It was all good after I figured out that clever double Y-axis.
Re: The disadvantage of wind is intermittency and the relatively "low energy density" of the electricity that is produced
Yes, people on my ASPO-USA thread were arguing about this but I'm not sure I fully understand "low energy density" for wind. It's generating electricity, right? feeding power into the grid? What's the deal?
Dave, thanks for showing some interest in this vital topic about saving planet Earth. Here's a picture taken at the Centrica operated Glens of Foundland wind farm about 30 miles north of where I stay. I guess for some reason Centrica got talked out of a solar array and got tricked into deploying windmills.
Imagine the wind is the size of the picture frame - in fact its really much bigger than that. These little wind mills only capture a tiny fraction of the energy available.
Compare that with Hydro - where the glacially sculpted land surface captures most of the water and diverts it, through gravity, into streams, rivers and eventually a water fall where man can capture lots of the solar energy. The Sun evaporates the water, and gravity (which no one really fully understands yet) concetrates all that water into one point where man can convert it to energy. Even better than that, by building a dam he can release that energy when he needs to use it.
Wind is a bit different. In its primary form it is very diffuse and man can only capture a tiny amount of all the energy that is available. What's more, the wind doesn't always blow when man wants it to - so he needs to devise ways of storing or controlling this energy resource - which in some other respects is free.
Electricity, is the way that man utilises wind, hydro and many fossil energy resources. The fossil energy resources are very concentrated, but in converting them to electricity, man actually dilutes that concentraion of energy significantly - the compensation here is that the energy is in a very user friendly format - ready to use - when you want to use it.
The problem with wind, is that it is dilute and not always there - and storing the electricity in a battery it is diluted - eg 100 mile range for an electric car with a big battery comapred with 400 - 500 miles for a gasoline car with a small tank.
The main point is that with a high ERoEI >> 15, wind may provide an energy bounty, and some of the energy it produces may be used to solve some of these low density, intermitency problems.
As for the double Y axis chart - we live in a multi dimensional universe - so more of those to come.
I am not entirely anti hydro, but I don't see how we can be so flippant about the destruction of vast tracts of river bottoms, ruined fisheries and habitats, all for the sake of giving us more power. In my mind it's not much better than the permanent destruction reaped by current coal mining in W. Va. The river valleys are gone forever, good for nothing but being a big box to store our greed for power. And as the waters receed annually, there is an ugly, dirty, dusty or muddy bathtub ring that even leaves the lake largely inaccesible.
If they are necessary, they are a sad necessity, and shouldn't be viewed in such embellished, glorifying terms in my opinion.
I guess I do feel differently about the systems that just divert water through a generator along the stream, however.
Distributed PV and wind are far better and less destructive than dams in my opinion. All of our annual electrical needs are currently being served by 18 modest-sized panels on our suburban roof - no maintenance, good for decades. What's wrong with that?
Re: thanks for showing some interest in this vital topic about saving planet Earth
It's not Earth we're worried about. The Earth will be OK in a couple million years after we're gone and done trashing it. It's our sorry asses we need to worry about and whatever vital animals & plants might be saved. But I digress.
Re: it is diluted ... and intermittent
Yes, I understand all that. Now, consider these quotes on my ASPO-USA thread..
On the subject of WIND there seems to be a lot of misconceptions about this subject.
IT CAN NOT BE INTERGRATED SUCCESFULLY in to large power grids because of the physical nature of electricity and there is plenty of evidence of this published by electrical power engineers. I intend to offer a post on this subject shortly as well as nuclear reactors.
Well, glad to hear that what the Danes and Germans have been doing (with admitted challenges) is simply illusory, according to the evidence published by electrical power engineers. And some statistics published by German power companies 'proving' how ineffective wind actually is seem at times to prove just how stubborn some people cling to their own perspective of what is in their own interests - even though the power companies pass on the increased cost of the wind power they must buy, they would prefer to own the entire system, as proven by the sham that is German energy market 'opening.'
The challenges of wind should not be denied, but they are just that, challenges....
Wind energy can integrate well with high storage capacity for the produced wind electricity in the form of dispatchable hydro. The Northern European wind energy integrates beautifully with the abundant hydro in particularly Sweden but other Scandinavian states.
So, this whole subject seems more complex than I had imagined, I am embarrassed to say.
