tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-267444832024-03-12T21:02:02.036-07:00Adventures in Fuel Economy, Energy Use, Physics, and LifeA look at energy use in my life and how it applies to others' livesKing of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comBlogger343125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-42192396135477423122023-06-23T17:14:00.001-07:002023-06-23T17:14:07.551-07:00My foray into electric vehicles<p><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPpLB4OSiPFLWm-mZv9826yDvfi20CtS1XItin4-pmkoyeAOgiyvu3Ni2vOnhLw1ndDALBdtjjqd5fr8peZ8JWHkg1S3iit4GxfDrWGfGqaA3XRHUAeeYLauFmyWdjsxwu6HS7bAcQA3iT9ZysV2BWTN9LHqDqQdrGVLmmbHQJb5K8My8Q8kw/s259/gv60%20-%201.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" height="150" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPpLB4OSiPFLWm-mZv9826yDvfi20CtS1XItin4-pmkoyeAOgiyvu3Ni2vOnhLw1ndDALBdtjjqd5fr8peZ8JWHkg1S3iit4GxfDrWGfGqaA3XRHUAeeYLauFmyWdjsxwu6HS7bAcQA3iT9ZysV2BWTN9LHqDqQdrGVLmmbHQJb5K8My8Q8kw/w200-h150/gv60%20-%201.jpg" width="200" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Over the course of the 16 years that I've maintained this blog (sporadically at best in recent years), there have been a wide variety of cars that I've driven. Some have been very stingy with respect to fuel consumption (my Lexus CT200H is the best example) to fuel hogs (I just ended the lease on a Jeep Trackhawk). My early blogging was almost exclusively related to fuel consumption, both personally and generally. As the years have gone by, my topic space expanded well beyond vehicle fuel consumption and into energy in general and even into politics.</span><p></p><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: normal;">But, for this post, it's back to basics. I turned in the Trackhawk that I'd leased and purchased a battery electric vehicle, the Genesis GV60. The performance model I purchased features all-wheel drive, with 160kW (215 horsepower) to the front wheels and the same to the rear wheels for a total of 320 kW. It delivers 350 Nm (258 ft lbs) of torque to the front wheels and the same to the rear for a total of 700 Nm. Its 77.4 kWh battery pack makes it a heavy car for its size, with a curb weight of 4,890 pounds but in "sport' mode with the "boost" on, it will go from 0 to 60 mph in about 3.8 seconds, very similar to the 710 horsepower Trackhawk I turned in.</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: normal;">With a full charge, it's good for about 250 miles but, unlike an internal combustion engine, there's no fuel economy vs. speed curve with a peak. There's no "engine map." The vehicle "fuel economy," as far as I've been able to determine, is strictly a function of tire rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. Thus, freeway travel at, say, 75 m.p.h. is far less efficient than lower speeds in city driving.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: normal;">I'm not getting what I expected, my most recent charge was 67.5404 kWh to drive 181 miles, or 2.68 miles/kWh. I expected something more on the order of 3.5 miles/kWh but the bulk of my driving has been on the freeway at around 80 m.p.h. Still though, I'm paying something like $0.17/kWh at the moment, so I'm spending around 6.34 cents per mile.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: normal;">In comparing that to an internal combustion engine, it's probably unfair to compare it to my Trackhawk, which is a 710 horsepower beast in which I averaged something like 14.5 m.p.g. and which required 91 octane fuel. But if I consider a vehicle averaging 30 m.p.g. and 87 octane fuel with California 87 octane fuel around $4.49/gallon at the moment, the owner of that vehicle is spending 14.97 cents per mile, over twice what I'm paying. Further, I can utilize a perquisite to get free charges for three years!</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: normal;">I will say that I encounter the "range anxiety" often described for purchasers of battery EVs, and I approach trips that are outside of my commute with more forethought than previously, given that there's not a charging station on every corner. For example, I have a relative that lives in Ramona, CA. The round trip from my home to hers is about 202 miles. To make that trip with no concerns, I need to be close to fully charged and, without locating a charging station, I'd need to avoid side trips. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">And, as recommended, I generally limit my charging to 80% of full capacity. This limits me to 200 miles at best!</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">The car is heavy, the battery pack consists of 384 Lithium Ion Polymer cells with a nominal capacity of 77.4 kWh and a usable capacity of 74.0 kWh. As mentioned above, the curb weight of the car is 4,890 pounds. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="color: #313131;">In an unusual move, parent Hyundai Motor Group opted to use an electronic architecture for the <a href="https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/brand-journal/ioniq/e-gmp-revolution">E-GMP platform</a> that can operate at either 400 or 800 volts (but see below). That allows for “ultra-speed charging” when the latest, 350 kilowatt charger is plugged in — the battery pack going from 10 to 80% of capacity in 18 minutes.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="color: #313131;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="color: #313131;">In any case, I'm over 11,000 miles in the GV60 as I type this. When asked if I'm happy with the purchase, my answer is that I would not purchase this particular EV again. There are several reasons, but most are related to ergonomics and systems engineering, not the actual EV platform. However, even with respect to that, my suggestion would be to wait. Range seemingly goes up with each passing month, and many game-changing energy density developments are being touted. There will likely be no retrofit for current EVs!</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="color: #313131;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="color: #313131;">And now <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/06/21/rivian-joins-ford-and-gmc-on-teslas-supercharger-n/">Ford, GM, and Rivian</a> are adopting (and adapting) their EVs to use the Tesla Superchargers, which pretty much assures that the Superchargers will become the national standard. My GV60 would need an adapter, and Hyundai is considering it.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><span face=""Open Sans", sans-serif" style="color: #313131;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="color: #313131; font-family: arial;">All that said, I believe that the GV60 provides good value for its price and it's pretty clear that EVs are the coming thing. But I'll look elsewhere for my next EV a few years from now.</span></div><div><span style="color: #313131; font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #313131; font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TLV4_xaYynY" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;"><i>Inserted because it's a fantastic cover of a Dylan song and it's from Hendrix' album "Electric Ladyland."</i></span></div>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-78942102503207880532023-04-16T17:10:00.021-07:002023-04-19T18:15:45.093-07:00The Fisker Ocean<p><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCcnonEgFsyUXiW0yVPmy-Bhir6yCUTfcrIvVa9MwtxfB3R_8NkFVpfkK_lCh4g5PRzC9BMRlvYr4PNRirYvCAntX7R2Dt5vWFikYo3aGeWWwN36Plcwjyti5ls94sTXK0Xl6POGkIUa9d0ziYtlm234zUm6W_YMST5-KbVW6T9cyrn2clWdY/s1296/Fisker_Ocean_PDP_Images_Resized_SolarSky_1038x1296_ktg12f.webp" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1296" data-original-width="1038" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCcnonEgFsyUXiW0yVPmy-Bhir6yCUTfcrIvVa9MwtxfB3R_8NkFVpfkK_lCh4g5PRzC9BMRlvYr4PNRirYvCAntX7R2Dt5vWFikYo3aGeWWwN36Plcwjyti5ls94sTXK0Xl6POGkIUa9d0ziYtlm234zUm6W_YMST5-KbVW6T9cyrn2clWdY/s320/Fisker_Ocean_PDP_Images_Resized_SolarSky_1038x1296_ktg12f.webp" width="256" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />I've <a href="https://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2013/11/i-took-my-family-to-la-auto-show.html">published previously</a> on the seeming futility of solar panels on the roofs of vehicles. <a href="https://www.fiskerinc.com/ocean">But Fisker has announced the "Ocean"</a> in various configurations. It's an SUV style vehicle with the "Fisker Ocean Extreme" boasting solar panels for the full length of the passenger cabin. The claim is that solar charging will produce 1,500 miles worth of charge, or even up to 2,000 miles. Let's investigate!<br /></span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">First, how much energy is needed to travel 1,500 miles in the Fisker? Unlike internal combustion engine powered vehicles, there's no curve with a peak in terms of energy mileage as a function of speed. For the IC vehicle going very slowly uses a lot of the energy from burning fuel to keep the engine turning over, and going very fast has a high drag penalty. The sweet spot differs for various models but might be in the range of 50 m.p.h.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">For a battery electric vehicle, there's no such function. The faster you go, the worse your energy economy since it's only a matter of overcoming drag. So, in earlier data collection of my own driving, my overall block speed was on the order of 30 m.p.h. with a blend of city driving, freeway driving, and freeway driving in traffic. I'll use that number, but convert it to 13.41 meters/second.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">We'll go to the naive drag equation, </span>~D=1/2 \rho C_dAv^2~ <span style="font-family: arial;">where D is drag force, </span>~\rho~ <span style="font-family: arial;">is air density (I'm using sea level, at altitude density would be lower and insolation would be slightly higher),</span> ~C_d~ <span style="font-family: arial;">is the vehicle's drag coefficient,</span> ~A~ <span style="font-family: arial;">is flat plate area, and</span> ~v~ <span style="font-family: arial;">is speed. All are in SI base units. I can't find a drag coefficient spec for the Ocean, I'll go with 0.3. The vehicle's height is 1.631 meters, its width is 1.995 meters. Sea level atmospheric density is about </span>~1.225 kg/m^s~. <span style="font-family: arial;">Multiplying, we get </span>~D=0.595 (kg/m) v^2 Nt.~</p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The other drag factor is rolling resistance. This is, to first order, linearly dependent only on the vehicle's weight (NOT mass!). The curb weight is 2,250 kg force or 22,065 Nt. Add, say, 250 kg of people and luggage for a traveling weight of 2,500 kg force or 24,516 Nt. We'll use 0.014 as the coefficient of rolling resistance, resulting in a rolling resistance of 343 Nt. The result is a total drag of </span>~D=0.595 (kg/m) v^2+343 Nt~.</p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Next, power (work/time) is force times speed, so, at 13.41 meters/second, we need ~((0.595*13.41^2)+343)*13.41~ </span><span style="font-family: arial;">or 6,034 Watts or <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=6034+watts+in+horsepower&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS1031US1031&oq=6034+watts+in+horsepower&aqs=chrome..69i57j6.9434j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">8.09 horsepower</a>. This is surprisingly small but, to first order, I'm confident that it's close. Call it 7 kW for our purposes.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">Then, we'll assume the electric motor operates at 95% efficiency and that the drivetrain is 85% efficient, so we need 6,352 watts from whatever energy source we're utilizing. Now, 1,500 miles at 30 m.p.h. will take 50 hours or 180,000 seconds. And power times time is energy so the Ocean's solar panel will need to deliver 6,352 watts * 180,000 seconds, 1.14*10^9 joules, or <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=1.14*10%5E9+joules+in+kilowatt+hours&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS1031US1031&oq=1.14*10%5E9+joules+in+kilowatt+hours&aqs=chrome..69i57j6.7355j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8" target="_blank">317 kWh</a>. OK, can the panel on the Ocean's roof deliver 317 kWh in a year?</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">I'll estimate that the dimensions of the panel are 1.5 meters X 3 meters, or 4.5 m^2. In my Southern California area, the average solar insolation is about <a href="https://www.altestore.com/diy-solar-resources/solar-insolation-data-usa-cities/">5 kWh/(day*meter^2)</a>. This has to be reduced because the panel on the Ocean sits horizontally rather than following the sun. We'll use 50%, so if the Ocean sits outside in the sun all day, we might average 11.25 kWh delivered to the panels. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">Next, we'll estimate that the panels are 18% efficient, so about 739 kWh ~(11.25*0.18*365)~ are delivered to either the motor or the battery pack over the course of a year. </span><span style="font-family: arial;">And here, we're assuming that either the car is in motion and the panels are delivering energy to the motor or that there is capacity in the battery pack to accept the energy.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizSqV7UAFVno9461gcUPJewFLt81OqEL5NATB5Vjdbj2u39Pu8PQ4OBEuUIImgGmw4O1s9XBT8ljXsefzAWBj2rbuVB6IrF8eB6PjihZJSHRSvZG8bUNUCoOhfOunhknyGjkxDDIVTpNxDYbSiR9K2VzSOw5Hxm2N5_ZP1R99tfx-UvCZUv38/s512/Screenshot%202023-04-19%20134021.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="293" data-original-width="512" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEizSqV7UAFVno9461gcUPJewFLt81OqEL5NATB5Vjdbj2u39Pu8PQ4OBEuUIImgGmw4O1s9XBT8ljXsefzAWBj2rbuVB6IrF8eB6PjihZJSHRSvZG8bUNUCoOhfOunhknyGjkxDDIVTpNxDYbSiR9K2VzSOw5Hxm2N5_ZP1R99tfx-UvCZUv38/s320/Screenshot%202023-04-19%20134021.png" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: arial;">Now, speeds above 30 m.p.h. will hurt more than those below will help due to the dependence of drag on the square of speed (refer to plot at right). And this doesn't account for use of accessories, losses due to climbing hills (not all the gravitational potential energy is regained on the downhill), and stopping and starting (even regenerative braking doesn't recapture all of the kinetic energy). It doesn't include being blocked by buildings and trees, and many other factors. And Minnesota, New York, and other Northern states don't receive the insolation of Southern California. That said, I can't say that the claim is irresponsibly exaggerated so, using the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters">Mythbusters</a>' scale, I'll call it plausible.</span><p></p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rmdiaQM43bk" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-55472653048195057842022-02-24T15:10:00.005-08:002022-03-31T12:33:08.337-07:00How "Real" is the Covid-19 Pandemic?<p><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj09PQJXqXuoMlJVHDWIWyj1Sn01Mdr8RcJiCvo-P7d7JG9eTmzYfp988YvFW0kpEVI4sps5pNMVU2ZzB3h4SJv5oDvsmqgqXtt6qR9IaGd76K3vrh6s_9yUPhhthPljbXJMw5BY_Zm2_pksff3MpObG53bH1D37eHsWDCI3ESOXX7mshMBIJQ=s270" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="187" data-original-width="270" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj09PQJXqXuoMlJVHDWIWyj1Sn01Mdr8RcJiCvo-P7d7JG9eTmzYfp988YvFW0kpEVI4sps5pNMVU2ZzB3h4SJv5oDvsmqgqXtt6qR9IaGd76K3vrh6s_9yUPhhthPljbXJMw5BY_Zm2_pksff3MpObG53bH1D37eHsWDCI3ESOXX7mshMBIJQ=w200-h139" width="200" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Yes, it's been a long time. No excuses. But, here we go. No one will dispute that the arrival of Covid-19 has disrupted almost every facet of life in every corner of the world. And yet, just as in almost every aspect of life in the United States these days, Covid-19 has become a political battlefield. As would be expected, the right considers that mask mandates, vaccine mandates, quarantines, lockdowns, and other measures imposed by various governments at all levels are an infringement on freedom, and useless at best and counterproductive at worst. And the left characterizes the right as conspiratorial, intransigent, destructive to society and more. They consider that the measures railed against by the right are common sense, effective measures and that compliance with such measures is necessary for the greater societal good, albeit with serious negative collateral damage.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">I'm not an epidemiologist, virologist, statistician, doctor of any type, or public health expert (whatever that may mean). But it seemed to me that it should be possible to, at least, determine if a real thing has happened. In trying to understand the data that's available, one can find numbers for cases, infections, death rates, deaths attributed to Covid-19, positivity rate and many others. However, the one number in which I have at least some confidence is the simple number of deaths. Death certificates are a binary data point - someone died or did not.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">I use the <a href="https://www.mortality.org/" target="_blank">Human Mortality Database</a>, a database that is updated weekly and has all cause deaths for 38 countries, separated into age groups. One can <a href="https://www.mortality.org/Public/STMF/Outputs/stmf.xlsx" target="_blank">download the current data</a> in spreadsheet form. The U.S. data goes back to 2015 and is sourced from the CDC. I started downloading this data most weeks over the last couple of years. In the beginning, I only wanted to see if there was a noticeable increase in overall ("all-cause") deaths. Below is a chart of this data from the beginning of the database through the first week of 2022 (the data is a few weeks behind as reports are gathered). Note that it is NOT zero scaled.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhLuhg2vPfpxbAPJdKdnpOz78OaEGqHfiGJ7WG4Q7ZRHD1P-g3NbeRy9aDttbmkdV0ufWQ324wA7Zwi5UehgpPVPP_ibq9IICOgjwUMx0HheNuenx2mrVFj19zMtz0s-qpbfDZ0WlseUc4ChTvSeAK68cDtO5W6AWt-Cz8Tkzqw76uNEFOfnY4=s866" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="527" data-original-width="866" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEhLuhg2vPfpxbAPJdKdnpOz78OaEGqHfiGJ7WG4Q7ZRHD1P-g3NbeRy9aDttbmkdV0ufWQ324wA7Zwi5UehgpPVPP_ibq9IICOgjwUMx0HheNuenx2mrVFj19zMtz0s-qpbfDZ0WlseUc4ChTvSeAK68cDtO5W6AWt-Cz8Tkzqw76uNEFOfnY4=w640-h390" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">The abscissa is the number of weeks since the beginning of data (2015) through week one of 2022. The ordinate is the total number of deaths for each week in the United States. You'll note some interesting points. Among them is the very clear annual periodicity. Also, midway in the chart, you can see the evidence of the very bad flu season in the winter of 2017 - 2018. Finally, the very high numbers at the right end of the chart begin, when one would expect the numbers to begin falling in accordance with the periodicity in the spring of 2020, to climb in fairly spectacular fashion.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">The next chart shows each year as its own set of points, though I didn't include all years as the chart is already busy enough. I included 2017 through 2022. Again, the ordinate is not zero scaled.</span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjRptVgmgqCikXuknbjpAOERTDCiwUxl7lt7OfZYH_3U6ofGKmEw8VX87yxnl9tkVsReks0ADOm6Ia7if4c3bP530b8kDARbYPu7QFHl0quYKupEBrZgovqiIoILawvW4b5d-mDgkLAXcm81nJIEPQiNUtmKg4XQidxAfKFQhHp9TK6ay_aJq4=s720" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="720" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjRptVgmgqCikXuknbjpAOERTDCiwUxl7lt7OfZYH_3U6ofGKmEw8VX87yxnl9tkVsReks0ADOm6Ia7if4c3bP530b8kDARbYPu7QFHl0quYKupEBrZgovqiIoILawvW4b5d-mDgkLAXcm81nJIEPQiNUtmKg4XQidxAfKFQhHp9TK6ay_aJq4=w640-h368" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;">It's easy to see that there the data is very consistent by year for 2017, 2018, and 2019 (though the 2017 - 2018 flu season is clearly visible). The various "waves" (initial wave in the spring of 2020, the summer wave of that year, the Delta variant wave, and the Omicron variant wave) are also clearly visible.</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">That led me to think that it would be easy to estimate what people refer to as "excess deaths" attributable to the pandemic. Now, as an aside, I recognize that many excess deaths were not directly due to Covid-19 infections. There have been deaths due to people not getting diagnosis or treatment for heart disease, cancer, kidney disease, etc. due to lockdowns or lack of hospital facilities. There have been suicides and drug overdoses due to depression and idle time. There have been deaths that are likely attributable to vaccinations. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that automobile fatalities rose due to much less traffic on freeways and consequent higher speeds leading to more severe accidents. Nevertheless, it's clear that the pandemic has greatly increased the number of deaths beyond what would have previously been expected.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial;">I took an extremely naive approach. It's clear that, even if nothing else changes, there will be more deaths as population increases. So, for each week, I took the mid-year population for each of the years of 2017, 2018, and 2019 and multiplied the deaths for that week and year by the ratio between that number and the equivalent number in 2020, 2021, and 2022. I then subtracted the mean of the adjusted deaths for the week in 2017, 2018, and 2019 from the 2020, 2021, and 2022 deaths for that week number. I estimated the result to be the number of excess deaths in that week for that year. I then totalled the numbers for each year, resulting in the following:</span></p><br /><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTable15Plain1" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none;">
<tbody><tr>
<td style="border: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 67.25pt;" valign="top" width="90">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Year</b></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-image: initial; border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-top: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>Excess
