, I believe the only reason this application has been filed by the applicant is that because it is in a poor, deprived council ward, the applicant thinks it can get approval for its noisy, polluting facility is that fewer people are likely to object. If this is so, I think the applicant’s reasoning is seriously flawed.

For all the reasons cited above, the application should be rejected.

Yesterday I received the letter below from Bristol City Council (all errant and/or lacking punctuation, plus dodgy use of the English language are © Bristol City Council. Ed.).

Application No. 15/02310/F
Site address: Avonbank, Feeder Road, Bristol BS2 0TH
Proposal: Proposed installation of diesel powered generators and associated infrastructure for the provision of a Flexible Generation Facility to provide energy balancing services via the capacity market for the National Grid.

Further to the recent letter advising you that the above application was due to be considered by Development Control B committee, on the 9 December 2015 I now write to advise that the application has been withdrawn and will no longer be considered by the committee.

Should a new application be received, you will have the opportunity to comment on that application.

Development Management
Bristol City Council

Talking to Bristol 24/7, Lawrence Hill councillor Marg Hickman said: “We have won. It is just quite remarkable and wonderful. The local community has come together on this and we have won because we have got such a good campaign together.”

This still leaves an application for a similar gas-powered plant in St Werburgh’s, which has gained 684 objections, on the table.
Spelling or sleeping?

05/12/2015 Steve WoodsBristol, Language, Media, Social Media

There was a great clanger in a tweet this morning from Bristol’s Western Daily Press, the sister publication of the Bristol Post (and joint occupier with it of Bristol’s Temple Way Ministry of Truth. Ed.) and likewise subject to many of the latter’s failings with the English language.

Here’s an image of the tweet in question.

The morals of this tale are clear: if you run a tawdry TV talent show orthography is as dangerous as shut-eye if housebreakers are around; if you run the social media account of a mediocre regional paper, learn to proof-read before posting online*! 🙂

* The spelling error in the tweet originally appeared in the article itself, but has since been corrected.
Christmas Market in St Werburghs this Friday

01/12/2015 Steve WoodsBristol
A Christmas Market is taking place at St Werburghs Community Centre this coming Friday, 4th December from 5.00 to 8.00 pm.

The Christmas Market is yet another very popular community-led event hosted by St Werburghs Community Centre.

Join us on Friday for a festive feast of all things creative and buy original arts and crafts from the best local artists and makers. There are always plenty of wonderful stalls booked filled with personal, handmade and unique gifts for your family and friends.

The following items will be on sale:
- Paintings, photography, prints, stained glass, pottery & ceramics;
- Handmade crafts, knitted baby clothing and home accessories;
- Natural, organic and fairtrade skincare products;
- Wooden toys and wood carvings;
- Fairtrade gifts and jewellery;
- Locally produced and grown food, honey, chocolate and beer;
- Bric-a-brac; and
- Indian and Tibetan gifts.
If those items fail to tempt you through the door, the Christmas Market will also feature:
- Live performance;
- Café with home-made food and cakes;
- Children’s activities; and
- Massage and relaxation therapies.
Bristol Post balls – rescued from the rescue services?

01/12/2015 Steve WoodsBristol, Language, Media, Oddities

There seem to be times when confusion is rife in the Bristol Post’s headquarters on Temple Way. This was exemplified yesterday by the headline in this report, of which a screenshot follows, just in case Post hacks realise a mistake has been made.

In spite of the headline, Post reporter Emma Flanagan fails to explain in her article why anyone would need rescuing from the fire brigade after a night out.

Furthermore, there is no explanation either for the logic behind Bristol’s City Docks having their own fire brigade.

Perhaps kind readers could help her out and provide plausible reasons in the comments below. 🙂