That's the amount of proven and probable reserves of oil for each person on Earth. Clearly, it's not an exact number but it assumes about 2 trillion barrels and about 6.7 billion people. 300 barrels. That's it.
Now, in the United States we use about 25 barrels of oil per year per person. For those not near their calculator, that means we'll use up our 300 barrels in 12 years. Is it really that bad? Well, yes. Fortunately for us, there are many countries in Africa and Asia, and even in Central and South America who kindly decide not to use as much of their 300 barrels each year as we do. In fact, there are no countries whose citizens use as much of their 300 barrel allotment as we do. For example, the Chinese use around two barrels per year per person.
The question is: when we've used up ours, are they all going to sell us theirs? Sure, if the price is right. But that price will be dear. Only the most essential uses will be able to be accommodated. What we're seeing in the commodity exchanges and at the gas pump is only the beginning - there is no aspect of our lives that will remain unaffected.
Preparation should have begun years ago, this impending calamity is not a new development. It's been predicted for half a century. Preparation at the personal, community, local, national, and worldwide levels with an urgency that hasn't been matched in living memory is the prescription. Look around - do you see it anywhere?
There are those who are preparing, I strongly recommend the Yahoo news group Running on Empty 2. There, you'll find extensive discussions of the issues at hand, of preparations people are undertaking, and answers to questions. You'll find links to pertinent news items, web sites, and fora and blogs. You won't find old school survivalists of the black helicopter variety.
While I work on maximizing the return on my energy expenditures driving my Land Rover to and from my McMansion, I'm working on a total change of lifestyle. I recommend readers do the same.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Michael Medved, Dr. Albert Bartlett, and innumeracy
I was thinking about my post on how peoples philosophy affects their evaluation of factual data. I googled (an unfortunate example of "verbification," a language trend I loathe) "Michael Medved" "peak oil." I came upon a site called The Dead Hand. It seems to be the work of Dr. Robert Williscroft, who has penned a tome entitled The Chicken Little Agenda: Debunking "Experts'" Lies. The theme is that the end of the world as we know it is not approaching, no matter what "they" say. Dr. Williscroft has a flash audio of a Michael Medved segment that included himself and a representative of the group Seattle Peak Oil Awareness (Medved lives in Seattle). The segment occupied an hour of Medved's show.
This post is about the misconceptions about what can be accomplished by finding more oil, something Medved and Williscroft (and most of the callers to the show) think will inevitably happen and will solve our problems, at least for many decades to come. Unfortunately, even should such finds be forthcoming, they'll only postpone our reckoning by a small amount. As an aside, it's not as if most of the world is a vast unknown full of huge undiscovered oil fields and geologists have no clue about where to find them. In any case, Dr. Albert Bartlett has spent his career trying to educate lay people on the consequences of exponentially increasing consumption of a finite resource. I strongly urge everyone to look here for Dr. Bartlett's exposition.
I'd like to spend a little virtual ink to bring some of the salient points to my reader's attention. The world is currently using oil at the rate of about 80 million barrels per day. The spreadsheet from BP I used in my previous post on exponential growth gives enough data to show that the current doubling time for oil consumption is around 45 years. This means that in the next 45 years, we'll use as much oil as we have in all history up until today. Now, this is an exceptionally rosy estimate, if things go as they are going now. We have India, China, Indonesia, and many other developing nations growing quickly both in population and in per capita energy use. This has severe ramifications on the figure of 45 years, since that's based on data from 1982 through 2006.
Let's suppose an annual growth rate of 6% worldwide in demand encompasses the increasing populations and energy consumption rates of the so-called "developing world," and that that leads to an annual increase worldwide of 4%. Both of these are in line with current projections. Now we're looking at a doubling period of about 18 years, meaning that we'll use as much oil in the next 18 years as we've used up until today in all history. Further, it means that if geologists and oil companies double the oil reserves available, only another 18 years of oil use would be added.
Unfortunately, this underestimates the problem, since the second half of the oil is only extracted with much greater effort and with much greater cost, both in energy and monetary terms. I'm not predicting the end of the world as we know it, but Mr. Medved, et al, are whistling past the graveyard. I have no doubt that it's due to the cognitive dissonance between the philosophical framework by which he interprets facts and what is factual reality.
This post is about the misconceptions about what can be accomplished by finding more oil, something Medved and Williscroft (and most of the callers to the show) think will inevitably happen and will solve our problems, at least for many decades to come. Unfortunately, even should such finds be forthcoming, they'll only postpone our reckoning by a small amount. As an aside, it's not as if most of the world is a vast unknown full of huge undiscovered oil fields and geologists have no clue about where to find them. In any case, Dr. Albert Bartlett has spent his career trying to educate lay people on the consequences of exponentially increasing consumption of a finite resource. I strongly urge everyone to look here for Dr. Bartlett's exposition.
I'd like to spend a little virtual ink to bring some of the salient points to my reader's attention. The world is currently using oil at the rate of about 80 million barrels per day. The spreadsheet from BP I used in my previous post on exponential growth gives enough data to show that the current doubling time for oil consumption is around 45 years. This means that in the next 45 years, we'll use as much oil as we have in all history up until today. Now, this is an exceptionally rosy estimate, if things go as they are going now. We have India, China, Indonesia, and many other developing nations growing quickly both in population and in per capita energy use. This has severe ramifications on the figure of 45 years, since that's based on data from 1982 through 2006.
Let's suppose an annual growth rate of 6% worldwide in demand encompasses the increasing populations and energy consumption rates of the so-called "developing world," and that that leads to an annual increase worldwide of 4%. Both of these are in line with current projections. Now we're looking at a doubling period of about 18 years, meaning that we'll use as much oil in the next 18 years as we've used up until today in all history. Further, it means that if geologists and oil companies double the oil reserves available, only another 18 years of oil use would be added.
Unfortunately, this underestimates the problem, since the second half of the oil is only extracted with much greater effort and with much greater cost, both in energy and monetary terms. I'm not predicting the end of the world as we know it, but Mr. Medved, et al, are whistling past the graveyard. I have no doubt that it's due to the cognitive dissonance between the philosophical framework by which he interprets facts and what is factual reality.
Friday, April 04, 2008
The time factor is worse than I thought
In my post on the use of time, I used some estimates as to how much time I lose with the fuel economizing driving techniques I utilize. I estimated that I lose eight minutes and 25 seconds each day driving 55 m.p.h. instead of 70 m.p.h. I've been browsing the fuel saving websites and blogs, and the "party line" is that very little time will be lost. I decided that I'd see what the real numbers are for my commute.
I used a stopwatch to time the portions of my typical commute each way during which I could have been driving 70 m.p.h. Then, a simple multiplication by 55/70 gave me the time I would have spent driving those miles at 70 m.p.h., and a subtraction yielded the time loss. I did this for two days and averaged the numbers. The days seemed fairly typical so I imagine that the results are representative. Certainly, there are periods during which traffic is worse (say, when school starts in September, when standard time returns, etc.) but during these times, I'm not saving much fuel anyway.
The results are highly disturbing. I'm spending about 10 minutes and 41 seconds longer on the road each day than I would if I drove 70 m.p.h. That's about 44 1/2 hours per year. It's reduced slightly by the fact that I have to stop for fuel less often, and judicious use of my assistant and the mobile phone enables a minimal level of productivity, but even allowing for this, it's just about equivalent to a week of work (or vacation).
A sensible person would give it up, but those who have followed this blog at all will have no fear that I'm a sensible person. I've said it before, but if I'm going to keep this up, I must find a way to be more productive. I have a little tape recorder for dictating things, but that just shuffles the work onto someone else to type it, or slightly reduces the time for me to compose a document. I don't know about the reliability of software that translates spoken word into typed documents, the last time I tried such a product it was worthless for my purposes.
Well, for the time being I guess I'll stick to my "Learn Mandarin Chinese" podcast. But it's clear that nothing comes for free, not even saving fuel.
I used a stopwatch to time the portions of my typical commute each way during which I could have been driving 70 m.p.h. Then, a simple multiplication by 55/70 gave me the time I would have spent driving those miles at 70 m.p.h., and a subtraction yielded the time loss. I did this for two days and averaged the numbers. The days seemed fairly typical so I imagine that the results are representative. Certainly, there are periods during which traffic is worse (say, when school starts in September, when standard time returns, etc.) but during these times, I'm not saving much fuel anyway.
The results are highly disturbing. I'm spending about 10 minutes and 41 seconds longer on the road each day than I would if I drove 70 m.p.h. That's about 44 1/2 hours per year. It's reduced slightly by the fact that I have to stop for fuel less often, and judicious use of my assistant and the mobile phone enables a minimal level of productivity, but even allowing for this, it's just about equivalent to a week of work (or vacation).
A sensible person would give it up, but those who have followed this blog at all will have no fear that I'm a sensible person. I've said it before, but if I'm going to keep this up, I must find a way to be more productive. I have a little tape recorder for dictating things, but that just shuffles the work onto someone else to type it, or slightly reduces the time for me to compose a document. I don't know about the reliability of software that translates spoken word into typed documents, the last time I tried such a product it was worthless for my purposes.
Well, for the time being I guess I'll stick to my "Learn Mandarin Chinese" podcast. But it's clear that nothing comes for free, not even saving fuel.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
A simple way to save a little fuel
I know that most people won't use the extreme methods of fuel consumption minimization that I've used to achieve a five tank moving average fuel efficiency of 21.09 m.p.g. in my Land Rover LR3 HSE, at least until it's a matter of taking extreme measures or not driving at all. People are repelled by the thought of (and if they're in my vehicle, the experience of) driving 55 m.p.h. on the freeway, coasting wherever possible, etc. But what about a minor adjustment that will save a little fuel?
