Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Electric Cars on Course - June 16, 2010
Unfortunately, like many current issues, politics gets ahead of engineering.
We, the people, demand higher performance from cars, and the automakers must oblige to stay in business. Despite major efficiencies in engine design, and tremendous reductions in actual engine-out emissions, the laws of chemistry dictate that the horses need to be fed. More horses equals more feeding. A 1970s Honda Civic had 50 hp; I can buy a 2010 Civic with 197 hp. No wonder it doesn't get 50 mpg the old Civic got; neither does it take 20 seconds to wind up to 60 mph.
Here's where technology comes into play. Every engine is computer controlled, and has a speed-load "map" embedded in a chip within the engine management system. No matter where and how you mash the pedal, the performance is limited to what is stored in the memory chip.
A sport/economy switch might interact with the computer and switch from a high performance map, to a limited map. We already do this with tuner chips in order to increase power from the manufacturer's setting; why not enable this to decrease performance capability should the consumer so choose, and significantly reduce fuel consumption at the touch of a button? My Suburban could have a 100hp curve for daily driving, with the 325hp available for high speed running through the hills. But I would have the option and control over my choice of fuel economy settings.
Fifteen years ago I ran an engine development company converting heavy truck engines from diesel to natural gas. I was amazed to see what my engineers could do on the fly with a couple of keystrokes on the computer, and at no cost in terms of production units I can see
Give the consumer a choice and they typically will select what makes sense for them, particularly if it costs no more. We tend to always look for the complex solution rather than the simple, low hanging fruit.
Mick Gavrilovic
Executive Director
E3 Consulting LLC
"But whether they will be reliable is another question as is whether the technologies to support them will get better and cheaper with experience."
The technologies of electric cars are well understood, and not bleeding-edge. Electric motors have been around a long time.
Electric cars have fewer components, and less maintenance required. No oil changes, no radiator, water pump, oil pump, catalytic converter, muffler, fuel tank, fuel pump, injectors, distributor, sparkplugs, etc.
I know how reliable they are -- I drive a VW electric rabbit, converted from diesel in 1995 -- 15 years ago -- with a 40 mile range, using off-the-shelf deep-cycle lead acid batteries, and can go 70 mph. It works great as an everyday commuter, and would be fine for 90 percent of Americans' daily driving.
We don't need to build all new electric vehicles. Why waste perfectly good bodies, chassis, brakes, suspensions, interiors, etc., when the existing fleet can be converted, providing needed jobs in every city in America.
Antony Tersol
Thank you for the interesting article.
The BP oil spill in the gulf has heightened the urgency of limiting the use of oil imported or otherwise. While the technology issues of plug-in electric vehicles are being debated and developed, I don't see a reason why the standard hybrid technology (Toyota Prius and a few others) which has been operating on the roads for years now, is not being used extensively. This technology is quite matured now. Still only a few selected models are in the market and majority are still the old gas guzzling types.
The hybrid technology used now requires no additional infrastructure. Therefore the Federal government should insist on maximizing the use of established hybrid technology, while the selected vehicle models using more advanced technology will be introduced at their own pace.
Environmental protection and limiting imported oil are two separate issues. Maximizing hybrid technology will improve gas mileage, and improve the environment. Emissions from coal plants can be controlled to some degree by employing newer technologies, but not so with emissions from automobiles. I can still support a few more coal-fired large power plants if we can take off a large number of gasoline-fueled automobiles from the roads as a bargain, and also reduce our oil imports. Selective use of natural gas-powered fleet vehicles should also be encouraged.
Jasbir Singh
Siemens Energy
This "Addiction to Oil" propaganda is stupid. Oil is a commodity like fish. Most of the fish we eat are imported. Should we do something about our addiction to fish?
The entire world is "addicted" to oil -- not just the U.S. -- for an excellent reason. This "addiction" has driven the world to levels of prosperity never before experienced.
The biggest problems are our "Addiction to Debt", our horrible balance of payments deficit and our IOUs, not oil. If we had goods to sell overseas to balance our oil purchases, there would be no negative impact from buying foreign oil. In fact, under normal circumstances, buying foreign oil is a good thing because it can be had for less than purchasing it elsewhere. Most of our imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico anyhow, and how is that an issue?
As noted on many occasions, the U.S. is the 900-pound gorilla of fossil fuels. Counting all sources, oil shale, oil sands, and conventional oil, we have vastly more reserves than all the Muslim countries put together. On top of that, we are swimming in coal and natural gas. The BP disaster reminds us of the incredible amounts of petroleum that are still to be found, in addition to the disaster that irresponsible exploitation causes. We continue to hear the big lie from the President and others that we use 20 percent of the world's oil but only have 2 percent of the reserves. That is only if we count just conventional petroleum, but why would we want to do that and continue to mislead the American public? For example, right now, Canada is producing large quantities of oil from unconventional sources, such as oil sands, which we largely refuse to do with our reserves.
