Could an Aggressive Energy Program Revitalize the US?

[Khan]

There's a university gym I used to pass with huge plate-glass windows. There was an array of dozens of treadmills which were in constant use day and night. I always wanted someone to hook these youngsters up to the building's power plant! ;-D

I've often wondered about that.

Cycle Power, Part II

 

[TromboneAl]

are we seeing the beginning of the end of the internal combustion and diesel engines. Are they going to be replace by electric over the next... say 35 years? I do not mean that they will totally go away... but will most vehicles in 35 years sport electric motors?

Absolutely. It makes you realize how primitive an internal combustion engine is. Explosions inside little chambers with liquids being sprayed around; what a mess!

Analogy coming...

Thirty five years ago I was sitting in front of a one-ton keypunch machine in the computer building with a stack of punch cards in my hand. Right now I've got my computer on my lap, and I'm holding a two-square-inch (outdated) CompactFlash card in my hand.

 

[Nords]

Here is a little different question on the same subject:are we seeing the beginning of the end of the internal combustion and diesel engines. Are they going to be replace by electric over the next... say 35 years? I do not mean that they will totally go away... but will most vehicles in 35 years sport electric motors?

Nah. We need some major battery breakthroughs (or $10/gal gasoline) before people would accept a car with a max range of 100 miles.

It works great on Oahu, though. Heck, I could commute on a Segway here.

Remember the 1950s "Popular Mechanics" articles when nuclear power would render electricity too cheap to meter and everyone would be commuting via personal jetcars or jet packs? That's how I feel when people talk about the death of the internal combustion energy and "peak oil"...

There was an array of dozens of treadmills which were in constant use day and night. I always wanted someone to hook these youngsters up to the building's power plant! ;-D

I proposed this for the TV watchers in our house and was informed that the same should apply to our computer. I backed down.

We took a LifeCycle exercycle to sea on my last submarine and subjected it to amazing amounts of punishment. It was so busy that it had a signup list and rarely cooled down on a 24-hour watchbill. The biggest problem we had in 30 months of use was a burned capacitor, which turned out to be compatible with an electronics spare in our onboard supplies. But other than thousands of miles, we could never figure out a good way to power more than a couple lightbulbs or an in-your-face cooling fan.

 

[ERD50]

I've often wondered about that.

Cycle Power, Part II

Well, just because we CAN do something, does not always mean we should.

I found numbers that agreed with Nords and that article on human power. A fit person can generate about 60 watts, around 1/10 HP. Super athletes only hit 1/4 HP for a burst.

So, even at a generous 24hrs/day, 365 days a year, zero downtime, that cycle could generate 525 KWhrs a year, or about $60 of electricity a year.

Now, consider the energy it takes to build the generator and the electronics to convert it to useful AC electricity, and then those things wear out and need to be replaced. Probably a negative overall, or a long payback. Probably better places to invest that money/energy. But I have often wondered the same thing - sure looks like a lot of energy going to waste! I think we need to find a way to make routine maintenance like cleaning, painting, etc attractive to people who like to exercise!

As a very, very rough guide, the cost of something tells you a bit about the cost of the energy to produce that thing. If that generator and inverter cost $150 for example, well, one thing you know is there is LESS than $150 of energy embedded in producing the item. The energy cost (warped by any energy subsidies) must be reflected in the cost, or they would lose money. Peeling the onion, the materials will also include the cost of the energy to produce them.

So, when I see an alternate energy idea, or even a conservation idea that has a long payback, it makes me wonder. Does it really have an 'energy payback'? I'd bet that the most significant cost of a solar panel is the embedded energy to produce it. So the economic payback (minus subsidies) is approximately the 'energy payback'.

(I just can't stop, sorry) - Here is another twist. Considering that solar panels have along life, 30 years or more, if over the next few years, they develop panels that are much more efficient, did we 'waste' the energy to make the current ones? Maybe we should have 'saved it' to make the more efficient variety?