Somebody needs to post on the "Challenges of Wind" as it gets integrated into the electrical power grid.
All of the talk that wind and solar energy do not integrate well into the power grid is total bullshit, of course.
For one thing we could easily capture GWs of power with water electrolysis and create hydrogen for storage... IF we just had them. The only thing that happens there is that we take a huge efficiency loss. And still the overall efficiency would stay quite good, especially if that hydrogen becomes part of the transportation fuel cycle.
In any case, the power grid, if designed properly for peak loads will not go down. To build a power grid that can shift twice the amount of power around than it does today will require investments, of course. The power companies will need to be re-imbursed for those moneys and we will see them shift their business model from producers of power to transmitters of power.
No problem here. Except that one has to think a bit more on the system and a little bit less on the circuit level.
Re: For one thing we could easily capture GWs of power with water electrolysis and create hydrogen for storage ... IF we just had them
That's a really big IF, isn't it? How do think hydrogen is created? Doesn't it usually involve one of those fossil fuel words?
Re: No problem here. Except that one has to think a bit more on the system and a little bit less on the circuit level
So, do your feet ever actually touch the ground -- which is where the rest of us live? Or do you just float around above the Earth?
InfinitePossibilities? The only infinite possibility I see here is the ability of human beings to screw up. And, you did not even remotely begin to address my questions about integrating wind into the power grid.
I think what hes saying is that there is no need to develop fancy underground compressed air storage systems, or pump water up to a mountain top to be used on a 'rainy day' so to speak. Instead, channel all that 'excessive energy' that the grid cant take and produce hydrogen from it. Hydrogen, just like all FF's, is simply an energy carrier. There has been a remarkable number of 'breakthroughs' dealing with hydrogen storage in recent years.
Clearly, you could use the electricity from wind to make hydrogen through electrolysis. But there is no infrastructure in place for using the hydrogen as an energy carrier -- none whatsoever.
So, when somebody tells me to think at the "systems" level and not the "circuit level", I view that as some sort of fantasy. For example, when I flip the switch to turn on one of those energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs, I have a definite interest in whether it will actually come on. If that's thinking at the "circuit" level, then I am guilty.
I think you are forgetting one thing: In most cases, there is no infrastructure to store compressed air on a commercial scale to power wind farms when the wind isn't blowing, or a significant quantity of candidate sites for water pump/storage for the same benefit. In order for the wind/solar economy to truly be viable, we have to develop the systems that let us store this energy to even the loads out. If we don't do so, we will be stuck with always having to have a 'base line' of power derived from coal, NG or nuclear to meet our needs!
So that leads us with a few possibilities: Spend trillions on storage systems such as: depleted NG caverns for compressed air. Huge water pump storages on mountain tops. A massive scale up in commercial battery sites, such as flow batteries. A fleet of EVs and PEHVs that all use V2G setups. Or channel our excess energy production into hydrogen/ammonia generation/storage. Choose your poison. You have to use some of these set ups to avoid becoming a renewable 'export' country :P
The US has (roughly) 10 GW of pumped storage on-line today. More can be added. HV DC can connect wind sites, load centers (i.e. cities) and pumped storage over 1,000+ mile distances.
The problem, as plenty at TOD always point out, is that like oil/ng prospecting, all the good sites for renewable storage sites are used up first. There will obviously come a point where there simply isn't enough in the ground storage setups, which will causes us to look elsewhere in the long term.
But please, don't get me wrong! I love alternatives including wind/solar. I simply think people are looking in the situation with one eye not only covered, but sowed up, locked up behind a bullet proof eye patch, which is then stapled to their heads. Just as we will need a basket of renewables to replace oil, we will need a basket of storage systems to make it viable.
Oh, and we have an infrastructure for hydrogen...we make fertilizer out of it :P
We have not seriously looked at developing pumped storage sites in North America. Perhaps a dozen over 0.1GW.
Three more could have been built at the 2 GW Raccoon Mountain site. They picked one end of the ridge because it was closer to existing transmission lines and land acquistion would be easier.
The Upper Penisula of Michigan can site massive pumped storage (close to Dakota & Manitoba wind and Manitoba hydro).