Many of the same people most obsessed with "energy independence" and global warming are members of the same crew that trashed the domestic nuclear industry, eliminating more than 200,000 high paying jobs that we would have today. And, naturally, we would be much further along in addressing global warming issues had the electric utility industry received support instead of opposition for the nuclear construction programs in the 1970s and 1980s. For what reason do we listen to and elect the class of people who largely created the issues in the first place? They were horribly wrong then, they have little understanding of basic economic principles, and they are chasing after a mirage.
There is a terrible price to pay when we listen to morons with no comprehension of economics. Germany, France, Singapore, Taiwan and Japan do not have any substantial reserves of oil and yet they have high standards of living. In comparison, the U.S. has a huge domestic petroleum industry. In addition, our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, have huge petroleum industries and are net exporters of oil. Indeed, our domestic industry produces enough to supply all of our high priority requirements should we get cut off from overseas. If the Middle East refused to sell us oil, it would cause a disruption for a period until we brought our resources into full production, but it would not be a long term disaster. In fact, the main impact would be curtailing joy rides around the countryside and fewer one passenger vehicle trips. That would be a good result in the opinion of environmentalists.
This is not to denigrate the work and progress on alternative energy. There have been many nice success stories and their participation in the energy arena will continue to increase. However, let's have the good sense to work on things that make sense instead of squandering our tax dollars and investment dollars on make-work projects with little to no chance of a long term impact because of scientific and economic limits. Carbon sequestering for coal burning plants and the "hydrogen economy" come to mind. In the case of the "hydrogen economy", the energy waste is staggering and the impact on fresh water supplies is almost beyond comprehension. Nonetheless, our leaders tell us that the "hydrogen economy" is our future and our tax dollars are going down that rat hole. Do an energy balance with the "hydrogen cycle" and see what you find. Also, calculate the amount of fresh water required. The choice is whether we want to grow food and drink water or make hydrogen. Which do y! ou prefer?
"Energy independence" and eliminating our "addiction to oil" are fools' obsessions. It is easily had any time we want it, but at what price? If we had it, we would not much like the economic result. That is the reason that in the past 40 years there has not been much "progress" in that direction. Indeed, it is not progress at all. Yet our political parties continue to pontificate while ignoring our "addiction to debt." "Addiction to oil" and lack of "energy independence" cannot sink the Republic, but "addiction to debt" and lack of attention to "dirty" manufacturing can most certainly cast us onto the ash heap of history.
Ed Dykes, P.E.
Letters from Readers - June 17, 2010
Scientific consensus is not the way that science determines truth. For example, approximately 90 percent of scientists believed in eugenics at the turn of the 20th Century and the scientific establishment did not accept Einstein's theories of general relativity for years after they were first published in 1905.
How is scientific knowledge advanced? A scientist proposes a theory and makes a prediction based on the theory. Then, if the prediction is matched by reality, the theory is accepted.
For example, the scientific community did not initially accept Einstein's theories of relativity. Einstein predicted that gravity bends light, and he said this could be measured during a solar eclipse. It wasn't until 1919 when Sir Arthur Eddington measured the bending of light during a solar eclipse that Einstein's theory of general relativity began to be more broadly accepted.
Of course the corollary to "If predicted results match actual results, then the theory is accepted" is that "If the theory does not predict measured results, then there is something wrong with the theory".
Now let's look at the track record of Dr. Hansen's temperature predictions. In 1985 Dr. Hansen predicted global temperatures would rise rapidly due to CO2. In 1992 he revised his predicted temperatures downward as it was clear that global temperatures were not rising as he had predicted. In 1998, other scientists noted that his model did not "back cast" (i.e. start at 1890 and predict temperatures) correctly, so the explanation that aerosols from industrial pollution caused solar radiation to be attenuated was developed to explain the global cooling from 1955 to 1970. The aerosol theory said that after 1970 new environmental regulations reduced emissions and the impact of aerosols, which explained the warming that began in the 1970s. There was no global measurement of aerosol concentrations so we had to rely on various assumptions used to impute aerosol concentrations. For example, we were asked to believe that even as China's coal use skyrocketed to triple U.S. coal cons! umption and we saw reports of terrible air pollution in China that overall world air pollution had plummeted since in 1970.
Then, in response to undeniable evidence that the Antarctic had been cooling, not warming, as he had predicted, Dr. Hansen came out with a third revision of his model which now said that global warming caused the Antarctic to cool, not warm. Moreover we were asked to believe that even though the predicted impact of global warming on Antarctica had been completely reversed, the overall impact of the revision on predicted global warming was negligible.
In 2005, the IPCC reaffirmed its belief in existing climate models even though global temperatures had not increased has much as had been predicted.
Now, we have at least a decade where global temperatures have not increased as Dr. Hansen et al predicted. Moreover, we now know from the leaked EAU CRU emails that while many leading global warming proponents publicly stated that they were confident in the science of global warming, they privately were at a loss to explain why the Earth was not warming as predicted.
After 25 years of consistently over-predicted global warming, why are we still talking about the scientific consensus of man-caused global warming? How much longer must these models fail to predict global temperatures before we are going to stop hearing about the "scientific consensus?" Or are we going to be like some scientists and explosives experts in the 1930s and 1940s who still did not believe Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 until the nuclear bomb at Hiroshima exploded?
