Why different voltages

When the German company AEG built one of the first European generating facilities, its engineers decided to fix the frequency at 50 Hz, because the number 60 did not fit the metric standard unit sequence 1, 2, 5.

At that time, AEG had a virtual monopoly and their standard spread to the rest of the continent. In Britain, differing frequencies proliferated, and only after World War II the cycle standard was established.

Originally Europe was V too, just like Japan and the US today, but it was deemed necessary to increase voltage to get more power with fewer losses and less voltage drop from the same copper wire diameter.

At the time the US also wanted to change but because of the cost involved to replace all electric appliances, they decided not to. At the time 50ss the average US household already had a fridge, a washing-machine, etc. The result was that throughout the 20th century, the US had to cope with problems such as light bulbs that burnt out rather quickly when they were close to the transformer too high a voltage , or just the other way round: not enough voltage at the end of the line to volt spread!

The common neutral wire is connected at the centre point of the split volts on the main panel. The full volts is used for powerful appliances such as ovens and clothes dryers.

Mind, Americans who have European equipment should not connect it to these outlets, since the phasing is wrong. Below is a map that shows the domestic voltage and frequency used in every country of the world. Dark blue coloured countries use V. The electrical network in red countries operates at V.

Keep in mind that this map is only a general overview. In he was named by Foreign Policy as one of the top global thinkers, in he was appointed as a Member of the Order of Canada, and in he received OPEC Award for research on energy. He has also worked as a consultant for many US, EU and international institutions, has been an invited speaker in more than conferences and workshops and has lectured at many universities in the North America, Europe and Asia particularly in Japan.

As we confront the enormous challenge of climate change, we should take inspiration from even the most unlikely sources. Take, for example, the tens of thousands of fossil-fueled ships that chug across the ocean, spewing plumes of pollutants that contribute to acid rain, ozone depletion, respiratory ailments, and global warming. The particles produced by these ship emissions can also create brighter clouds, which in turn can produce a cooling effect via processes that occur naturally in our atmosphere.

What if we could achieve this cooling effect without simultaneously releasing the greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants that ships emit? Scientists have known for decades that the particulate emissions from ships can have a dramatic effect on low-lying stratocumulus clouds above the ocean.

In satellite images, parts of the Earth's oceans are streaked with bright white strips of clouds that correspond to shipping lanes. These artificially brightened clouds are a result of the tiny particles produced by the ships, and they reflect more sunlight back to space than unperturbed clouds do, and much more than the dark blue ocean underneath.

Since these "ship tracks" block some of the sun's energy from reaching Earth's surface, they prevent some of the warming that would otherwise occur. The formation of ship tracks is governed by the same basic principles behind all cloud formation.

Clouds naturally appear when the relative humidity exceeds percent, initiating condensation in the atmosphere. Individual cloud droplets form around microscopic particles called cloud condensation nuclei CCN. Generally speaking, an increase in CCN increases the number of cloud droplets while reducing their size. Through a phenomenon known as the Twomey effect , this high concentration of droplets boosts the clouds' reflectivity also called albedo.

Sources of CCN include aerosols like dust, pollen, soot, and even bacteria, along with man-made pollution from factories and ships. Over remote parts of the ocean, most CCN are of natural origin and include sea salt from crashing ocean waves.

Satellite imagery shows "ship tracks" over the ocean: bright clouds that form because of particles spewed out by ships. The CCN would be generated by spraying seawater from ships. We expect that the sprayed seawater would instantly dry in the air and form tiny particles of salt, which would rise to the cloud layer via convection and act as seeds for cloud droplets.

These generated particles would be much smaller than the particles from crashing waves, so there would be only a small relative increase in sea salt mass in the atmosphere. The goal would be to produce clouds that are slightly brighter by 5 to 10 percent and possibly longer lasting than typical clouds, resulting in more sunlight being reflected back to space.

Other proposals include sprinkling reflective silicate beads over polar ice sheets and injecting materials with reflective properties, such as sulfates or calcium carbonate, into the stratosphere. None of the approaches in this young field are well understood, and they all carry potentially large unknown risks.

Solar climate intervention is not a replacement for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is imperative. But such reductions won't address warming from existing greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.