I have no doubt that there exists a fairly significant amount of storage sites. The question is, is there enough areas to allow us to completely depend/rely on these caverns for the 'rainy days'. Still, I look at the future world from the viewpoint that most vehicles will be electric/pehv/cats. In the first 2 cases, we will be able to satisfy a fairly large chunk of our storage problems using infrastructure that will already be built. It seems smarter to me to use what we already have, not build what we don't need.
Cats ? From personal experience, I would recommend against riding cats :-P
An unfamilar term outside felines to me.
I see a need for more pumped storage in almost any scenario so I disagree with "build what we don't need".
And "will already be built" in the future ?
I assume you are talking about Vehicle to Grid using EV batteries. I think that is likely a bad idea since cycling chemical batteries shortens their life. VERY expensive battery storage.
And American consumer behavior is hard to predict (see recent auto sales). I expect many to recharge during evening peak demand (dinner time). So more grid capacity required.
Altair Nanotechnologies (nasdaq: ALTI - news - people )--up over 10% from this time last year--was once a poster child for putting nanohype over substance. Consequently, it didn't figure highly in 2004, when we last published our Scorecard. At the time, the company changed names like the wind, from Altair Technologies to Altair International Gold to Altair Nanotechnologies: Whatever sector seemed to be hot, there would be Altair. ========
Hype only company (Altair Gold ??) with week old "breakthrough" report. And we are to base our future on new nanotechnologies ?!?
You need to check the crediability of your sources of information !
Even if 3M or GE announced the same "breakthrough" I would expect 12 to 15 years till mass production capable of replaceing half of US fleet.
Well, there have been several different reputable companies that made similar 'breakthroughs'. Look at some of my previous posts for links. Time will tell though :P
"Even if 3M or GE announced the same "breakthrough" I would expect 12 to 15 years till mass production capable of replaceing half of US fleet."
Alan, that's with a "business as usual" approach. In WWII we ramped to 100,000 planes in about 2 years.
"business as usual" won't implement anything at lightning speed: neither rail nor EV's.
Also, keep in mind that we don't have to replace half the fleet to cut half the fuel consumption: probably the newest 40% of vehicles get 60% of the miles, and 40% of vehicles is only 5 years production. Ramping up production is the variable, and that simply depends on the priority it gets: it could be done in 2 years on a war basis, and 5 on a normal commercial high-priority basis (say, $180 oil).
In twenty years, the US built subways in it's largest cities and streetcar line or lines in 500 cities & towns, some as small as 18,000 population.
They did this without advanced technology, just "coal, mules & sweat" and 3% of today's GNP. And it was done as a commercial boom.
You underestimate the time required to implement from benchtop prototype breakthrough of, say, a carbon nanotechnology battery to millions/year production. WW II production did not use major breakthroughs in technology (except 3 hand made A bombs) and there is a learning curve with new technologies that simply takes time.
There is simply no humanly possible way to expect a novel technology to go from benchtop breakthrough to million + large scale production in 24 months.
Durability testing, for example, simply takes time.
Wind turbines have been steadily improving for 20+ years and are on the verge of being ready for the "big time". But the first large offshore wind farm (2 MW WTs by Vestas) had to pull EVERY WT back for rework & re-engineer (from memory).
"In twenty years, the US built subways in it's largest cities and streetcar line or lines in 500 cities & towns, some as small as 18,000 population."
hmmm. If your point is that rail could make an enormous difference in 20 years, I agree. I would guess that a large rail project would take at minimum 15 years from conception to completion, and perhaps 12 years from drawings to completion - does that sound roughly right?
"There is simply no humanly possible way to expect a novel technology to go from benchtop breakthrough to million + large scale production in 24 months."
That's not what I was suggesting. I believe that existing technology is sufficient, if necessary. That's what the Tesla uses. They plan to incorporate incremental battery improvements as they are proven. EV's are much simpler than ICE vehicles - only the batteries and power electronics are challenges, and they've gotten good enough.
OTOH, I would point to two things: first, there are a number of improved battery technologies which, while not proven, have a very high likelihood of success very, very soon. One of the most intriguing is Firefly, which is a spinoff of Caterpillar, and very credible. They expect to be in large-scale production in 2007. Probably the most important is A123systems, which is in production now for Dewalt powertools - it's here now, though it's optimized for powertool use (high power) rather than EV use (high energy density). They're working on an EV version now.