I've previously detailed my policies on stoplights, including when I turn my engine off, coasting to minimize fuel waste when approaching red lights, whether or not it pays to speed up to attempt to make it through a green (or yellow) light, etc. Possibly, no one will adopt any of the measures I've outlined in those posts. But what about just shifting from drive to neutral? When sitting still with the vehicle in drive and brakes applied, more fuel is used than with the vehicle in neutral. I know this to be the case because I can see it on my Scan Gauge II. As I usually do, I'll run a few calculations to estimate my fuel savings from this policy, and then I'll add some more estimates to see what the effect might be on nationwide energy consumption, trade deficit, etc.
On my LR3 HSE, I typically use about 0.5 gallons/hour at idle in neutral. The absolute manifold pressure is about 4.8 p.s.i. Putting the car in gear (drive) and holding it still with the brakes causes the manifold pressure to increase to about 5.8 p.s.i. Since increasing manifold pressure results in a proportional increase in air mass flow through the engine, and hence a proportional increase in fuel consumption, we can assume that the 20.8% increase in manifold pressure results in a similar increase in rate of fuel consumption. However, we're looking at what could be saved by a driver who adopts the policy of shifting to neutral at stoplights so the appropriate way to look at the situation is that this driver will reduce his or her fuel consumption by 17.2% (1/5.8*100%).
Using estimates detailed previously (slightly modified) for stoplights hit per day, time spent per light, idling fuel consumption, etc. for the average car and driver, it looks like my "average driver" could save about 2.56 gallons/year. At current rates in Southern California, that would amount to a savings of $8.70 at the pump. I guess that would cover a single high-end caffeine product at your local Starbucks. It's probably not enough to save a homeowner headed for foreclosure though. As readers of this blog will readily infer, I certainly do it.
What about the results of nationwide application of this policy? I estimate that somewhere on the order of 333 million gallons of fuel could be saved. This is the gasoline from about 17.5 million barrels of oil. And since the other 23 gallons of oil in a barrel are not discarded when gasoline is produced at the refinery, I'll estimate that something like 8.8 million barrels could be left for other countries to purchase. This would reduce our trade deficit by just shy of $1 billion at current oil prices (about $105/barrel). Hmmm... According to the U.S. Census Bureau the January 2008 trade deficit was $58.2 billion. And here I thought I'd solved the problem.
I've previously detailed my policies on stoplights, including when I turn my engine off, coasting to minimize fuel waste when approaching red lights, whether or not it pays to speed up to attempt to make it through a green (or yellow) light, etc. Possibly, no one will adopt any of the measures I've outlined in those posts. But what about just shifting from drive to neutral? When sitting still with the vehicle in drive and brakes applied, more fuel is used than with the vehicle in neutral. I know this to be the case because I can see it on my Scan Gauge II. As I usually do, I'll run a few calculations to estimate my fuel savings from this policy, and then I'll add some more estimates to see what the effect might be on nationwide energy consumption, trade deficit, etc.
On my LR3 HSE, I typically use about 0.5 gallons/hour at idle in neutral. The absolute manifold pressure is about 4.8 p.s.i. Putting the car in gear (drive) and holding it still with the brakes causes the manifold pressure to increase to about 5.8 p.s.i. Since increasing manifold pressure results in a proportional increase in air mass flow through the engine, and hence a proportional increase in fuel consumption, we can assume that the 20.8% increase in manifold pressure results in a similar increase in rate of fuel consumption. However, we're looking at what could be saved by a driver who adopts the policy of shifting to neutral at stoplights so the appropriate way to look at the situation is that this driver will reduce his or her fuel consumption by 17.2% (1/5.8*100%).
Using estimates detailed previously (slightly modified) for stoplights hit per day, time spent per light, idling fuel consumption, etc. for the average car and driver, it looks like my "average driver" could save about 2.56 gallons/year. At current rates in Southern California, that would amount to a savings of $8.70 at the pump. I guess that would cover a single high-end caffeine product at your local Starbucks. It's probably not enough to save a homeowner headed for foreclosure though. As readers of this blog will readily infer, I certainly do it.
What about the results of nationwide application of this policy? I estimate that somewhere on the order of 333 million gallons of fuel could be saved. This is the gasoline from about 17.5 million barrels of oil. And since the other 23 gallons of oil in a barrel are not discarded when gasoline is produced at the refinery, I'll estimate that something like 8.8 million barrels could be left for other countries to purchase. This would reduce our trade deficit by just shy of $1 billion at current oil prices (about $105/barrel). Hmmm... According to the U.S. Census Bureau the January 2008 trade deficit was $58.2 billion. And here I thought I'd solved the problem.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
The best speed for fuel economy
I calculated in a previous post that my "highway mileage" at 55 m.p.h. is 23.27 m.p.g. It stands to reason that there is an optimum speed for fuel efficiency based on the balance between the low efficiency at low speed due to engine friction and the increase in aerodynamic drag, proportional to the square of speed, as speed increases. Now, my Land Rover LR3 HSE is not the optimal aerodynamic shape, with a coefficient of drag of 0.41 and a frontal area of 33.9 square feet. It makes sense, and conforms with various articles I've read (see the article on HowStuffWorks.com entitled "What speed should I drive to get maximum fuel efficiency?" here for example), that the optimum speed for a box on wheels like my vehicle should have a lower optimum speed than a vehicle designed to have excellent aerodynamics.
I made some conceptual calculations that agree with the form of the equation shown in the "How Stuff Works" article linked above. There, it is stated that the power required as a function of speed is a third degree polynomial, that is, P=as^3+bs^2+cs+d where P is power required, s is speed, a,b, and c are coefficients and d is a constant specific to a given vehicle. Since power is the rate of doing work, or more importantly in this case, the rate of use of energy (burning fuel) in the appropriate units (gallons per hour for example), we can say power is proportional to gallons/mile times miles/hour. Then we can say that gallons per mile (the inverse of miles per gallon) is proportional to power divided by speed. So, substitute the polynomial above for power and divide by speed and we find that the rate of fuel consumption in gallons per mile is a second degree polynomial function of speed. Sorry for the extended math exposition!
In any case, the above leads to the following expression for fuel per unit of distance: f=ms^2+ns+p, where f is fuel consumption per distance (say, gallons per 100 miles), s is speed in miles per hour, and m and n are coefficients and p is a constant different (probably) from the previous ones. I used the same level stretch of freeway in no wind conditions that I used previously to check highway mileage (linked above) over a few weeks to check the instant miles per gallon at various speeds allowed by traffic (when I was able to maintain a set speed long enough for the display to stabilize). I then calculated the inverse in gallons per 100 miles for those speeds, plotted them in an Excel spreadsheet and made the best fit of a second degree polynomial.
From that point, it was a very simple calculus exercise to find the speed at which fuel consumption would be minimized. This turned out to be 43.4 m.p.h. I can plug this into the second degree polynomial, divide by 100, and invert the resulting number to estimate miles per gallon at that speed. The result is 27.47 m.p.g. Not too bad, but remember from the earlier post that it turns out that that stretch of freeway has a very slight downward slope in the direction I used to obtain my measurements. I have to use the method I used in that post to correct the fuel economy. To spare my patient readers the details, the correction yields a final figure of 26.18 m.p.g. at 43.4 m.p.h.
Interestingly, this speed is lower than the one previously calculated for the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited I used to have, even though that vehicle had (according to various web sites) a higher drag coefficient. And, looking at the vehicles side by side, the Jeep looks sleeker. Even with the higher drag coefficient, the jeep feels a smaller drag force due to the smaller frontal area. But unless the figures are mistaken, the looks are deceiving as far as drag coefficient is concerned. And the estimate I had for that vehicle of optimum speed for fuel efficiency was a little over 50 m.p.h.
So, do I plan to reduce my freeway driving speed from the current 57 m.p.h. (it's 57 because I ran the above calculations based on speedometer reading, not Scan Gauge II's 2 m.p.h. lower reading since the speedometer seemed more accurate over a timed measured mile)? Probably not, since I have to be alive to continue with the experiment.
I made some conceptual calculations that agree with the form of the equation shown in the "How Stuff Works" article linked above. There, it is stated that the power required as a function of speed is a third degree polynomial, that is, P=as^3+bs^2+cs+d where P is power required, s is speed, a,b, and c are coefficients and d is a constant specific to a given vehicle. Since power is the rate of doing work, or more importantly in this case, the rate of use of energy (burning fuel) in the appropriate units (gallons per hour for example), we can say power is proportional to gallons/mile times miles/hour. Then we can say that gallons per mile (the inverse of miles per gallon) is proportional to power divided by speed. So, substitute the polynomial above for power and divide by speed and we find that the rate of fuel consumption in gallons per mile is a second degree polynomial function of speed. Sorry for the extended math exposition!
In any case, the above leads to the following expression for fuel per unit of distance: f=ms^2+ns+p, where f is fuel consumption per distance (say, gallons per 100 miles), s is speed in miles per hour, and m and n are coefficients and p is a constant different (probably) from the previous ones. I used the same level stretch of freeway in no wind conditions that I used previously to check highway mileage (linked above) over a few weeks to check the instant miles per gallon at various speeds allowed by traffic (when I was able to maintain a set speed long enough for the display to stabilize). I then calculated the inverse in gallons per 100 miles for those speeds, plotted them in an Excel spreadsheet and made the best fit of a second degree polynomial.
From that point, it was a very simple calculus exercise to find the speed at which fuel consumption would be minimized. This turned out to be 43.4 m.p.h. I can plug this into the second degree polynomial, divide by 100, and invert the resulting number to estimate miles per gallon at that speed. The result is 27.47 m.p.g. Not too bad, but remember from the earlier post that it turns out that that stretch of freeway has a very slight downward slope in the direction I used to obtain my measurements. I have to use the method I used in that post to correct the fuel economy. To spare my patient readers the details, the correction yields a final figure of 26.18 m.p.g. at 43.4 m.p.h.
