YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[Mech_Engineer]

Why can't we just invent a perpetual motion machine that makes more energy than it consumes. If it were possible to wave a magic wand and instantly create an entirely new eco-friendly infrastructure out of no where that was just as economical as gasoline then there wouldn't be an energy crisis in the first place.

Why is the federal government responsible for creating a new infrastructure? It seems to me that the market will find alternative options when petroleum is less lucrative...

 

[Topher925]

Why is the federal government responsible for creating a new infrastructure? It seems to me that the market will find alternative options when petroleum is less lucrative...

Well, it most certainly isn't. But it is advantageous to accelerate the development of such infrastructure in order to create a knowledge base and manufacturing in this country instead of others.

 

[OmCheeto]

Why is the federal government responsible for creating a new infrastructure?

Because to build pyramids, aka really cool big stuff, it takes a nation.

It seems to me that the market will find alternative options when petroleum is less lucrative...

I think we'd still be waiting on interstate highways, sewers, and water works, if we had waited on the market.

I mean really, how do you market; "If you invest in this, your poop will be processed, and your entire country will not stink, like, um, poop."

The market is great for some stuff. But, um, weird stuff that nobody wants to buy into, much less talk about?

Leave that to the Feds. They're really [STRIKE]good[/STRIKE] great at that.

 

[G037H3]

$5 trillion to fund fusion

US is too stupid to do this though :D

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Well, it most certainly isn't. But it is advantageous to accelerate the development of such infrastructure in order to create a knowledge base and manufacturing in this country instead of others.

Which forms of alternative energy specifically do you think need large amounts of funding from the government to make progress? It seems to me that the limitation these days isn't funding, but I could be wrong.

Because to build pyramids, aka really cool big stuff, it takes a nation.

I don't think the problem is funding or size, it's just that fundamental technology hasn't been found that can rival the specific stored energy of petroleum products. If electric cars existed that had a 300 mile range and charged in a few minutes, gas wouldn't stand a chance...

I think we'd still be waiting on interstate highways, sewers, and water works, if we had waited on the market.

I think you're wrong about that. How do you explain privately owned utility companies? If there's a need and lots of people are willing to pay for it, someone will find a way to fill that need.

I mean really, how do you market; "If you invest in this, your poop will be processed, and your entire country will not stink, like, um, poop."

The market is great for some stuff. But, um, weird stuff that nobody wants to buy into, much less talk about?

Leave that to the Feds. They're really [STRIKE]good[/STRIKE] great at that.

If no one wants to invest in it, it could be it's not that great of an idea to begin with... However as it is, there is a LOT of private investing happening in alternative energy research.

I don't like that you think it's a good thing that the federal government is great at investing in things no one else will; in fact it seems to me this is one of the fundamental problems with the federal gov't- they are rarely subject to cost-benefit analysis.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

By the way- developing alternative energy technology isn't "developing infrastructure," and rightfully so. I shudder at the thought of only government-owned charging stations for my car...

 

[melch]

The solution is not political, its physical. The secret is to be able to store and transport existing clean energy (Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric, etc.) in a sustainable format.

Not particularly difficult; the same problem arises out of the breeder reactor program that is supposed to come on-line in around 2030 and solutions have been proposed and alternates have been created.

 

[brainstorm]

It's such a joke to listen to people talk about investing in new infrastructure to facilitate conservation. Bicycles are much smaller than cars so exponentially more bicycle traffic can fit on existing roads if significant numbers of drivers converted their lifestyles to biking and walking. The problem isn't the infrastructure, it's the unwillingness of individuals to change their everyday behaviors. Then, of course, you get into all the institutional barriers like why people can't just change jobs to one closer to their house or why employers and employees can't restructure in a way that has them close enough to each other to pedestrian-commute.

It is because no one wants to consider pursuing these kinds of solutions that all the talk about expensive government solutions emerges. Basically the expense and the difficulty of achieving political consensus work as barriers to prevent anyone from having to change. They voted for change and what they got was insulation against having to change, which may have been what they secretly wanted all along.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think we'd still be waiting on interstate highways, sewers, and water works, if we had waited on the market.

I think you're wrong about that. How do you explain privately owned utility companies? If there's a need and lots of people are willing to pay for it, someone will find a way to fill that need.

Frankly, I don't know how utility companies became private, nor do I care. I don't really see how it relates to infrastructure.

I was listening to the radio the other day, and a young gentleman put it in much better words than I could.

Imagine if everything were private. Gas, electricity, sewer, roads.
Imagine 20 different companies, from the above 4 fields, all after your money.
You'd have 20 separate sewer lines running to your house, 20 separate gas lines, 20 electric lines. And how are you going to fit 20 roads in the space of one road? Stack them? All so we can chose the cheapest, or most reliable, or the least rat infested?

NO! We don't need to privatize the whole world to make it a better place, given your apparent assumption that privatization will solve everything.