deaths</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background: rgb(242, 242, 242); border-bottom: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-image: initial; border-left: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-right: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-top: none; border: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 67.25pt;" valign="top" width="90">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black;">2020</span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="background: rgb(242, 242, 242); border-bottom: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-top: none; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;">504,562</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-image: initial; border-left: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-right: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-top: none; border: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 67.25pt;" valign="top" width="90">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b>2021</b></p>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-top: none; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;">571,400</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background: rgb(242, 242, 242); border-bottom: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-image: initial; border-left: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-right: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-top: none; border: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 67.25pt;" valign="top" width="90">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b><span style="color: black;">2022</span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="background: rgb(242, 242, 242); border-bottom: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-left: none; border-right: 1pt solid rgb(191, 191, 191); border-top: none; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.25in;" valign="top" width="120">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;">8,946</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div><span style="font-family: arial;">Based on this, admittedly rather superficial, analysis, it's reasonable to estimate that on the order of 1,085,000 people have died beyond what would have been expected prior to the pandemic. This number compares quite well with other estimates I've seen of Covid-19 deaths.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">I'll make another post with some breakdowns by age but, suffice it to say for now, that the numbers are very heavily skewed toward the highest age groups. So, in terms of lost years of life, the numbers above overstate the situation. Nevertheless, even as recently as the first week of this year, we're still significantly above the adjusted mean of more normal years. If we think that the very old and infirm were already not far from their demise and thus, the pandemic, in a sense, culled the herd, we'd expect a time to come post-pandemic when the total deaths drop noticeably below the adjusted mean for more normal years. I see no sign of that at this time.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O-sVpVIovKk" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-2634992093734038782020-12-28T19:00:00.009-08:002020-12-31T11:54:41.780-08:00The Celera 500L<p><span style="font-family: arial;"></span></p><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYKoZ3zpFH4YAsW8cy92RzQscNEsmGEBssHpgpABiE3zy31K0dXtRVXsz2Nlt6i-vXulkYiWlrFuvptaZsZg_6XnOdtfBQLhT3nyt55tKOaxxuD2tjjTQZyBJycUnNIRMMftB8tA/s2170/Screen+Shot+2020-09-13+at+3.08.45+PM.png" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="888" data-original-width="2170" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYKoZ3zpFH4YAsW8cy92RzQscNEsmGEBssHpgpABiE3zy31K0dXtRVXsz2Nlt6i-vXulkYiWlrFuvptaZsZg_6XnOdtfBQLhT3nyt55tKOaxxuD2tjjTQZyBJycUnNIRMMftB8tA/s320/Screen+Shot+2020-09-13+at+3.08.45+PM.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>Image credit: Otto Aviation</i></span><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />As anyone who's spent any time reading my publications knows, I'm a pilot and have been involved (non-commercially) in aviation for over 40 years. As such, I keep track of developments in the field. Thus, I was fascinated by the news of the <a href="https://www.ottoaviation.com/celera-500l" target="_blank">Celera 500L</a> by <a href="https://www.ottoaviation.com/" target="_blank">Otto Aviation</a>. The performance claims made for the airplane are spectacular, to say the least.</span><p></p><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br />Otto claims that the aircraft has a range of 4,500 miles (statue rather than nautical as far as I can tell) at a speed of 460 m.p.h. (again, statute m.p.h., not knots, as far as I can tell). It's stated that the Celera 500L does so while burning "8 times lower fuel consumption" and "5-7 times reduction in operating cost." For those who don't follow general aviation (that is, all aviation other than air carriers and military), the claimed speed is well above the speeds of high end turboprop business aircraft and not far below those of business jets. For example, the <a href="https://beechcraft.txtav.com/en/king-air-360er">King Air B360ER</a> turboprop achieves 349 m.p.h. in high-speed cruise, the <a href="https://cessna.txtav.com/en/citation/latitude">Cessna Latitude</a> business jet has a maximum speed of 512 m.p.h. But the range of the King Air is 3,092 miles and that of the Longitude is 3,105 miles. Otto claims that the Celera 500L achieves 18 - 25 miles per gallon fuel economy. What might be considered a comparable small jet, the <a href="https://executive.embraer.com/global/en/phenom-300e">Embraer Phenom 300E</a> will get, perhaps, 5 miles per gallon. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Otto states that the Celera 500L achieves these spectacular specifications due to a design for </span><span style="font-family: arial;">laminar flow over both the wings and the fuselage. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminar_flow">Laminar flow</a> is a fluid flow state wherein there is minimal mixing between layers and the flow is "smooth" rather than turbulent. It is a flow regime that minimizes drag, and all (well, most) aircraft designers seek to maximize laminar flow. It is a well-known phenomenon and no aeronautical engineer looks at Celera's web site or the many web sites and YouTube channels featuring the Celera 500L and slaps him or herself on the forehead and says "laminar flow, why didn't I think of that?"</span></div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSnXo_107ujq5e80QVliJbdg2ijbcSe9iJ-r90xpxfcwdlfxnqhekBu7FQMa5pVUCAXRtRbtwarFL-nE77HAeG1bhdDgd_I4-_UM2Xq3LMCYvZXOAHVk17_Xi_M0d7zal0G5RUTQ/s818/Screen+Shot+2020-09-13+at+3.40.03+PM.png" style="clear: right; display: inline; font-family: arial; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="578" data-original-width="818" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSnXo_107ujq5e80QVliJbdg2ijbcSe9iJ-r90xpxfcwdlfxnqhekBu7FQMa5pVUCAXRtRbtwarFL-nE77HAeG1bhdDgd_I4-_UM2Xq3LMCYvZXOAHVk17_Xi_M0d7zal0G5RUTQ/w205-h145/Screen+Shot+2020-09-13+at+3.40.03+PM.png" width="205" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: x-small;"><i>Image credit: RED Aircraft</i></span><br /></td></tr></tbody></table><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /> The engine for the Celera 500L is the "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RED_A03" target="_blank">RED A03</a>" by <a href="https://red-aircraft.com/" target="_blank">RED Aircraft, GmbH</a>. This is a </span><span style="font-family: arial;">compression ignition (i.e., diesel)</span><span style="font-family: arial;"> engine. The engine is stated to be a V12 configuration with each six cylinder side operating independently. It's also stated to be all-aluminum in construction. Per RED's website, the engine is approved by both the FAA and EASA (the European Union Aviation Safety Agency). While diesel engines are typically very efficient due to the high compression ratio required for combustion of the fuel-air mixture, they are also typically heavy as a consequence of the strength required due to that high compression ratio. I'm not aware of any other all-aluminum compression engines.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">As can be seen in the photo above, the aircraft is a "pusher" configuration, the propeller is behind the aircraft and pushes the airplane rather than the standard configuration wherein the propeller(s) pulls the airplane. This configuration has the advantage of letting the wings "see" a flow undisturbed by prop wash. Of course, the propeller is composed of airfoils as well, and they now see air disturbed by the wings and the fuselage, though not nearly so much as the propeller causes, especially given the laminar flow claim. It's also the case that the propeller is more subject to damage from ice shed from the wings in icing conditions and, at the altitudes stated in Otto Aviation's material, icing is certainly possible.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">With all of that said, what is the likelihood that Otto Aviation can live up to their claims for the Celera 500L? It's difficult to do a thorough analysis given that nearly 100% of the numbers given consist only of those claims. The only hard data I could find is the takeoff power of the engine. They do claim that drag has been reduced by approximately 59% in comparison to similar sized aircraft. What can we infer from this?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">With thanks to "Simplex11" at <a href="https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/80639/can-the-plane-celera-500l-be-eight-times-more-fuel-efficient-than-a-jet-of-simil">aviation stack exchange</a> for the approach, we'll use the "59% lower drag" claim along with figures for my airplane, a Cessa 441. My airplane cruises at about 345 m.p.h., using 450 horsepower per side in cruise, or a total of 900 horsepower. The Celera 500L cruises at 460 m.p.h. and a drag of 0.41 ("59% less") times that of a typical aircraft.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">We then have that ~D1=\frac{1}{2}C_{D1}\rho S_{D1}V_{D1}^{2}~ and ~D2=\frac{1}{2}C_{D2}\rho S_{D2}V_{D2}^{2}~, where ~D1~ is the total drag on the Celera 500L and D2 is the total drag on the C441. The Cs, Ss, and Vs are the drag coefficients, reference areas, and velocities of the Celera 500L and the C441 respectively, and ~\rho~ is air density. We can then combine these to get ~\frac{D1}{D2}=0.41(\frac{V1}{V2})^{2}~. Then, we know that power is speed times force, so we have ~P1=D1V1~ and ~P2=D1V2~ and so ~\frac{P1}{P2}=0.41(\frac{V1}{V2})^{3}~. Plugging in numbers, we can calculate that the Celera 500L needs something like 875 horsepower* to achieve the claimed speed. These numbers are, of course, approximate, but note that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RED_A03#:~:text=RPM%2C%20sea%20level-,RED%20A05%20300hp%20V6,best%20brake%20specific%20fuel%20consumption.">maximum continuous power of the RED A03 is 460</a>. And, as a reminder, this assumes that the "59% reduction in drag" is true.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">What about fuel economy? Otto claims "18 - 25 m.p.g." (again, as above, I assume statute miles). The fuel economy can be calculated from the speed, power, and energy density of Jet-A fuel. Should the hordes demand that I show my work, I'll show the calculations but, having already produced an equation dense post, I'll just give results. And, as above, these are approximations based on sparse information. If the power requirement calculated above is correct, the Celera 500L would achieve something like 11.5 m.p.g. If, on the other hand, the speed of 460 m.p.h. can be achieved with the 460 maximum continuous power of the RED A03 engine then a figure of about 21.8 m.p.g. could be achieved. But, as I indicate above, it does not seem plausible to travel at 460 m.p.h. with less than 875 horsepower. And, yet again, all of this is contingent on the Celera 500L achieving the claimed 59% drag reduction. Time will likely tell.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Further questions are raised by Otto's claim that "The Celera 500L has a glide ratio of 22:1 (typical GA aircraft of similar size have a glide ratio of < 9:1)." While I can't question the 22:1, the "<9:1" claim is absolutely false. My airplane has a glide ratio of 14.8:1. Many business aircraft do better. Possibly such airplanes as the Cessna 172 Skyhawk (a four seat, fixed gear airplane with wing struts) may have glide ratios in the range mentioned by Otto, but no light jets or turboprops do. When falsehoods are stated as facts on web sites, I have to question all of the information to be found there.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">And finally, in the immortal words of Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Otto Aviation's claims for the performance specifications of the Celera 500L are, without a doubt, extraordinary and I've seen no evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">Otto Aviation has completed their A round of financing. They anticipate B round financing in 2021 and 2022, during which they plan to begin FAA certification. In 2023 to 2025, their web site calls for C round financing and the beginning of manufacturing and first commercial deliveries. Based on my strong skepticism, I'm not a participant in Otto's financing!</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;">*It should be noted that Simplex11's calculations are slightly different and yield a larger power requirement for the Celera 500L.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="BLOG_video_class" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cht27cFjbYk" width="560" youtube-src-id="cht27cFjbYk"></iframe></div><br /><span style="font-family: arial;"><br /></span></div>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-68753248201803286542020-01-18T22:37:00.003-08:002020-12-02T20:08:56.098-08:00More on Eviation Alice<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLt2vzxR9szNvh40dOWQSXAi8Q_ZSmU1qMhmrM3ohcM9VgsUmqYmBo5bvISGr8q8KCmULVbNE7oHx51AMUy3NU3vfgzVnPXQCjwmtefQuJsup6eAZiYb0mGqjNx71Xt8SS8JpWEA/s1600/1800x-1.jpg" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLt2vzxR9szNvh40dOWQSXAi8Q_ZSmU1qMhmrM3ohcM9VgsUmqYmBo5bvISGr8q8KCmULVbNE7oHx51AMUy3NU3vfgzVnPXQCjwmtefQuJsup6eAZiYb0mGqjNx71Xt8SS8JpWEA/s320/1800x-1.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image credit: Jasper Juinen/Bloomberg</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">I <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2019/07/eviation-alice.html">published a post</a> on the "<a href="https://www.eviation.co/alice/">Alice</a>," a fully electrically powered airplane being designed and built by the Israeli Company "<a href="https://www.eviation.co/">Eviation</a>." The Alice is being promoted as a "9+2" airplane, that is, two pilots flying nine passengers. It is claimed that the airplane will have a range of 650 miles at a speed of 260 knots. <a href="https://www.capeair.com/#/availability">Cape Air</a> had made a "double digit" (actual quantity not stated that I can find) <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/eviation-announces-first-commercial-customer-cape-air-for-its-all-electric-airplane-alice-300870249.html">order</a> (the "launch order") for the Alice. </span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">I expressed considerable skepticism, particularly with respect to the battery pack and to the claimed range.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCdO6mAwwzcxhM9TpHcKhdKIELJcXvEU70jH3MntOihaem0PqZ9Y3kvlFx4vRhcbqc8BMZK1QQr6mZkmcdhEC2aiJBQ0WUl_JsveGHxZ4KFJSrQ-_3wB5Mu-Cfo5At9fQUyjL53A/s1600/Screenshot+2020-01-18+23.27.02.png" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="834" data-original-width="1080" height="154" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCdO6mAwwzcxhM9TpHcKhdKIELJcXvEU70jH3MntOihaem0PqZ9Y3kvlFx4vRhcbqc8BMZK1QQr6mZkmcdhEC2aiJBQ0WUl_JsveGHxZ4KFJSrQ-_3wB5Mu-Cfo5At9fQUyjL53A/s200/Screenshot+2020-01-18+23.27.02.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image credit: Eviation</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">The latest news is that two more airlines have placed orders for the Alice, bringing the total ordered to over 150. So three airlines have made substantial orders and several well-known OEM vendors (Honeywell, Bendix, Siemens, Hartzell) are providing equipment for the airplane. Is my skepticism unwarranted?</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">In my previous post, because the parameters needed for a direct calculation were not given anywhere that I could find, I got my estimate for the range by comparing the energy stated for the battery pack in the Alice to the energy in the Jet A fuel in a <a href="https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/fly/pc-12">Pilatus PC-12</a>. The number I came up with was 258 miles, far short of the claimed 650 and likely a deal breaker for the orders. Can I derail a multi-million dollar endeavor by back of the envelope calculations on an obscure blog?</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">There are two factors contributing to my vagueness on the range calculations: actual energy available in the battery pack; and the drag force on the airplane in flight. A rudimentary dimensional analysis show that the range is directly proportional to energy available and inversely proportional to drag, that is, ~R\propto\frac{E}{F_{d}}~, where R is range, E is total energy available, and F<sub>d</sub> is the drag force. This, of course, makes intuitive sense but, at the moment, I don't know the proportionality constant.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">Eviation claims a capacity of 900 kWh in the battery pack, though it's not at all clear how this can be accomplished. Eviation states that they use Li-Ion chemistry and also make a claim for a proprietary aluminum-air chemistry. <a href="https://youtu.be/OmHnKKuBdco">I don't see how the aluminum-air chemistry can be feasible in an airplane</a>, but who knows? Per the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eviation_Alice">Wikipedia page for the Alice</a>, the aluminum-air battery will be used on a later evolution of the Alice.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">But, for Li-Ion chemistry, the current state of the art is about 260 watt hours/kilogram. At this energy density, 900 kWh would require 3,460 kg, or a bit under 7,630 pounds. At a maximum takeoff weight of 6,350 kg, this leaves 2,890 kg or 6,371 pounds for airframe, power plants, passengers, pilots, and baggage. Again, I don't have any data on the weights of the airframe and power plants. And, in my effort to be generous, the 260 watt hours/kilogram doesn't include the pack.</span><br />
<br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">As to drag, I <a href="https://simpleflying.com/eviation-alice-electric-aircraft/">found a site</a></span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"> </span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">that stated that the "L/D" (lift to drag) ratio of the Alice to be 24. This is likely to be the maximum L/d. Now, in cruise flight, lift is equal to weight. We'll assume a full load, giving a weight of 6,350 kg or 62,230 Nt. With a L/D ratio of at a maximum of 24, drag would be at least 2,593 Nt. Clearly, this is generous to Alice but we'll use it. Now, drag=thrust in straight and level flight, so we're looking at a thrust delivered by the propeller of 2,593 Nt. And P=F*V where P is power, F is force (thrust) and V is speed. So we have P=2,593 Nt * 134 m/s (260 knots converted to meters/second) = 346,817 watts or 347 kilowatts required in cruise.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">Now, a constant speed propeller may be about 90% efficient, so the electric motors must deliver 347/.9 = 385 kilowatts. We have 900 kilowatt hours available so that's 900 kWh/385 kW = 2.34 hours. </span><span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">IFR (instrument flight rules) flight requires a minimum 45 minute (0.75 hour) reserve (we'll hold it to the minimum though I doubt a procedures manual for an air carrier operator would do so, and my policy is to never fly into my last hour of fuel) so we now have 1.59 hours or an hour and 35 minutes of battery capacity for cruise. <i>Note: <a href="https://www.eviation.co/aircraft/#4">the specifications page for the Alice</a> has been updated since my earlier post and gives some numbers that aren't too far off of mine, but I'm sticking with mine because they're derived from Eviation's performance claims.</i></span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">I'm ignoring climb and this is generous because more power is used in climb (though that may not be the case for an electric airplane) and is at a slower speed (in all airplanes). So we can cruise at 260 knots for an hour and 35 minutes for a range estimate of 413 nautical miles or 475 statute miles. And, given the minimal reserve and ignoring climbing at low speed, this is generous.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">I will agree that my rough calculations result in a range estimate higher than that I got using the Pilatus comparison, but it's significantly less than the 650 miles claimed by Eviation (I can't determine whether this is nautical or statute miles).</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">And this might be practical for a flight from, say, John Wayne Airport in Orange County to Las Vegas McCarran International, a distance of 226 (statute) miles, or Kennedy to Dulles, a distance of 228 (statute) miles. You wouldn't want to fly it to Reagan Airport because flight to </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnvrS0rgeLFBjR6Hs54AwtZ3GvAr-rlrpmNTVhCa31Fvzm4-9OImxdu3hBiH8hjorGXguxbA3AL-HqABV87tYHHP23PClc6ovZCFBAtXYvpsMudOF9VWzesLkyHbh71q0vAaRvoQ/s1600/Screenshot+2020-01-18+22.31.07.png" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="349" data-original-width="705" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnvrS0rgeLFBjR6Hs54AwtZ3GvAr-rlrpmNTVhCa31Fvzm4-9OImxdu3hBiH8hjorGXguxbA3AL-HqABV87tYHHP23PClc6ovZCFBAtXYvpsMudOF9VWzesLkyHbh71q0vAaRvoQ/s400/Screenshot+2020-01-18+22.31.07.png" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">or from Reagan requires an air marshall and now you've lost 11% of your paying passenger capacity. There are many such city pairs. At right are 300 statute mile radius circles centered on New York City, Chicago, Houston, and Los Angeles. Such city pairs as NYC - Philadelphia, Chicago - Detroit, Houston - Dallas, and Los Angeles - Las Vegas seem to be feasible.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">And the economics seem favorable. 900 kWh of electricity probably would cost something on the order of $100, and a crew of two might be $100/hour. Maintenance on electric motors is much less demanding than on turbine or piston internal combustion engines.</span><br />