-ERD50

 

[travelover]

.......... Considering that solar panels have along life, 30 years or more, if over the next few years, they develop panels that are much more efficient, did we 'waste' the energy to make the current ones? Maybe we should have 'saved it' to make the more efficient variety?-ERD50

I think this is like having grandkids first........

 

[Zathras]

We need some major battery breakthroughs (or $10/gal gasoline) before people would accept a car with a max range of 100 miles.

Why accept a 100 mile range? My electric car (coming in a two years) will have a range of about 200 miles. If you have the funds, you can buy a Tesla Roadster with a 200 mile range set for delivery next year. The breakthroughs that are necessary are already here. Further breakthroughs will make the whole situation better yet.

 

[ERD50]

We need some major battery breakthroughs (or $10/gal gasoline) before people would accept a car with a max range of 100 miles.

If you have the funds, you can buy a Tesla Roadster with a 200 mile range set for delivery next year.

What's wrong with $10 gas? That's cheaper than the electric alternatives right now.

Say you get a nice 30mpg average car. Over 100,000 miles, that is 3,333 gallons of gas. At $10/gallon, $33,333.

It might cost that much to replace the battery pack at 100,000 miles in a Tesla. And a 30mpg vehicle does not cost $100,000 to begin with. See, gas is cheap at $3, maybe even $10. There's not even that many electrics in Europe, where the population densities and price of petrol make them much easier to accept.

True, you can't burn rubber or impress your friends with 0-60 accel in 4 seconds in a 30mpg sedan, but if we are talking function and economy, that is not the point. Can't take the family out in a Tesla either.

Here is how the math works for Tesla:

A) in order to get a 200 mile range, they needed a BIG battery pack, even in a relatively lightweight and very aerodynamic car.

B) Guess what? - once you have enough power for 200 mile range, you also have enough power (coupled with the torque curve of an electric motor) to have that amazing acceleration burst.

C) So, Tesla engineers decided (smartly) to play on that combination, because 0-60 in four second sports cars sell for >$100,000, so they can make that big battery pack 'affordable', in relative terms.

So, dismissing the acceleration, you still need a pack almost that big for 200 mile range in a family sedan (more weight, more wind resistance to overcome). But who is going to add (roughly) $15,000-$30,000 to the cost of a family sedan, to save a few bucks on gas?

The 'every man' electric vehicle is a ways off yet. But cars like Tesla help to get the early adopters in, pay for the research and improve the technology. There is a lot to like about electric, I hope I get to buy one for environmental AND economic reasons.

-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

I could commute to w-w-w-w**k for four days with a 100mi range...

 

[Khan]

I could commute to w-w-w-w**k for four days with a 100mi range...

My average monthly travel is about 100 miles.

 

[ERD50]

My average monthly travel is about 100 miles.

Oh, i think there is a market for 100 mile range cars. But they don't fit a lot of people's needs. 100 mile range would be fine for me for most of my driving. But once every month or so, I exceed that. If that puts one in a position where you need an additional car just for those occasions, that's a big hurdle for many people.

One 'solution' might be a really convenient, cheap rental system - maybe an electric car company could sponsor that. Seems I've heard of some - you go on the web, 'reserve' a car (it might have even been left at a train station or something), and away you go. All pre-approved and everything.


-ERD50

 

[Brat]

Turbines stratigically placed deep in Deception Pass, Rich Passage and Agate Pass could probably generate enough power to light Seattle.