If no one wants to invest in it, it could be it's not that great of an idea to begin with... However as it is, there is a LOT of private investing happening in alternative energy research.

There is also a LOT more public investing happening in alternative energy research. Unfortunately, it's public investing by other countries, competing against our "free" market companies. We can sit around with our thumbs you know where, waiting for our companies to do the right thing in the right way, while foreign companies are getting massive government subsidies, getting ready to ramp up production in, you guessed it, alternative energy.

hmmm... Guess who loses? We do.

There are only a few basic concepts in economics that I've ever thought worthy of devoting brain cells to, one of them is the theory of the economies of scale. If the YenWonYuan Corporation is 100 times bigger than Oosa Corporation, guess who's going to determine prices. Guess who's going to have the most jobs.

Waiting around for market may have worked in the past, but we're not in the past anymore. And wagging your finger at the Chinese Government for being unfair by dumping billions into their upstart companies, is not going to make them stop.

Just one example:

But A123 has another problem on its hands. A pair of giant lithium-ion battery makers -- Japan's Panasonic and Korea's Samsung -- has recently stated plans to radically boost spending to retain industry dominance. They also plan to cut prices to pursue market share, and that's a battle that relatively tiny A123 is ill-equipped to fight. So even as the company looks set to sharply boost sales in 2011 and 2012, gross profit margins may be so low that the company's operating losses fail to shrink. The key for a turnaround in this stock is a path to eventual profits. And until investors can see that path, shares are unlikely to rebound much.

And they didn't even mention the Chinese companies.

Ugh! And I never thought I'd quote Bill Gates:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20007344-54.html
Invest a minimum of $16 billion a year on clean energy. The group said that the U.S. currently spends $16 billion overseas on foreign fuel every 16 days.

But he's right. While we're sitting here, hundreds of billions of dollars are being flushed overseas.

I don't like that you think it's a good thing that the federal government is great at investing in things no one else will; in fact it seems to me this is one of the fundamental problems with the federal gov't- they are rarely subject to cost-benefit analysis.

Well, I can somewhat agree with you here. I had a post deleted quite a few months ago. It was fairly extensive, and consumed probably 12 hours of research. It was a severe criticism of a pair of academics who, based on a government installed solar project, determined that solar energy was not financially viable. I'll not go into the details, except that yes, the project was incredibly expensive, and would never provide a return on investment.

 

[OmCheeto]

It's such a joke to listen to people talk about investing in new infrastructure to facilitate conservation. Bicycles are much smaller than cars so exponentially more bicycle traffic can fit on existing roads if significant numbers of drivers converted their lifestyles to biking and walking. The problem isn't the infrastructure, it's the unwillingness of individuals to change their everyday behaviors. Then, of course, you get into all the institutional barriers like why people can't just change jobs to one closer to their house or why employers and employees can't restructure in a way that has them close enough to each other to pedestrian-commute.

It is because no one wants to consider pursuing these kinds of solutions that all the talk about expensive government solutions emerges. Basically the expense and the difficulty of achieving political consensus work as barriers to prevent anyone from having to change. They voted for change and what they got was insulation against having to change, which may have been what they secretly wanted all along.

I disagree, but only because I live ~12 miles from work, in an environment that is not conducive to bicycling 10 months out of the year. And relocate? Do you want everyone to sell and buy a different house every time they get a new job? Or are you talking only about renters?

I know that we all bring our preconditioned prejudices to these conversations, but a solution to the energy crisis needs to include solutions for everyone, not just me and you.

Personally, I'm pursuing an enclosed vehicle that gets 300 mpg* equivalent, with a range of around 30 miles. And that doesn't cost $40,000. I mean really, that's twice what I paid for my house!

*Yes. I know. That's 100 watt hours per mile. But I'm a firm believer in the Kobayashi Maru: When it's impossible to win, cheat. :)

 

[melch]

This can be a very negative board.

Wouldn't it work better, if in the brainstorming phase, if we focussed on creating ideas and only offered objections when the original poster was asking for that kind of feedback.

There is enough negativity in experimental results that speculative negativity is just excess.

Government projects have been very successful (Interstate Highway System) and so have private ventures (The Pennsylvania Railroad). Is this really the forum to determine the political answers? Shouldn't we explore the scientific means?

 

[OmCheeto]

This can be a very negative board.

Wouldn't it work better, if in the brainstorming phase, if we focussed on creating ideas and only offered objections when the original poster was asking for that kind of feedback.

There is enough negativity in experimental results that speculative negativity is just excess.

Government projects have been very successful (Interstate Highway System) and so have private ventures (The Pennsylvania Railroad). Is this really the forum to determine the political answers? Shouldn't we explore the scientific means?

Scientific means? Those are easy. It's everything outside of the engineering field that gets sticky. Going through the last 41 pages of this thread will probably provide you with the "engineering" answer to the original order: "YOU! Fix the US Energy Crisis"

To continue, in response to our seemingly off topic discussion of the last few days:

I mentioned "Systems Science" a while back and was flabbergasted at https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2559571&postcount=3". (I didn't understand a word, and hence, I felt I wasn't qualified to say a word about the topic to which I was referring to. "Could Aperion be a systems scientist?")