<span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif"><br />
</span> <span face=""arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif">So, taking everything into consideration, and if the data that's been provided so far is accurate, I think there may be a role for such an airplane.</span><br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AnEhC4JUh20" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-64421655109004957072019-10-18T16:59:00.004-07:002019-10-18T17:25:57.139-07:00Am I safe to break in?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQjExZIQgmenQiD1BvlA-vpL40g9-N8Zj2v5QoEdysRvj4RXtAt1smxvso6CID0IbSYR_JZXzj6-htXm15vWIZKqJ1qUYORBxNKPm4XWAc_BUBvGV71_qFQEFD5pKCd5TpEU9PpA/s1600/burglar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="164" data-original-width="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQjExZIQgmenQiD1BvlA-vpL40g9-N8Zj2v5QoEdysRvj4RXtAt1smxvso6CID0IbSYR_JZXzj6-htXm15vWIZKqJ1qUYORBxNKPm4XWAc_BUBvGV71_qFQEFD5pKCd5TpEU9PpA/s1600/burglar.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I saw a commercial for the <a href="https://store.google.com/us/product/google_home?hl=en-US">Google Home Speaker</a> in which the spokesperson was touting the speaker's ability to scare off burglars by playing the sound of a barking dog. I realize there are multiple systems out there to achieve this but that's not my point. I started thinking about this in terms of <a href="https://seeing-theory.brown.edu/bayesian-inference/index.html">Bayesian inference</a>. If I'm a burglar and, during an attempted intrusion, I hear the sound of a vicious dog, what's the likelihood that there's actually a dog ready to attack?</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi27uj5qutggQbX2Y1vXxoZznnz9Ph7aeIu0typMN5OH3_9xhtorRdo4_UcCV-K044VkZloUrW6iZT3SjvawzYNRO_jds6We4aPu34OjD4eWKSQTWPSPT7n0nO-1TVjs-A7X699Vw/s1600/barking+dog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="539" data-original-width="638" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi27uj5qutggQbX2Y1vXxoZznnz9Ph7aeIu0typMN5OH3_9xhtorRdo4_UcCV-K044VkZloUrW6iZT3SjvawzYNRO_jds6We4aPu34OjD4eWKSQTWPSPT7n0nO-1TVjs-A7X699Vw/s200/barking+dog.jpg" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is analogous to the archetypal example of Bayesian inference wherein the likelihood of actual breast cancer is evaluated in light of a positive mammogram ("test"). The "test" in this case would be listening for the sound of a barking dog prior to breaking into a home. A true positive would be hearing a barking dog when there is such a dog (analogous to a positive mammogram and actual breast cancer). A false positive would be hearing a barking dog when none exists, i.e., when the Home Speaker sounds a dog alarm but there is no dog.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In order to come up with an estimate of my safety when breaking in should I hear a barking dog, I need to have an estimate for:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The fraction of homes have appropriate (i.e., big and scary) dogs (analogous to how many women have breast cancer).</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The fraction of homes have a barking dog sound generator (analogous to a false positive).</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The fraction of the time that, if there is a big, scary dog in the house, it will bark and I will hear it (analogous to a true positive).</span></li>
</ul>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'll estimate that 40% (0.4 fraction) of homes have a dog, and 30% of those are of a size that would deter me. I'll estimate that 2% (0.02 fraction) of homes have a dog sound generator. I'll estimate that 90% (0.9 fraction) that I case a home with an appropriate dog, that dog will bark and I will hear it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the table below, I've shown that 12% of homes have a big (barking) dog, and 88% do not. When I hear a big, scary dog, I'm in the "Test pos" row. The 0.108 entry is the 0.12 fraction of homes with a big, scary dog * the 0.9 fraction that the dog will bark and I will hear it. The 0.0176 entry is the 0.88 fraction of homes with no big, scary dog * the 0.02 fraction of homes with a barking dog sound generator.</span><br />
<style type="text/css">
.tg {border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:0;}
.tg td{font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;padding:10px 5px;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;overflow:hidden;word-break:normal;border-color:black;}
.tg th{font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-weight:normal;padding:10px 5px;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;overflow:hidden;word-break:normal;border-color:black;}
.tg .tg-0lax{text-align:left;vertical-align:top}
</style><br />
<table class="tg"><tbody>
<tr> <th class="tg-0lax"></th> <th class="tg-0lax">Actual big dog</th> <th class="tg-0lax">No actual big dog</th> </tr>
<tr> <td class="tg-0lax"></td> <td class="tg-0lax">0.12</td> <td class="tg-0lax">0.88</td> </tr>
<tr> <td class="tg-0lax">Test pos (heard barking big dog)</td> <td class="tg-0lax">0.108</td> <td class="tg-0lax">0.0176</td> </tr>
<tr> <td class="tg-0lax">Test neg (didn't hear barking big dog)</td> <td class="tg-0lax">0.012</td> <td class="tg-0lax">0.8624</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, the probability of a true positive (I hear a big, scary dog and there's actually one in the house) is the number of true positives divided by the total number of positives, or 0.108/(0.108+0.0176)=0.8599 or about 86%. Of course, this number will vary, depending on the actual values for the needed parameters but I think that this is in the ballpark.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Moral of the story: If I'm intending to burgle a house and I hear a big, scary dog, I'd best move on.</span><br />
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OgtQj8O92eI" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-87732564384220420762019-08-10T22:41:00.001-07:002019-08-11T12:34:38.687-07:00Solar energy is GREAT but...<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVbhYeXyrqvAJfwbmquWJF1AYXTFmbXSNQZPb0K0g85tzzfGB3_LrMuWf2f4woMWEt1vQI1H-bCtFIrxIpOmkd1hb9dbPLL0BwFhHHBaB5aW-UYFE1mK1UslvditYc94T4aaz_jQ/s1600/Patriot+battery+charger.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="430" data-original-width="1000" height="137" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVbhYeXyrqvAJfwbmquWJF1AYXTFmbXSNQZPb0K0g85tzzfGB3_LrMuWf2f4woMWEt1vQI1H-bCtFIrxIpOmkd1hb9dbPLL0BwFhHHBaB5aW-UYFE1mK1UslvditYc94T4aaz_jQ/s320/Patriot+battery+charger.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: 4Patriots, LLC</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As is pretty clear from previous posts (and despite my current vehicle, airplane, and travel itinerary), I'm a very big fan of renewable energy. And thus, also a fan of solar power. But sometimes solar <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2013/11/i-took-my-family-to-la-auto-show.html">isn't appropriate</a> for a <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2013/07/solar-sells-anything.html">particular application</a>. To the left is a collage from 4Patriots, LLC, let's see if this device is in the "inappropriate" category.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is a charger for such electronics as cell phones, tablets, etc. Is this an appropriate application? Lithium ion battery in the device is specified on the <a href="https://specials.4patriots.com/vsl24228088?AFID=ACQYTPPC_Sr-01&source=cid-2066953570_agid-77450378318_ad-367757361349_target-kwd-796671892314_network-g_dev-c_placement-&gclid=CjwKCAjw1rnqBRAAEiwAr29IIwxQxpB_o2JemMK9J8C1F-JTS6e6c8Yz_HwEuZt3P3hfgWWCOXB-sxoCUxEQAvD_BwE">advertising web site</a> as storing 8,000 mAh (milliamp hours) or 8 amp hours. The solar array is specified as delivering 1.5 watts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let's first see if the 1.5 watts is reasonable. To do so, we'll need to estimate the size. Using the measuring tool in <a href="https://physlets.org/tracker/">Tracker Video Analysis and Modeling Tool</a>, I estimate that there is an area of about 0.0068 m^2 of solar cells. This is actually generous as I've used to whole area of the face of the charger with the cells. And, during bright sunlight at my location if I hold the device facing the sun I can count on about 350 w/m^2 over the course of a day of actual insolation. Let's give the solar cells an estimated efficiency of 18% (again, generous) and figure the charging can take place at the rate of 350*.18*0.0068=0.42 watts. Well, if we use a full 1000 watts/m^2, we get 1.22 watts. I'd say that the 1.5 specification is an exaggeration at best.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, let's go with the 1.2 as a compromise between the 1.5 watts claimed and the 0.42 watts by my best estimate. And let's think about an iPhone 8, standard model. Such a phone has a battery capacity of 1.821 amp hours at 3.7 volts. This means it will deliver 1.821 amps at 3.7 volts for 1 hour, or 3,600 seconds. Since volts * amps is watts, we have 6.7377 watts. Since joules of energy are the same as watt seconds, we can use 3,600 seconds * 6.7377 watts to determine that the iPhone 8 battery stores 24,256 joules. Charging at 1.2 watts, or 1.22 joules/second, we find that it will take 24,256 joules/1.2 watts = 20,213 seconds or 5.6 hours to go from complete discharge to full charge.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Of course, if you're in the middle of nowhere with no other way to charge your phone and you're completely discharged, you won't need to wait for 100% charge to use your phone. Below is a graph of time needed as a percentage of charge from complete discharge. You can click on it to enlarge. Keep in mind that this is specific to the iPhone 8, other phones with different (and typically larger) batteries will be different. The new Samsung Galaxy Note 10+, for example, will carry a 4,300 mAh battery pack, well over twice as large as that in the iPhone 8, and the Apple iPhone XS Max sports a 3,174 mAh battery pack. And, of course, charging is a non-linear process so don't use this as a "to the minute" guide. It's more of a very best case scenario.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi79YFS-jjfGjoOauDi-lZEW-1u56f9rl-c5sYuvAScpVtwVBUDkpbC29ymxSNNYELWdUrmPxtQdhJppCpi_cMAQt09qoGDhtRurQjXezojfRp425enei8aLp1aMYGZQHU9qZXzVg/s1600/Screen+Shot+2019-08-10+at+10.07.18+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="636" data-original-width="1094" height="186" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi79YFS-jjfGjoOauDi-lZEW-1u56f9rl-c5sYuvAScpVtwVBUDkpbC29ymxSNNYELWdUrmPxtQdhJppCpi_cMAQt09qoGDhtRurQjXezojfRp425enei8aLp1aMYGZQHU9qZXzVg/s320/Screen+Shot+2019-08-10+at+10.07.18+PM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Still, this is actually a lot better than I'd anticipated when I started. It would take about an hour to go from complete discharge to 20%, certainly enough to make a few calls or send some texts. Of course it assumes perfect efficiency in the charger circuit but the efficiency is likely to be fairly high. Even if we use the low end estimate for the area of the solar array, the device will still give usable energy in a not too extreme amount of time, though if we use the more conservative estimates for insolation and charging on a state of the art, top of the line phone, we'd be looking at something more like 7 hours to go from complete discharge to 20%. Nevertheless, unlike the two previously published posts I linked above, this seems to be a good use of a small solar panel.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q4-jOuHO-z4" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-54269730141026580762019-08-06T21:16:00.000-07:002019-12-27T21:25:13.147-08:00Energy Vault Revisited<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF4gZr18xaH3DUETmM_dDEw2HLkP8-LbDEuyyPR94aJfhSy3cbCnw1vOpif2-bzeBMVeHi5AStUDWMkQtfcTSG0-1b7YPENU-Kx3ux3L1TIYiSDwVXlp8HJ2MDOEs_Q0DGXN7yig/s1600/Energy-Vault-storage-tower-co-located-with-wind-farm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="620" data-original-width="1200" height="165" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF4gZr18xaH3DUETmM_dDEw2HLkP8-LbDEuyyPR94aJfhSy3cbCnw1vOpif2-bzeBMVeHi5AStUDWMkQtfcTSG0-1b7YPENU-Kx3ux3L1TIYiSDwVXlp8HJ2MDOEs_Q0DGXN7yig/s320/Energy-Vault-storage-tower-co-located-with-wind-farm.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: Energy Vault</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2019/06/energy-vault-mashup-of-two-of-my.html">Two posts back</a> I discussed <a href="https://energyvault.com/">Energy Vault</a>, a "Swiss-U.S." company whose concept for energy storage is based on the use of tower cranes to stack concrete blocks. The blocks would be raised with electric motors to store gravitational potential energy when energy is either plentiful or cheap and lowered, turning generators, when energy is expensive (arbitrage) or unavailable from renewable sources.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I subscribe to a YouTube channel from a British chemist, </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Dr. Philip Mason,</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> who calls himself </span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-e-0JvyLwLbLwhxtIb-bs95-YMnwBILqO7TNho8ajQkvrSJX0eDWXIasD3NOWQTk2bRKQaVALvAi-Ou-eEqITJRnFf4rHcu6547Pj32OMNCamk6AsMW4sJL3VeA8FA7iWY3qk8g/s1600/Thunderf00t.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="176" data-original-width="287" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-e-0JvyLwLbLwhxtIb-bs95-YMnwBILqO7TNho8ajQkvrSJX0eDWXIasD3NOWQTk2bRKQaVALvAi-Ou-eEqITJRnFf4rHcu6547Pj32OMNCamk6AsMW4sJL3VeA8FA7iWY3qk8g/s1600/Thunderf00t.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: </i></span><a href="http://drunken-peasants-podcast.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_29" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #303a46; cursor: pointer; font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px; letter-spacing: 0.25px; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; outline-offset: -2px; outline: -webkit-focus-ring-color auto 5px; padding: 0px; text-align: start; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: nowrap;" title="http://drunken-peasants-podcast.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_29"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>drunken-peasants-podcast.wikia.com</i></span></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"<a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t/about" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Thunderf00t</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">" and, when he's not criticizing modern feminism or proselytizing for atheism, he "debunks" various concepts. Among several others have been </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Hyperloop</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (the linked video is one of several he's done on this topic), </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzzz5DdzyWY" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Solar Roadways</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> (again, one of many videos he's done on this topic and a topic </span><a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2014/07/solar-freakin-roadways.html" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I've covered</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">), and the </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVsqIjAeeXw" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Water Seer</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">. His videos tend to be long, repetitive, and repetitive (see what I did there?) but, typically, are convincing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Most recently, Thunderf00t <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIhCuzxNvv0">targeted Energy Vault</a>, concluding that it's a scam meant only to collect investor money. I'll summarize his points as I understand them and then state my reaction. Per Thunderf00t:</span><br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">No working installation yet exists, the pilot project (video <a href="https://youtu.be/mmrwdTGZxGk">here</a>) shown in various places does not come close to demonstrating the viability of such a system and, other than that pilot, there's nothing but CGI animation.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Such a scheme will not be effective in windy areas due to inability to control the precise placement of the concrete blocks and the inherent problems with cranes in wind.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The cost would be excessive in comparison with alternative gravitational storage systems (specifically, pumped hydro storage).</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The system could not have the lifespan claimed due to its environmental exposure, intrinsic wear, fatigue, etc., especially in areas where sun and wind for renewable energy generation are plentiful, such as deserts.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The configuration envisioned by Energy Vault is not optimized to maximize the storage of potential energy because of the way the blocks are stacked.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It takes Thunderf00t 24 minutes to make these points. He repeatedly contrasts the Energy Vault system with pumped hydro storage systems in terms of both cost and of capacity. He glibly glosses over the fact that the geographic/geological situation that is optimal for such a system severely limits feasible locations. And, it should be noted, I agree completely that pumped hydro storage is a superb option where geography and environmental considerations permit. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of such locations.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Another point misunderstood by Thunderf00t is the of the claimed ability of the Energy Vault system to quickly "ramp up," in 2.9 seconds to full power according to Energy Vault. Thunderf00t posited that utilities aren't in need of such a quick ramp up, but this isn't correct. Utilities utilize a variety of systems to provide reliable power, from <a href="https://blogs.dnvgl.com/energy/frequency-response-approaches-for-power-system-reliability">frequency response</a>, to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/spinning-reserve">spinning reserve</a>, to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant">peaking</a>, to <a href="https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Baseload_power">base load</a> in order of increasing ramp up times from less than a second through several hours. Thunder00t seems to be thinking only of peaking or base load. For application to supplying energy from solar or wind plants when "the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow" this analysis would be correct but this is undoubtedly not the only potential application envisioned by Energy Vault.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In any case, addressing the points above:</span></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's clearly true that no working demonstration at scale yet exists. However, the technology of lifting concrete with tower cranes is quite standard. I could go out to one of my company's projects tomorrow and watch such a thing happen. As mentioned in my earlier post (and as Thunderf00t mentioned repeatedly), the IP claimed by Energy vault isn't tower cranes or concrete, it's the software that controls the crane movements so as to maximize storage and production and precisely place the blocks even during windy conditions. The fact is that every innovation starts out as an idea with no working model at scale. Time (and investment) will tell if the concept is viable.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Thunderf00t only addresses the proposed use of the system for storage of wind generated electricity, presumably because that's what's shown in the renderings on Energy Vault's web site. Of course, the system would be equally suitable (if it works at all) for solar sites. But, as mentioned above, Energy Vault claims that their control software will enable the system to operate in windy conditions. Many tower cranes have a maximum wind speed limit of 20 meters/second or 44.7 m.p.h. Thunderf00t has pulled up a web site that appears to refer to a specific crane model that limits wind speed to 10 meters/second (he converts this to 30 m.p.h. though it's actually about 22 m.p.h.) but, even in the page he shows, it's stated that "typical values vary from 9 to 20 m/s." I'll concede that I'd need to see the control system operating in a 20 m/s wind though.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In his cost estimate, Thunderf00t states that "a tonne (here I assume he means a metric ton, 1000 kg. or 2,205 pounds) of concrete costs about $100." I don't know what it costs in Great Britain or the Czech Republic (where I believe he's working) but in the U.S. a pretty basic concrete mix costs around $100/yd^3 and that cubic yard weighs about 4,050 pounds or 1.84 tonnes. So Thunderf00t's tonne of concrete costs about $54. Later in the video, he does come down to a number near this. As I mentioned, he compares the cost to pumped hydro, but the locations shown in the renderings have no suitable geography. Given the need for storage, if pumped hydro were suitable everywhere, we'd see more of it. Thunderf00t mentions that the vast majority of energy storage IS pumped hydro but that's because there's so little storage!</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">With respect to duration, I concede that I also see serious problems. Energy Vault mentions a 30 year lifetime but does not mention maintenance! As Thunderf00t states, tower cranes consist of a massive collection of moving parts, many of which will be under significant stress and subject to cyclic loading. It's a recipe for all manner of mechanical failure.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As to optimizing stacking, it's very clear that it would be better to have all the blocks be able to go from ground to top and back to ground as Thunderf00t helpfully demonstrates with children's blocks on a table but the logistics of the system won't allow that. The question isn't whether some other configuration would be better but rather what is the best configuration that can be achieved.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">When all is said and done (and, as the wag said, when all is said and done, much more is said than done), there are many reasons to question the feasibility of such a system and, before I'd invest my money in the venture, I'd need more than is shown on the web site. But Cemex Ventures has <a href="https://www.cemexventures.com/tag/construction-startups/">invested</a> in <a href="https://energyvault.com/cemex-ventures-invests-in-energy-vault-to-support-rapid-deployment-of-energy-storage-technology-using-concrete-blocks/">Energy Vault</a>. Cemex Ventures is the venture arm of <a href="https://www.cemex.com/about-us/our-history">Cemex</a>, a large producer of cement, concrete and other building materials. The size of the investment is not stated.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I've covered a number of non-electrochemical (that is, other than batteries) storage companies and modalities in this blog, some seemingly credible and some seemingly ridiculous. This one seems to be somewhere in the middle. I'm not as certain as Thunderf00t and his commenters that it's a scam but I'm not ready to sink my nest egg into it!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Update: Energy Vault has <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2019/08/14/tower-of-power-110-million-investment-primes-energy-vault-to-take-on-global-energy-storage-markets/#7e81892d7913">received a $110 million investment from the SoftBank Vision Fund</a>. Of course, the Vision Fund has been in the news a LOT lately and not in a good way, having had to <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/www.newyorker.com%20%E2%80%BA%20business%20%E2%80%BA%20currency%20%E2%80%BA%20weworks-downfall-and-a-...%20WeWork's%20Downfall%20and%20a%20Reckoning%20for%20SoftBank%20%7C%20The%20New%20...">bail out We Work</a> and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/03/softbank-more-than-600-million-underwater-on-uber.html">losing money from the IPO of Uber</a>.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