Interestingly, this speed is lower than the one previously calculated for the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited I used to have, even though that vehicle had (according to various web sites) a higher drag coefficient. And, looking at the vehicles side by side, the Jeep looks sleeker. Even with the higher drag coefficient, the jeep feels a smaller drag force due to the smaller frontal area. But unless the figures are mistaken, the looks are deceiving as far as drag coefficient is concerned. And the estimate I had for that vehicle of optimum speed for fuel efficiency was a little over 50 m.p.h.
So, do I plan to reduce my freeway driving speed from the current 57 m.p.h. (it's 57 because I ran the above calculations based on speedometer reading, not Scan Gauge II's 2 m.p.h. lower reading since the speedometer seemed more accurate over a timed measured mile)? Probably not, since I have to be alive to continue with the experiment.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Good question
In my diligent search through the web to find articles of interest about energy, fuel saving measures, and efficiency I happened upon an article from the Technology Review published by MIT entitled Why Not a 40-MPG SUV. The substance of the article was that, despite the remonstrances of (particularly) the U.S. automobile industry, the technology is available now to bring relatively large and comfortable SUV's that achieve a fuel efficiency of 40 miles per gallon.
This was of particular interest to me since I drive a relatively large and comfortable SUV, the Land Rover LR3 HSE that has been the subject of many of the articles I've posted. Now, none of the technologies described in the article can be retrofitted to my vehicle, but they could be brought to market by the time I have to replace the LR3.
Some of the options reflect methods I've already incorporated into my regimen, such as engines that turn off and restart at stoplights, etc. The development is a starter /generator that has sufficient power to start the engine without noticeable lag when a driver steps on the gas after a stop. The current state of the art requires a 42 volt electrical system and is a way out into the future. As detailed previously, I simulate this at relatively long stoplights and on long downhill cruises and make up for the lack of instant starting ability with anticipation.
Some of the developments detailed are already beginning to appear, one example is the continuously variable transmission. Clearly, the ability to run in a narrow band of r.p.m.s regardless of vehicle speed will result in more efficient operation - this is one reason why modern locomotives are hybrid diesel electric propulsion systems wherein the diesel engine runs at a constant r.p.m. to operate electric motors that provide the motive force.
Some are much farther out, including engines that operate without camshafts to operate the valves. Electronic controllers can do a much more efficient job of opening and closing the valves, but are quite hard on them using current technology. Camshafts are more gentle, engineers are investigating various damping systems to reduce the electronically controlled valves impact on valve seats.
There are several more methods under development detailed in the article. Contemplating the individual financial savings as gasoline creeps seemingly inexorably toward $4/gallon and considering the impact on our need to import oil, it's high time we got down to it.
This was of particular interest to me since I drive a relatively large and comfortable SUV, the Land Rover LR3 HSE that has been the subject of many of the articles I've posted. Now, none of the technologies described in the article can be retrofitted to my vehicle, but they could be brought to market by the time I have to replace the LR3.
Some of the options reflect methods I've already incorporated into my regimen, such as engines that turn off and restart at stoplights, etc. The development is a starter /generator that has sufficient power to start the engine without noticeable lag when a driver steps on the gas after a stop. The current state of the art requires a 42 volt electrical system and is a way out into the future. As detailed previously, I simulate this at relatively long stoplights and on long downhill cruises and make up for the lack of instant starting ability with anticipation.
Some of the developments detailed are already beginning to appear, one example is the continuously variable transmission. Clearly, the ability to run in a narrow band of r.p.m.s regardless of vehicle speed will result in more efficient operation - this is one reason why modern locomotives are hybrid diesel electric propulsion systems wherein the diesel engine runs at a constant r.p.m. to operate electric motors that provide the motive force.
Some are much farther out, including engines that operate without camshafts to operate the valves. Electronic controllers can do a much more efficient job of opening and closing the valves, but are quite hard on them using current technology. Camshafts are more gentle, engineers are investigating various damping systems to reduce the electronically controlled valves impact on valve seats.
There are several more methods under development detailed in the article. Contemplating the individual financial savings as gasoline creeps seemingly inexorably toward $4/gallon and considering the impact on our need to import oil, it's high time we got down to it.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Stoplights (stop me if you've heard this before)
Never one to leave well enough alone (as an aside, this is one of the many expressions I never really understood until well into adulthood - another is "you can't have your cake and eat it too"), I've started sporadically keeping track of my stoplight experiences. I've tracked how many greens, how many reds, and approximately how much time was spent waiting. I say approximately because it's not so easy to determine when to start the timing at a light - do you start the stopwatch at first brake application? Or at a complete stop? What about slowing down but not having to stop? I'm trying to tie the timing to time not using fuel as efficiently as cruising, but there's a lot of judgment involved.
But it's looking like the earlier estimates I made (see here and here)for stoplight durations are fairly close. In the time I've been recording this data (only sporadically because it's quite distracting), I've encountered 59% green lights. I've suffered an average delay of 32 seconds. I've passed through an average of 32 lights each day. So that means that I'm losing an average of about 10:06 per day while stopped at 19 stoplights.
I try to minimize driving on weekends (though I haven't succeeded in eliminating it entirely) so I'll figure 280 days per year of losing 10:06 per day, for a total of 47.13 hours per year lost at stoplights. Burning about 0.5 gallons of fuel per hour at idle, if I don't turn the engine off at any lights, I'll burn 23.6 gallons of fuel. In my Land Rover LR3 HSE, that's a little over a single tank full and at $3.39/gallon (today) it's worth just barely less than $80.00.
This underestimates the loss, however, because it only counts idling fuel and not the fuel wasted in regaining energy lost to braking that has to be added by burning fuel. I estimated that in the second of the two posts listed above, so I'll just refine it here. I estimated stopping at 12 lights for 45 seconds each day for a loss of 9:00 per day, apparently a slight underestimation.
To finally squeeze the last blood from this turnip, I'll estimate that I slow from 35 m.p.h. to 0 on average at each of the 19 stoplights. It's not perfect, but it's as good as I know how to do. In any case, this wastes 322,150 joules of energy which takes, at 25% efficiency, 1,288,600 joules of heat energy from burning premium grade fuel to regain.
Using the figures above, and estimating 125,000,000 joules of heat energy available in a gallon of gasoline, I burn 54.84 gallons of fuel per year adding kinetic energy to my vehicle that I've wasted to heat my brakes stopping for stoplights. The total then is 78.4 gallons of fuel, or about 3.6 tanks full wasted. This number is quite close to my previous estimate, but now there's data to back it up. To me, the interesting aspect of this is the fact that well over 2/3 of the fuel wasted is due to getting back up to speed rather than to burning fuel while sitting still. Since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of speed, this stands to reason but it's still interesting to see it documented.
I'm still anticipating an experiment to determine fuel lost in restarting, but this data shows the potential savings from coasting to a stop without brakes (thus using instead of wasting kinetic energy) and turning off the engine - ideally as soon as the coasting begins. As with most of the other measures, it won't eliminate our need to import oil but it could help delay the crash.
But it's looking like the earlier estimates I made (see here and here)for stoplight durations are fairly close. In the time I've been recording this data (only sporadically because it's quite distracting), I've encountered 59% green lights. I've suffered an average delay of 32 seconds. I've passed through an average of 32 lights each day. So that means that I'm losing an average of about 10:06 per day while stopped at 19 stoplights.
I try to minimize driving on weekends (though I haven't succeeded in eliminating it entirely) so I'll figure 280 days per year of losing 10:06 per day, for a total of 47.13 hours per year lost at stoplights. Burning about 0.5 gallons of fuel per hour at idle, if I don't turn the engine off at any lights, I'll burn 23.6 gallons of fuel. In my Land Rover LR3 HSE, that's a little over a single tank full and at $3.39/gallon (today) it's worth just barely less than $80.00.
This underestimates the loss, however, because it only counts idling fuel and not the fuel wasted in regaining energy lost to braking that has to be added by burning fuel. I estimated that in the second of the two posts listed above, so I'll just refine it here. I estimated stopping at 12 lights for 45 seconds each day for a loss of 9:00 per day, apparently a slight underestimation.
To finally squeeze the last blood from this turnip, I'll estimate that I slow from 35 m.p.h. to 0 on average at each of the 19 stoplights. It's not perfect, but it's as good as I know how to do. In any case, this wastes 322,150 joules of energy which takes, at 25% efficiency, 1,288,600 joules of heat energy from burning premium grade fuel to regain.
Using the figures above, and estimating 125,000,000 joules of heat energy available in a gallon of gasoline, I burn 54.84 gallons of fuel per year adding kinetic energy to my vehicle that I've wasted to heat my brakes stopping for stoplights. The total then is 78.4 gallons of fuel, or about 3.6 tanks full wasted. This number is quite close to my previous estimate, but now there's data to back it up. To me, the interesting aspect of this is the fact that well over 2/3 of the fuel wasted is due to getting back up to speed rather than to burning fuel while sitting still. Since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of speed, this stands to reason but it's still interesting to see it documented.
I'm still anticipating an experiment to determine fuel lost in restarting, but this data shows the potential savings from coasting to a stop without brakes (thus using instead of wasting kinetic energy) and turning off the engine - ideally as soon as the coasting begins. As with most of the other measures, it won't eliminate our need to import oil but it could help delay the crash.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Humans as generators
I was watching the show "Invention Nation" on the Discovery Science Channel. The hosts visited a company that, apparently, is working on a revolving door that, when operated by patrons, generates electricity by moving neodymium magnets across coils of copper wire. The mechanism is exposed, so that patrons of an establishment that has such doors will be able to see the means by which they are generating power.