Systems Science, in my little mind, related only to the simple idea that everything is interconnected. Nothing can be ignored. Everything must be discussed. I was first exposed to it in the movie Mindwalk, by Bernt and Fridjof Kapra. A movie about, well, it's very, very, boring. You'll have to watch it for yourself. I've a Vhs copy that I nearly wore out.

Many problems involve so many aspects(social, political, scientific, economic), that you cannot help but to break the rules if you want to really solve a problem.

 

[mheslep]

It's such a joke to listen to people talk about investing in new infrastructure to facilitate conservation. Bicycles are much smaller than cars so exponentially more bicycle traffic can fit on existing roads if significant numbers of drivers converted their lifestyles to biking and walking. The problem isn't the infrastructure, it's the unwillingness of individuals to change their everyday behaviors. Then, of course, you get into all the institutional barriers like why people can't just change jobs to one closer to their house or why employers and employees can't restructure in a way that has them close enough to each other to pedestrian-commute.

It is because no one wants to consider pursuing these kinds of solutions that all the talk about expensive government solutions emerges. Basically the expense and the difficulty of achieving political consensus work as barriers to prevent anyone from having to change. They voted for change and what they got was insulation against having to change, which may have been what they secretly wanted all along.

Bicycle solutions are not pursued because they are not equivalent to motor vehicles across dozens of different obvious metrics, regardless of 'lifestyle' choice.

 

[brainstorm]

I disagree, but only because I live ~12 miles from work, in an environment that is not conducive to bicycling 10 months out of the year. And relocate? Do you want everyone to sell and buy a different house every time they get a new job? Or are you talking only about renters?

Well, considering that the real estate market is overflowing with toxic properties and a glut of excess housing, it really doesn't seem like it would take much of an infrastructural investment to coordinate people being able to change residences to live closer to work.

I know that we all bring our preconditioned prejudices to these conversations, but a solution to the energy crisis needs to include solutions for everyone, not just me and you.

Ultimately the solution for the vast majority of people is going to have to involve living most of their lives in a relatively dense urban environment. The question is how to organize the economy in such a way that facilitates sustainable lifestyles in relatively dense cities.

Personally, I'm pursuing an enclosed vehicle that gets 300 mpg* equivalent, with a range of around 30 miles. And that doesn't cost $40,000. I mean really, that's twice what I paid for my house!

You paid $20k for a house? What a bargain. Enclosed vehicles the size of bicycles are an ideal solution because they get good energy-distance efficiency and they are small enough to allow more vehicles on existing roads without widening them. The problem is that they're just not going to supplant large heavy vehicles overnight. So it makes far more sense to implement mobility-culture reforms that help people transition to pedestrian/bicycle living for the majority of their life activities and reserve personal car transit for weekend getaways once in a while and large-item purchases.

*Yes. I know. That's 100 watt hours per mile. But I'm a firm believer in the Kobayashi Maru: When it's impossible to win, cheat. :)

I think an average person generates about 40 watts and can bike @15mph, so if you divide 40 watt-hours by 15, you get a little less than 3 watt-hours per mile. Beam me up, Scotty.

Bicycle solutions are not pursued because they are not equivalent to motor vehicles across dozens of different obvious metrics, regardless of 'lifestyle' choice.

It's always the same thing whenever I mention bicycling or walking as a solution to energy crisis. People say that bikes are inferior to cars or they live too far from work, etc. But all those obstacles are not necessity but luxury. If there was absolutely no gasoline available, you would quickly see people adjust their lifestyle patterns to walk or bike. They might complain that biking and walking are inferior to driving "across dozens of different obvious metrics," but they would do it because they would have no choice. Then, they would continue to innovate the local economy to make living within a small geographic area increasingly more pleasant.

And guess what, doing this would require relatively little if any government investment in infrastructure or otherwise. People would just reform existing infrastructure and building usage to accommodate large-scale reliance on human-powered transit.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

say that bikes are inferior to cars or they live too far from work, etc. But all those obstacles are not necessity but luxury. If there was absolutely no gasoline available, you would quickly see people adjust their lifestyle patterns to walk or bike. They might complain that biking and walking are inferior to driving "across dozens of different obvious metrics," but they would do it because they would have no choice. Then, they would continue to innovate the local economy to make living within a small geographic area increasingly more pleasant.

And guess what, doing this would require relatively little if any government investment in infrastructure or otherwise. People would just reform existing infrastructure and building usage to accommodate large-scale reliance on human-powered transit.

Indeed, I might consider biking when roads are sufficiently safe (free of cars) and there are locker rooms in every office buildings/workplace. But it is an immense undertaking to reform existing infrastructure, and if a politician were to propose this today, he would not get any votes.