</div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SO5mHKh0Hxs" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-5953404582853962712019-07-14T16:37:00.000-07:002019-07-19T16:26:03.705-07:00Eviation Alice<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixscWFtXqoAIAew8A9MNYG6MfC9bK8UUk9djq_M2y6T1aCKnvKsByIiD1sXWp9jsijjQME0OF4H-xNEB9dL6ZVHRuv7lBtegP5jz8Ilnib7XUukHlKT5-X6kKpv4Rcg8mY2d7-Dg/s1600/eviation-alice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="372" data-original-width="660" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEixscWFtXqoAIAew8A9MNYG6MfC9bK8UUk9djq_M2y6T1aCKnvKsByIiD1sXWp9jsijjQME0OF4H-xNEB9dL6ZVHRuv7lBtegP5jz8Ilnib7XUukHlKT5-X6kKpv4Rcg8mY2d7-Dg/s320/eviation-alice.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Image Credit: Eviation</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As I've mentioned in quite a few previous posts, I'm a pilot by avocation and a dedicated follower of all things aviation. My <a href="https://youtu.be/W0DHhiwvatQ">YouTube feed</a> recently decided that I'd be interested in the <a href="https://www.eviation.co/alice/">Eviation Alice</a>, an all-electric airplane currently being developed by <a href="https://www.eviation.co/">Eviation Aircraft</a>, an Israeli company.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On my first time through the video, I was quite skeptical. The performance claims seemed to be outside of the range of current or near future technology (see below). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTXDI4Y115wxjWYg0jkhCQvREDGHy1YPeuh9FXmW-1YvKexpNHQP0CSwW_wyTPszG9TUWi-mVG85BiTJ3OvkEoqKqIGN3ytNrBXXXDVpz4YHY22u-NktTHEjccu4NpEfwBilm-lQ/s1600/Screen+Shot+2019-07-10+at+7.24.08+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="1600" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTXDI4Y115wxjWYg0jkhCQvREDGHy1YPeuh9FXmW-1YvKexpNHQP0CSwW_wyTPszG9TUWi-mVG85BiTJ3OvkEoqKqIGN3ytNrBXXXDVpz4YHY22u-NktTHEjccu4NpEfwBilm-lQ/s640/Screen+Shot+2019-07-10+at+7.24.08+PM.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px;">Image Credit: Eviation</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As is well-known, the specific energy (energy/mass) of chemical batteries is far below that of aviation fuel and so my first thought was that a 900 kWh battery pack would make the airplane far too heavy to carry any significant payload. However, Eviation claims to have
achieved a specific energy "surpassing the 400 Wh/kg mark." This is quite an achievement if true. Such a battery pack would weigh (using 400 Wh/kg and ignoring "surpassed") 2,250 kg., or 4,960 pounds.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On the other hand, Eviation also states that the battery is 65% of the airplanes weight. Let's work back. They state it's a 9+2 airplane, i.e., 9 passengers, 2 pilots. There is no fuel. A standard FAA adult weighs 170 pounds, we'll add a few for (ahem) girth growth and baggage, call it 185 pounds. 11*185 = 2,035 pounds or 923 kg. The maximum gross weight is shown as 6,350 kg. We subtract the payload and get 5,427 kg in airframe and power plant weight. Eviation states that the batteries comprise 65% of the aircraft's weight, yielding (an approximation, of course) an implied battery weight of 3,528 kg.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFFM6j2DEMiQwyRXZ5I9oHlSECZHF2awZeiXzIG_zsy9WPJ3OLjIWEiyR62FOr7uYOXhSvV_uKDzuEXKkQZcAfHjBjEzJl9a5Jrpw0BKGAm9iaWEnSjjVrI3KmAgwMqyHG5hGXmA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2019-07-10+at+7.31.41+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="716" data-original-width="552" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFFM6j2DEMiQwyRXZ5I9oHlSECZHF2awZeiXzIG_zsy9WPJ3OLjIWEiyR62FOr7uYOXhSvV_uKDzuEXKkQZcAfHjBjEzJl9a5Jrpw0BKGAm9iaWEnSjjVrI3KmAgwMqyHG5hGXmA/s200/Screen+Shot+2019-07-10+at+7.31.41+PM.png" width="153" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i style="font-size: 12.8px;">Image Credit: Eviation</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In any case, current lithium ion technology achieves specific energies on the order of 250 wH/kg, but <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery">aluminum-air batteries</a> can achieve much higher specific energies. Eviation states on their site (from which the graphic at right is copied) that they have a proprietary aluminum-air system in addition to (?) their lithium ion batteries. However, naive as I am, I don't see how this is feasible, given the fact that in an aluminum-air battery, the aluminum anode is consumed in the oxidation half-reaction. The electrode can be reprocessed, but this is hardly the same as plugging into a charging system! Until I know more about the proprietary system, my skepticism is intact.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But lets suppose that Eviation has conquered this issue and can achieve 400 wH/kg in a practical system. As mentioned, they state that the airplane is a 9+2 configuration (9 passengers and two pilots). The usual tradeoff of fuel for payload with which I deal (and which is a consideration for all fossil fuel powered aircraft) is not a factor here. But we have (at least, depending on which of Eviation's numbers we use) 2,250 kg of batteries and 923 kg of passengers and miscellaneous for a total of at least 3,173 kg and probably more. From the maximum gross weight, this leaves 6,350-3,173 = 3,177 kg for the airframe and power plant.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The YouTube video states that the current prototype uses three Siemens 260 kW electric motors. The best information I can find gives a weight of 50 kg for these motors, so the total is 150 kg. We're down to 3,027 kg for the rest of the aircraft - avionics, fuselage, wings, empannage, propellers, interior furnishings, and miscellaneous. And recall that this is the absolute maximum possible weight in that it assumes the absolute minimum battery weight. With more conservative (not to say plausible!) assumptions for battery specific energy something like 1,830 kg would be the maximum. It's stated that the aircraft is all composite, I'll say it had better be!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">All in all, given the contradictory and confusing information on the web site and the weight considerations outlined above, I find it very hard to be anything but skeptical, though I wouldn't go so far (at this point) as to call it a fraud. According to the YouTube video, <a href="https://www.capeair.com/#/availability">Cape Air</a> made a double digit "launch order" (airline industry terminology for the first purchaser of a new model). With such an order and with Honeywell (fly by wire controlls), Bendix (avionics), Siemens (motors), Hartzell (propellers) and others signed on to supply components, there seems to be at least some level of confidence. And Eviation is expecting type certification in 24 to 30 months for the unpressurized version. But I wouldn't book a seat just yet.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What about aerodynamic calculations? </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">None of the key parameters are given to calculate from first principles, so I'll use comparisons to known aircraft. Proceeding in this manner, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">260 kW is 349 horsepower (call it 350) so the total power available is 1,050 horsepower and the cruise airspeed is listed as 240 knots. The </span><a href="https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/fly/pc-12" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Pilatus PC-12</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> uses a </span><a href="https://www.pwc.ca/en/products-and-services/products/general-aviation-engines/pt6a" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Pratt and Whitney PT6A-67P</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> gas turbine engine flat rated to 1,200 horsepower and cruises at 280 knots. The maximum takeoff weight of the PC-12 is 4,740 kg. So, on its face, it would appear that the Alice has sufficient power to produce the listed speed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">How about range? <a href="https://thepointsguy.com/news/eviation-alice-electric-plane-tour/">Here</a> we have the statement that the range of the Alice is 650 miles (statute I assume). Again, using the Pilatus PC-12 as a measuring stick, that airplane has a normal range of 1,646 statute miles. It has a fuel capacity of 403 gallons and, if we assume 40% efficiency of the gas turbine engine and use 131 megajoules/gallon, the engine delivers 2.111*10^10 joules or 5,866 kilowatt hours to the propeller to go 1,646 miles. The Alice has a battery capacity of 920 "usable kilowatt hours" (yes, different than 900 used above, but the statements from Eviation are widely variable depending on which interview or site I look at). Then, if we take (920 kWH/5,866 kWH)*1,646 mi., we can estimate that the Alice should have a range of 258 miles. It's implausible that the Alice has an aerodynamic efficiency of over twice that of the PC-12 so, again, I'm very skeptical.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Eviation states that the Alice on display at the recent Paris Air Show is a flying prototype and they are only awaiting FAA approval to begin flight tests. They state that they expect to fly later this year. Given the lack of consistency of their claims and the rough estimates above, I'll await the results. But, despite the apparent confidence of the very reputable OEM suppliers listed above, I'm putting this in my "I'll believe it when I see it" file.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HmQq6yLe2ww" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-7059626732286541362019-06-22T14:54:00.002-07:002019-06-22T14:54:26.113-07:00Energy Vault: A mashup of two of my interests<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR6_9ZYIVjnznATJHFUMUfNs4Rwgo_kNmqDCkmkqAZLXxVrrrq4Gp5LM2RRgGsJQc6wbhKKmlR12DyRqMOPLSoCHaaatFGIhLk2oyheGzghA41lbsyndFhlqXKthmpoL0Cs8u75w/s1600/EnergyVaultTower-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="991" data-original-width="659" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjR6_9ZYIVjnznATJHFUMUfNs4Rwgo_kNmqDCkmkqAZLXxVrrrq4Gp5LM2RRgGsJQc6wbhKKmlR12DyRqMOPLSoCHaaatFGIhLk2oyheGzghA41lbsyndFhlqXKthmpoL0Cs8u75w/s320/EnergyVaultTower-2.jpg" width="212" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Image Credit: <a href="https://energyvault.com/#about-us">Energy Vault</a></i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My occupation is as an executive in a firm that provides materials testing, inspection, consulting, and engineering in the construction space. We deal with all aspects of the built environment with the exception of single family housing. As such, concrete is a fundamental area of my firm's expertise. And, as is clear, energy in all its aspects is a personal interest, not to say obsession, of mine. Finally, as I've elaborated in multiple posts, to bring renewable energy to the level of being able to provide</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336">base load</a></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-12/renewable-energy-baseload-power/9033336"> power</a>, I contend that relatively inexpensive energy storage will be needed.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Energy comes, basically, in two forms: kinetic; and potential. And while storage via kinetic energy is possible (think flywheels and thermal storage), most forms of storage utilize potential energy. Batteries utilize chemical potential energy, c<a href="http://energystorage.org/compressed-air-energy-storage-caes">ompressed air energy storage</a> utilizes mechanical energy, etc. And finally, gravitational potential energy is utilized in <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/09/rocks-on-rails.html">various</a> <a href="http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage">systems</a>. In fact, most grid scale storage currently in place uses pumped hydro storage.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But any system of raising a mass against the force of gravity has the potential (get it?) to be used for storage. And a Swiss firm called <a href="https://energyvault.ch/">Energy Vault</a> has constructed a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=105&v=mmrwdTGZxGk">prototype</a> of a storage solution using concrete lifted by tower cranes. It's clear that the technology for producing concrete is not new, and tower cranes are ubiquitous in the developed world. The innovation claimed by Energy Vault lies in the software to efficiently determine crane movements to optimize storage of excess energy and to deliver energy when needed.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In a previous set of posts (the last one is <a href="https://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-much-storage-is-necessary-part-4.html">here</a>), I estimated that a 3 MW nameplate capacity wind turbine combined with 40 MWh of storage could reliably provide 725 kW of base load power. What would 40 MWh of storage look like with the Energy Vault system? Energy Vault's web site states that an operational plant would have the capacity to store "between 10 and 35 MWh" of electrical energy and be able to deliver that energy at a rate of from 2 to 5 MW. Based on this claim, perhaps two such plants would be sufficient to provide storage for our hypothetical 735 kW plant and would be able to deliver the energy at the needed rate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So as not to subject my readers to endless calculations, suffice it to say that the energy stored by lifting a mass against gravity is simply the product of the mass of the object lifted, the height to which it is lifted, and the local gravitational acceleration constant. Let's say we'll settle for two storage plants, each with a capacity of 20 MWh. For calculating purposes, we need to convert 20 MWh to the 7.2*10^10 J (joules, the SI unit of energy). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We have two "knobs" that we can control to determine how much energy is stored in a storage system of the nature of that of Energy Vault. We can control the height to which our masses are lifted and we can control the amount of mass. And (net of losses), energy stored by lifting a mass against gravity is E=mgh, where E is the energy, m is the mass, g is the acceleration of gravity, and h is height. However, for the purposes of the physical logistics of our plant, we're really concerned about the volume of concrete so we'll use m=ρ*v where ρ is density and v is volume. This yields E=ρvgh. To isolate the knobs we can control, a little algebra yields E/(ρg)=vh. Concrete is <a href="https://www.everything-about-concrete.com/density-of-concrete.html">typically quoted</a> as having a density of 2,400 kg/m^3, g is 9.8m/s^2 and we need 7.2*10^10 J. Plugging these in, we see that we need v*h=7.2*10^10/(9.8*2,300)=3.06*10^6. This is the required product of height in meters times volume in meters^3.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In order to determine the feasibility we need to understand what an actual installation might look like, and Energy Vault helpfully includes an animated video of a hypothetical production facility.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/itbwXMMkBQw/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/itbwXMMkBQw?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While there's not a lot of information on the Energy Vault site with respect to tower height, plant radius, etc., <a href="https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concrete-blocks-is-a-surprisingly-efficient-way-to-store-energy/">Quartz has a writeup</a> on the system that states that a tower would be on the order of 120 meters tall and the diameter of the installation would be around 100 meters. For our 40 MWh system, we need two of these.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's also stated that each concrete block weighs about 35 metric tons (35,000 kg) and so the volume of each block would be 35,000/2,400 = 14.6m^3. Judging from the video, the concrete height is about 100 meters, and clearly it's not possible to have each block raised from the ground to 100 meters and lowered back to the ground, the blocks have to be stacked. I'd assume that it would be possible to have the average of the lift and drop to be 50 meters.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Does all of this make sense in comparison to the numbers from the earlier paragraph? We need height times volume to be 3.06*10^6 m^4. This means that we need about 3.06*10^6/50 = 61,200 m^3 of concrete. The video shows the beginning configuration to be basically a cylinder of concrete about 100 meters tall and a radius of, I estimate, 13 meters. This yields a volume of about 53,000m^3. This is not too bad, given the accuracy of estimates for height, radius, etc.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, in the U.S., we typically measure concrete volume in cubic yards, where a cubic meter is 1.308 cubic yards, so we're talking about a little over 80,000 yd^3 of concrete. Right now, a cubic yard of generic concrete costs around $80/yd^3 so the concrete cost alone (not counting concrete for the foundation) would be on the order of $6.4MM. However, Energy Vault claims to have developed the capability to use discarded materials as aggregate. Further, the concrete really needs very little compressive strength and so the cement requirement could be very low. Let's generously cut the $6.4MM by two thirds and call it $2.13MM. So we see that the concrete cost might be on the order of $2.13MM/20MWh = $156,500/MWh or $156.50/kWh. This is similar to the current cost of a lithium ion battery storage but doesn't include the cranes, the foundation, the construction, the control system, or the power electronics. To be fair, Li ion storage costs also are higher than strictly the battery costs.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Among the advantages of the Energy Vault solution are: negligible degradation of capacity over time; no use of rare elements; no toxic chemicals; no danger of thermal runaway. Is this the answer for turning our 3MW wind turbine into a reliable 725kW base load energy system? Well... as in so many things, it boils down to economics. I'll cover that in a future post at some yet to be determined future time.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
</div>