 

[greg]

It sort of sounds like the barrier may not necessarily be bigger, greater capacity batteries but, rather, the ability to do quick recharges. I really can't think of a twenty-five mile gap between gas stations in our area--which has a pretty low population density. If one could pull into an [-]gas[/-] energy station and top off the batteries in five, ten, or maybe fifteen minutes, then size (or distance/charge) doesn't matter quite so much: one could drive five hundred miles with an extra half hour or so of waiting for the top off charges on a one hundred mile capacity set of batteries. I do that anyway when I'm driving any distance, get out, stretch my legs, get snacks, walk the dog . . . try to talk the DW into getting another [-]bucket of KFC[/-] Subway veggie at full price before supper. I could probably get just as far, just as fast with quick charge ability, but smaller capacity batteries. Plus, they may weigh less too. It seems to me one hundred miles would be a nice compromise range for a utility or family vehicle operating in this manner. Can't quite make it home one evening, stop for a 4KW partial charge and then finish the job overnite in the garage with a slow charge, where nite electricity is cheaper. And easy infrastructure build out: just add more electricity to the gas stations and add a few electric islands for charging. Cheap possibility if the technology is in development--and works.

Is there any info about going that way in battery technology?

And if you buy one, you'd have the best Friday nite line around: Hey, honey, how about a t[-]r[/-]ickle charge tonite?

 

[ERD50]

rather, the ability to do quick recharges.

If one could pull into an [-]gas[/-] energy station and top off the batteries in five, ten, or maybe fifteen minutes,

Is there any info about going that way in battery technology?

greg, several technologies are working towards that end.

The EESTORE 'supercap' (though still vaporware) is one, capacitors can be recharged extremely fast, if you have the power available. No chemical reaction, just a matter of how fast you can pump in the power w/o overheating the thing.

Those re-charge stations would need a lot of power available of course. To take an 8 hour charge down to 10 minutes (1/50th the time) means about 50X the power for that time. Hmmm, how many KWHrs in a tanker truck of gasoline? That kind of power.

That fireflyenergy carbon-foam-lead-acid is shooting for 'extremely fast' recharge times - no numbers that I could find.

Here's an interesting one: Zinc-bromine flow battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All the energy is in the electrolyte fluid. Pump it out, put in fresh, and away you go - all recharged! Then, they put that fluid in a similar battery and recharge the fluid. I guess these batteries may not have all the other characteristics required for cars, but interesting (well, to me anyway).

And... Flywheel energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Says they can spin the flywheel back up in minutes.

And if you buy one, you'd have the best Friday nite line around: Hey, honey, how about a t[-]r[/-]ickle charge tonite?

And here I thought you were gonna go for the 'quickie' joke

Subway veggie at full price before supper.

Thought I was gonna miss that one, huh? I bet we could power cars from the 'waste' roast beef!

-ERD50

 

[TromboneAl]

One clever concept that will never happen is this: All the battery packs are interchangeable, and easily swapped out. You drive into the "filling station," drive to the automated rack, nosh on some roast beef, your pack is left there to charge up, you get another from the rack of charged batteries, and off you go.

 

[ERD50]

All the battery packs are interchangeable, and easily swapped out.

I've thought about that too. But, just looking at that Tesla design, for safety reasons, that battery pack (900 pounds!) is tucked deeply within the frame of the car. Probably pretty tough to make it swappable, but maybe someday.

A few other tid-bits as I wiki'd:

Energy Storage: Grid energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can pump water into a reservoir at night (off-peak) and then run the pumps as generators during a peak. I was surprised at the efficiency number.

Pumped storage recovers about 75% of the energy consumed, and is currently the most cost effective form of mass power storage.

Also, Nuclear can create hydrogen directly from water:

High temperature (950-1,000°C) gas cooled nuclear reactors have the potential to split hydrogen from water by thermochemical means using nuclear heat (i.e. without using electrolysis).

But....

The round trip efficiency for hydrogen storage is typically 25 to 36% (50 to 60% for generation and 50 to 60% for storage), much lower than pumped storage or batteries.

What happens to all the oxygen? Is that the next environmental hazard our kids will face? Will some presidential hopeful be wringing his/her hands in 50 years about how we need to do something about all this oxygen - for their grandchildren? We need to get off this hydrogen economy! Who knows?