2nd, while benchtop to factory floor would be very difficult to do in 2 years, it can be done in 4, and was by A123systems - see:
COMPANIES: AI23 SYSTEMS AND BLACK & DECKER
The guys in the aisle at Home Depot don't know it. But that $800 DeWalt cordless power-tool set - the one they really want for Christmas, but are just too scared to ask for - gets its butt-kicking oomph from a Nature Materials paper published only four years ago. It's taken that time for a battery cathode based on phosphate nanocrystals to rip its way from a lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, through financing, design, development and manufacture in east Asia, to its current position, driving 36-volt power tools from Black & Decker - owner of the DeWalt professional-grade marque. (registration required) http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061030/full/444016a.html
I'm confident that this could be reduced somewhat, if it was sufficiently high priority.
Anyway, it's a somewhat moot question: we don't need any lab breakthroughs at this point to go forward with an ambitious PHEV/EV program.
I talked to a planner for Washington DC Metro and he said the entire 103 miles (original, now 106 with more planned) could have been built efficiently (minimum cost) in 12 years. Someone involved in actually building it said 15 years.
We have preliminary plans (most with dust) for 56 cities that I have identified. I may post the list tomorrow. We could start construction on those plans in 1 to 3 years (depending upon level of dust, etc.) and finish them in 1 to 12 years (2nd Avenue Subway in NYC, Red Line Subway to the Sea in LA, Miami 83 new miles of elevated "subway" would take longest).
I think that we could build MANY more GEMs and Priuses within a few years (ramp up production of existing design, including speciality components, in a few years). New tech is much more iffy (wasn't A123 delayed almost a year ?).
I question the wisdom of EVs beyond GEM. We need not only the direct savings but indirect savings of Urban Rail (via revised Urban form).
OK, I think we're seeing rail construction roughly the same way. On other things, I'm not sure we're quite communicating. Are you're saying that you prefer rail because you prefer a revised Urban form?
Would you agree with my analysis (posted to you elsewhere in more detail) that the difference in transportation energy needs between EV's and rail is negligible (90% reduction vs 87%)?
Are you saying that you like the Urban form for reasons other than transportation energy, like improved quality of life, reduced HVAC needs, etc?
You only looked at direct energy savings of Urban Rail (did not see your post). The indirect savings are substantially larger than the direct savings.
The gallons per capita in cities with good Urban Rail systems are much lower than can be explained by direct savings. Ed Tennyson had a post recently that set the average at 159 gallons/capita annual delta.
Postal delivery can walk their route, police bicycle their beat, UPS can make 2 or 3 deliveries from one stop, go 2 blocks and make another, plumber puts far fewer miles on his van, etc. People walk to stores, etc.
Urban Rail results in far greater savings that EVs.
Best Hopes,
Alan
BTW, suburbia was built to be biodegradeable. No great loss and no need to rebuild it in place.
Ed Tennyson has a LONG & distingushed history in transit. Testified against GM on streetcar destruction trial (GM lost, fined $1,000), helped plan DC Metro, electrified Harrisburg to Philly commuter RR, his riderhsip estimates for DC Metro off by 3%, ran San Diego Trolley build (first modern light rail in US).
A US city with a good rail system will reform itself around that system and reduce per capita demand by about a 1/4th.
Miami has local funding (1/2 cent sales tax) to expand their 20 mile elevated "subway" to 103 miles. 90% of the current population will be within 3 miles, half within two miles.
Upon completion or a few years after, I would expect Miami gasoline demand to drop by 1/3rd to 1/2 relative to, say, Ft. Lauderdale.
In 2004, 15 of 23 construction cranes were within 3 blocks of a Metro station. The mere announcement of expansion started a rush to reform the city around rail. (In Dallas, they are building next to stations a couple of years before scheduled opening).
Do NOT underestimate the indirect savings from Urban Rail. I use 6 gallons/month and walk or ride transit for many destinations. This very walkable, pleasant and beautiful neighborhood exists because of the St. Charles streetcar.
"A US city with a good rail system will reform itself around that system and reduce per capita demand by about a 1/4th....Upon completion or a few years after, I would expect Miami gasoline demand to drop by 1/3rd to 1/2 relative to, say, Ft. Lauderdale."