<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FFqb1I-hiHE" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-4447062354135872912018-06-03T00:33:00.001-07:002018-06-03T02:10:53.133-07:00Requiem for LightSail Energy<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpeOdM3xiIq_tf75WTAwt78XAUrqnoCWbVAvJJ9BPnjO16ErsNds8Nma8iQ90DOtDinLl8JE5_DS6w2vcLztzyRnmuCdiVwu7LT3K5YoMB5rzpFmJ_U9hBgvtfsyoERkN1nmpH_w/s1600/LightSail+Thanksgiving.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpeOdM3xiIq_tf75WTAwt78XAUrqnoCWbVAvJJ9BPnjO16ErsNds8Nma8iQ90DOtDinLl8JE5_DS6w2vcLztzyRnmuCdiVwu7LT3K5YoMB5rzpFmJ_U9hBgvtfsyoERkN1nmpH_w/s320/LightSail+Thanksgiving.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image Credit: LightSail Energy</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I've <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/01/ok-enough-negativity.html">published </a><a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-on-lightsail-energy.html">multiple </a><a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/10/lightsail-yet-again.html">posts </a>concerning <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSail_Energy">LightSail Energy</a> and its Chief Science Officer, <a href="https://daniellefong.com/about-the-author/">Danielle Fong</a>. I was enthusiastic about the the Lightsail Energy compressed air energy storage technology concept, wherein a water mist was to have been used during compression in order to produce a quasi isothermal compression process and consequently reducing thermal losses. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And I wasn't alone in my enthusiasm, such notables as Vinod Khosla, Bill Gates, Peter Thiel, Total, and others invested somewhere in the vicinity of $80MM in LightSail.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But, despite the confidence of these very bright investors and the large amount of capital invested, LightSail Energy is, according to co-founder Stephen Crane, in a state of "<a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lightsail-energy-cheap-compressed-air-storage-hibernation#gs.5GXgCnk">hibernation</a>." I follow <a href="https://twitter.com/daniellefong">Ms Fong on Twitter</a> and, off and on, have corresponded with her. I haven't read anything from her with respect to the fate and apparent demise of LightSail, but the tenor of her Tweets is that she's moved on.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This saddens me because, the potential of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4&t=2274s">near-term success of hydrogen fusion</a> as an energy source notwithstanding, I am firmly convinced of the urgency of weaning ourselves from near-total reliance on fossil fuels for energy and saving those resources for applications for which substitution is extremely difficult such as transportation fuels (airlines, transoceanic shipping for example). Electricity is the low-hanging fruit here, albeit a pretty high low-hanging fruit! We have wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and other ways to harvest energy that don't directly involve the burning of fossil fuels and all of them result in the generation of electricity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But the most bountiful categories are solar and wind (hydro, while certainly a large contributor, has mostly been "built out," i.e., the best sources have already been exploited) and those are intermittent sources. In order for them to provide so-called "base load" power, a method of eliminating this intermittency must be employed. This can be accomplished in part by wide geographic dispersion, but the holy grail would be the ability to store energy when the wind blows and the sun shines.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Currently, nearly all new storage installations involve large lithium ion battery installations. But Li ion batteries, while good and continuing to improve, have downsides. They degrade over time, they require assiduous management both to preserve lifespan and to prevent issues of thermal runaway. And, in comparison to large scale pumped hydro storage (PHS) and compressed air energy storage (CAES), the energy capacity of Li ion battery installations is not as large (see chart below, note the log-log scale).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjevMI1UPmmPyDVE29m0eCxRBUIdOqk1uJLw3lsN0RgSl8dxYEz1P9JZOAFgKVeFqhELwHLBFjyhrBSgksD6goyCHv6P24kyrXhgIqiLUbDMuKIAQnDMFVxPq0s5q6E20Zz0BCJkQ/s1600/Energy+storage+power+vs+energy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="366" data-original-width="711" height="328" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjevMI1UPmmPyDVE29m0eCxRBUIdOqk1uJLw3lsN0RgSl8dxYEz1P9JZOAFgKVeFqhELwHLBFjyhrBSgksD6goyCHv6P24kyrXhgIqiLUbDMuKIAQnDMFVxPq0s5q6E20Zz0BCJkQ/s640/Energy+storage+power+vs+energy.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image credit: unknown</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHKulpMN9NeMRLDBbyep1x81wm1AaOdfC82u4jIsG4vaofI9X_BzEt1kkGThj-bHKJJ5OP2FCWzSWyb3Df1Mk4i8vlY2RkvwfODIK05kYuw1rh7O9HYettucc4Dwp-DEMsG7k82Q/s1600/LightSail_Energy_LighStore_module_photo-7b1277bed63e9e2ea07a9672a951d45c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1063" data-original-width="1600" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHKulpMN9NeMRLDBbyep1x81wm1AaOdfC82u4jIsG4vaofI9X_BzEt1kkGThj-bHKJJ5OP2FCWzSWyb3Df1Mk4i8vlY2RkvwfODIK05kYuw1rh7O9HYettucc4Dwp-DEMsG7k82Q/s320/LightSail_Energy_LighStore_module_photo-7b1277bed63e9e2ea07a9672a951d45c.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Image credit: LightSail Energy</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In the chart, you'll find the "Large CAES" installations in the upper right hand corner. However, the two installations plotted use underground caverns as their containment vessel and need natural gas heating in order to function. LightSail was developing modular units of much smaller size using above-ground storage in tanks. And, in what now seems to have been a last-ditch effort to continue, <a href="http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/lightsail-energy-launches-lightstorer-gas-transport-module-targeting-breakthrough-economics-2165657.htm">LightSail began an attempt to market the tanks</a> they'd developed and, apparently, delivered at least one.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Unfortunately, the <a href="http://lightsailenergy.com/">LightSail</a> web site is gone and with it, I'm afraid, is the investors' money and the hopes and dreams of Danielle Fong.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iQ5iuREPokw" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-24280656062987627962018-04-28T17:48:00.002-07:002018-04-28T17:48:47.087-07:00My airline fuel use<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmCQsT3j8TqnQxfdbvaDONp8uHuoPUo5czc8D2wkXD-0BdStAn9Y-OMOnflv-6ZOlnIsnqPWLq8Oh5SlTLjThDDZe98WwJR7F9zXsn3VnQtw41EnQ2bJtVcBMK57Ox8oIKWNSapQ/s1600/crews-refuel-jet-LAX-airport.jpg.838x0_q80.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="528" data-original-width="838" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmCQsT3j8TqnQxfdbvaDONp8uHuoPUo5czc8D2wkXD-0BdStAn9Y-OMOnflv-6ZOlnIsnqPWLq8Oh5SlTLjThDDZe98WwJR7F9zXsn3VnQtw41EnQ2bJtVcBMK57Ox8oIKWNSapQ/s320/crews-refuel-jet-LAX-airport.jpg.838x0_q80.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Undoubtedly to the disdain of those who seek to minimize energy use and, in particular, energy use that involves travel via the burning of fossil fuels, I do a significant amount of airline travel. And, beginning in August of 2017, I added fuel burn (by asking the flight crew, who is invariably happy to entertain my questions), distance traveled, and number of passengers on each flight to my log. I calculate such things as passenger miles per gallon, joules of fossil fuel energy used per passenger, and a variety of other pieces of data.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For the “big numbers,” I’ve flown 27,068 miles on 25 “legs.” Over these miles, I’ve been responsible for 383 gallons of jet A being burned, for a mileage of 70.7 m.p.g. As my patient readers likely would infer, despite my having exchanged my Lexus CT 200h in which I achieved over 50 m.p.g. for a Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT that achieves about 16.5 m.p.g., I still obsessively log my driving fuel burn. In the time that I’ve traveled the 27,000 miles in airliners, I’ve driven 12,573 miles and burned 758 gallons of gasoline for a mileage of 16.46 m.p.g. I very rarely have a passenger in my car. I'd estimate that, of the 12,573 miles, I've had a single passenger for something like 750 miles which results in a passenger mileage of 17.6 m.p.g. Miles driven with more than one passenger were negligible. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Had I traveled those same miles in the CT 200h, I'd have burned about 241 gallons of fuel.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What can I make of this? 68.3% of my miles traveled have been in airliners (ignoring when I've been in the road vehicles of friends and associates) but only 33.6% of the volume of fossil fuels burned have been in those airliners. Again, had I still been driving the Lexus CT 200h, the figures would be 68.3% (of course) and 61.4%.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The fact of the matter is that modern airliners are amazingly efficient. If I drove my Jeep with three passengers, I'd still not exceed the fuel economy of the airliner, though the same four people in the Lexus would far exceed that fuel economy. But I'm not aware of anyone who carries a full car load of people any for any significant fraction of their driving.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The most common engines on my flights are the <a href="https://www.cfmaeroengines.com/engines/cfm56/">CFM56</a>-7B series (the dash 7B24 variant was the culprit on Southwest flight 1380 that suffered a fan blade rupture resulting in the death of a passenger). The dash 7B24 variant produces a maximum thrust of 24,200 lbf (pounds force) and the dash 7B26 produces 26,300 lbf, though these thrust levels are only used during takeoff and early climb. A typical number in cruise is more like 5,800 lbf. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Giving that a little thought, it's pretty startling that a force of 11,600 pounds is all that's needed to push a vehicle with a weight on the order of 150,000 pounds through the air at 530 m.p.h.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There's no doubt that my travels, both now in the Jeep and multiple times per year in the "big silver bird" are contributing more than my fair share of carbon emissions. If I use very rough figures, the 39,641 miles that I've traveled since August of 2017 annualize to the emission of something like 15 tons (Imperial short tons that is) per year of carbon dioxide attributable to my travel with about 36% of those emissions due to airline travel.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jlFXhigvTvM?rel=0" width="560"></iframe><br />King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-48509230911273568372017-12-27T19:00:00.000-08:002017-12-27T19:00:16.172-08:00Charging the Tesla class 8 semi<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz6iyBRzuRC2YzT9tVzOmn3Qfzx9Q6w93a32mov7vcl0mxdu5qjKCDiNpYejn_muZpRQeqxRXzqdKnpZQymExiqA7I-6s7C_sqVNHThEigwe_2KmhnvB2oQwMO8O8vorV5EiRx8A/s1600/Fast-Charging-Battery-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="600" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz6iyBRzuRC2YzT9tVzOmn3Qfzx9Q6w93a32mov7vcl0mxdu5qjKCDiNpYejn_muZpRQeqxRXzqdKnpZQymExiqA7I-6s7C_sqVNHThEigwe_2KmhnvB2oQwMO8O8vorV5EiRx8A/s200/Fast-Charging-Battery-1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is my third post regarding the Tesla class 8 truck. The <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-tesla-class-8-truck.html">first</a> covered the range claim and the consequent weight ramifications. The <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2017/12/tesla-class-8-truck-part-2.html">second</a> covered the cost. And, of course, the numbers were my estimates only. In this post I'll consider the charging situation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The "poster" claim is that charging stations will enable the 500 maximum mile range truck to charge sufficiently for a 400 mile range in 30 minutes. In my first Tesla truck post I estimated that the battery pack capacity to enable a range of 500 miles would need to be about 1,145 kWh (kilowatt hours) so 400 miles would need about 915 kWh. To deliver this energy in 30 minutes requires power to be delivered at 1,830 kilowatts, that is, 1.83 mW (megawatts). And battery charging isn't 100% efficient, so we'll say 90%. Now we need to deliver energy at a rate of just over 2 megawatts!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The current inventory of <a href="https://electrek.co/2016/12/26/tesla-supercharger-v3-zev-credits/">Tesla Superchargers</a> for the Models X, S, and 3 deliver energy at a rate of up to 140 kW, about 8% of the required power for a "Megacharger" for the 30 minute/400 mile charge for a Tesla semi. Now, Elon Musk has <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/812707766653460480">hinted on Twitter</a> of much higher charging rates, hinting that the megacharger's rate will be far in excess of 350 kW.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBwA-yulg9yox2yWN63RK2KrHPR7ZlFQsQ_KoQL02aoP6Ndng1WVlme5GWvr3kyZKn6gWFygKDyjoipiKmmozQmkkhSNw8shaNXFdd4XmSINlqgSk178NuR2JGoava4lU9YwPDxA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2017-12-25+at+11.55.05+AM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="554" data-original-width="1006" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBwA-yulg9yox2yWN63RK2KrHPR7ZlFQsQ_KoQL02aoP6Ndng1WVlme5GWvr3kyZKn6gWFygKDyjoipiKmmozQmkkhSNw8shaNXFdd4XmSINlqgSk178NuR2JGoava4lU9YwPDxA/s320/Screen+Shot+2017-12-25+at+11.55.05+AM.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Elsewhere, rates on the order of 1.6mW are discussed in the main article <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/17/tesla-semi-8-charger-holes-800-kwh-battery-tesla-megacharger-1-6-megawatts/">here</a>, and the comments are interesting as well. There is discussion of the solar charging aspect, even to the extent of putting solar panels on the roofs of the trailers to be hauled by the semi, something that I may take up in a subsequent post.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are several concerns with respect to delivering energy at the rate of 2 mW. First, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">what will such a charge actually cost?</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Second, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">how will such power be delivered given that multiple trucks will be charging simultaneously? </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Third, </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">will a battery pack hold up under such charging rates, presumably applied on a daily basis?</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While the first question might seem like a no-brainer advantage for the Tesla, we'll take a look anyway. It's true that, at about 2 kWh/mile and a typical industrial rate of <a href="https://www.rockymountainpower.net/about/rar/ipc.html">$0.0692/kWh</a>, the implied rate of about $0.14/mile for energy looks very favorable in comparison to 1/7 of a gallon of diesel at <a href="http://www.truckmiles.com/FuelPrices.asp">$2.93/gallon</a> yielding $0.42/mile. But the infrastructure for delivering diesel fuel to trucks is long since built out and the capital costs fully recovered. The Tesla megachargers are merely hypothesized, not built out and paid for. Unfortunately, I have no idea what Elon Musk has in mind with respect to what he'll build, where he'll build it, and how he'll recover its costs. He does say, in his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nONx_dgr55I">introductory video</a>, that there are "guaranteed low electricity rates for Tesla." But, one way or another, the infrastructure will have to be paid for. Call it a wild card.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What about question number two? Musk has mentioned <a href="http://mashable.com/2017/11/17/tesla-semi-megachargers/#0nTNrQCdPgqr">solar power for the megacharger stations</a>, but that doesn't necessarily imply a solar roof over a few acres at every truck stop. It could just as easily mean offsetting grid supplied electricity at truck stops with solar electricity offsets at favorable locations. Musk makes somewhat contradictory statements when he discusses recharging at destinations while trucks unload and/or at the truck's base while loading. Whether he's discussing a megacharger at such locations (so that the truck owner would own or lease the charger) or whether he's discussing standard charging isn't clear.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He also discusses being able to take the trucks "anywhere in the world," implying that charging facilities will be ubiquitous. Again, whether all of these facilities would be megachargers isn't made clear. Another possibility would be having a premium charge for the megacharger. Again, details aren't available. Thus, I have insufficient information to speculate in detail.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But I do have to look at one aspect. <a href="https://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm">Here</a>, we find that something like two million tractor trailers are registered in the US. I'll just speculate (really, guess, though I hate guessing) that something like 1.5 million are actively earning money for their owners by hauling freight. I'll also use <a href="https://hdstruckdrivinginstitute.com/semi-trucks-numbers/">the estimation</a> that each such truck drives about 45,000 miles per year.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, if Tesla were to replace 10% of the semi truck fleet, their trucks would travel 45,000 * 150,000 or 6.75 billion miles/year. At 2 kWh/mile, they'd use 13.5 billion kWh or 13.5 gWh (gigawatt hours)/year of electrical energy. As an aside, this rate represents an average power of a bit over 1.5 mW, though the rate will obviously vary hugely. Nevertheless, this hardly seems like a large strain on the US electrical grid. Discovery Network's Science Channel is currently replaying all of the Mythbusters episodes from the original crew's 14 seasons so I'll echo their nomenclature and call it "PLAUSIBLE."</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Both for the reason that this post is already plenty long and the reason that I'm still doing some reading on the effects of consistent extremely high charge rates on Li ion batteries, I'll defer to a subsequent post on that topic and end this post here.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TLV4_xaYynY" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-31279402547745101422017-12-17T09:35:00.001-08:002017-12-17T10:01:31.084-08:00Tesla class 8 truck, part 2<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPMcjXXN47LLCh2AeNMSuz-G7Bfrdd2ps1UBQ3JZvPwrV1AA19y76TOMqFPVxyfjPQVtoPy6kiHDrnX3KBD5QM4u6CkGL7Ue5AMtwOVhs4xZT6lPJt9GgAYh_nCDbUfj6bMWdUaA/s1600/Battery+powered+truck.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="193" data-original-width="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPMcjXXN47LLCh2AeNMSuz-G7Bfrdd2ps1UBQ3JZvPwrV1AA19y76TOMqFPVxyfjPQVtoPy6kiHDrnX3KBD5QM4u6CkGL7Ue5AMtwOVhs4xZT6lPJt9GgAYh_nCDbUfj6bMWdUaA/s1600/Battery+powered+truck.jpeg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: <a href="http://matchmakerlogistics.com/">Matchmakerlogistics.com</a></i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In my <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-tesla-class-8-truck.html">previous post</a> I estimated the weight penalty imposed by the need for a battery pack that will enable the Tesla Truck to have a range of 500 miles. Next, I'll take a look at the pricing situation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As most know, battery packs of the size to supply energy to road vehicles are very expensive. In fact, in the opinion of many, the U.S. Government subsidy is the only reason the BEVs (battery electric vehicles) have sold as well as they have, especially in the relatively lower price classes such as those occupied by such cars as the <a href="http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle">Chevrolet Bolt</a>, the <a href="https://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/">Nissan Leaf</a>, and the <a href="https://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-will-re-enter-the-ev-race-in-2017-with-an-all-electric-version-of-its-clarity/">Honda Clarity EV</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's not easy to get a handle on the price of a battery pack, but synthesizing <a href="https://electrek.co/2017/01/30/electric-vehicle-battery-cost-dropped-80-6-years-227kwh-tesla-190kwh/">various </a><a href="https://electrek.co/2017/06/12/gm-bolt-ev-battery-pack-price-cost/">sources</a>, it seems likely that battery packs from the <a href="https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory">Gigafactory </a>will cost Tesla something like $150/kWh in the 2020 time frame. That would put the cost of the estimated (by me) 1,145 kWh pack for the claimed 500 mile range at $171,750. We see <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/pepsico-pre-orders-100-tesla-electric-semi-trucks/">here </a>though that</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2b2d32; font-family: "guardian textegyp" , serif; font-size: 18px;">The electric semi trucks will run between $150,000 and $180,000, depending on range, with a fancy "Founders Series" of semis coming in at $200,000.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's not an easy thing to figure what the cost of a semi truck cab, wheels, etc. (i.e., the entire semi minus the engine and transmission) is but I've tried to get a handle on it by looking at some pricing of so-called "<a href="https://www.fitzgeraldgliderkits.com/what-is-a-glider-kit/">glider kits</a>." <a href="http://www.landlinemag.com/Magazine/2012/June/Section3/mafia-secrets.aspx">Here</a>, I found that a rolling glider could cost from $75,000 to $97,000. Assuming something like a 20% markup, the cost to produce the glider would be $60,000 to $77,600. Using the lower number, Tesla might spend $60,000 on the body, frame rails, axles, etc.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Next, my understanding is that the Tesla truck will utilize four 192 kW permanent magnet electric motors (the same as the Tesla Model 3 motor). I've found it to be EXTREMELY difficult to get an accurate estimate for the cost of such a motor, <a href="http://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=8&products_id=476">here</a> we find a source to purchase Tesla 3 drive units (Tesla motor, inverter, gear box, dash display and control unit, throttle pedal, and two axles) for $11,900. I'll estimate that the markup is 50% and so the cost of the unit is $7,933. I'll further estimate that the parts needed for all four motors (since we won't need four throttle pedals, etc.) represent 2/3 of the cost, so three of the units cost 3*(2/3)*$7,933 or $15,866. Add the full $7,933 for the fourth unit to get a total cost of $23,799 for the entire set. Call it $24,000.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So we have an estimated cost to Tesla of $171,750+$60,000+$24,000=$255,750. And there's no question that I've left a few things out. And, assuming that Tesla would like to make a profit of, say, 20%, the price out the door would be $306,900. That's over 70% higher than the cited price of the 500 mile range truck. Where may I have gone wrong? Conversely, if Tesla is selling a 500 mile range truck at $180,000 and is making some incremental profit on the sale then their cost would be, at most, $150,000 using the same 20%. And this doesn't include the subsidy that Tesla is offering for charging (I'll take up charging in a subsequent post).