I was skeptical as to the significance of such a device, the show hosts used a prototype to light a small bank of L.E.D.'s. So I performed a Google search on the terms "generating power with revolving doors." I found several sites that mentioned the use of various human activities to generate useful power, including revolving doors and other methods (e.g., piezoelectric crystals in floors). This led me to consider the possibilities (quoting Marcellus Wallace, "All I'm doing is contemplating the 'ifs'").
As best I can tell, the human body, when purposefully performing work (riding a bicycle, lifting, etc.) has an efficiency of somewhere between 11% and 14%. That counts only how many calories (actually kilocalories) of food it takes to do a given amount of "useful" work. It does not count the sun to plant to animal to slaughterhouse to processing plant to distributor to store to house to stove to mouth efficiency (leave out some of those if you're a vegetarian). So, unless someone is exercising to remain physically fit, utilizing the human body to convert sunlight to electricity is quite inefficient.
Let's run some "back of the envelope" calculations though. There are about 3*10^8 people in the U.S. Say 1*10^8 of them walk on office, factory, or school floors, walk through revolving doors, etc. Now, the average adult uses something like 2500 kilocalories per day, let's say 100 of those are used putting feet on floors, using doors, etc. (very generous in my opinion). At 14% efficiency by the human and 50% efficiency by the generator (piezoelectric, magnetic, etc.) we have: 100 kilocalories*0.14*0.5 kilocalories of useful work per day per person to be captured.
Work divided by time is power so the above can be converted to watts per person (I typically use Google's calculator). This yields 0.339 watts per person. This is the effective continuous power output per person on average. Multiply this by 1*10^8 to total 33,900,000 or 3.39*10^7 watts available nationwide calculated on a continuous basis. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2005 we used electricity at the rate of 3.816 trillion kilowatt hours/year, or 4.353*10^11 watts. Hence, using these extremely optimistic assumptions, this scheme could generate 0.008%, or 8 one thousandths of 1% of our electricity.
As I said though, when we do this, we're converting solar power inefficiently into electricity. Better to invest the money into more efficient generation schemes, except at health clubs, etc., where people are working out into a load and it might just as well be an electrical load that serves a purpose.
I was skeptical as to the significance of such a device, the show hosts used a prototype to light a small bank of L.E.D.'s. So I performed a Google search on the terms "generating power with revolving doors." I found several sites that mentioned the use of various human activities to generate useful power, including revolving doors and other methods (e.g., piezoelectric crystals in floors). This led me to consider the possibilities (quoting Marcellus Wallace, "All I'm doing is contemplating the 'ifs'").
As best I can tell, the human body, when purposefully performing work (riding a bicycle, lifting, etc.) has an efficiency of somewhere between 11% and 14%. That counts only how many calories (actually kilocalories) of food it takes to do a given amount of "useful" work. It does not count the sun to plant to animal to slaughterhouse to processing plant to distributor to store to house to stove to mouth efficiency (leave out some of those if you're a vegetarian). So, unless someone is exercising to remain physically fit, utilizing the human body to convert sunlight to electricity is quite inefficient.
Let's run some "back of the envelope" calculations though. There are about 3*10^8 people in the U.S. Say 1*10^8 of them walk on office, factory, or school floors, walk through revolving doors, etc. Now, the average adult uses something like 2500 kilocalories per day, let's say 100 of those are used putting feet on floors, using doors, etc. (very generous in my opinion). At 14% efficiency by the human and 50% efficiency by the generator (piezoelectric, magnetic, etc.) we have: 100 kilocalories*0.14*0.5 kilocalories of useful work per day per person to be captured.
Work divided by time is power so the above can be converted to watts per person (I typically use Google's calculator). This yields 0.339 watts per person. This is the effective continuous power output per person on average. Multiply this by 1*10^8 to total 33,900,000 or 3.39*10^7 watts available nationwide calculated on a continuous basis. According to the CIA World Factbook, in 2005 we used electricity at the rate of 3.816 trillion kilowatt hours/year, or 4.353*10^11 watts. Hence, using these extremely optimistic assumptions, this scheme could generate 0.008%, or 8 one thousandths of 1% of our electricity.
As I said though, when we do this, we're converting solar power inefficiently into electricity. Better to invest the money into more efficient generation schemes, except at health clubs, etc., where people are working out into a load and it might just as well be an electrical load that serves a purpose.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Highway MPG
My 2006 Land Rover LR3 HSE with its 4.4, Liter V8 engine is rated by the EPA at 18 m.p.g. highway mileage. In fact, the spreadsheet provided by the EPA in zipped files shows the so-called "uncorrected" fuel economy as 23.3 m.p.g. They correct this by the simple expedient of reducing it by 22%. Now, don't misunderstand. They don't do some arcane analysis that leads to a 22% reduction, they just multiply the measured number (found by measuring carbon emitted during the dynamometer test) by 0.78. Very scientific. That leads to the "18 HWY" on the window sticker. Since my driving is mixed and I'm able to achieve a higher average mileage (currently about 20.5 m.p.g.) than the EPA highway estimate I think that my highway mileage must be considerably better than the 18 m.p.g estimate, and possibly higher than the 23.3 m.p.g. uncorrected measurement. I determined to find out.
The LR3 does not have an instant m.p.g. indication in its instrumentation, however, the Scan Gauge II with which I've equipped my Land Rover does have this instrumentation through the OBDII port. I'm not sure of the mechanism by which this is determined, though I would guess that it uses the metering of the fuel through the injectors and the speed. If it's this method, it may be unreliable because the speed readout on the Scan Gauge II appears to be inaccurate. It reads 55 m.p.h. when the analog speedometer in the dash reads about 57 m.p.h. I had always assumed the ODBII reading was accurate, but there is a series of measured miles for the use of the highway patrol on interstate 15 on the way to Las Vegas and stopwatch timing over these measured miles indicated that the analog gauge on the dash is a better indicator of actual speed. Never mind, I'm going to calculate using the ODBII.
So, what I need is a stretch of level highway where I can just look at the readout on the instant mileage indicator, wait for it to stabilize, and there's my answer. The complicating external factors might be an undetected slope, and wind. As it happens, there's a stretch of the 405 freeway through Seal Beach that appears to be suitable for this determination. Conveniently, there's a power plant visible from this portion of the freeway, and its smokestack gives an excellent signal of wind conditions. When northbound on the freeway, the average stabilized reading over several trips is about 24.8 m.p.g. Woo Hoo! But when southbound, it's more like 21.9. Hmm.... Must be an undetected slope.
How much might there be and what effect might it have? I looked to Google Earth to try to find out. I located the stretch in question and measured the distance and logged the elevations. I tried to find end spots for my measurement where the elevation clicked from one integer foot to another (e.g., 17 feet to 16 feet) and assumed that this was the location where the actual elevation was halfway from one to the other. Now, this may not be completely accurate, but as long as the algorithm used by Google Earth is consistent, this is the best I can do since I'm not interested in absolute elevations but rather in elevation changes.
It turns out that the elevation change is 5 feet over 0.71 miles. That means that, in the downhill direction, I gain 39,948.6 (I always carry a lot of digits) joules of kinetic energy by converting gravitational potential energy, and turn the same amount of chemical energy (assuming I maintain the same speed) into gravitational potential energy in the uphill direction. It's straightforward to determine how much fuel is saved and burned respectively, if I assume that the car is able to utilize 25% of the heat energy of burning gasoline for propulsion at this speed.
Since I haven't had readers of this blog clamoring for more mathematical detail, I'll just give the results. Factoring out the "free" energy provided by going downhill, the car should be producing 23.74 m.p.g. Factoring it out in the uphill direction, the resulting mileage is 22.79 m.p.g. Closer but not identical. I'm not sure where the error is, so I'll just average the two numbers and say that my level highway average m.p.g. is 23.27 m.p.g. This is still a healthy increment above the 18 m.p.g. estimated by the EPA but, amazingly, it rounds precisely to their uncorrected number of 23.3 m.p.g.. I know that the test protocol does not involve simply running in cruise control on level highway in no wind conditions but it still pleases me to beat the window sticker estimate by over 29%, as arbitrary as that EPA estimated number seems to be.
Another lesson is that such a slight hill has so much effect on mileage. Five feet over 0.71 miles is 0.076 degrees; almost undetectable. To get an idea, if you're hanging a 24 inch wide picture and it's off of level by this amount, the low side will be 0.03 inches lower (about 1/32 inch) than the high side. And yet climbing it reduces fuel economy by 5.9%. The lesson? ALWAYS make sure that your destination is at a lower elevation than your starting point.
The LR3 does not have an instant m.p.g. indication in its instrumentation, however, the Scan Gauge II with which I've equipped my Land Rover does have this instrumentation through the OBDII port. I'm not sure of the mechanism by which this is determined, though I would guess that it uses the metering of the fuel through the injectors and the speed. If it's this method, it may be unreliable because the speed readout on the Scan Gauge II appears to be inaccurate. It reads 55 m.p.h. when the analog speedometer in the dash reads about 57 m.p.h. I had always assumed the ODBII reading was accurate, but there is a series of measured miles for the use of the highway patrol on interstate 15 on the way to Las Vegas and stopwatch timing over these measured miles indicated that the analog gauge on the dash is a better indicator of actual speed. Never mind, I'm going to calculate using the ODBII.