The general rule appears to be a 1/4 reduction - why do you suggest 1/3 to 1/2 for Miami?
Today's population has 90% within 3 miles of a station and half within 2 miles. This is Rapid Rail (subway, Heavy Rail), not Light Rail with fast average speeds, massive capacity, and potentially frequent service.
The climate & flat landscape is walking & bicycling friendly. GEM EVs could work well once SUVs head towards extinction as another way to get to the stations. Add some streetcar line feeders and neighborhood circulators AND massive condo/office/apartment construction within 3 or 4 blocks of stations AND higher fuel prices and I see a revolutionized city that is now strangling on congestion.
Miami has the potential to be the "best case" example in the US.
So, rail has the potential to reduce gasoline useage by 25-50%.
Well, given that we can expect to have plenty of renewable electricity; that EV's would only add about 6-10% to the load on the grid to handle the rest; and that EV's are only slightly more expensive than ICE's; then, the sensible thing would be to use EV's for the other 50-75%, no?
Walking, bicycling, streetcars and electric trolley buses would be better options with a majority of households without even an EV (they take up space and make everything further apart).
We are a LONG way from "plenty of renewable electricity". Better to emphasize the higher efficiency uses.
One should also ask the question, how can the US of ~2035 function well with ~400 million people and 7 million barrels of oil per day (very little for transportation including services) ? And dramatically reduce GW GHGs ?
A revised urban form is the only way that I can see that happening. GEM EVs can support a better urban form (unattractive on a 19 mile daily commute, but great for a couple of miles), but bigger & better EVs can slow the needed transformation.
Thus I am agnostic about EVs. They should be, at most, a secondary emphasis IMHO.
I can understand why you prefer rail to EV's for quality of life. I agree. But....
If we go to renewable electricity in 2035, and we have enough, what's wrong with EV's on an energy basis?? They certainly eliminate oil useage, right?
You have said in the past that you feel that an all-renewable grid is possible, and at a price point that's affordable. So, what's wrong with EV's from an energy point of view?
I feel like we're not quite communicating here....
Please note that gas consumption/capita in Ft. Lauderdale will likely drop due to higher gas prices shifting to higher efficiency vehicles (Prius is the new Hummer ?), people moving closer to work, less "pleasure driving" and so forth. Same in Miami. Dolphins fans from Miami will leave their Prius at home and take Metro to the stadium, Ft. L fans drive their Prius to the game.
Thus I use the Ft. Lauderdale: Miami ratio as a metric. Ft.L gas consumption drops, Miami gas consumption can drop off a clift.
Washington DC gasoline consumption fell from the "non-rail" norm towards the "rail city" norm as new DC Metro lines opened and older lines matured. Ed T monitored this and posted this a few years ago.
Re: The disadvantage of wind is intermittency and the relatively "low energy density" of the electricity that is produced
Yes, people on my ASPO-USA thread were arguing about this but I'm not sure I fully understand "low energy density" for wind. It's generating electricity, right? feeding power into the grid? What's the deal?
I want to learn more here.
Imagine the wind is the size of the picture frame - in fact its really much bigger than that. These little wind mills only capture a tiny fraction of the energy available.
Compare that with Hydro - where the glacially sculpted land surface captures most of the water and diverts it, through gravity, into streams, rivers and eventually a water fall where man can capture lots of the solar energy. The Sun evaporates the water, and gravity (which no one really fully understands yet) concetrates all that water into one point where man can convert it to energy. Even better than that, by building a dam he can release that energy when he needs to use it.
Wind is a bit different. In its primary form it is very diffuse and man can only capture a tiny amount of all the energy that is available. What's more, the wind doesn't always blow when man wants it to - so he needs to devise ways of storing or controlling this energy resource - which in some other respects is free.
Electricity, is the way that man utilises wind, hydro and many fossil energy resources. The fossil energy resources are very concentrated, but in converting them to electricity, man actually dilutes that concentraion of energy significantly - the compensation here is that the energy is in a very user friendly format - ready to use - when you want to use it.
The problem with wind, is that it is dilute and not always there - and storing the electricity in a battery it is diluted - eg 100 mile range for an electric car with a big battery comapred with 400 - 500 miles for a gasoline car with a small tank.