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It's unlikely that the cost of materials (aluminum, steel, plastic, carbon fiber, etc.) will decrease sufficiently to reduce Tesla's cost by something like 40%. My conclusion is that they are banking on some combination of manufacturing efficiencies, economies of scale, and improvements in the actual battery chemistry to reduce the cost per kilowatt hour of their battery packs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In order reduce the cost of a truck by some $100,000 (turning now to very round numbers) by reducing the cost of a battery, the cost would need to come down to somewhere in the $63/kWh. Below we see a graph of costs projected out to 2030. And, while the cost has come down considerably and is projected to continue to do so, I've not found a credible projection that hits anything close to $63/kWh even out 13 years, let alone three years. <a href="https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/">WebPlotDigitizer</a> quickly shows that the projection is for $170/kWh in 2020 and $75/kWh in 2030. Note that my calculation above used $150/kWh! </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZNrqSEgaNX6DKRmmXTk9AzQg3vxiGLe_ojxt2q8ooJBEuPUBEsgA44KCIjxc9OHWHaDa-aNnBCtAo0myg5Dyel0BhwblpBLbdVRN0FgESWlp38bUuYaxvYbFmEKZv_HPEDzPPjA/s1600/Specifc+cost+Li+ion+battery.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="635" data-original-width="1200" height="169" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZNrqSEgaNX6DKRmmXTk9AzQg3vxiGLe_ojxt2q8ooJBEuPUBEsgA44KCIjxc9OHWHaDa-aNnBCtAo0myg5Dyel0BhwblpBLbdVRN0FgESWlp38bUuYaxvYbFmEKZv_HPEDzPPjA/s320/Specifc+cost+Li+ion+battery.png" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The bottom line is that I see no way that a 500 mile range class 8 semi powered by batteries can be sold for $180,000. It's true that Elon Musk and Tesla have accomplished amazing things and have made skeptics eat their words, but it's also true that Musk has a habit of over promising on time frames and production numbers. A <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/13/pepsico-pre-orders-100-tesla-electric-semi-trucks/">fair number of significant companies</a> with lots of money to spend on research and lots of analysts to evaluate capital expenditures have placed their bets that Tesla will succeed in delivering as promised. It won't be long until we know!</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<iframe allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" gesture="media" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eUnfKpBBY_4" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Note: This is the unedited version of this song. While I don't condone and, in fact, I unequivocally and vehemently condemn any sort of homophobia, I consider that the unedited version is geared toward criticizing rather than supporting such a toxic attitude. Additionally, I loathe censorship in all its forms (and yes, I realize that the government was not responsible for the edited version).</i></span>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-55938371474832911852017-12-11T18:46:00.000-08:002017-12-17T09:44:16.293-08:00The Tesla class 8 truck<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhosTi9ugGtvVEoqwrfYgrfb54jt_v9pMTBC5Fls1EoFkTIWqchS_RUEfi_VNepffzz_oEokTql8IrPYP4EkPCnEJKfN2t3iRLctL8rNQEyJjqJD2J0rXVUS7QQ4msAmKOLs3cHEQ/s1600/Musk.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="236" data-original-width="214" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhosTi9ugGtvVEoqwrfYgrfb54jt_v9pMTBC5Fls1EoFkTIWqchS_RUEfi_VNepffzz_oEokTql8IrPYP4EkPCnEJKfN2t3iRLctL8rNQEyJjqJD2J0rXVUS7QQ4msAmKOLs3cHEQ/s200/Musk.jpg" width="180" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Image Credit: unknown</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well, it's been a long time since my last post and I promise to be more.... Oh, hell, never mind. Anyway, to those who know me, it will come as no surprise that I am an admirer (possibly bordering on a fan boy) of Elon Musk. I know that Musk has received a fair amount of criticism, some of it quite biting and not all of it without justification. Musk has been accused of <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp">rent seeking</a>, excessive hyperbole, and squandering of investors' funds among other things. His biography is available in plenty of places and I won't go into it here. Rather, I'd like to evaluate the viability of his newly revealed <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/16/16667366/tesla-semi-truck-announced-price-release-date-electric-self-driving">Tesla class 8 truck</a>.</span><br />
<div><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">At a very high level, a Class 8 truck is meant to transport as heavy a load as possible as far as possible at as low cost as possible. On US highways the maximum gross vehicle weight for a Class 8 truck is 80,000 lbs. (36,280 kg). A typical diesel powered class 8 tractor will have a <a href="https://energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-620-april-26-2010-class-8-truck-tractor-weight-component">weight of 17,000 pounds</a> (7,711 kg) and the empty trailer "tare weight" might be 15,000 pounds (6,803 kg). Thus, a diesel semi-tractor trailer may be able to haul 48,000 pounds (21,772 kg).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There are many significant considerations with respect to the viability of the Tesla Truck:</span><br />
<ul><li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Cost (both initial purchase and lifetime, including maintenance)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Range</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Time to recharge</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The effect of the weight of the battery on the load that can be transported</span></li>
</ul><div><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And, of course, there is interplay between these items. For example, to achieve longer range, larger battery packs are needed. This will add significant cost and charging time and, due to the added weight of the larger pack, will reduce the payload that can be carried.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu6MKqUkq-sjxMJBou3xwZDt7IUC7Tq6FyBuAO9A3U34f-TPZUmhGN2srqijSsqXwFA488hSyg5txZA2mhWiLWpTAB_-9oCY6GD8WYHe6F3_ljza9BwV73wKCfoEX5Pb_gv-qHFw/s1600/Semi_Front_34_Blue.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu6MKqUkq-sjxMJBou3xwZDt7IUC7Tq6FyBuAO9A3U34f-TPZUmhGN2srqijSsqXwFA488hSyg5txZA2mhWiLWpTAB_-9oCY6GD8WYHe6F3_ljza9BwV73wKCfoEX5Pb_gv-qHFw/s320/Semi_Front_34_Blue.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Image Credit: Tesla</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In order to evaluate the practicality of the Tesla Truck, I'll start with the energy required per highway mile at 65 m.p.h. on a smooth and level highway in good condition and in good weather. We'll assume that the semi tractor trailer is loaded to its maximum weight of 80,000 pounds. As I've detailed in other posts, for such unaccelerated motion, the sum of the external forces acting on the vehicle must be zero. The forces resisting the forward motion are aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance. The sum of these is the total that the electric motor must provide to the pavement through the drive train and the tires.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Starting with the drag, to a reasonable degree of accuracy, the drag force is ~D=1/2\,C_{D}\,A\rho\,{v}^{2}~ where D is the drag, C<sub>D</sub> is the vehicle's drag coefficient, A is the frontal area presented to the relative wind, ~\rho\,~ is the density of air, and ~v~ is the vehicle's speed. From a youtube video presentation, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d3eUlvckTU&t=669s">Musk states</a> that the drag coefficient is 0.36, which is very low for such a vehicle. I haven't found the frontal area of the vehicle, but various sources seem to indicate that a reasonable estimate is about 10.75 m<sup>2</sup>. We'll use 1.2 kg/m<sup>2</sup> for air density and convert 65 m.p.h. to 29.06 m/s. Plugging, this yields a drag force of 1,961 Nt (440.8 pounds).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For rolling resistance, we'll look at four driven wheels, two steering wheels, and four free rolling tires on the tractor and eight free rolling tires on the trailer. I'll give Tesla the benefit of the lowest rolling resistance tires that I've been able to find. Then, to first order, rolling resistance is dependent only on the coefficient of rolling resistance of the tires and the normal force (weight) on those tires.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While the actual rolling resistance will depend on how much weight is on which tires (because the rolling resistance will vary) and I won't know how much weight can be in the trailer until I've determined battery weight. I'll assume tires with "state of the art" low coefficient of rolling resistance (C<sub>rr</sub> of an average of 0.0056. And I'll assume that each of the tires carries an equal load so that the rolling resistance, R, is determined by ~R=C_{rr}w~, where ~C_{rr}~ is the coefficient of rolling resistance and w is the vehicle weight. Converting 80,000 pounds to 355,858 Nt and plugging and chugging, we find that the approximate rolling resistance is 1,993 Nt.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Thus, the approximate force that the motor must apply to the pavement through the drive train and tires is 3,954 Nt. And, since force times distance is work (and energy), the motor must do 3,954 joules of work (that is, supply 3.954 joules of energy) to move the truck one meter at 65 m.p.h. And, since there are 1609.3 meters in a mile, the motor must do 6.36317*10<sup>6</sup> joules of work. The battery system must supply enough energy to do this work, and must supply more, given that the motor/drive train combination is not 100% efficient. If we assume 85% overall efficiency, the battery system must supply 7.486*10<sup>6</sup> joules/mile. This is 2.079 kilowatt hours. Note that Tesla says "less than 2 kWh/mile." I'm sticking with my number but it shows that my estimates can't be too far off.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In order to travel 500 miles on a level road in good conditions with no starts and stops at 65 m.p.h., Tesla will need a battery system that can supply 2.079*500 or 1,039 kilowatt hours, or 1.039 megawatt hours. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If we use a number of 140 watt hours/kilogram for specific energy of a Li ion battery, such a battery pack would weigh 7,421 kg, or 16,360 pounds.</span><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWP09Sz4Prr0UPdiZGfDedNlnkSsO-IttoCg1YgPpy_Di2lhWnIX4n2xgqvtVcj7n8sJKnaXE8zpbhtdRWUaGN9kBP00qSAeBK0AS2IH1_LlusHYUqe9LDkmo43tXgxM_WwFMhjQ/s1600/dsc_0571.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWP09Sz4Prr0UPdiZGfDedNlnkSsO-IttoCg1YgPpy_Di2lhWnIX4n2xgqvtVcj7n8sJKnaXE8zpbhtdRWUaGN9kBP00qSAeBK0AS2IH1_LlusHYUqe9LDkmo43tXgxM_WwFMhjQ/s320/dsc_0571.jpg" width="320" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is as ideal as it can possibly be. The truck will climb hills and, though some of the potential energy paid for in kilowatt hours can be recovered coming downhill and even energy normally wasted by braking as the truck rolls downhill will be partially recovered by a regenerative system. Nevertheless, there will be waste associated with climbing and descending. Similar considerations apply to stops and starts for traffic, stoplights, stop signs, meals, etc.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Therefore, we need a "fudge factor" for the various starts and stops, accelerations, etc. While I've seen numbers such as 90% bandied about for how much of the kinetic and potential energy in the Tesla truck can be recaptured by regenerative braking, my experience in the Lexus CT 200h makes that number seem very high. I've <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2013/07/regenerative-braking-in-lexus-ct-200h.html">calculated </a>that, in my CT 200h, about 39% of the potential energy from a hill descent went into the batteries. But I'll be generous and speculate that Tesla is much more efficient at 75%.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Suppose that the truck does the equivalent of stopping 100 times in 500 miles. An 80,000 pound vehicle travelling at 65 m.p.h. has a kinetic energy of 1.537*10^7 joules. Losing 25% of this number 100 times wastes 3.830*10^8 joules, or 106.4 kWh. Adding this to the 1,039 kWh we find that the battery pack must supply 1,145 kWh or 1.145 mWh. This will require a battery pack weighing 8179 kg or 18,031 pounds. Call it 18,000.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We now need to determine how much the battery pack weight will reduce the payload that can be hauled. To compare apples to apples, we'll figure that a very fuel efficient diesel powered semi tractor gets about 7 m.p.g. and thus will use about 71 gallons of diesel fuel weighing about 490 pounds (numbers for the weight of a gallon of diesel fuel are all over the place, but I think this represents a good average). The engine and transmission might weigh something like 3,500 pounds. The total of the materials not needed in the Tesla truck (diesel fuel, engine, transmission) is about 4,000 pounds. Thus, the available payload for the Tesla is some 14,000 pounds less than that of the diesel powered semi. And this understates the issue since we've removed the internal combustion engine and transmission, but the electric motors weigh something!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A typical heavy hauling semi tractor trailer can legally haul somewhere around 44,000 to 48,000 pounds of payload, so the 14,000 pound reduction represents a 29% to 32% reduction in payload. I imagine that many loads are not at the maximum allowable to have the total vehicle weight not exceed 80,000 but, as best I can find, most intermediate and long haul loads do exceed the approximately 30,000 pounds available in the Tesla truck.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As far as weight is concerned, the Tesla truck with a sufficiently sized battery to achieve a 500 mile range is at a significant disadvantage. I'm sure there are applications where this disadvantage would not be relevant, but the average over the road trucker would be severely disadvantaged. For the 500 mile range version, I believe that significant advances in battery technology will be necessary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Next time: cost.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span></div></div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RPQAbBI7E38" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-43162012128693684872017-03-04T18:27:00.000-08:002018-06-03T02:20:42.177-07:00Pavegen, up close and personal<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv37O9jhKGwM_ht2gZEHEYzFeBMv3FL7bpJ4MOWkFUJ4zPLx_00soyS3cfALF8kHXCuWLXTc6iTX1YmUq8HNpDzSRv_v2NKwUnC7Ap0Ojf3hqETLSSBUyguXNx7Sup8FkuUuejlQ/s1600/Pavegen.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv37O9jhKGwM_ht2gZEHEYzFeBMv3FL7bpJ4MOWkFUJ4zPLx_00soyS3cfALF8kHXCuWLXTc6iTX1YmUq8HNpDzSRv_v2NKwUnC7Ap0Ojf3hqETLSSBUyguXNx7Sup8FkuUuejlQ/s320/Pavegen.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Photo credit: Pavegen</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I was again in Washington, DC (actually, <a href="https://www.nationalharbor.com/">National Harbor, Maryland</a>, just down the Potomac) last week for the annual (<a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603754/will-arpa-e-survive-trumps-looming-budget-cuts/">and perhaps last</a>?) <a href="https://arpa-e.energy.gov/">arpa-e</a> <a href="https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=summit">Energy Innovation Summit</a> (about which, more later). But I had learned that one of my <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2017/02/once-again-with-pavegen.html">targets of opportunity</a> for debunking vacuous green claims, <a href="http://www.pavegen.com/">Pavegen</a>, has an <a href="http://www.pavegen.com/washington">installation</a> in Washington, DC. I couldn't feature being so close to an installation and not paying a visit to experience the Pavegen pavers first hand.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwuqWnM-3CP02HLdMKMmGyFV4UjgFxOhQmB029bQcfPLwn9R-216tIfIW7H1UG9aLKPmtGIhSHjfny64zhNipT67L5JCLZAnRFKYfVGdSX1m7YFEoNFqd-VAsiSDwl8Qt3wgdVTw/s1600/20170226_144236.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwuqWnM-3CP02HLdMKMmGyFV4UjgFxOhQmB029bQcfPLwn9R-216tIfIW7H1UG9aLKPmtGIhSHjfny64zhNipT67L5JCLZAnRFKYfVGdSX1m7YFEoNFqd-VAsiSDwl8Qt3wgdVTw/s200/20170226_144236.jpg" width="112" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">After Lyfting from the summit site at the <a href="http://www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/wasgn-gaylord-national-resort-and-convention-center/">Gaylord National Harbor Resort and Convention Center</a> to Dupont Circle in Washington, DC, I had my first chance to observe and experience the Pavegen pavers (or tiles). To the right, you'll see the triangular tiles arranged as hexagons in the Pavegen sytem. Those are my feet and my Cross pen (inscribed with a wonderful message from my beautiful wife, Zandra) for scale.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I walked on the pavers, jumped on them, stood on them, and watched the DC pedestrian crowd interact with them. I'll describe my experience "down post" but first I'll describe the reactions from the pedestrians. I'll note that there were no signs or other indicators that the pedestrians and bicyclists were contributing to green energy generation (albeit at a negligibly small scale) with their efforts. No advertising was there and, frankly, the pavers don't look bad.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxf6CVUbCzsm47k3Iglu64J2DxooPHpLCTCY7G27GAdx64thw5RXz2jfBbt03S_Ao2eKTsHgggN1vc' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The video is slow motion of folks walking on the pavers. I didn't survey, or even count, but I'd estimate that somewhere around 5% of the pedestrians noted that there was something different in the small areas where the pavers were installed. And, on three occasions, someone mentioned to their fellow walker that electricity or energy was being generated by the pavers. One said that "I think it runs the lights or something." None seemed troubled either by the extra effort entailed in walking on the tiles, and the company of whomever mentioned the energy typically said "cool" or similar.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCIRGan-U9nl3Gx4GrA98WAomyXX_feVtbC13RahcfjGTYXH8xKQ3bLee8AEyZKKy8wQ6owHd55AsrmRN8NoHNxQy7B993kr2pZlf_fMpjRPnH43KTaqWLTqhpykspgwXjmSnpVw/s1600/20170226_140422.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCIRGan-U9nl3Gx4GrA98WAomyXX_feVtbC13RahcfjGTYXH8xKQ3bLee8AEyZKKy8wQ6owHd55AsrmRN8NoHNxQy7B993kr2pZlf_fMpjRPnH43KTaqWLTqhpykspgwXjmSnpVw/s200/20170226_140422.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My reaction was fairly similar. It wasn't particularly troubling to climb out of the estimated 5mm depression caused by my weight acting on the Pavegen generators. But, as to electricity generation, I'll just say that my opinion is unchanged. To the left is one of several little installations of lit LEDs, again with my pen indicating scale. Based on Pavegen's site, there are also lights for some of the hardscape features. You can barely tell that the three LEDs are lit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In any case, now that I've actually walked on the pavers, seen pedestrian reaction to them, and analyzed them (to death), I think I can finally put my Pavegen focus to rest.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NjofshOBV5s" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-29887338628958950872017-03-04T16:16:00.000-08:002017-03-06T07:06:38.681-08:00From the "duh" department...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1F20v4oq4Jf9syaug8hvPnpgIY_Rlj6eMSmTcekNdWSIlGDCUfauoTW5FQ7s7pr7AqtwZ45UESCkD-K8FNLMfRKahpSPW7RYyoE58bJWzma3TEgCTMGE6iFvL-fFaHRVO1sh_lA/s1600/duh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1F20v4oq4Jf9syaug8hvPnpgIY_Rlj6eMSmTcekNdWSIlGDCUfauoTW5FQ7s7pr7AqtwZ45UESCkD-K8FNLMfRKahpSPW7RYyoE58bJWzma3TEgCTMGE6iFvL-fFaHRVO1sh_lA/s200/duh.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In my day job, I am an executive in a firm that provides consulting services, materials testing, and construction inspection. We don't work in the area of single family housing but, other than that, if it's being built, we want to be involved. And we're located in Southern California.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As such, we're very interested in the economics of the State and of its various regions. I was reviewing the 2017 "<a href="http://i.cafwd.shipb.us/caeconomy/resources/2017_Roadmap_to_Shared_Prosperity.pdf">California Economic Summit Roadmap</a>." On the first content page of that 12 page document, I read the following:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> "An additional 6.8 million people are considered “economically fragile,” living in households earning below their area’s median income (which varies by region, from $43,000 a year in the San Joaquin Valley to $64,000 in the Bay Area)."</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Indeed. I must point out here that this statement is statistically confusing or, at the least, is poorly phrased. Exactly half of the households in California, or any County, or any State, or the U.S., or any Country earn below their area's median income. And, no matter how hard anyone in government tries, they simply can't fix this problem. Because, well, that's the definition of median! So, clearly, the issue isn't that half the households are below their area's median income but, rather that their area's median income is below the level that would represent not being classified as "economically fragile."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The definition of an "economically fragile" household isn't clearly stated, but surely it can't be "any household below its area's median household income" because, by that definition, one half of households everywhere are economically fragile and will be for all eternity or until Armageddon, whichever comes sooner.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm sure that my sophisticated readers were able to infer the intended meaning of this paragraph but, given the level of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book)">innumeracy</a> out there, I'm absolutely sure that there are many readers who think My God, half the households in California are below the median household income! Make the rich pay their fare share, that will fix this!" And, of course, if such persons were asked "what fraction of the households in California would you estimate had below the mean household income?" they'd answer "<a href="https://qz.com/260269/painfully-american-families-are-learning-the-difference-between-median-and-mean/">Why, one half, of course! What a stupid question!