So, what I need is a stretch of level highway where I can just look at the readout on the instant mileage indicator, wait for it to stabilize, and there's my answer. The complicating external factors might be an undetected slope, and wind. As it happens, there's a stretch of the 405 freeway through Seal Beach that appears to be suitable for this determination. Conveniently, there's a power plant visible from this portion of the freeway, and its smokestack gives an excellent signal of wind conditions. When northbound on the freeway, the average stabilized reading over several trips is about 24.8 m.p.g. Woo Hoo! But when southbound, it's more like 21.9. Hmm.... Must be an undetected slope.
How much might there be and what effect might it have? I looked to Google Earth to try to find out. I located the stretch in question and measured the distance and logged the elevations. I tried to find end spots for my measurement where the elevation clicked from one integer foot to another (e.g., 17 feet to 16 feet) and assumed that this was the location where the actual elevation was halfway from one to the other. Now, this may not be completely accurate, but as long as the algorithm used by Google Earth is consistent, this is the best I can do since I'm not interested in absolute elevations but rather in elevation changes.
It turns out that the elevation change is 5 feet over 0.71 miles. That means that, in the downhill direction, I gain 39,948.6 (I always carry a lot of digits) joules of kinetic energy by converting gravitational potential energy, and turn the same amount of chemical energy (assuming I maintain the same speed) into gravitational potential energy in the uphill direction. It's straightforward to determine how much fuel is saved and burned respectively, if I assume that the car is able to utilize 25% of the heat energy of burning gasoline for propulsion at this speed.
Since I haven't had readers of this blog clamoring for more mathematical detail, I'll just give the results. Factoring out the "free" energy provided by going downhill, the car should be producing 23.74 m.p.g. Factoring it out in the uphill direction, the resulting mileage is 22.79 m.p.g. Closer but not identical. I'm not sure where the error is, so I'll just average the two numbers and say that my level highway average m.p.g. is 23.27 m.p.g. This is still a healthy increment above the 18 m.p.g. estimated by the EPA but, amazingly, it rounds precisely to their uncorrected number of 23.3 m.p.g.. I know that the test protocol does not involve simply running in cruise control on level highway in no wind conditions but it still pleases me to beat the window sticker estimate by over 29%, as arbitrary as that EPA estimated number seems to be.
Another lesson is that such a slight hill has so much effect on mileage. Five feet over 0.71 miles is 0.076 degrees; almost undetectable. To get an idea, if you're hanging a 24 inch wide picture and it's off of level by this amount, the low side will be 0.03 inches lower (about 1/32 inch) than the high side. And yet climbing it reduces fuel economy by 5.9%. The lesson? ALWAYS make sure that your destination is at a lower elevation than your starting point.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Going renewable (part 2)
In my previous post I discussed what it would take for me to harvest the entirety of my family's energy usage on our own property using renewable sources. This resulted in the determination that I'd need to install 9,400 square feet of solar collectors at an approximate cost of $900,000. Clearly, this isn't a practical calculation for an actual plan. Nor was it meant to imply that photovoltaics are impractical or a waste. Rather, the point was that for the U.S. as a whole to be free of the need for fossil fuel, it will take more than panels on rooftops.
A reader (Mark) was kind enough to leave a comment. His point was that I'm being misleading in producing such figures. He also pointed out that using solar power in a grid connected system to produce more electrical energy than is used by a homeowner is a waste, at least in a financial sense, because the utility purchases such excess power at wholesale rates (tied to what they pay per kilowatt hour from their normal sources). Up to that point, they effectively pay the homeowner retail, since they utilize so-called "net metering" and when the system is producing more power than is being used, the meter literally spins backward.
In order to determine the figures for what I'd need to net out our household electrical use, I can use the figures from the post referred to above and my post on my family's total energy use. Using this data, I'd need 660 square feet of collector area (say 22' X 30') to supply a system capable of delivering about 8 kilowatts for about $64,000. Much more realistic, but I better goose it up a little bit because we're now talking about "practical" systems, and such systems don't convert sunlight at 20% efficiency today. Let's say a 10 kilowatt system for $80,000. Tax credits and other government inducements might cut this cost in half. So I could, in theory, free myself from paying for electricity by spending $40,000. Obviously, every single thing I can do to reduce energy usage will pay off massively.
Now, let's dig into the figures from part 1 a little more deeply. In my post totaling my family's energy use, I determined that we currently spend something like $35,000 per year on total energy costs. To offset that, I'd need to spend $900,000. Let's ignore maintenance costs and figure that a $900,000 investment would return $35,000/year for a system life span of 20 years. Finally, let's assume that my cost of capital is about 6.5%, about the going rate for a second trust deed (not that I have $900,000 in equity). So what's the net present value of using $900,000 at 6.5% interest to generate an income of $35,000/year? Clearly it's going to be negative since 20 times $35,000 is only $700,000. Thus, at current energy prices, it doesn't pay to go totally renewable, even if it were possible to do so.
Finally, let's figure what energy would have to cost in order for an investment of $900,000 to pay a reasonable rate of return. Let's call that rate 10.5%, that's a break even return on money that costs 6.5% with inflation at 4%. And we'll assume a lifespan of 20 years. The investment would have to return about $109,000/year. That implies that the cost of energy would have to increase by $109,000/$35,000 or a little over three times to make it "calc out." With the government offering to pay half my costs (sort of) it might only have to increase by 50%.
Of course, all of these figures are theoretical because my energy figures incorporate embedded energy in food and goods, all transportation costs, etc. And the $35,000 per year includes gasoline, coal burned and uranium decayed to make electricity for the house and factories, etc. all accounted for at a single rate of probably questionable accuracy. Nevertheless, the ratios are approximately correct, so the implied price increases of energy (or, inversely, the implied decrease in the cost of renewables) should be about right. It won't be long, since both numbers are heading quickly in the "right" direction.
A reader (Mark) was kind enough to leave a comment. His point was that I'm being misleading in producing such figures. He also pointed out that using solar power in a grid connected system to produce more electrical energy than is used by a homeowner is a waste, at least in a financial sense, because the utility purchases such excess power at wholesale rates (tied to what they pay per kilowatt hour from their normal sources). Up to that point, they effectively pay the homeowner retail, since they utilize so-called "net metering" and when the system is producing more power than is being used, the meter literally spins backward.
In order to determine the figures for what I'd need to net out our household electrical use, I can use the figures from the post referred to above and my post on my family's total energy use. Using this data, I'd need 660 square feet of collector area (say 22' X 30') to supply a system capable of delivering about 8 kilowatts for about $64,000. Much more realistic, but I better goose it up a little bit because we're now talking about "practical" systems, and such systems don't convert sunlight at 20% efficiency today. Let's say a 10 kilowatt system for $80,000. Tax credits and other government inducements might cut this cost in half. So I could, in theory, free myself from paying for electricity by spending $40,000. Obviously, every single thing I can do to reduce energy usage will pay off massively.
Now, let's dig into the figures from part 1 a little more deeply. In my post totaling my family's energy use, I determined that we currently spend something like $35,000 per year on total energy costs. To offset that, I'd need to spend $900,000. Let's ignore maintenance costs and figure that a $900,000 investment would return $35,000/year for a system life span of 20 years. Finally, let's assume that my cost of capital is about 6.5%, about the going rate for a second trust deed (not that I have $900,000 in equity). So what's the net present value of using $900,000 at 6.5% interest to generate an income of $35,000/year? Clearly it's going to be negative since 20 times $35,000 is only $700,000. Thus, at current energy prices, it doesn't pay to go totally renewable, even if it were possible to do so.
Finally, let's figure what energy would have to cost in order for an investment of $900,000 to pay a reasonable rate of return. Let's call that rate 10.5%, that's a break even return on money that costs 6.5% with inflation at 4%. And we'll assume a lifespan of 20 years. The investment would have to return about $109,000/year. That implies that the cost of energy would have to increase by $109,000/$35,000 or a little over three times to make it "calc out." With the government offering to pay half my costs (sort of) it might only have to increase by 50%.
Of course, all of these figures are theoretical because my energy figures incorporate embedded energy in food and goods, all transportation costs, etc. And the $35,000 per year includes gasoline, coal burned and uranium decayed to make electricity for the house and factories, etc. all accounted for at a single rate of probably questionable accuracy. Nevertheless, the ratios are approximately correct, so the implied price increases of energy (or, inversely, the implied decrease in the cost of renewables) should be about right. It won't be long, since both numbers are heading quickly in the "right" direction.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Going renewable (part 1)
My last couple of posts have dealt with my family's overall use of energy. I've calculated it in terms of equivalent continuous power and included transportation, food, durable and consumer goods, and household energy use. For those unclear on the distinction between power and energy, an analogy would be that power in watts (and kilowatts, etc.) is to speed in miles per hour as energy in kilowatt hours (or, equivalently, 3,600,000 joules) is to distance in miles. Or, alternatively, power is to energy as speed is to distance. You can go a long way by going fast for a little while or going slowly for a long time. Equivalently, you can use a lot of energy by using a lot of power (watts) for a short time or a little power for a long time. So my calculation of our family's use of energy at the rate of around 40 kilowatts is the average "speed" of constant rate energy use that would use the same amount of energy at the end of, say, a month that our actual sporadic use totals.
In thinking about what it would take to go completely renewable, several factors must be considered. First is that I don't really need to be able to supply power at the rate of 40 kilowatts. A lot of the energy conversion in that number is from the consumption of food and consumer goods. However, if I'm really intending to be entirely sustainable, I should put energy into the grid to compensate for that used in those types of consumption. The same rationale applies to transportation fuel. For this reason, I'll proceed as if that's what I'm going to do.
Next, what renewable sources are available to me? Such exotics as geothermal and tidal are not scaleable to my needs, even if they were geographically and geologically available. Wind is not practical because wind of sufficient velocity is infrequent and the (%$#&*&^%) homeowners' association would never let me put in a tower. (Note to self: NEVER buy a house where there's a homeowners' association). So solar seems to be my only "realistic" option. The reason for the quotation marks will become clear later.