-ERD50

 

[greg]

ERD:

I just read that stuff earlier in the other thread. Duh! Time to start visiting here less.

I suppose I missed a slew of roast beef-methane conversion jokes too? Have fun.

 

[ladelfina]

Just thinking about all those batteries and what they're made of, plus extraction before and recycling after. Yech.

Not applicable to cars per se, but this was an interesting short article in the Economist about large-scale solar:

Solar power | Trapping sunlight | Economist.com

The world's biggest solar farm, where more than 400,000 mirrors cover four square miles (10.3 square kilometres) of California's Mojave desert, was built in the 1980s and still churns out 354 megawatts of electricity, enough for 90,000 homes. But until recently no more large solar plants have been built, despite soaring demand.
... CSP systems capture and focus the sun's rays, using mirrors, to heat a working fluid to high temperatures and use it to drive a turbine. By contrast, photovoltaic solar power systems, mostly used on home rooftops, let light interact directly with semiconductor materials to generate power. As a source of large-scale power CSP is less expensive and more practical, not least because the technology can deliver power for hours after the sun sets using thermal storage. America's south-western deserts are an abundant source of sunshine that could meet the country's power needs several times over without releasing a molecule of carbon dioxide. ... Electricity from the new plant in Nevada costs an estimated 17 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but projections suggest that CSP power could fall to below ten cents per kWh as the technology improves. Coal power costs just 2-3 cents per kWh. But that will rise if (as seems likely) regulation eventually factors in the environmental costs of the carbon coal produces.

 

[unclemick]

Harvey S. - we worked together on Skylab. Later I transferred to New Orleans on Space Shuttle - Harv later worked on said solar farm turned 65, retired and has recently passed on.

Moral - don't forget to ER while you are saving the world. At least Harv got some good retired years in.

heh heh heh - meanwhile back at the barbershop/Popular Science - whatever happened to solar in orbit - sent the power back to Earth?

 

[ERD50]

The gov. does have to get involved in alternative sources both through research and incentives. There is no free market because the costs (war) are not priced into petroleum products.

Yes, the true costs of fossil fuel (environmental, subsidies, etc) is not included in the price the consumer pays. It makes it tough for alternative energy to compete. Rather than complicate this mess further, by trying to balance out those subsidies and 'free passes' on environmental issues with another set of complicated subsidies and grants and incentives, I say just tax the fossil fuels. Then there will be a competitive market for the alternatives.

-ERD50

 

[chinaco]

I agree, the internal combustion and diesel engines are not going away soon... It could be the mainstay for another 20 years or so. But then again, it took years for the basic automobile to replace the horse and buggy.

Interestingly enough, electric cars were developed early on along with BIO-Diesel. I cannot predict the timing, but my personal belief is that we are seeing the beginning of the end of those types of engines (as the predominant motor) for personal vehicles.

I agree that there needs to be some work on better battery technology... But I believe that electric is the most viable approach. Ethanol and Bio-Diesel (plus Hybrids) are stop gap solutions.

One of the nice things about Hybrids is that they are getting research dollars focused on the electric problem (i.e., battery technology). I believe the problem can be solved. But, there are probably multiple things that may have to change in the ways cars are designed.


Another thought about America: Could the cost of personal transportation mean the end (or reduction) of urban sprawl and cause migration back to cities... Build up, not out!

 

[TromboneAl]

Anybody notice the hybrid twist on the planned Chevy Volt? It comes with a tiny gas engine that can be used to recharge the batteries. That is, the engine never drives the car -- it's like a little generator that you run when you're out of juice.

 

[ERD50]

Anybody notice the hybrid twist on the planned Chevy Volt? It comes with a tiny gas engine that can be used to recharge the batteries. That is, the engine never drives the car -- it's like a little generator that you run when you're out of juice.