</a> "</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The fact is that, barring an anomaly, significantly more than half are below the mean. For example, in 2014 the median household income in the U.S., per the Census Bureau, was <a href="https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/acsbr15-02.pdf">$53,713</a>. The mean household income was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Mean_vs._median_household_income">$72,641</a>. Clearly, fewer households earned $72,641 and above than earned $53,713 and above. And yet, the mean is what people think of when the word "average" is used. But you knew that, didn't you?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/X5iaZf21R8w" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-34890648732132264912017-02-18T19:40:00.002-08:002017-02-19T09:24:32.623-08:00Once again with Pavegen<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxrSEARamP9NzSiSPXl5ToMyVwBbRRy4wgdmHFJGoIpJtEkL759bbukLDETki5YCZQ-SxrUqy7c5NFcLnMRd7dOnqv178L37AmIMlbIdlhd6yvcTUJ2VuK-RVZOTRMogxO0_0aEA/s1600/dead_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxrSEARamP9NzSiSPXl5ToMyVwBbRRy4wgdmHFJGoIpJtEkL759bbukLDETki5YCZQ-SxrUqy7c5NFcLnMRd7dOnqv178L37AmIMlbIdlhd6yvcTUJ2VuK-RVZOTRMogxO0_0aEA/s200/dead_2.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: <a href="http://blog.imaginellc.com/5-tips-to-revive-a-b2b-sales-opportunity">imagine business development</a></i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">(Note: the zombie image applies both to my blog and to the subject of this post.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.pavegen.com/">Pavegen</a>, a Company that I've looked at before (see <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2013/08/greenwashing-hall-of-fame-nominee.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/01/supplying-energy-with-footsteps-yet.html">here</a>) is still around and, apparently, thriving. Pavegen designs, manufactures, and installs tile systems that generate electricity via footfalls as pedestrians walk over them. </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Despite my lack of posting, I've not lost interest in all aspects of energy and, in perusing the web, I happened upon their new site. T</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">hey've developed a new tile design and quite a <a href="http://www.pavegen.com/livestream/">presentation</a>. The link is to a 49 minute video!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I thought I'd keep an open mind and evaluate it, despite my expressed disdain in the previous posts. Getting started, I found a couple of troubling things. At the 19:15 timestamp in the video, CEO and Pavegen inventor Lawrence Kemball-Cook states that the new Pavegen tiles are "200 times as efficient." Later, at the 28:10 timestamp, CTO Craig Webster states that Pavegen is capturing "about 20 times more energy per footstep" than the previous version of the Pavegen tiles.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT1AtS9ITtCPSdI1hMfZi7PrqWqTmh1Vm_1zVSoulEu1ehx0f8-m9lbXlf2asB-AKI0XyQbU80rx3vdoReBse2v0_GH3Z-JmJBUH36ACYM0OlJYYdcqVmCeyXS-VllXMGpj13bcQ/s1600/Screenshot+2017-02-18+16.56.07.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhT1AtS9ITtCPSdI1hMfZi7PrqWqTmh1Vm_1zVSoulEu1ehx0f8-m9lbXlf2asB-AKI0XyQbU80rx3vdoReBse2v0_GH3Z-JmJBUH36ACYM0OlJYYdcqVmCeyXS-VllXMGpj13bcQ/s320/Screenshot+2017-02-18+16.56.07.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: Pavegen</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Well! First, an order of magnitude discrepancy in the claims is hardly something to ignore. But let's use Webster's claim of 20 times, since he's the CTO. Kemball-Cook walks across the tiles to demonstrate the data gathering capabilities of the tiles and the screen shows steps and energy generated (see the graphic at right, click to enlarge). It shows that Kemball-Cook has generated 65 Joules in 14 steps, or about 4.6 Joules/step. As an aside, some quick and dirty calculations with appropriate estimates leads me to conclude that he's generating at something like 8 watts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In my <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/01/supplying-energy-with-footsteps-yet.html">second Pavegen post</a> (this current one is my third) I estimated that the previous generation of Pavegen tiles generated somewhere between 3.5 and 7.2 joules per footfall (the lower from my estimates, the higher from data generated by a Pavegen installation). I'm hard pressed to see an increase of 20 (let alone the ridiculous 200) times in efficiency of energy conversion. Kemball-Cook and Webster both tout the efficiency of the new triangular shape and its ability to capture energy over 100% of the area of the tiles vs. the previous square tiles but that is, in no way, sufficient to justify their claim.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD6mx-R9NHfzqILDeZMDLJednwinO-YnaPfJXHbOEmdEbSmF61A47JTcyeLwmSyclGLbryKSgr4THG0nPjXhPqfFn5Zs4ACuM0qswX2U8PBnHPR5oMRphCWkpZavn5RBBRSNxC1Q/s1600/Screenshot+2017-02-18+16.38.00.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgD6mx-R9NHfzqILDeZMDLJednwinO-YnaPfJXHbOEmdEbSmF61A47JTcyeLwmSyclGLbryKSgr4THG0nPjXhPqfFn5Zs4ACuM0qswX2U8PBnHPR5oMRphCWkpZavn5RBBRSNxC1Q/s200/Screenshot+2017-02-18+16.38.00.png" width="105" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: Pavegen</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I assumed from previous information that the mode of energy conversion was piezoelectricity. but it's clear from the Pavegen video that this is not the case, at least in this incarnation. Rather, it appears that a footstep spins a small flywheel that operates as a generator. Each vertex intersection of the triangular tiles rests above such a generator. I will concede that it's a very clever design.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Kemball-Cook and his team have big plans for the Pavegen system. Jeff Martin, CEO and founder of <a href="https://tribalplanet.com/company/board-of-directors/">Tribal Planet</a>, apparently has formed a partnership with Pavegen and, through the use of smart phones, anticipates that malls, stores, stadiums, etc. could track the energy delivered through the footsteps of a customer and then provide discounts, loyalty awards, etc. to the customer. Or, one could "donate the energy" to some developing world person who needs it. The mechanism for such a transfer isn't described.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But, as I stated in the previous post, I take about 5,000 steps on an average day. If each step were captured, I'd generate (if I weigh the same and walk similarly to Kemball-Cook) 4.6*5,000= 23,000 joules, or 0.0064 kilowatt hours. In my city of Anaheim, CA, that would be worth a little under eight hundredths of a penny. And, to reiterate, that's not my trip to Target, that's my walking for an entire day. The cost of a Pavegen tile isn't stated, but Kemball-Cook does state that Pavegen's goal is to bring the price close to that of a standard tile through mass production.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There's no doubt that the tiles do generate electricity, probably at the rate of around 8 watts for each walking adult. And there's no doubt that that level of generation can be used for area lighting or similar. But the energy isn't free, it's energy added to that of walking without the tiles. Now, it may be the case that in the generally overweight United States (I can't say about England, the home of Pavegen), having people spend more energy to walk might be desirable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In any event, at the outset of the video, Kemball-Cook mentions that lighting accounts for nearly 20% of all electricity generated world wide and, after saying that he didn't know that, doesn't say anything further about it. He leaves the impression that he'll show that Pavegen tiles can alleviate the need for mains power for that use. Umm... no.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In my office, there are about 32 people. Most don't walk around as much as I do but let's assume that they do. Most of my walking is at work, say 4000 steps over nine hours. This rate, at 4.6 joules/step, equates to 0.6 watts or so. If all 32 people in my office did the same, it would be 19.2 watts. That wouldn't light one of the four fluorescent tubes in my office, let alone the entire 12,800 square feet of the floor we occupy. It's true that LEDs would do better but there's no chance that 19 watts would come close. And that generation, in a work day, would be about 0.017 kilowatt hours, worth less than two cents.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Pavegen has a fascinating gimmick and a clever design, but it won't put a dent in electricity use. And the electricity comes, ultimately, from the sun. We eat the plants and animals, and fertilize them with products of sunshine from millions of years ago to give us the energy to </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">pump the Pavegen tiles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Update: There's significant discussion at the website of the ability of the tiles to generate data and wirelessly transmit it. This could be used to determine traffic patterns in stores, malls, museums, etc. and to locate "hotspots" for patron activity. I strongly suspect that, after the "gee whiz" factor of the trivial energy output wears off, such data will be the real value (or, as my close friend and associate, Dr. Boris Stein, would say, "the dry residue"). Were I an officer at Pavegen, I'd offer a cheaper option of the tiles without the generators to be sold for the data gathering capability.</i></span><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EywzYKFs-4I" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-58109631254902961582016-11-09T14:24:00.000-08:002016-11-09T14:24:45.274-08:00A Post Election Day Note to Conservatives | Coyote Blog<a href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/11/a-post-election-day-note-to-conservatives.html?utm_source=feedburner">A Post Election Day Note to Conservatives | Coyote Blog</a>: <br />
<br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">What Warren Meyer (a staunch "small l" libertarian) said. But, to make it easier, I'll paste it here:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: #fcfcfc; color: #444444; line-height: 1.5em; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"Dear Conservatives: As you wallow around in your election-day schadenfreude, I offer you this note of caution: Except perhaps on immigration and a few miscellaneous issues like climate, Trump is not a Conservative. He has no apparent respect for the Constitution, or free speech, or any number of individual freedoms. He is a serial abuser of eminent domain and has lived off of crony rents for decades. We often compare government unfavorably to private individuals when it comes to budgeting, observing that most of us can only spend as much as we bring in, unlike a profligate Federal government -- but Trump can't control spending in his own private sphere and has run up huge amounts of debt he has had to disavow in various quests for self-aggrandizement. Do you really think he won't do the same thing with public funds?</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I said this morning I would give up political prognostication, but I am fairly sure in less than 6 months we are going to see prominent Conservatives coming out publicly with buyer's remorse." <i>By Warren Meyer at <a href="http://www.coyoteblog.com/">Coyote Blog</a></i></span></blockquote>
King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-28943040799171158882016-03-21T18:29:00.000-07:002016-03-22T08:25:40.670-07:00arpa-e 2016 notes part 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq3OMH9lETNepAezNlqMcX5lCBra7kMETT5_mO6Qy9aokhr_XOKXsVnxaIE3ipHe24KeRiAVUXyP1gD70yIxzG0HW5MocjFL3JS3kvFohPNxiCZC5G1hL4mLO19bMcCOagfZ9Heg/s1600/arpa-e+summit+poster.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjq3OMH9lETNepAezNlqMcX5lCBra7kMETT5_mO6Qy9aokhr_XOKXsVnxaIE3ipHe24KeRiAVUXyP1gD70yIxzG0HW5MocjFL3JS3kvFohPNxiCZC5G1hL4mLO19bMcCOagfZ9Heg/s200/arpa-e+summit+poster.PNG" width="198" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Having spent six days traveling to, attending, and returning from <a href="http://www.arpae-summit.com/Agenda/2016-Agenda">arpa-e 2016</a>, it's time to start chronicling some of my thoughts. At the broadest level, the summit was very well attended, much better than last year. As is typical, the demographic was predominately male, predominately Caucasian with a significant sprinkling of Indian (subcontinent type) as well as Asian attendees. There were extremely few African Americans and other "people of color" and a relatively small population of women.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">It was stated by <a href="http://fortune.com/author/katie-fehrenbacher/">Katie Fehrenbacher</a>, a senior writer at Fortune Magazine who focuses on energy and technology, that, at her first arpa-e summit attendance in 2010, there were many VCs (venture capitalists) whereas, in 2016, "not so much." The decline in funding for clean energy startup ventures that her comment implies has been well documented elsewhere.<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin7jVa_3aApGKQJfAXYdwFZj60KKbjzt-HIW-GxXperwb2DyAKGFTay1Apup4GSZwxdWEHbwmb4j1wWaj2OcX9DifBS4myXFMQ_qRyvCdEGbMWeNydBmQIhd7kWEzqPI0xahG0mg/s1600/Cleantech+funding.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin7jVa_3aApGKQJfAXYdwFZj60KKbjzt-HIW-GxXperwb2DyAKGFTay1Apup4GSZwxdWEHbwmb4j1wWaj2OcX9DifBS4myXFMQ_qRyvCdEGbMWeNydBmQIhd7kWEzqPI0xahG0mg/s320/Cleantech+funding.PNG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i style="font-size: x-small;">Chart courtesy of: <a href="https://www.pwc.com/us/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-moneytree-cleantech-venture-funding-q1-2015.pdf">PwC.com</a></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm not an expert investor but, as I implied in one of my posts on <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-on-lightsail-energy.html">LightSail Energy</a> and stated in my post regarding Bell Laboratories, today's investors' demands for quick returns on their investment are anathema to ventures that develop over periods of many years and require huge capital investments. Further there have been well-publicized failures of some large cleantech startups, e.g., <a href="https://www.solyndra-info.com/Page.aspx?Name=Home">Solyndra</a>, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-02/range-fuels-cellulosic-ethanol-plant-fails-as-u-s-pulls-plug">Range Fuels</a>, <a href="http://dm.epiq11.com/KOR/Project">KiOR</a>, <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS566US566&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=a123%20bankruptcy%20docket">A123</a>, etc. Cleantech is HARD!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">While at the opening session, I drew a little diagram on my Samsung Galaxy Note 4, a phone on which one can legitimately take handwritten notes and make such sketches. Here's the sketch I made: </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbMzYgljxpxIVzpmPaKFa5i6ZjWEXwhVFeVsXvYtrD6WlJF7gROEWc96DzV2S4pkM73sVs85EYotnbWAkBOn_GLySvO8-KDYaS1m5IVcUUnDrHkGaXtXIuNFlCJQlWMFkNTDYaOg/s1600/Screenshot+2016-03-20+21.16.06.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="158" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbMzYgljxpxIVzpmPaKFa5i6ZjWEXwhVFeVsXvYtrD6WlJF7gROEWc96DzV2S4pkM73sVs85EYotnbWAkBOn_GLySvO8-KDYaS1m5IVcUUnDrHkGaXtXIuNFlCJQlWMFkNTDYaOg/s320/Screenshot+2016-03-20+21.16.06.png" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'll concede that it's cryptic and hard to read but the idea is that the U.S. funds entrepreneurial innovations that lead to development in such a way that private equity of one sort or another sees the potential and ponies up sufficient funding to take the innovation to market. To date, arpa-e funded ventures have <a href="http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=news-item/arpa-e-projects-receive-more-125-billion-private-follow-funding-transformational-energy">attracted $1.25B in private funding</a>. To do so, it has provided <a href="http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/can-additional-funding-boost-arpa-es-tolerance-for-risk/">$1.3B to some 475 projects</a>. I'm unable, however, to find an arpa-e funded venture that has individually gone to market, though at least four have been <a href="http://arpa-e.energy.gov/sites/default/files/ARPA-E%202016%20Budget.pdf">purchased by large companies</a> as of FY 2014.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'll provide further input over the next few posts (perhaps interspersed with other topics) but I want to say that that $350M per year funding level for something as important as the goals of arpa-e is a pittance, especially in comparison to the scale of the problem. There are those who say government should stay out of such ventures and ask "what good has government investment ever done?" I'd point out Boulder (now Hoover) dam, Tennessee Valley Authority, Rural Electrification Administration, ARPANET, etc.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rMkKVroB6cE" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-15815706782858659782016-02-28T22:51:00.000-08:002016-02-29T16:42:40.845-08:00Off to arpe-a 2016<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz2M60ujQcvIv5K_D5k-W_uPfDSWibJw9wuB7dzGpyT_Wk4KdlSon9yBKRbkS4OqKnOb0j5gt6L-D7XwzMfSo3mYnCiwDyxNwK-4ws_Pp13D93XhQQF_FDfwCF54KhNeq0DXRxvQ/s1600/arpa-e.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz2M60ujQcvIv5K_D5k-W_uPfDSWibJw9wuB7dzGpyT_Wk4KdlSon9yBKRbkS4OqKnOb0j5gt6L-D7XwzMfSo3mYnCiwDyxNwK-4ws_Pp13D93XhQQF_FDfwCF54KhNeq0DXRxvQ/s320/arpa-e.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: arpe-e</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'm rather shocked to find that this is the sixth (!) <a href="http://www.arpae-summit.com/">arpa-e energy innovation</a> summit that I've attended. I intend to blog about my adventures here and, in particular, about some of the energy storage sessions as it's my considered opinion that storage breakthroughs are key to a sustainable energy future.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But for this post, I'm going to discuss getting to Washington, DC. I used three modes of transportation: my (new) Jeep SRT Grand Cherokee (with apologies to commenters who had suggestions for my avoidance of such a joule hog) to KSNA, i.e., John Wayne Airport; two legs of air carrier transport (KORD, O'Hare Airport was a layover); and a SuperShuttle van from DCA, i.e., Reagan National Airport to the Gaylord National Harbor Resort.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The trip to KSNA was about 18 miles, the Jeep is currently displaying an average mileage of about 15.5 m.p.g. (as stated in my <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-end-of-era.html">previous post</a>, I'm not driving for economy) so I burned about 1.16 gallons of premium fuel, thereby converting something like 137,000,000 joules of chemical energy to thermal energy to turn the wheels, move air out of the way, heat the atmosphere, etc. Therefore, I my rate of energy use in "joules/(passenger*meter) was about 4,730.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The leg from KSNA to KORD was in a <a href="https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/737/28785/N33714-United-Airlines">United Airlines Boeing 737-724</a> aircraft featuring two <a href="http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/">CFM International</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFM_International_CFM56">CFM56 turbofan engines (of the "dash 7B24" variety)</a>. These engines are rated at 24,200 pounds thrust each. It's not easy to estimate the fuel burn for airline flights, I wish that I'd remembered to ask the Captain or First Officer, they're very cooperative to sharing such data. But, as best I can estimate, we burned around 18,000 pounds or 8,165 kilograms of fuel (fuel calculations for airplanes are typically done in pounds since aircraft weight enters into literally every aspect of every maneuver and operation) to take 118 passengers 1,818 statute miles. A kilogram of jet A fuel releases 43.5 megajoules of energy upon oxidation, and so we converted 3.55*10^11 joules of thermal energy. The plane carried its full complement of 118 passengers, and so the energy use in "joules/(passenger*meter) was about 1,040. Of the 3.55*10^11 joules converted, I was responsible for about 3 billion of 'em.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'll spare my patient readers the detail of the KORD to KDCA leg on an <a href="http://www.embraercommercialaviation.com/Pages/Default.aspx">Embraer 175</a> regional jet. I estimate that we converted 1.14*10^11 joules traveling 650 miles. This works out to about 1430 (joules/passenger*meter) for the 76 passengers on board. My allocation was about 1.5 billion of those joules.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finally, I rode a SuperShuttle van for the approximately eight miles to complete the journey. I estimate that it burned about 0.5 gallons and converted 42,800,000 joules of chemical energy to thermal over the eight miles. My rate of energy use was thus about 3,320 joules/(passenger*meter).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">My grand total of turning the energy in chemical bonds to thermal energy in the atmosphere <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJY48BgBdTkPXP6_PjkEYT8RvaoERI9-o3FLEsI_EtcWd2v7AFGBBLllwXByOFkHY0__ewoteqNcG6z79gYa-EOsdbGpZHeI0eXBxKUM3RcHH-U7w4L-3n7ZTnK8Cyt8vsO8_zuw/s1600/energy+hog.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJY48BgBdTkPXP6_PjkEYT8RvaoERI9-o3FLEsI_EtcWd2v7AFGBBLllwXByOFkHY0__ewoteqNcG6z79gYa-EOsdbGpZHeI0eXBxKUM3RcHH-U7w4L-3n7ZTnK8Cyt8vsO8_zuw/s200/energy+hog.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: <a href="http://powersaveschools.org/">PowersaveSchools.org</a></i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