So, should it be photovoltaics? How about a concentrator heating a liquid to boil water and run a turbine? Passive solar for water and home heating? All of the above? Well, what can the sun deliver to me? I'm in Southern California at a latitude of about 33 degrees 50 minutes. Using the U.S. Solar Radiation Resource Map from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory I find that with a two-axis tracking flat plate collector during the worst months of the year I should be able to collect, on average, about 5.5 kilowatt hours/square meter/day of solar energy.
Suppose that I can use, in some fashion, this insolation with 20% efficiency (difficult on my scale but certainly possible on an industrial scale). I'd have 1.1 kilowatt hour/square meter/day available to me. Now our 40 kilowatt rate of consumption is equivalent to 960 kilowatt hours/day, so I'll need to collect solar radiation at 20% efficiency over an area of 960/1.1=873 square meters. Hmmm... That's about 9400 square feet, or an area 94 feet wide by 100 feet long. Our south-facing roof is not that big. Our whole two story house's floor area is only 2480 square feet. I do think that our lot is big enough to encompass such an area of 0.22 acres, but not by much. OK, so I'll erect a structure that spans corner to corner both ways on our lot and top it with some as yet to be determined type of collector.
Now that my needs are defined, what about the type of system and the cost? This is a complex area in which I am by no means an expert. But that has never stopped me before, so let's give it a go. I speculate that setting up a solar to steam turbine system in my suburban neighborhood that can deliver the kind of power I'm discussing here won't be permitted so it appears that photovoltaics is my only option (note that I've dropped the "realistic"). It's impossible that I could cover my lot with photovoltaic panels, so I'd have to use the strategy of concentrating the energy. Maybe mylar sun-tracking reflectors to concentrate the incoming solar energy onto a much smaller set of panels.
Now in June at local noon, I might expect something like 1,300 watts/meter^2 over my 873 meter^2 or a capacity for output of about 227 kilowatts at 20% efficiency. So at an installed rate on the order of $8,000 per kilowatt, I'm looking at spending about $1,800,000. This overstates the requirement by a little bit, since I've sized my system to supply the energy we use in the short, low-sun days of December and January. So I'll cut this in half, to $900,000. I wonder if they take VISA?
Obviously, before getting out the plastic or taking out a second on the house, etc. the most economical thing by far is to reduce consumption. This is easy to say and, in my experience, difficult to do. Compact fluorescent bulbs, turning off lights in rooms not being used, reducing the amount of time the pool filter runs, etc., only nibble at the margins. The biggest consumer is my wife's use of automobile fuel, the next two largest are her and the children's "stuff" consumption and my automobile fuel. Dramatically reducing these would be a huge lifestyle change. But it's going to have to be done.
As discouraging as this is, there's a positive element to it. My family is a fairly hefty consumer of energy, and yet the sun provides enough energy to supply us with our needs over the area of the property we own. If we extrapolate that nationwide, the possibility exists that we could actually become self-sufficient and sustainable. There are many, MANY, MANY hurdles to be overcome but there's reason to think it just might not be impossible. It's now up to us to figure out how to make it happen.
In thinking about what it would take to go completely renewable, several factors must be considered. First is that I don't really need to be able to supply power at the rate of 40 kilowatts. A lot of the energy conversion in that number is from the consumption of food and consumer goods. However, if I'm really intending to be entirely sustainable, I should put energy into the grid to compensate for that used in those types of consumption. The same rationale applies to transportation fuel. For this reason, I'll proceed as if that's what I'm going to do.
Next, what renewable sources are available to me? Such exotics as geothermal and tidal are not scaleable to my needs, even if they were geographically and geologically available. Wind is not practical because wind of sufficient velocity is infrequent and the (%$#&*&^%) homeowners' association would never let me put in a tower. (Note to self: NEVER buy a house where there's a homeowners' association). So solar seems to be my only "realistic" option. The reason for the quotation marks will become clear later.
So, should it be photovoltaics? How about a concentrator heating a liquid to boil water and run a turbine? Passive solar for water and home heating? All of the above? Well, what can the sun deliver to me? I'm in Southern California at a latitude of about 33 degrees 50 minutes. Using the U.S. Solar Radiation Resource Map from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory I find that with a two-axis tracking flat plate collector during the worst months of the year I should be able to collect, on average, about 5.5 kilowatt hours/square meter/day of solar energy.
Suppose that I can use, in some fashion, this insolation with 20% efficiency (difficult on my scale but certainly possible on an industrial scale). I'd have 1.1 kilowatt hour/square meter/day available to me. Now our 40 kilowatt rate of consumption is equivalent to 960 kilowatt hours/day, so I'll need to collect solar radiation at 20% efficiency over an area of 960/1.1=873 square meters. Hmmm... That's about 9400 square feet, or an area 94 feet wide by 100 feet long. Our south-facing roof is not that big. Our whole two story house's floor area is only 2480 square feet. I do think that our lot is big enough to encompass such an area of 0.22 acres, but not by much. OK, so I'll erect a structure that spans corner to corner both ways on our lot and top it with some as yet to be determined type of collector.
Now that my needs are defined, what about the type of system and the cost? This is a complex area in which I am by no means an expert. But that has never stopped me before, so let's give it a go. I speculate that setting up a solar to steam turbine system in my suburban neighborhood that can deliver the kind of power I'm discussing here won't be permitted so it appears that photovoltaics is my only option (note that I've dropped the "realistic"). It's impossible that I could cover my lot with photovoltaic panels, so I'd have to use the strategy of concentrating the energy. Maybe mylar sun-tracking reflectors to concentrate the incoming solar energy onto a much smaller set of panels.
Now in June at local noon, I might expect something like 1,300 watts/meter^2 over my 873 meter^2 or a capacity for output of about 227 kilowatts at 20% efficiency. So at an installed rate on the order of $8,000 per kilowatt, I'm looking at spending about $1,800,000. This overstates the requirement by a little bit, since I've sized my system to supply the energy we use in the short, low-sun days of December and January. So I'll cut this in half, to $900,000. I wonder if they take VISA?
Obviously, before getting out the plastic or taking out a second on the house, etc. the most economical thing by far is to reduce consumption. This is easy to say and, in my experience, difficult to do. Compact fluorescent bulbs, turning off lights in rooms not being used, reducing the amount of time the pool filter runs, etc., only nibble at the margins. The biggest consumer is my wife's use of automobile fuel, the next two largest are her and the children's "stuff" consumption and my automobile fuel. Dramatically reducing these would be a huge lifestyle change. But it's going to have to be done.
As discouraging as this is, there's a positive element to it. My family is a fairly hefty consumer of energy, and yet the sun provides enough energy to supply us with our needs over the area of the property we own. If we extrapolate that nationwide, the possibility exists that we could actually become self-sufficient and sustainable. There are many, MANY, MANY hurdles to be overcome but there's reason to think it just might not be impossible. It's now up to us to figure out how to make it happen.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Carbon footprint adventures
I made some calculations in my last post regarding my family's use of fossil fuels. I attempted to determine as complete a picture as I could, including such things as goods consumption, food, etc. I also utilized a very simplistic model, assuming all our fossil fuel consumption could be modeled by the chemical combination of n-heptane with atmospheric oxygen to produce carbon dioxide and water to estimate our production of carbon dioxide as a result of our energy use. While this undoubtedly leads to inaccuracies, I think it is "in the ballpark."
Since publishing that post, I've played a little bit with the so-called "carbon footprint calculators" to be found all over the web. I've also been as thorough with them as I know how and as they will allow. The results are rather disturbing, if one buys into the theory of anthropogenic global warming by way of carbon dioxide emissions. My "ground up" calculations indicated that my family produces 96 tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions, whereas the calculator linked above shows about 44 tons. This is a rather significant under estimation by more than half, if my calculations are correct. And though they may be off, I don't believe that they are off by that amount.
Now I suppose that those who model climate do so using a better estimate of carbon dioxide emissions than a summation of everyone's output from the carbon footprint calculator. Nevertheless, I imagine many people log on to such sites to determine their footprint and what they can do about it. Based on my results, they severely underestimate the extent of the emissions for which they are responsible and the remedial measures they would need to take.
Assuming that the averages shown on the calculator site are off by the same extent as the results of my calculations, my family of four emits carbon dioxide at a rate of about double the national average, a little under four times the average for so-called "industrial countries," about ten times the world average, and about twenty times the worldwide goal. That is, my family would have to reduce its emissions by about 95% to bring us into accord with that goal.
Wow. If both my wife and I stopped driving, and I stopped flying my airplane, we'd reduce our footprint by just over 50%. In fact, our food consumption alone represents over 8% of our carbon footprint, and thus we would have to eliminate all carbon emissions not involving eating and change our eating to less carbon intensive sources to reduce our footprint by 95%. And as I pointed out in the previous post, this does not take into account our pro-rata share of institutional use of fossil fuels such as military, etc.
If this is truly an accurate representation of our situation and only differs from others in the United States by degree but not basic nature, we aren't going to be able to meet such goals no matter how many conferences in Bali are flown to by worldwide climate diplomats. So what then?
After calculating our footprint, we're given the option of "offsetting" all or part of our carbon dioxide emissions. What would I have to do? I'm given three options: contributing $598 to a "Clean Energy Fund;" contributing $777 to Reforestation in Kenya; and contributing $1,304 to "UK Tree Planting." I get a certificate and everything. Keep in mind, however, that these amounts reflect the carbon dioxide calculated by the calculator at the site, not the ones I calculated from scratch. Those would require over double the expenditure. I guess this is how Al Gore flies around the world and lives in a mansion and yet has a positive effect on climate change. Somehow, I don't feel that everyone buying these offsets will solve our problems.