That is called a series hybrid T-Al. There are some advantages, but as far as 'twists' go, that one is very old indeed:

HybridCars.com - History of Hybrid Vehicles

1898
The German Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, at age 23, built his first car, the Lohner Electric Chaise. It was the world's first front-wheel-drive. Porsche's second car was a hybrid, using an internal combustion engine to spin a generator that provided power to electric motors located in the wheel hubs. On battery alone, the car could travel nearly forty miles.

1902
A series-hybrid runabout competed against steam and gas-powered cars in a New York to Boston reliability test.

1910
Commercial built a hybrid truck which used a four-cylinder gas engine to power a generator, eliminating the need for both transmission and battery pack. This hybrid was built in Philadelphia until 1918.

History of Hybrid cars | Hybrid Cars

In Ontario, Canada, in 1914 the Galt Motor Company rolled out the Galt Gas Electric, a pure series hybrid that featured a two-cylinder, two-stroke engine of 10 horsepower driving a 40-volt, 90-amp Westinghouse generator. It was claimed the Galt could wring 70 miles from one gallon of gasoline or, alternately, do 15 to 20 miles on the battery alone. But a top speed of about 30 mph sent potential buyers to more powerful, speedier alternatives.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

To expand on the pro/con of series hybrids a little:

Remember that I said earlier that when they load the Tesla with enough batteries for a 200 mile range, that also provides enough burst energy for fantastic acceleration? That kind of works against you in a series hybrid.

To get good acceleration in a mid-size car, you still need a fairly large battery pack so you automatically get decent range. Let's just estimate that 1/3 the size of the Tesla pack would give good acceleration for a mid-size car. So you still have a 300 pound battery pack (~ $8,000?), and now you need to add an engine, generator, fuel tank, cooling system, etc to that vehicle.

Then, you drag that engine/generator weight around with you for 40 miles or so before you need it, so that is a negative.

Series my still be the way we go, but I suspect that battery improvements will soon outpace the disadvantages of carrying all that stuff around.

Another 'out there' idea has been one of stopping at a 'gas station' and renting a small trailer when you take a trip. The trailer contains a fuel tank, engine, generator - just plug in a charge as you drive. Drop it off when you are done.

Series designs might also work out better with those super-caps or a battery design that has less overall energy and weight, but can provide higher burst currents. Then you could have a smaller pack for acceleration, and just start up the engine after maybe 15-20 miles. That would better optimize the two systems.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

Series designs might also work out better with those super-caps or a battery design that has less overall energy and weight, but can provide higher burst currents. Then you could have a smaller pack for acceleration, and just start up the engine after maybe 15-20 miles. That would better optimize the two systems.

-ERD50

True, that would help, but from a technical angle, if the vehicle design criteria is "unlimited range when gasoline is available" (for long trips), then the gasoline engine must be significantly larger (in HP) than the power produced by the electric motors at cruising speeds (larger due to the losses in the conversion of mechanical energy to electrical energy and then back to mechanical energy). Given the conversion losses, it might be better to run a (smaller) gas motor all the time as the primary drive, and engage the electric motors only for acceleration or other times when power requirements exceeded the max output of the gas engine. Charge the batteries using regenerative braking and by employing the electric motor(s) as generators during cruising (requiring a little more power from the gas engine). Seems like this configuration would require less starting/stopping of the gasoline engine (with attendant fuel inefficiencies, pollution, wear) and let you avoid a lot of the conversion losses.

Yes, the gasoline engine would run all the time, but you'd still get the marketing cachet (and tax bennies, if any) of a hybrid.

The more efficient configuration probably depends a lot on type of driving to be done.

 

[mb]

There's a university gym I used to pass with huge plate-glass windows. There was an array of dozens of treadmills which were in constant use day and night. I always wanted someone to hook these youngsters up to the building's power plant! ;-D

Lance Armstrong generates about 400w continuously. The average person on a treadmill is probably only around 150w. I think that it would be tough to pay out the capital costs.

MB