The main point is that with a high ERoEI >> 15, wind may provide an energy bounty, and some of the energy it produces may be used to solve some of these low density, intermitency problems.
As for the double Y axis chart - we live in a multi dimensional universe - so more of those to come.
CW
If they are necessary, they are a sad necessity, and shouldn't be viewed in such embellished, glorifying terms in my opinion.
I guess I do feel differently about the systems that just divert water through a generator along the stream, however.
Distributed PV and wind are far better and less destructive than dams in my opinion. All of our annual electrical needs are currently being served by 18 modest-sized panels on our suburban roof - no maintenance, good for decades. What's wrong with that?
It's not Earth we're worried about. The Earth will be OK in a couple million years after we're gone and done trashing it. It's our sorry asses we need to worry about and whatever vital animals & plants might be saved. But I digress.
Re: it is diluted ... and intermittent
Yes, I understand all that. Now, consider these quotes on my ASPO-USA thread..
From here:
And from here: And from here: So, this whole subject seems more complex than I had imagined, I am embarrassed to say.Somebody needs to post on the "Challenges of Wind" as it gets integrated into the electrical power grid.
For one thing we could easily capture GWs of power with water electrolysis and create hydrogen for storage... IF we just had them. The only thing that happens there is that we take a huge efficiency loss. And still the overall efficiency would stay quite good, especially if that hydrogen becomes part of the transportation fuel cycle.
In any case, the power grid, if designed properly for peak loads will not go down. To build a power grid that can shift twice the amount of power around than it does today will require investments, of course. The power companies will need to be re-imbursed for those moneys and we will see them shift their business model from producers of power to transmitters of power.
No problem here. Except that one has to think a bit more on the system and a little bit less on the circuit level.
:-)
That's a really big IF, isn't it? How do think hydrogen is created? Doesn't it usually involve one of those fossil fuel words?
Re: No problem here. Except that one has to think a bit more on the system and a little bit less on the circuit level
So, do your feet ever actually touch the ground -- which is where the rest of us live? Or do you just float around above the Earth?
InfinitePossibilities? The only infinite possibility I see here is the ability of human beings to screw up. And, you did not even remotely begin to address my questions about integrating wind into the power grid.
The synergies are fairly outstanding!
So, when somebody tells me to think at the "systems" level and not the "circuit level", I view that as some sort of fantasy. For example, when I flip the switch to turn on one of those energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs, I have a definite interest in whether it will actually come on. If that's thinking at the "circuit" level, then I am guilty.
Assume we have a hydrogen can-opener...
So that leads us with a few possibilities: Spend trillions on storage systems such as: depleted NG caverns for compressed air. Huge water pump storages on mountain tops. A massive scale up in commercial battery sites, such as flow batteries. A fleet of EVs and PEHVs that all use V2G setups. Or channel our excess energy production into hydrogen/ammonia generation/storage. Choose your poison. You have to use some of these set ups to avoid becoming a renewable 'export' country :P
Doable and affordable IMHO.
Alan
But please, don't get me wrong! I love alternatives including wind/solar. I simply think people are looking in the situation with one eye not only covered, but sowed up, locked up behind a bullet proof eye patch, which is then stapled to their heads. Just as we will need a basket of renewables to replace oil, we will need a basket of storage systems to make it viable.
Oh, and we have an infrastructure for hydrogen...we make fertilizer out of it :P
Three more could have been built at the 2 GW Raccoon Mountain site. They picked one end of the ridge because it was closer to existing transmission lines and land acquistion would be easier.
The Upper Penisula of Michigan can site massive pumped storage (close to Dakota & Manitoba wind and Manitoba hydro).
Ozarks have potential, etc. etc. etc.
Alan
An unfamilar term outside felines to me.
I see a need for more pumped storage in almost any scenario so I disagree with "build what we don't need".
And "will already be built" in the future ?
I assume you are talking about Vehicle to Grid using EV batteries. I think that is likely a bad idea since cycling chemical batteries shortens their life. VERY expensive battery storage.
And American consumer behavior is hard to predict (see recent auto sales). I expect many to recharge during evening peak demand (dinner time). So more grid capacity required.
Alan
Take a look at THESE BATTERIES
BTW, a CAT is a Compressed Air Transportation device, or a CAT car
========Hype only company (Altair Gold ??) with week old "breakthrough" report. And we are to base our future on new nanotechnologies ?!?