Since publishing that post, I've played a little bit with the so-called "carbon footprint calculators" to be found all over the web. I've also been as thorough with them as I know how and as they will allow. The results are rather disturbing, if one buys into the theory of anthropogenic global warming by way of carbon dioxide emissions. My "ground up" calculations indicated that my family produces 96 tons per year of carbon dioxide emissions, whereas the calculator linked above shows about 44 tons. This is a rather significant under estimation by more than half, if my calculations are correct. And though they may be off, I don't believe that they are off by that amount.
Now I suppose that those who model climate do so using a better estimate of carbon dioxide emissions than a summation of everyone's output from the carbon footprint calculator. Nevertheless, I imagine many people log on to such sites to determine their footprint and what they can do about it. Based on my results, they severely underestimate the extent of the emissions for which they are responsible and the remedial measures they would need to take.
Assuming that the averages shown on the calculator site are off by the same extent as the results of my calculations, my family of four emits carbon dioxide at a rate of about double the national average, a little under four times the average for so-called "industrial countries," about ten times the world average, and about twenty times the worldwide goal. That is, my family would have to reduce its emissions by about 95% to bring us into accord with that goal.
Wow. If both my wife and I stopped driving, and I stopped flying my airplane, we'd reduce our footprint by just over 50%. In fact, our food consumption alone represents over 8% of our carbon footprint, and thus we would have to eliminate all carbon emissions not involving eating and change our eating to less carbon intensive sources to reduce our footprint by 95%. And as I pointed out in the previous post, this does not take into account our pro-rata share of institutional use of fossil fuels such as military, etc.
If this is truly an accurate representation of our situation and only differs from others in the United States by degree but not basic nature, we aren't going to be able to meet such goals no matter how many conferences in Bali are flown to by worldwide climate diplomats. So what then?
After calculating our footprint, we're given the option of "offsetting" all or part of our carbon dioxide emissions. What would I have to do? I'm given three options: contributing $598 to a "Clean Energy Fund;" contributing $777 to Reforestation in Kenya; and contributing $1,304 to "UK Tree Planting." I get a certificate and everything. Keep in mind, however, that these amounts reflect the carbon dioxide calculated by the calculator at the site, not the ones I calculated from scratch. Those would require over double the expenditure. I guess this is how Al Gore flies around the world and lives in a mansion and yet has a positive effect on climate change. Somehow, I don't feel that everyone buying these offsets will solve our problems.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Total energy use in my family
In an earlier post I utilized data in the World Almanac and Book of Facts to determine that the total per capita rate of energy consumption in the United States is a little over 11,000 watts. I decided to see where my family and I fall into this. I approximated all of the electrical consumers in the house, the fuel consumption of my vehicle, my wife's vehicle, my airplane, the power I use at work, the power she uses at work, the energy content of the food each of us eats, and the energy content of the items each of us "consumes."
Obviously, many approximations and estimations were necessary but the results are quite interesting to me. It appears that my family of four consumes energy at the rate of about 40,094 watts. This is all-inclusive as best I can make it, but does not include our pro-rata share of government expenditures (this could be significant, considering it would include our share of military expenditures of energy, etc.). Surprisingly, this amounts to 10,023 watts per capita in my family. I find this agreement with the figures from the Almanac to be downright startling and, frankly, quite gratifying. It's a little misleading though, since the Almanac figures are the total of U.S. energy use whereas, as we'll see later, a significant portion of my family's energy consumption likely takes place offshore.
The largest single item is my wife's use of automobile gasoline in her Grand Cherokee Laredo. This came to 11,880 watts. She uses a LOT of gas.The next is her consumption of "stuff." I don't know exactly what she buys, so I used the the money she spends as a proxy. I excluded food, since it's included separately, then figured one third the cost represents energy input. In earlier days it would have been less, since there would be more input of labor but in this automated day and age, I figure one third. Then I estimated the cost of a joule of energy (about $2.778*10^-8) and worked back to rate of consumption normalized to represent continuous consumption. Since the two children that share our house are hers, I lumped all consumption that is not mine into hers. The total for this category is 10,400 watts. This is the where the "offshore" portion mentioned above comes in, since a significant portion of the energy input for our "stuff" purchases is in places like China.
Next came my use of automobile gasoline at 5,049 watts, followed by aviation gas for my airplane at 3,961 watts. The house consumes energy at the rate of about 2,812 watts. I used a separate spreadsheet to go item by item in the house, the largest consumer on the continuous, annualized basis is the refrigerator, followed by the swimming pool pump. My goods consumption comes in at 2,400 watts. Total food for the four of us is 3,294 watts. Amazingly, taking my house completely "off the grid" would only reduce our family's total fossil fuel energy expenditure by about 7%. As an aside, I should point out that I'm carrying many more digits of accuracy than my approximations justify, the best of them are probably good for two significant figures.
From a carbon footprint point of view, I assume that 100% of our energy use comes from burning fossil fuels, and that 6 pounds of fossil fuel provides 125,000,000 joules of energy and produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. That means that our rate of energy consumption results in the annual addition to the atmosphere of 96 tons of carbon dioxide. From an economic point of view, my family spends something like $35,000 per year on energy.
I mentioned in my article about the Almanac that I was confident I could reduce my rate of energy consumption by half. I'm less confident now that it would be relatively easy, but circumstances will surely force us to do this and much more. At least I now know where to start looking for the savings.
Obviously, many approximations and estimations were necessary but the results are quite interesting to me. It appears that my family of four consumes energy at the rate of about 40,094 watts. This is all-inclusive as best I can make it, but does not include our pro-rata share of government expenditures (this could be significant, considering it would include our share of military expenditures of energy, etc.). Surprisingly, this amounts to 10,023 watts per capita in my family. I find this agreement with the figures from the Almanac to be downright startling and, frankly, quite gratifying. It's a little misleading though, since the Almanac figures are the total of U.S. energy use whereas, as we'll see later, a significant portion of my family's energy consumption likely takes place offshore.
The largest single item is my wife's use of automobile gasoline in her Grand Cherokee Laredo. This came to 11,880 watts. She uses a LOT of gas.The next is her consumption of "stuff." I don't know exactly what she buys, so I used the the money she spends as a proxy. I excluded food, since it's included separately, then figured one third the cost represents energy input. In earlier days it would have been less, since there would be more input of labor but in this automated day and age, I figure one third. Then I estimated the cost of a joule of energy (about $2.778*10^-8) and worked back to rate of consumption normalized to represent continuous consumption. Since the two children that share our house are hers, I lumped all consumption that is not mine into hers. The total for this category is 10,400 watts. This is the where the "offshore" portion mentioned above comes in, since a significant portion of the energy input for our "stuff" purchases is in places like China.
Next came my use of automobile gasoline at 5,049 watts, followed by aviation gas for my airplane at 3,961 watts. The house consumes energy at the rate of about 2,812 watts. I used a separate spreadsheet to go item by item in the house, the largest consumer on the continuous, annualized basis is the refrigerator, followed by the swimming pool pump. My goods consumption comes in at 2,400 watts. Total food for the four of us is 3,294 watts. Amazingly, taking my house completely "off the grid" would only reduce our family's total fossil fuel energy expenditure by about 7%. As an aside, I should point out that I'm carrying many more digits of accuracy than my approximations justify, the best of them are probably good for two significant figures.
From a carbon footprint point of view, I assume that 100% of our energy use comes from burning fossil fuels, and that 6 pounds of fossil fuel provides 125,000,000 joules of energy and produces 19 pounds of carbon dioxide. That means that our rate of energy consumption results in the annual addition to the atmosphere of 96 tons of carbon dioxide. From an economic point of view, my family spends something like $35,000 per year on energy.
I mentioned in my article about the Almanac that I was confident I could reduce my rate of energy consumption by half. I'm less confident now that it would be relatively easy, but circumstances will surely force us to do this and much more. At least I now know where to start looking for the savings.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
A year's worth of data
For those of you who would prefer to see actual data rather than read my descriptions of what it indicates, I'm publishing a Google spreadsheet that shows the complete data set for my Land Rover LR3 HSE. The Excel spreadsheet is, of course, more extensive and informative, particularly with respect to the charts. But this should certainly be enough to let those who would like to know more about the actual numbers I've achieved satisfy that desire. I apologize for my current inability to format the spreadsheet to the width of the blog, I'll work on it.
Average speed
My Land Rover LR3 HSE has a fairly extensive menu of data on display. One of these displays is "Average Speed." Like all the numbers on the display, it resets when the mileage on the trip odometer (actually one of the two trip odometers) is reset to zero. I do this at each fill up, so the average speed on the indicator shows the average for the current tank full.
The average speed should reflect, among other things, the amount of time I spend on the highway at 55 m.p.h. versus the time I spend on streets and in traffic jams. It crossed my mind eight fill ups ago to add the average speed data for the tank full to the myriad of other data I collect when I fill up. Since highway mileage should be higher, it's reasonable to expect that higher average speeds for a tank should correlate with higher miles per gallon for that tank.
To check this theory, I've plotted m.p.g. on the vertical axis versus average speed on the horizontal axis. As expected, higher speeds are accompanied by higher mileage numbers. The linear trendline, calculated by Excel, has a slope of about 0.32, meaning that each mile per hour increase in average speed over a tank full yields an increase in 0.32 m.p.g. for that tank full. The coefficient of determination ("R squared"), however, is low at 0.48. Thus, while there is a positive correlation between average speed and gas mileage, average speed is a weak predictor of gas mileage. More data will enable a deeper analysis.