Ben Ziesmer, P.E.
Nuclear's New Path - June 18, 2010
It would be interesting to have someone with more knowledge about global warming than I have explore which is more contributory to global warming, the heat rejected by less efficient power production or the CO2 from a fossil-fuel power plant. By this I mean the following:
Nuclear power plants have a thermal efficiency of roughly 33 to 34 percent based on information found in engineering handbooks. Supercritical boiler units have efficiencies upwards of 42 percent while the latest combined cycle plants are topping 60 percent. For each MWe a nuke puts on the grid, it pumps about 1.96MWth (6700 BTUs) of heat into the environment. For each MWe the most efficient of supercritical boiler plants puts on the grid, it pumps about 1.38MWth (4700 BTUs) into the environment. For each MWe the latest combined cycle plants put on the grid, they pump 0.67MWth (2300 BTUs) into the environment. Which is more harmful in terms of global warming, the BTUs or the GHGs?
I tried asking the EPA, this question with respect to the inefficiencies resulting from CCS facilities but they danced around the question.
Byron Wooldridge
AES Deepwater, Inc
Keep drilling into this topic. I read everything you send me on nuclear. But reading between the lines (e. g., Chairman of NRC article) is where the real info is located.
I have spent 40 years dealing with the arrogance of my engineering brethren. With respect to nukes, it is not a matter of "if", it is "when" and "where" we will have the Big One, making Deepwater Horizon look like just so much trivia.
So, drill, drill, drill into this topic. You may be surprised what you come up with.
Robert R. Bullard, P.E.
Absolute Engineering Group, div. of Ahimsa Technic, Inc.
Interesting take I found it interesting though that you took the International Safety route for your discussion though, I would contend that if every oil rig had to have 2 resident inspectors like all of our U.S. nuclear plants the safety of said rigs would go up. It would also be interesting to see how these rigs would be able to operate in the inspection and regulatory atmosphere the U.S. nuclear industry lives under, what with various audit teams coming to these rigs almost weekly. Maybe they never would have had the blowout in the first place. For all the grief the anti-nuke forces rain upon us I believe our system works pretty well, and the agency that regulates the oil rigs could not even staff the resident inspector positions at the nukes and we all know there are far more oil rigs than nuke plants.
I think it would be interesting to see some one explore the issue from this point of view. That is if oil rigs were under at least the same level of scrutiny as U.S. nuclear facilities would such an accident as the BP disaster be able to occur. More over what would the effects be financially of the cost of such a regulatory setup on that industry?
Mike Empey
Solar Weather Storming Forward - June 21, 2010
With regard to damage that geomagnetic storms inflict on power grids, perhaps in the future there would be long-term economic merit to buried and submerged long-distance HVDC cables. The occurrence of such storms and the resulting economic fallout also contributes to the case for decentralized generation. Several companies now offer micro-turbine engines capable of providing the thermal efficiency and longevity of multi-gigawatt gas turbine engines. To protect national economies, a percentage of total power generation will have to be highly localized and involve small-scale technologies while a percentage of long-distance power transmission will have to go underground.
Harry Valentine
I admire your effort to present important information about solar weather and grid vulnerability. You mention that the utility companies need to study how to deal with this threat. I hope you read my article published by Energy Central last July.
The problem is that the utility companies will not have the capability to take action on their own with the exception of cutting their transformers and generators from the transmission lines if they get enough warning from NASA that a CME is on its way. But if the CME happens to have the wrong polarity, it will go right by us and it will be a false alarm. A couple of those and there will be less interest in complying. If it's a nuclear blast, there will be no warning. If it's a solar storm, the GIC will couple with the transmission lines to get into the transformers so those lines need to be removed. A GIC can also get into transformers from the ground beneath them despite the large grid that underlies each substation.
National Geographic had a terrific program on last night called Electronic Armageddon. It had to scare those who sat through it. We really don't have a way to protect the grid. There is one possibility and that is a technology that my company has that can work at the sub-nanosecond speed that is required. We made a presentation to the EMP Commission in December of 2008 just before the Commission expired. It was that experience that showed us that we really have the only possible technology. When we told them the cost, they said, "That's cheap." But it is really very expensive. Unfortunately, it is very, very needed. We don't expect much from the U.S. market as the public is not yet willing to pay for protection and push Congress and the Obama Administration to take action. The House has a bill that supports counter-EMP efforts but the Senate has done very little. It looks like we'll be making our devices for the overseas market where we see considerable inte! rest. In fact, several governments are already working on purchase orders. We still need to set up our manufacturing so we won't have product until sometime next year. By then though we may already be struggling to survive in a world of chaos, lacking food, water, sanitation, medical care, transportation, communication, law enforcement, government, and more. The survivors will be those with the most guns and ammunition. We are really at risk.
Alan Roth
Mixing it up with Wind - June 23, 2010
I recently drove through the state of Illinois. There were hundreds of wind turbines along the interstate. Not one of them was turning. If wind turbines are to be a viable source of power, their installation needs to be accompanied with energy storage capability.
Don Drumm
Respond to the editor.