You need to check the crediability of your sources of information !
Even if 3M or GE announced the same "breakthrough" I would expect 12 to 15 years till mass production capable of replaceing half of US fleet.
No Hope for BS,
Alan
Alan, that's with a "business as usual" approach. In WWII we ramped to 100,000 planes in about 2 years.
"business as usual" won't implement anything at lightning speed: neither rail nor EV's.
Also, keep in mind that we don't have to replace half the fleet to cut half the fuel consumption: probably the newest 40% of vehicles get 60% of the miles, and 40% of vehicles is only 5 years production. Ramping up production is the variable, and that simply depends on the priority it gets: it could be done in 2 years on a war basis, and 5 on a normal commercial high-priority basis (say, $180 oil).
They did this without advanced technology, just "coal, mules & sweat" and 3% of today's GNP. And it was done as a commercial boom.
You underestimate the time required to implement from benchtop prototype breakthrough of, say, a carbon nanotechnology battery to millions/year production. WW II production did not use major breakthroughs in technology (except 3 hand made A bombs) and there is a learning curve with new technologies that simply takes time.
There is simply no humanly possible way to expect a novel technology to go from benchtop breakthrough to million + large scale production in 24 months.
Durability testing, for example, simply takes time.
Wind turbines have been steadily improving for 20+ years and are on the verge of being ready for the "big time". But the first large offshore wind farm (2 MW WTs by Vestas) had to pull EVERY WT back for rework & re-engineer (from memory).
Best Hopes,
Alan
hmmm. If your point is that rail could make an enormous difference in 20 years, I agree. I would guess that a large rail project would take at minimum 15 years from conception to completion, and perhaps 12 years from drawings to completion - does that sound roughly right?
"There is simply no humanly possible way to expect a novel technology to go from benchtop breakthrough to million + large scale production in 24 months."
That's not what I was suggesting. I believe that existing technology is sufficient, if necessary. That's what the Tesla uses. They plan to incorporate incremental battery improvements as they are proven. EV's are much simpler than ICE vehicles - only the batteries and power electronics are challenges, and they've gotten good enough.
OTOH, I would point to two things: first, there are a number of improved battery technologies which, while not proven, have a very high likelihood of success very, very soon. One of the most intriguing is Firefly, which is a spinoff of Caterpillar, and very credible. They expect to be in large-scale production in 2007. Probably the most important is A123systems, which is in production now for Dewalt powertools - it's here now, though it's optimized for powertool use (high power) rather than EV use (high energy density). They're working on an EV version now.
2nd, while benchtop to factory floor would be very difficult to do in 2 years, it can be done in 4, and was by A123systems - see:
COMPANIES: AI23 SYSTEMS AND BLACK & DECKER
The guys in the aisle at Home Depot don't know it. But that $800 DeWalt cordless power-tool set - the one they really want for Christmas, but are just too scared to ask for - gets its butt-kicking oomph from a Nature Materials paper published only four years ago. It's taken that time for a battery cathode based on phosphate nanocrystals to rip its way from a lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, through financing, design, development and manufacture in east Asia, to its current position, driving 36-volt power tools from Black & Decker - owner of the DeWalt professional-grade marque. (registration required)
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061030/full/444016a.html
I'm confident that this could be reduced somewhat, if it was sufficiently high priority.
Anyway, it's a somewhat moot question: we don't need any lab breakthroughs at this point to go forward with an ambitious PHEV/EV program.
Does that make sense to you?
I talked to a planner for Washington DC Metro and he said the entire 103 miles (original, now 106 with more planned) could have been built efficiently (minimum cost) in 12 years. Someone involved in actually building it said 15 years.
We have preliminary plans (most with dust) for 56 cities that I have identified. I may post the list tomorrow. We could start construction on those plans in 1 to 3 years (depending upon level of dust, etc.) and finish them in 1 to 12 years (2nd Avenue Subway in NYC, Red Line Subway to the Sea in LA, Miami 83 new miles of elevated "subway" would take longest).
I think that we could build MANY more GEMs and Priuses within a few years (ramp up production of existing design, including speciality components, in a few years). New tech is much more iffy (wasn't A123 delayed almost a year ?).