I agree with you though. Humans can adapt, but for the moment, they (we) don't feel sufficiently threatened to make such radical changes in lifestyle.

 

[brainstorm]

Indeed, I might consider biking when roads are sufficiently safe (free of cars) and there are locker rooms in every office buildings/workplace. But it is an immense undertaking to reform existing infrastructure, and if a politician were to propose this today, he would not get any votes.

I agree with you though. Humans can adapt, but for the moment, they (we) don't feel sufficiently threatened to make such radical changes in lifestyle.

Which is why this thread is somewhat superfluous. We talk about fixing the 'energy crisis' but in reality public denial of the crisis is the driving political-economic sentiment. If people were serious about reducing energy-usage, the kinds of reforms/restructuring you mention would not seem like such an immense undertaking.

What is more difficult, building locker-rooms or other bicycle-commuting friendly facilities in areas where people work or building entire rail systems to expand public transit, as has been promoted as a reasonable public investment? Clearly building rail-systems, electric vehicles and charging stations, etc. requires more investment but people just think that the investment will stimulate the economy, which will in turn sustain the high energy-consumption economy that makes them comfortable.

What is also needed are technologically simple solutions for climate-control systems. Roofs can be used to generate solar heat, for example, but some kind of cheap effective method for enclosing them with transparent material is needed. Glassing in a roof is expensive but if some kind of plastic was available that would resist deforming due to the heat, this plastic could be stretched over entire roofs to create a heat-capture space and indoor air could be circulated through the enclosed roof area (probably some air-filtering would be a good idea with this).

As for cooling in hot months, fans provide air movement that make the indoor air feel cooler than static air at the same temperature. Fans use less energy than air-conditioning.

The problem is that all such conservation measures require humans to adjust their comfort levels, which requires they endure temporary discomfort during the adjustment period. Ultimately it is avoidance of discomfort that is driving most energy-waste. It is ironic that we try to come up with elaborate technical/engineering solutions for a problem that is essentially psychological and social-cultural.

 

[mheslep]

It's always the same thing whenever I mention bicycling or walking as a solution to energy crisis. People say that bikes are inferior to cars or they live too far from work, etc. But all those obstacles are not necessity but luxury. If there was absolutely no gasoline available, you would quickly see people adjust their lifestyle patterns to walk or bike. They might complain that biking and walking are inferior to driving "across dozens of different obvious metrics," but they would do it because they would have no choice. Then, they would continue to innovate the local economy to make living within a small geographic area increasingly more pleasant.

And guess what, doing this would require relatively little if any government investment in infrastructure or otherwise. People would just reform existing infrastructure and building usage to accommodate large-scale reliance on human-powered transit.

That is all hand waiving, which I note you do while considering the assumptions about the status quo 'such a joke'. You are essentially calling for a back to nature, log cabins and grow your own food plan. Do you really imagine the world hasn't heard endless (and thoughtless) calls of this kind since the beginning of the industrial age? If you want to add to the conversation, take the time to show in at least one (challenging) detail how migrating a modern society mostly to bicycle transportation could work for 300 million people of men, women and children, the sick and the infirm, spread out over a continent 3000 miles across.

 

[brainstorm]

That is all hand waiving, which I note you do while considering the assumptions about the status quo 'such a joke'. You are essentially calling for a back to nature, log cabins and grow your own food plan. Do you really imagine the world hasn't heard endless (and thoughtless) calls of this kind since the beginning of the industrial age? If you want to add to the conversation, take the time to show in at least one (challenging) detail how migrating a modern society mostly to bicycle transportation could work for 300 million people of men, women and children, the sick and the infirm, spread out over a continent 3000 miles across.

It's also "such a joke" that you make reference to the "sick and infirm," as if the difficulty these people have with human-powered mobility should automatically exclude healthy, able-bodied people from carrying their own healthy bodies around. Really the size of the continent or the number of people you include in the population doesn't matter. How many people got around without cars in China until very recently? Were they able to do that because of the small size of the physical geography or population?

I'm not saying that no one should ever use a car or public transit for anything. I'm not saying anyone has to live in a log cabin or grow their own food, although I think that would be good for other reasons. Mainly I'm pointing out that because there is resistance to considering energy-conservation strategies that involve culture/lifestyle reforms/changes, people make this energy-crisis more complex and expensive than it really needs to be. The simple fact is that there are numerous ways to modify the way you live and work that reduce energy-consumption. The need for everyone to conform to the same lifestyle is not a valid 'need' at all but a luxury that people have grown accustomed to. Just because your neighbor has air-conditioning, drives a car everywhere all the time, and keeps his voluminous house warm enough in the winter to lounge around in his underwear doesn't mean that everyone else has to aspire to that as well, does it?

Btw, it is so typical to be attacked like this whenever suggesting simple conservation reforms. Could it be that such attacks are the reason energy-conservation never gets off the ground to start with?

 

[mheslep]

How many people got around without cars in China until very recently?