As the effects of climate change intensify and tipping points are reached, we may need options to prevent the most catastrophic consequences to ecosystems and human life.

And we'll need a clear understanding of both the efficacy and risks of solar climate intervention technologies so people can make informed decisions about whether to implement them.

We see several key advantages to marine cloud brightening over other proposed forms of solar climate intervention. Using seawater to generate the particles gives us a free, abundant source of environmentally benign material, most of which would be returned to the ocean through deposition. Also, MCB could be done from sea level and wouldn't rely on aircraft, so costs and associated emissions would be relatively low. The effects of particles on clouds are temporary and localized, so experiments on MCB could be carried out over small areas and brief time periods maybe spraying for a few hours per day over several weeks or months without seriously perturbing the environment or global climate.

These small studies would still yield significant information on the impacts of brightening. What's more, we can quickly halt the use of MCB, with very rapid cessation of its effects. Solar climate intervention is the umbrella term for projects that involve reflecting sunlight to reduce global warming and its most dangerous impacts. Our project encompasses three critical areas of research.

First, we need to find out if we can reliably and predictably increase reflectivity. To this end, we'll need to quantify how the addition of generated sea salt particles changes the number of droplets in these clouds, and study how clouds behave when they have more droplets. Depending on atmospheric conditions, MCB could affect things like cloud droplet evaporation rate, the likelihood of precipitation, and cloud lifetime.

Quantifying such effects will require both simulations and field experiments. Second, we need more modeling to understand how MCB would affect weather and climate both locally and globally.

It will be crucial to study any negative unintended consequences using accurate simulations before anyone considers implementation. Our team is initially focusing on modeling how clouds respond to additional CCN. At some point we'll have to check our work with small-scale field studies, which will in turn improve the regional and global simulations we'll run to understand the potential impacts of MCB under different climate change scenarios.

The third critical area of research is the development of a spray system that can produce the size and concentration of particles needed for the first small-scale field experiments. We'll explain below how we're tackling that challenge. One of the first steps in our project was to identify the clouds most amenable to brightening. Through modeling and observational studies, we determined that the best target is stratocumulus clouds , which are low altitude around 1 to 2 km and shallow; we're particularly interested in "clean" stratocumulus, which have low numbers of CCN.

The increase in cloud albedo with the addition of CCN is generally strong in these clouds, whereas in deeper and more highly convective clouds other processes determine their brightness. Clouds over the ocean tend to be clean stratocumulus clouds, which is fortunate, because brightening clouds over dark surfaces, such as the ocean, will yield the highest albedo change. They're also conveniently close to the liquid we want to spray.

In the phenomenon called the Twomey effect, clouds with higher concentrations of small particles have a higher albedo, meaning they're more reflective. Such clouds might be less likely to produce rain, and the retained cloud water would keep albedo high.

On the other hand, if dry air from above the cloud mixes in entrainment , the cloud may produce rain and have a lower albedo.

The full impact of MCB will be the combination of the Twomey effect and these cloud adjustments. Rob Wood. Based on our cloud type, we can estimate the number of particles to generate to see a measurable change in albedo.

Our calculation involves the typical aerosol concentrations in clean marine stratocumulus clouds and the increase in CCN concentration needed to optimize the cloud brightening effect, which we estimate at to per cubic centimeter. We also take into account the dynamics of this part of the atmosphere, called the marine boundary layer, considering both the layer's depth and the roughly three-day lifespan of particles within it.

Given all those factors, we estimate that a single spray system would need to continuously deliver approximately 3x10 15 particles per second to a cloud layer that covers about 2, square kilometers. Among the 8 variations of residential voltage V — Japan only, V, V, V, V, V, V and V there are 15 types of plugs used around the globe with some countries actually using two types of voltage.

You can see an up-to-date list of the different residential and three-phase voltages used in each country here. This all begs the question: why are there different voltages in different countries in the first place?

After all, while many countries have similar voltages, others have very different ones Germany, France, UK, and New Zealand for instance all operate with a residential voltage of V, but Aruba, Mexico and Suriname use V.

The answer lies in the history of electrical power generation. How is electricity generated from water?