(and a very small amount in ground) was 4.68 billion joules. Of these, 4.5 billion or about 96% were in aircraft (I can't say "in the air" because we did taxi). But note that, of the 2,495 miles traveled, 99% were in the air. Thus, purely in terms of energy conversion, the air travel was quite efficient in comparison to ground transport. Of course, I was the solo passenger in my vehicle as I was (surprisingly) in the van, and having several passengers would change the joules/(passenger*mile) metric significantly. And, as some will no doubt point out, so would staying home.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And, so I understand (not having read enough to know why), hydrocarbons oxidized in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere are much more damaging than those oxidized on the ground.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I'll be responsible for more joules and a greater rate of conversion when I return to Southern California on Thursday, since we'll be flying against the prevailing winds. For a round number, I'll add 20% to the eastbound total for 10.3 billion joules. It is to be hoped that I'll learn enough here to be able to participate in saving many times that number, at least, that is, from the burning of fossil fuels.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><i>Addendum: Perhaps 10.3 billion joules has little meaning for some. This is about 2,860 kilowatt hours. The average US home uses about <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3">2,733 kilowatt hours of electrical energy in three months</a>.</i></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qWxkshRkM-8" width="560"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-627673463112891962016-02-17T16:50:00.001-08:002016-02-17T16:50:03.773-08:00The end of an era<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja3lUkmyC-z_8EjMhwbSAYsLqLcIw405MMgN1RIa9d9KtmufACmxqWpTq2-ZYW8Slck2GilVGzKswDn1lu2rEx1vXYv1Pq9CcY3xxQJfBe5M6g7R-sR3o8B6fBNQxG5xS02VWqYw/s1600/images.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja3lUkmyC-z_8EjMhwbSAYsLqLcIw405MMgN1RIa9d9KtmufACmxqWpTq2-ZYW8Slck2GilVGzKswDn1lu2rEx1vXYv1Pq9CcY3xxQJfBe5M6g7R-sR3o8B6fBNQxG5xS02VWqYw/s1600/images.jpeg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In September of 2005, gas prices rose abruptly enough that I stopped driving as I had as a teenager in my <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Road_Runner">Plymouth Roadrunner</a> Detroit muscle car and started to do my best to squeeze every possible foot out of each gallon of gas. That was in a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which I followed up with a Land Rover and finally my current Lexus CT200h which I acquired in the summer of 2011. I've driven that vehicle in such a way that I've exceeded the EPA combined estimate of 42 m.p.g. by 8.5 m.p.g. I've done so using light touch on the pedals, attempting to maximize the vehicle's use of <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-probably-last-post-on-regenerative.html">regenerative braking</a>, maximizing time in traffic jams that the engine is off and motive power provided by the battery and electric motor, and a cruise controlled 55 m.p.h. maximum speed (except when converting potential energy to kinetic on long, steep downhill grades).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This blog started out as documentation of my efforts in that direction and has since grown to cover a variety of other energy related topics and even ventured into politics, economics, and philosophy at times.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">But, notably, I've failed to save the world and I'm finished with this decade plus long experiment. I'll be going out this weekend to test drive and possibly drive away in a vehicle such as the <a href="http://www.jeep.com/en/grand-cherokee-srt/#model=srt&color=redline+2&top=20-inch-polished-aluminium-5-spoke&category=standard">Jeep SRT Grand Cherokee</a> or the <a href="https://www.audiusa.com/models/audi-sq5">Audi SQ5</a>. And I have no intention of driving such a purchase so as to maximize fuel economy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, was this change motivated by the steep decline in fuel prices? It was not. It's simply the case that I have had enough, the experiment has gone on long enough. I'm tired of having people run up on my rear bumper, honk, flash their high beams, etc. I'm tired of explaining to passengers why it takes me 27% longer to get anywhere. I'm tired of a car that, though it has a Lexus badge, is a Prius at heart (the passenger side seat has a pull bar to adjust position).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">So: </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeFvs2rgBpujsbfg0Pe2olXzwdUqxNEI5Jj2D0jVHedyqcHUkvJlSDrdwNOW7sgHT4FsGMFddgNyPw7EHIcxXwrQp4mAz1Ct5BvIqiGiqVqeEuSO9yFjkUKxaVmmUtgO39Ix6lnA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2016-02-17+at+3.41.45+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeFvs2rgBpujsbfg0Pe2olXzwdUqxNEI5Jj2D0jVHedyqcHUkvJlSDrdwNOW7sgHT4FsGMFddgNyPw7EHIcxXwrQp4mAz1Ct5BvIqiGiqVqeEuSO9yFjkUKxaVmmUtgO39Ix6lnA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2016-02-17+at+3.41.45+PM.png" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-yBGTaBJ1vVmV9PCMThqhNW6Y7EYQKRKgbVI3x-36rMbfiC8t3CiZSqYHdKjYZtar5lk_IeS9v86MRu6cS5eEPEJonU5vVvqUK08ADVOsrx1Hs0r7qweTdbCuVytVDJ5EdwqogQ/s1600/Screen+Shot+2016-02-17+at+3.43.38+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-yBGTaBJ1vVmV9PCMThqhNW6Y7EYQKRKgbVI3x-36rMbfiC8t3CiZSqYHdKjYZtar5lk_IeS9v86MRu6cS5eEPEJonU5vVvqUK08ADVOsrx1Hs0r7qweTdbCuVytVDJ5EdwqogQ/s320/Screen+Shot+2016-02-17+at+3.43.38+PM.png" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">There you have it.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Now, does this mean that I'm also finished with blogging on energy and related topics? It most assuredly does not and I intend (though it has been said, in particular by my mother, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions) to post more regularly.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VXBS-POU3Wo" width="420"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-83557776428176701862016-01-09T10:59:00.001-08:002016-01-09T11:14:09.330-08:00Marco Rubio and what money can buy<a href="http://presscore.ca/nbg/fp-content/images/bribery_bill.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="bribery_bill.jpg" border="0" class="center" src="http://presscore.ca/nbg/fp-content/images/bribery_bill.jpg" height="141" title="bribery_bill.jpg" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It should come as no surprise that Presidential candidate Marco Rubio is at the <a href="http://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/81c82846-aa7c-42fe-be4d-11b0f9527db0/12.11.15-letter-to-fcc-chairman-wheeler-on-municipal-broadband-final.pdf">forefront of an effort</a> to stymie local municipalities' efforts to prevent complete monopolization of broadband by Charter Cable, AT&T, and their ilk. I'm all for private enterprise but with monopoly comes a necessity for regulation.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>(edited for clarity)</i> What Rubio, et al, want to prevent is States that are beholden to carriers that currently enjoy, at worst, a near monopoly, being constrained by the FCC from legally shielding those companies from competition from local municipalities who deploy broadband networks. This sentime</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">nt is proffered under the guise of "private, competitive broadband marketplace" which, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. And, to the extent that it does, the would-be monopolists are doing all in their power (including the purchase of politicians) to stomp it out.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A further contention is the "States' rights" plea. Unpacked, what this means is Rubio, et al's insistence that States have the sovereign right to accept money from broadband monopolists who pay them to squelch local efforts to provide reliable and affordable broadband access. I hardly think that that's what the Federalist Founding Fathers had in mind.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <br />
<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l17TSkXvDec" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-14839112403337486092016-01-03T21:33:00.000-08:002016-01-06T21:52:38.001-08:00More green hype (though, apparently, well-intended)<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge3TkSlzLh4PUK9IooTZAuYJSfq2T0xwVDmhUQeiaswQCSGWOMZRAvf5XrUa4sBL_3rr2-pnkRXaZ4-mSmEBZPCl4pwif61ueRoCHot9OaScIo_g_KYXsb2P43L1WOAA2GmzH1qg/s1600/Manoj_Bhargava%252C_Founder%252C_5-hour_ENERGY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge3TkSlzLh4PUK9IooTZAuYJSfq2T0xwVDmhUQeiaswQCSGWOMZRAvf5XrUa4sBL_3rr2-pnkRXaZ4-mSmEBZPCl4pwif61ueRoCHot9OaScIo_g_KYXsb2P43L1WOAA2GmzH1qg/s1600/Manoj_Bhargava%252C_Founder%252C_5-hour_ENERGY.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: Wikipedia</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's been a while (and this isn't my first such apology) since I've posted an article. The long-awaited article (actually, articles) on the cost effectiveness of renewable energy with storage as base load and/or dispatchable electrical energy has taken a lot more time than I thought. And, of course, life intercedes. Nevertheless, lest I lose my faithful audience, I wanted to post.</span><br />
<div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicT6ULtLDLJw4Crcr8bFN91WMa0oAPHj6BJVcSQgp5uU17LIDmiTmumEvd63rZ4zob2nBqwxMfqe5OY95nI17VrCx3YEuvgHJHffMCCfKU6TioJ792xEUL7sXgQvmKFYnFb7unzw/s1600/Manoj_Bhargava%252C_Founder%252C_5-hour_ENERGY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Through a variety of feeds, I was led to a series of innovations by Manoj Bhargava, the founder of 5-Hour Energy (quite a few little bottles of which I've slugged down). He's committed to <a href="http://www.inc.com/ilan-mochari/5-hour-energy-billions-in-change.html">give away 99%</a> (<a href="http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/5-hour-energy-creator-roll-out-pedal-powered-energy-solution-india.html">or 90%</a>) of his (as of this writing) $4 billion dollar fortune. One venue for his philanthropy is his engineering and invention facility, called <a href="http://stage2innovations.com/">Stage 2 Innovations</a>. Bhargava and his people have created a series of videos highlighting some of their innovations and concepts. The site is called "Billions in Change" and you can watch a 43 minute video on three of the concepts <a href="http://billionsinchange.com/film">here</a> or watch the shorter video that involves the subject of this post <a href="http://billionsinchange.com/solutions/free-electric">here</a>. </span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNBVF3suRcBm2Ai4kssKWp1kCf7mFX1hL193IMcZtgnDGvtg3a5b4WNYd73j8rIXp0G-sFnrydZRRR1_a0PXNYZOH7XsewkBdYjHPIXkEtLrZ0ysl-z5ynabQlvw_fzTJdE3G4bg/s1600/free-electric-bike-generator.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNBVF3suRcBm2Ai4kssKWp1kCf7mFX1hL193IMcZtgnDGvtg3a5b4WNYd73j8rIXp0G-sFnrydZRRR1_a0PXNYZOH7XsewkBdYjHPIXkEtLrZ0ysl-z5ynabQlvw_fzTJdE3G4bg/s320/free-electric-bike-generator.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image credit: video screen capture from "Billions in Change,"<br />
Capture by <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/5-hour-energy-creator-roll-out-pedal-powered-energy-solution-india.html">Treehugger.com</a></i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">He's encouraged his engineers to do big things, and one cited example is the "Free Electric hybrid bike." The idea is that a human peddles a mechanism (similarly to operating a recumbent bicycle) that turns a large flywheel. In turn the flywheel operates a generator which charges a battery bank. If you think that such a concept is unheard of, I invite you to look <a href="http://www.econvergence.net/Pedal-A-Watt-Customer-Testimonials-s/1818.htm">here</a> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/MNS-Power-Bicycle-Generator-Dynamo/dp/B003GJL6GO">here</a> or <a href="http://windstreampower.com/">here</a> or... well, <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=bicycle+powered+generator&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS531US531&oq=bicycly+powered+g&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.5581j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8#">Google is your friend</a>. So what is special about this unit?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It certainly appears to be very well made and the large flywheel should ensure very smooth running. On the other hand, in comparison to the more standard versions linked above, it's sure to be dramatically more expensive to produce. But, if Bhargava is going to give them away, as they might say in Australia, good on him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I do think that the claims are quite misleading though. Multiple times in multiple places, it's stated that a user can "pedal for an hour and have electricity for 24 hours." While this is, no doubt, true, it certainly won't be a lot of electricity. It's also true that much of the developing world is either completely without electricity or suffers extremely intermittent availability.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But let's think. A world class (as in, the very best in the world) cyclist can deliver about 400 watts for an hour. I strongly suspect that someone in a village in an underdeveloped country would be fortunate to deliver 150 watts for an hour. It's certainly the case that the cyclist to flywheel to generator to battery to load efficiency will be significantly less than 100%, I'll be optimistic and use 80%. So we'll have 120 watt hours available to do work. And we're going to use this energy over a 24 hour period and so our average load can be 6.25 watts. A single LED bulb with approximately the luminous intensity of a 60 watt incandescent bulb will <a href="http://www.designrecycleinc.com/led%20comp%20chart.html">use around 7 watts</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, we won't need the single bulb during the daytime or when sleeping, let's say we use it for five hours. That will use about 34 of our 120 watt hours, leaving us with 86 watt hours. We'll use some of them to charge a smart phone. A typical battery might have a capacity of 8 watt hours or so and let's assume a couple of people in the family have phones. We now have 70 watt hours remaining. Of course, it could be that we don't use our phone enough to need to charge it every day but, if we have kids and there's internet, we will.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We certainly can't use the energy for heat. While such a use is very efficient (approaching 100%) it's extremely power hungry. Let's figure that our family wants to use a Chromebook or some such to have internet access. The Samsung Chromebook battery features a 30 watt hour battery that lasts 7 hours. If we only use it for 3.5 hours per day we'll use 15 watt hours, leaving us 55 watt hours. We'll assume that the smart phone provides a wifi hotspot so that we don't need a router and some sort of IP service provider.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, we have a single light on for five hours, two smart phones and a Chromebook and we've used over half of our stored power. We certainly won't be able to pump water, provide heat, charge a vehicle battery, etc. So, while there's no argument that 24 hours of electricity can be provided by pedaling for an hour, it's not the sort of electricity use that a denizen of a developed country thinks of. My family uses electricity at an average rate of about 2,000 watts (we're hogs though), a ratio of about 300:1.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Further, contrary to another Bhargava claim, this is not free. If we figure the human body<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6kyBCeZZuBho2HiCF2V0hERYErmXf7nTxEDYH_mjBYpQZ_XeTdxhwHjad1jZUCJ8thqeRpHHmNaQMzaQ-1vnv7SWmgzlYCJyA9IBFevQwtpbf8a8aIs8PDRrNdIhEuVaRZfXetg/s1600/African+poverty.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6kyBCeZZuBho2HiCF2V0hERYErmXf7nTxEDYH_mjBYpQZ_XeTdxhwHjad1jZUCJ8thqeRpHHmNaQMzaQ-1vnv7SWmgzlYCJyA9IBFevQwtpbf8a8aIs8PDRrNdIhEuVaRZfXetg/s320/African+poverty.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Image credit: unknown</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
to </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">operate at 20% efficiency in turning food chemical energy to mechanical energy (I think that </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">this is high, others think that it's low) then these 150 watt hours or about 129 kilocalories (that is, food calories) will require ingesting about 650 kilocalories of food. My suspicion is that a family whose life will be changed by the ability to light a bulb for five hours, charge two phones, and use a Chromebook for 3.5 hours isn't sedentary and thus in need of exercise.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Might there be a use for the pedal powered generator/battery combination? I think that there could well be. But the idea is not original (though this application may be). Bhargava's heart would seem to be in the right place, I don't think he's charlatan. He also has innovations in health care, water purification, and to use graphene cables to draw heat from the Earth's mantle. He also funds and houses other innovators in an incubator fashion. You can't accuse him of not thinking big. In due time, I hope to look at some of his other innovations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9L_0lnVrSmQ" width="420"></iframe><br />
<i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></i>
<i><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Update: <a href="http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000459554">Bhargava is interviewed</a> about some of his innovations at CNBC. He says that the Free Electric hybrid bike can power "24 lightbulbs, a fan, a phone charger, and a tablet." He goes on to say that you can either use it all at once or store it in a battery. On the video linked in the second paragraph, someone working for him states that it can power "1050 equivalent watts of lighting." None of my physics books discusses the unit "equivalent watt" but the video shows 24 lit bulbs. A closeup reveals the labeling on the bulbs. Looking them up, they're 4 watt, 12 volt LED bulbs so we're talking about 96 watts. I'm sure that the "equivalent watt" is the conversion to the luminous intensity of incandescent bulbs. Also shown is a blowing small fan, a tablet with the display appearing to be on, and a smart phone in a charger. I'd estimate the total load of all that at something like 110 or 120 watts and so I'm confident that my discussion above does apply. They show a closeup of a digital meter that is displaying 274 but don't mention 274 of what. I assume that it's watts, and that the peddler was pushing himself at that moment.</span></i>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26744483.post-84103582150133018612015-10-26T22:48:00.000-07:002015-10-28T20:41:53.940-07:00LightSail yet again<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIgIeQ-G9eQU3bwjh_GhDoysW0BEvWPpbT9uTi0W5C2dy8woKR3zwTKYR6IB_r6PexxqipJWq9FaNXhi4AF49zslRRMnM2NKN-ntu_E2SkVvsxJb5zmvXlO7vgSmaJOXSHs_pHug/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-10-26+at+11.30.58+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIgIeQ-G9eQU3bwjh_GhDoysW0BEvWPpbT9uTi0W5C2dy8woKR3zwTKYR6IB_r6PexxqipJWq9FaNXhi4AF49zslRRMnM2NKN-ntu_E2SkVvsxJb5zmvXlO7vgSmaJOXSHs_pHug/s200/Screen+Shot+2015-10-26+at+11.30.58+PM.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image courtesy of LighSail Energy</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This will be a short one. <a href="http://www.lightsail.com/">LightSail Energy</a>, a startup with innovations in compressed air energy storage, has already <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/01/ok-enough-negativity.html">appeared</a> in my writing <a href="http://hamiltonianfunction.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-on-lightsail-energy.html">twice</a>, the most recent being after co-founder <a href="http://daniellefong.com/">Danielle Fong</a> was generous enough with her time to take me on a tour of their facility in Berkeley. In the first article I mentioned that I'd delve deeper into the thermodynamics of their process. After the second Ms. Fong mentioned that, in general, she felt that I'd been fair and accurate but that my skepticism regarding LightSail's ability to manufacture systems in the facility I visited was unfounded. Hmm... "uncalled for" is the actual quote. I'd like to take a look at both, but first the manufacturing capacity.</span><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZChG1MwLuW8KPVT7_nAo_RHec2gJgSyiqmtxh7jP77VXPcbjjtwUgoXtt0VGvDmweTq0DuvxNKg251NNhnO9ekNaiL0WyvT5vKCO4pKWGWwAXI5OsAJCieZsZ-31ShT4F3nspEA/s1600/Screen+Shot+2015-10-26+at+11.15.25+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZChG1MwLuW8KPVT7_nAo_RHec2gJgSyiqmtxh7jP77VXPcbjjtwUgoXtt0VGvDmweTq0DuvxNKg251NNhnO9ekNaiL0WyvT5vKCO4pKWGWwAXI5OsAJCieZsZ-31ShT4F3nspEA/s200/Screen+Shot+2015-10-26+at+11.15.25+PM.png" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><i>Image courtesy of LightSail Energy</i></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As it happened, it turned out that I hadn't seen the whole facility. Further conversation with Ms. Fong revealed that LightSail's existing Berkeley facility does have some manufacturing capabilities and, in fact, has production runs of tanks in particular. It should be noted (and I've seen Fong tout this publicly in some of the amazingly large number of video presentations in which she's featured) that LightSail states that they have designed, prototyped, tested, and produced tanks with unprecedentedly high merit indices. These tanks can be sold for uses other than compressed air energy storage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Further, LightSail is able to assemble, commission, and sell their compressor expanders out of their R&D facility. Thus, while LightSail is unlikely to be able to meet full scale production of their storage units at the Berkeley facility in the event that their compressed air energy storage technology takes off at the scale that the Company envisions, it's clear that they do, in fact, have significant manufacturing capabilities there. I stand corrected.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aXAU4MmMIMo" width="420"></iframe>King of the Roadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.com5