Ah, there's case. I asked you above to explore such a case, as this is an Engineering forum. In China, before a significant motor vehicle presence, along with the millions of bicycles China also had

• An average life expectancy of http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ntry:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+china" circa 1960.
• A GDP (PPP) per capita of http://www.indexmundi.com/china/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html" , with hundreds of millions in grinding poverty

I don't see a modern life expectancy and income sufficient to live in a single family dwelling as "luxuries." Inexpensive mobility for a family, that enables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour" r is visibly a contributor to the economic productivity that makes these possible.

Btw, it is so typical to be attacked like this whenever suggesting simple conservation reforms.

I'm attacking the material in your posts in this line, but apparently insufficiently, so here's some more.

This is the G. Engineering forum, you are aware of the guidelines. Yet instead of offering something akin to a quantitative analysis, you would make this into the navel gazing forum by offering strawmen and loading your posts with smug pronouncements, e.g. "this thread is somewhat superfluous", "It's such a joke to listen to people talk", "And guess what", "people just think", topped off by "People would just reform" when they do as you pronounce, without bothering with a single reference. Please take it all elsewhere.

BTW, I bike 24 miles a day, family commitments permitting.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

If people were serious about reducing energy-usage, the kinds of reforms/restructuring you mention would not seem like such an immense undertaking.

I still think it's a huge undertaking.

What is also needed are technologically simple solutions for climate-control systems. Roofs can be used to generate solar heat, for example, but some kind of cheap effective method for enclosing them with transparent material is needed. Glassing in a roof is expensive but if some kind of plastic was available that would resist deforming due to the heat, this plastic could be stretched over entire roofs to create a heat-capture space and indoor air could be circulated through the enclosed roof area (probably some air-filtering would be a good idea with this).

Solar panels may be able to heat homes in some countries, but up here in Canada, it can not be taken seriously. Not only it can't possibly provide enough heat (from a regular sized-roof), but no one is going to want to shovel snow off a roof-top after the typical storm we get a few times a year. I'm counting on hydro and nuclear for this.

As for cooling in hot months, fans provide air movement that make the indoor air feel cooler than static air at the same temperature. Fans use less energy than air-conditioning.

Yes. Although perhaps the hot air produced by air conditioning could be used to heat water, instead of being wasted.

It is ironic that we try to come up with elaborate technical/engineering solutions for a problem that is essentially psychological and social-cultural.

I suppose we need to attack the problem on all fronts.

 

[brainstorm]

Ah, there's case. I asked you above to explore such a case, as this is an Engineering forum. In China, before a significant motor vehicle presence, along with the millions of bicycles China also had

• An average life expectancy of http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...ntry:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=life+expectancy+china" circa 1960.
  
• A GDP (PPP) per capita of http://www.indexmundi.com/china/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html" , with hundreds of millions in grinding poverty

• 
  Are you trying to suggest some kind of causal link between widespread bicycling/walking and low life expectancy and low GDP? What about EU and US cities where large numbers of people get around by foot or bicycle? Is it lowering their life expectancy or income? You claim to be doing engineering but this is just very poor quantitative sociological claims you're making without even being brave enough to go beyond implicit suggestions. If you're going to make a claim like saying that biking/walking reduce life expectancy and cause poverty, please be so rigorous as to explain the details of the causation as you envision it.
  

I don't see a modern life expectancy and income sufficient to live in a single family dwelling as "luxuries." Inexpensive mobility for a family, that enables http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour" r is visibly a contributor to the economic productivity that makes these possible.

Luxury is a relative experience. To someone who has lived in a mansion, a 2500sf house may seem degrading. To someone who's used to living in 1500sf, 2500sf can seem like a mansion.

I'm attacking the material in your posts in this line, but apparently insufficiently, so here's some more.

Why aren't there forum rules against using such an aggressive tone as this?

This is the G. Engineering forum, you are aware of the guidelines. Yet instead of offering something akin to a quantitative analysis,

Where do you get that engineering discussion have to involve numbers? Besides, in one of my earlier posts I mentioned 40watts as a typical amount of energy generated by a human body and I divided that by 15 mph to get @3 watt-hours.

you would make this into the navel gazing forum by offering strawmen and loading your posts with smug pronouncements, e.g. "this thread is somewhat superfluous", "It's such a joke to listen to people talk", "And guess what", "people just think", topped off by "People would just reform" when they do as you pronounce, without bothering with a single reference. Please take it all elsewhere.

You don't recognize these things are referring to discourse that you yourself have witnessed? And how is anything I've said, "navel gazing" except insofar as it doesn't fit your personal beliefs about what methods for reducing energy consumption are good?

BTW, I bike 24 miles a day, family commitments permitting.

Congratulations. Is biking a prerequisite for discussing biking and walking as forms of transit now?

I still think it's a huge undertaking.

Many people would agree with you. I wish there was a way to assess how much of the resistance would be institutional, cultural, and psychological, and how much involves actual material hurdles.