I question the wisdom of EVs beyond GEM. We need not only the direct savings but indirect savings of Urban Rail (via revised Urban form).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Would you agree with my analysis (posted to you elsewhere in more detail) that the difference in transportation energy needs between EV's and rail is negligible (90% reduction vs 87%)?
Are you saying that you like the Urban form for reasons other than transportation energy, like improved quality of life, reduced HVAC needs, etc?
The gallons per capita in cities with good Urban Rail systems are much lower than can be explained by direct savings. Ed Tennyson had a post recently that set the average at 159 gallons/capita annual delta.
Postal delivery can walk their route, police bicycle their beat, UPS can make 2 or 3 deliveries from one stop, go 2 blocks and make another, plumber puts far fewer miles on his van, etc. People walk to stores, etc.
Urban Rail results in far greater savings that EVs.
Best Hopes,
Alan
BTW, suburbia was built to be biodegradeable. No great loss and no need to rebuild it in place.
Ed Tennyson has a LONG & distingushed history in transit. Testified against GM on streetcar destruction trial (GM lost, fined $1,000), helped plan DC Metro, electrified Harrisburg to Philly commuter RR, his riderhsip estimates for DC Metro off by 3%, ran San Diego Trolley build (first modern light rail in US).
Alan
So, rail gives a 27% reduction in gasoline consumption?
Miami has local funding (1/2 cent sales tax) to expand their 20 mile elevated "subway" to 103 miles. 90% of the current population will be within 3 miles, half within two miles.
Upon completion or a few years after, I would expect Miami gasoline demand to drop by 1/3rd to 1/2 relative to, say, Ft. Lauderdale.
In 2004, 15 of 23 construction cranes were within 3 blocks of a Metro station. The mere announcement of expansion started a rush to reform the city around rail. (In Dallas, they are building next to stations a couple of years before scheduled opening).
Do NOT underestimate the indirect savings from Urban Rail. I use 6 gallons/month and walk or ride transit for many destinations. This very walkable, pleasant and beautiful neighborhood exists because of the St. Charles streetcar.
Best Hopes,
Alan
The general rule appears to be a 1/4 reduction - why do you suggest 1/3 to 1/2 for Miami?
A map at:
http://www.miamidade.gov/citt//RailMap.htm
Dark Brown lines are scheduled post-2016 :-((
Today's population has 90% within 3 miles of a station and half within 2 miles. This is Rapid Rail (subway, Heavy Rail), not Light Rail with fast average speeds, massive capacity, and potentially frequent service.
The climate & flat landscape is walking & bicycling friendly. GEM EVs could work well once SUVs head towards extinction as another way to get to the stations. Add some streetcar line feeders and neighborhood circulators AND massive condo/office/apartment construction within 3 or 4 blocks of stations AND higher fuel prices and I see a revolutionized city that is now strangling on congestion.
Miami has the potential to be the "best case" example in the US.
Best Hopes :-)
Alan
Well, given that we can expect to have plenty of renewable electricity; that EV's would only add about 6-10% to the load on the grid to handle the rest; and that EV's are only slightly more expensive than ICE's; then, the sensible thing would be to use EV's for the other 50-75%, no?
We are a LONG way from "plenty of renewable electricity". Better to emphasize the higher efficiency uses.
One should also ask the question, how can the US of ~2035 function well with ~400 million people and 7 million barrels of oil per day (very little for transportation including services) ? And dramatically reduce GW GHGs ?
A revised urban form is the only way that I can see that happening. GEM EVs can support a better urban form (unattractive on a 19 mile daily commute, but great for a couple of miles), but bigger & better EVs can slow the needed transformation.
Thus I am agnostic about EVs. They should be, at most, a secondary emphasis IMHO.
These posts are getting
T
o
o
N
a
r
r
o
w
If we go to renewable electricity in 2035, and we have enough, what's wrong with EV's on an energy basis?? They certainly eliminate oil useage, right?
You have said in the past that you feel that an all-renewable grid is possible, and at a price point that's affordable. So, what's wrong with EV's from an energy point of view?
I feel like we're not quite communicating here....
best hopes,
Alan
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thus I use the Ft. Lauderdale: Miami ratio as a metric. Ft.L gas consumption drops, Miami gas consumption can drop off a clift.
Best Hopes,
Alan