Solar panels may be able to heat homes in some countries, but up here in Canada, it can not be taken seriously. Not only it can't possibly provide enough heat (from a regular sized-roof), but no one is going to want to shovel snow off a roof-top after the typical storm we get a few times a year. I'm counting on hydro and nuclear for this.

If nuclear is unbridled, would there really be any need for any other source of energy? The problem is that there usually tends to be popular resistance to nuclear anything. So, imo, the way to get renewable sources going is to come up with very cheap, easy methods. People may not want to shovel snow off their roofs, but if it turns out to make a difference in their heating bill, many might in the long run. In very cold climates, I think insulation and zone-heating are key to efficiency. I've also recently heard that artificial logs can be made by compressing leaves and brush and burned in wood stoves and boilers. I don't know how valuable a source of fuel this would be.

Yes. Although perhaps the hot air produced by air conditioning could be used to heat water, instead of being wasted.

I've been hearing about this a lot lately. It seems you can heat water either with an a/c heat pump or a refrigerator/cooler.

I suppose we need to attack the problem on all fronts.

You suppose? I'm sorry to have expressed cynicism in this forum because I seem to upset some people with it. I just get tired of hearing all this madness in the media about economic, energy, and ecological crises but then see people live as if these crises weren't happening. I mean, there's either crisis or there isn't. Well, maybe what it is is that some people are enduring crisis while others are insulated from it. Also, I think there are so many people insulated from it that those people can just pretend no one else really matters.

 

[mheslep]

Here come the electric fleets.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-29/ge-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-order-a-huge-step-up-.html
GE’s Biggest Electric-Vehicle Order a ‘Huge Step Up’

GE, whose power-generation equipment provides a third of the world’s electricity, will order “tens of thousands” of the vehicles in about a week, Immelt said yesterday in a speech in London, without giving a total or identifying a manufacturer.
[...]
Immelt said half of GE’s sales force of about 45,000 will drive electric vehicles.
[...]
Brett Smith, a vehicle technology analyst at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “It’s the biggest order to date I’m aware of, by a lot.”

Which would be roughly 13M gallons of petroleum per year that does not need to be imported.

Why GE, in particular?

Expanding the world’s fleet of electric vehicles would bolster GE as it expands so-called clean-energy technology such as car chargers, solar panels and wind turbines. For every dollar of electric-vehicle sales, GE estimates it may get 10 cents in revenue, said Gary Sheffer, a spokesman.

That's remarkable if true. I would think that means GE should seriously consider making its own EVs, or at least the drive trains.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sorry to have expressed cynicism in this forum because I seem to upset some people with it. I just get tired of hearing all this madness in the media about economic, energy, and ecological crises but then see people live as if these crises weren't happening. I mean, there's either crisis or there isn't.

Take a look at the first post in the thread where I set up the framework for the discussion:

First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. The usual suspects are: safety, capacity, pollution, cost, future availability of resources, and foreign dependence. Obviously, feel free to modify that list.

So I specifically set it up with the understanding that different people would have different perspectives on what the "problem" is and I left it up to the individual posters to (assigned them the task of) define[ing] the problem, including the level of criticalitity of the problem. And other posters will no doubt want to discuss/critique those ideas. That is, in fact, one of the most important components of the discussion (and is a key part of any engineering problem).

No, engineering isn't all about numbers: just as important are analytical and decision making skills, and that part of the discussion involves using/developing those skills.

 

[russ_watters]

That's remarkable if true. I would think that means GE should seriously consider making its own EVs, or at least the drive trains.

I'd never thought about it in those terms, but it isn't too surprising. Throwing some quick numbers at the issue: if a car costs $20k and is driven 100k miles at $.02 per mile in electricity, that would be 10%...of course, GE only gets a third of that, but we're in the ballpark.

 

[mheslep]

I'd never thought about it in those terms, but it isn't too surprising. Throwing some quick numbers at the issue: if a car costs $20k and is driven 100k miles at $.02 per mile in electricity, that would be 10%...of course, GE only gets a third of that, but we're in the ballpark.

Well that is the recurring production cost and GE's end is in the up front capital cost, not operation far as I know. But still a good point. Plus electricity will be at least $0.025 per mile in the US, and substantially more expensive elsewhere in the world where GE plays of course.

 

[Topher925]

Here come the electric fleets.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-29/ge-s-biggest-electric-vehicle-order-a-huge-step-up-.html
GE’s Biggest Electric-Vehicle Order a ‘Huge Step Up’

This has me irked for several reasons;
1. GM doesn't produce a single electric car (Volt is not an EV), what the hell is GE going to buy?
2. Recycling. Li batteries have an average recycle rate of ~15% (don't quote me, but either way its a small number) compared to that of 93% for VRLA batteries. Li batteries also have a life of only about 3 years before they are considered dead. What the hell are they going to do with all those batteries? Yes, parts of the battery can be recycled, but not all of it. Not at a reasonable price anyway.
3. Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather. Are the GE employees that work in the sourthern part of the US only going to be allowed to drive EV's?

EDIT: Contracted statement.

 

[mheslep]

This has me irked for several reasons;
1. GM doesn't produce a single electric car (Volt is not an EV), what the hell is GE going to buy?
2. Recycling. Li batteries have an average recycle rate of ~15% (don't quote me, but either way its a small number) compared to that of 93% for VRLA batteries. Li batteries also have a life of only about 3 years before they are considered dead. What the hell are they going to do with all those batteries? Yes, parts of the battery can be recycled, but not all of it. Not at a reasonable price anyway.
3. Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather. Are the GE employees that work in the sourthern part of the US only going to be allowed to drive EV's?

EDIT: Contracted statement.

Volt is an EV, Li batteries can last much longer than three years, EV's work in cold weather if the battery is heated, and the Volt's is, unlike some other EVs.

 

[Topher925]

Volt is an EV, Li batteries can last much longer than three years, EV's work in cold weather if the battery is heated, and the Volt's is, unlike some other EVs.

The Volt is not an EV by any definition, its a series hybrid.

If your EV is sitting outside in -20'F weather and is not plugged in, how will you start it? The Volt can operate in cold weather because its not an EV and will just operate using the ICE until the battery is heated.

What Li batteries can last longer than 4 years with less than 20% capacity loss and have a specific energy greater than the DOE standard (150 Wh/kg)?

 

[mheslep]

The Volt is not an EV by any definition, its a series hybrid.

I don't think you understand its design. First 40 miles the Volt is (at your choice) an EV - battery to electric motor to wheels - no ICE in the loop.

If your EV is sitting outside in -20'F weather and is not plugged in, how will you start it?

With the key.

The Volt can operate in cold weather because its not an EV and will just operate using the ICE until the battery is heated.

If you assumed that to be the case (and its not necessary), then why the games with "Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather"?

What Li batteries can last longer than 4 years with less than 20% capacity loss and have a specific energy greater than the DOE standard (150 Wh/kg)?

Now its 4 years? Why is the 'DOE standard' relevant? It's your assertion of fact, you need to reference it.

 

[Topher925]

I don't think you understand its design. First 40 miles the Volt is (at your choice) an EV - battery to electric motor to wheels - no ICE in the loop.

I entirely understand its design. FYI, parallel hybrids can operate without the ICE engine in the loop as well. They just can't drive as far with battery power alone due to a smaller battery pack, not due to limitations of concept.

With the key.

And what will you do after that, assuming you are no where near an electric power outlet or space heater?

If you assumed that to be the case (and its not necessary), then why the games with "Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather"?

I don't think you understand the workings of Li batteries. The majority of Li batteries that are suitable for EVs can not be charged or discharged below 0'C without some form of degradation. The Volt has an ICE which can both power the car and heat the batteries in sub zero climates. This means that the car can still operate without the use of its Li batteries in cold temperatures. Your regular EV can't. Thats why the Nissan Leaf isn't being sold in the colder regions of the US.

Now its 4 years? Why is the 'DOE standard' relevant? It's your assertion of fact, you need to reference it.

My original comment stated "about 3 years" as in give or take 6 months or if you prefer, 3.5 years. Some of the newer batteries can probably last over 3 years but 4 is pushing it. The purpose of the DOE and the USABC standards are obvious but if I need to explain it, its because these organizations have determined the minimum battery performance required to make EVs and PHEVs practical. For example, no one is going to buy a $80k electric car that has a range of 20 miles and a battery life of 6 months. The targets they publish can be seen as goals that need to be achieved by battery manufacturers before OEMs can even think about putting them in a vehicle. If you want more info about these targets, the DOE and USABC have plenty of easy to find information on it;

http://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=25

 

[mheslep]

I entirely understand its design. FYI, parallel hybrids can operate without the ICE engine in the loop as well. They just can't drive as far with battery power alone due to a smaller battery pack, not due to limitations of concept.

If you knew this, and that the Volt can go 40 miles on batteries alone, then what was the point of your #1 "GM doesn't produce a single electric car (Volt is not an EV), what the hell is GE going to buy?"?

And what will you do after that, assuming you are no where near an electric power outlet or space heater?

Drive away?

I don't think you understand the workings of Li batteries.

Well I'm not an electrochemist, but I've been over the theory and market fairly thoroughly for work customers, but no need to believe me: I've cited references here before.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2526716&postcount=10

The majority of Li batteries that are suitable for EVs can not be charged or discharged below 0'C without some form of degradation.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2525412&postcount=9
Temporary degradation in capacity. A much more accurate statement than saying they "don't work".

The Volt has an ICE which can both power the car and heat the batteries in sub zero climates. This means that the car can still operate without the use of its Li batteries in cold temperatures. Your regular EV can't. Thats why the Nissan Leaf isn't being sold in the colder regions of the US.

If you knew this, and that GE is buying GM Volts, then what is the point of your statement #3 "Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather. Are the GE employees that work in the sourthern part of the US only going to be allowed to drive EV's?"

My original comment stated "about 3 years" as in give or take 6 months or if you prefer, 3.5 years. Some of the newer batteries can probably last over 3 years but 4 is pushing it. [...]

Again, reference? The forum guidelines require you to support statements of fact with a reference. (That 2002 link is irrelevant). If you have questions instead, ask them.

 

[mheslep]

Here's a electric series hybrid w/ a little more go than the Volt. And a little more cost. Jag CX75. Four 190HP E-motors, one per wheel; dual diesel turbine 80,000 rpm generators charging the batteries. 0-60mph in 3.4s, top speed 200+ mph. http://www.dailytech.com/Jaguar+CX75+Concept+Features+Four+Electric+Motors+Two+Gas+Turbines/article19757.htm" .

Why turbines? A reminder that the turbine is remarkable invention:

“You see, the small gas turbines tip the scales at 55 pounds each. In addition, they don’t need oil lubrication or a catalytic converter, and they will run on almost anything from biofuel to LPG. Although they rev at up to 80,000 rpm, turbines are a very reliable known quantity. The fact that they may take up to 15 seconds to reach their optimum operating speed does not really matter here because they are only used to recharge the batteries.”

 

[mheslep]

Here's a electric series hybrid w/ a little more go than the Volt. And a little more cost. Jag CX75. Four 190HP E-motors, one per wheel; dual diesel turbine 80,000 rpm generators charging the batteries. ...

BTW, does anyone have more than a googling knowledge of the price per HP/KW of turbines? Now that hybrid's have come into their own, I'm curious if a turbine has a chance of supplanting piston reciprocating engines in the mass vehicle market.
Advantages: runs off all kinds of fuels, highest power density of any engine, highly efficient.
Disadvantage: limited RPM operating range, but that's no longer a problem w/ electric motors handling the traction.

I'm guessing the diesel-electric locomotive people evaluated turbine-electric designs and found diesels superior for some reason. But, given the continuing advances in turbines, and that the mass advantage is important for lightweight vehicles, perhaps the tradeoff results would be different now.

 

[mheslep]

2. ... Li batteries also have a life of only about 3 years before they are considered dead. What the hell are they going to do with all those batteries?

General Motors announces 8-year/100,000-mile warranty for Chevy Volt battery

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/07/1...nces-8-year-100-000-mile-warranty-for-volt-b/

 

[Topher925]

Drive away?

No you wouldn't, your lithium ion battery wouldn't generate any power.

Well I'm not an electrochemist, but I've been over the theory and market fairly thoroughly for work customers, but no need to believe me: I've cited references here before.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2526716&postcount=10

You didn't specify a source for cold temperature operation. Your other source doesn't say anything about degradation or performance at low temperatures, only the effects of high temperatures.

FYI, not all, and in-fact many, Li batteries used in electric vehicles don't use olivine Fe based cathodes. The batteries developed by LG (CPI) that are used in the Chevy Volt use a non-ferrous spinel structured cathode.
http://gm-volt.com/2009/01/12/its-official-gm-chooses-lg-chemcompact-power-inc-to-supply-chevy-volt-lithium-ion-battery-packs/
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/merit_review_2010/electrochemical_storage/es00a_howell_2010_o.pdf (slide 11)

While you may get some power out of a very cold battery, you're not going to get much since the discharge reaction is limited by transport, specifically diffusion through the SEI, not migration through the electrolyte. The BMS (battery management system) will not allow the battery to operate when its at to low of a temperature, or in layman's terms, your battery won't work. This is the similar to the reason why you cannot charge a Li battery at cold temperatures as the low rate of diffusion will accelerate dendrite formation on the anode.
http://books.google.com/books?id=o-... cold temperature&pg=PA60#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2525412&postcount=9
Temporary degradation in capacity. A much more accurate statement than saying they "don't work".

Nice work using my post from another thread for your argument. Its completely taken out of of context though.

I of course was referring to batteries just experiencing cold temperatures as the OP stated, not being operated.

If you knew this, and that GE is buying GM Volts, then what is the point of your statement #3 "Li powered EV's still don't work in cold weather. Are the GE employees that work in the sourthern part of the US only going to be allowed to drive EV's?"

Please see the wiki article for vehicle naming conventions. You can call the Volt a PHEV, a SHEV, or a REEV, but it is most definitely not an EV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrains

Again, reference? The forum guidelines require you to support statements of fact with a reference. (That 2002 link is irrelevant). If you have questions instead, ask them.

Cycle life for a battery is generally readily available from its manufacturer. LG/CPI for example, http://www.compactpower.com/lithium.shtml
More here: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/2008_energy_storage.pdf

And the 2002 link is not irrelevant. Those targets haven't change and I doubt they ever will with exception of some small modifications.