For those who are curious about what the actual numbers are, the lowest average speed has been 31.7 m.p.h. and the highest has been 39.1. The latter number was for a tank full the bulk of which was expended on the interstate from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. That tank full produced a fuel economy of 23.41 m.p.g. The lowest average speed produced a fuel economy of 19.82 m.p.g.
The average speed should reflect, among other things, the amount of time I spend on the highway at 55 m.p.h. versus the time I spend on streets and in traffic jams. It crossed my mind eight fill ups ago to add the average speed data for the tank full to the myriad of other data I collect when I fill up. Since highway mileage should be higher, it's reasonable to expect that higher average speeds for a tank should correlate with higher miles per gallon for that tank.
To check this theory, I've plotted m.p.g. on the vertical axis versus average speed on the horizontal axis. As expected, higher speeds are accompanied by higher mileage numbers. The linear trendline, calculated by Excel, has a slope of about 0.32, meaning that each mile per hour increase in average speed over a tank full yields an increase in 0.32 m.p.g. for that tank full. The coefficient of determination ("R squared"), however, is low at 0.48. Thus, while there is a positive correlation between average speed and gas mileage, average speed is a weak predictor of gas mileage. More data will enable a deeper analysis.
For those who are curious about what the actual numbers are, the lowest average speed has been 31.7 m.p.h. and the highest has been 39.1. The latter number was for a tank full the bulk of which was expended on the interstate from Las Vegas to Los Angeles. That tank full produced a fuel economy of 23.41 m.p.g. The lowest average speed produced a fuel economy of 19.82 m.p.g.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Hills
The only way to my house is to select one of two hills to climb. As I make my choice and climb, I watch the average mileage for that tank full (the LR3 clears the average mileage at fill up when the trip odometer is reset) decrease. And quite a few web sites that discuss gas mileage state that, when possible, use the least hilly route available. This got me to wondering what the effects of hills actually are so, as usual, I decided to do some calculating.
To start, I found the elevation at the bottom and top of the hill I usually climb by getting the latitude and longitude from Google Earth and then plugging the coordinates into the height/elevation tool of EarthTool: Webservices. I determined that I climb 123 meters. Doing this in a vehicle whose mass is, on average, 2,673 kilograms means that I add 3,222,000 joules of potential energy to the vehicle in climbing the hill. This energy comes from burning gasoline, but since I'm only able to use about 25% of the heat of the combustion of fuel, I need four times this amount, or about 12,890,000 joules of heat energy from gasoline. This is the amount in about 0.1 gallons. This is in addition to the fuel I burn just to drive the 2108 meters of road (as measured by Google Earth) to climb the hill.
Since I typically drive this hill at about the speed limit of 35 m.p.h., on level ground I'd get something like 21 m.p.g. and use about 0.062 gallons. Thus, I use much more fuel to climb the hill than I do to drive the distance. Adding the two numbers, I use 0.062 + 0.1 gallons to drive 1.31 miles for a gas mileage number of about 8.1 m.p.g. This squares nicely with what the readout on the panel display says.
BUT... When I go down the hill, I turn my engine off and coast to the bottom of the hill. The distance down is the same as the distance up, so if I drove it on level ground, I'd use the same 0.062 gallons. Instead, I use none. So driving up the hill and coasting down uses 0.162 gallons, driving the same distance on level ground would use about 0.124 gallons. Thus, the necessity of climbing the hill requires the expenditure of 0.038 gallons of fuel. Since I typically do this about five times per fill up, I put something like 0.19 extra gallons of fuel in the tank because I live at the top of a hill.
So how does this affect my fuel economy? Well, let's say I fill up at 340 miles and put in 17 gallons. This is fairly representative, and equates to exactly 20 m.p.g. The extra 0.17 gallons would reduce my mileage to about 19.8 m.p.g. I'm kind of surprised by this result, as I intuitively expect that I'll convert the potential energy going down the hill. If I didn't have to brake going down the hill and if I could hit the bottom, turn the corner and coast down to cruising speed I'd be able to recover a lot more of it, but these actions aren't possible. This means that I end up using the stored potential energy gained by burning fossil fuel to heat the metal in my brakes.
The hill seems pretty steep. Running the trigonometry, it turns out to average 3.34 degrees. It turns out that going up the hill and down adds eight meters to the distance I would travel if there were no elevation change from the location of the beginning of the hill to my house. While I will always turn off my engine and coast the last eight meters into a parking space where possible, it isn't saving much. The extra eight meters driven five times for a fill up use about a thousandth of a gallon. Anyway, traveling up and down hills clearly does not help fuel economy. I guess I should move downhill. Better yet, move next door to my job.
To start, I found the elevation at the bottom and top of the hill I usually climb by getting the latitude and longitude from Google Earth and then plugging the coordinates into the height/elevation tool of EarthTool: Webservices. I determined that I climb 123 meters. Doing this in a vehicle whose mass is, on average, 2,673 kilograms means that I add 3,222,000 joules of potential energy to the vehicle in climbing the hill. This energy comes from burning gasoline, but since I'm only able to use about 25% of the heat of the combustion of fuel, I need four times this amount, or about 12,890,000 joules of heat energy from gasoline. This is the amount in about 0.1 gallons. This is in addition to the fuel I burn just to drive the 2108 meters of road (as measured by Google Earth) to climb the hill.
Since I typically drive this hill at about the speed limit of 35 m.p.h., on level ground I'd get something like 21 m.p.g. and use about 0.062 gallons. Thus, I use much more fuel to climb the hill than I do to drive the distance. Adding the two numbers, I use 0.062 + 0.1 gallons to drive 1.31 miles for a gas mileage number of about 8.1 m.p.g. This squares nicely with what the readout on the panel display says.
BUT... When I go down the hill, I turn my engine off and coast to the bottom of the hill. The distance down is the same as the distance up, so if I drove it on level ground, I'd use the same 0.062 gallons. Instead, I use none. So driving up the hill and coasting down uses 0.162 gallons, driving the same distance on level ground would use about 0.124 gallons. Thus, the necessity of climbing the hill requires the expenditure of 0.038 gallons of fuel. Since I typically do this about five times per fill up, I put something like 0.19 extra gallons of fuel in the tank because I live at the top of a hill.
So how does this affect my fuel economy? Well, let's say I fill up at 340 miles and put in 17 gallons. This is fairly representative, and equates to exactly 20 m.p.g. The extra 0.17 gallons would reduce my mileage to about 19.8 m.p.g. I'm kind of surprised by this result, as I intuitively expect that I'll convert the potential energy going down the hill. If I didn't have to brake going down the hill and if I could hit the bottom, turn the corner and coast down to cruising speed I'd be able to recover a lot more of it, but these actions aren't possible. This means that I end up using the stored potential energy gained by burning fossil fuel to heat the metal in my brakes.
The hill seems pretty steep. Running the trigonometry, it turns out to average 3.34 degrees. It turns out that going up the hill and down adds eight meters to the distance I would travel if there were no elevation change from the location of the beginning of the hill to my house. While I will always turn off my engine and coast the last eight meters into a parking space where possible, it isn't saving much. The extra eight meters driven five times for a fill up use about a thousandth of a gallon. Anyway, traveling up and down hills clearly does not help fuel economy. I guess I should move downhill. Better yet, move next door to my job.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Stoplights revisited
I get frustrated when I'm cruising down a major thoroughfare at the speed limit on cruise control, say at 40 m.p.h. and the light turns yellow at a point that forces me to stop. Often, a lot of cars behind and in front of me will also have to stop and a single car will pull out from the cross street. Or I'll stop and there's nobody at the light on the cross street. What a waste!
So, it's frustrating, it loses time for me (and others of course), and it does waste fuel. But how much? And if we could figure out a way to eliminate them altogether, what could be saved? Sounds like a time for estimates and calculations since I can't find figures on how many stoplights are stopped at each day. I've repeatedly mentioned Fermi and so-called Fermi problems where plausible estimates are made. I'll give it a try.
Fuel is wasted in two ways at a stop light. First, the kinetic energy at speed is wasted, though the waste from this can be minimized by utilizing coasting to a stop. While your kinetic energy still goes to zero, you use less gas in getting there. But you still have to extract the potential energy from the gas to change to kinetic energy in getting back to speed. Then, you waste fuel idling at the light. I mitigate this to an extent by shutting off the engine at some long lights (the efficacy of this is controversial and the subject of future experimentation). But I'll ignore that technique for this analysis.
I'll calculate figures for what I think are average cars, drivers, and routes. I'll figure a 3000 pound car (including fuel and payload)and accelerating to 32 m.p.h. (my typical average speed over a tankful). I estimate that the average driver stops at 12 stoplights each day (is this high?) and spends 45 seconds at each. Finally, I'll estimate that an average car burns 0.35 gallons of fuel per hour at idle.
Using these numbers, I have to add 139,350 joules of kinetic energy to get the vehicle up to speed. This means I need to burn about 557,400 joules worth of gasoline, about 0.00446 gallons to add back this lost energy (since I have to burn four joules worth of gasoline to get a joule of useful work, with the 25% efficiency of the engine). And 45 seconds of idling at 0.35 gallons per hour burns 0.004375 gallons of fuel. I'll add another 0.00097 gallons for the fuel used during the coast to a stop. Thus, as an approximation, a single stoplight will waste about 0.009805 gallons of fuel. In a day of 12 stoplight encounters, this is 0.11766 gallons.
Now, I'll figure about 125,000,000 people do this in a day, for a burn of 14,707,500 gallons nationwide, representing $44M. At 19 gallons of gasoline in a barrel of oil, this is represents the gasoline in 774,000 barrels of oil. Of course, the other 25 gallons of oil are used, so all of this wouldn't be saved. Figure 1/2 of this, or 387,000 barrels. This is about 1.8% of our daily oil use.
Of course, it's not possible to have no traffic lights, so if proper sequencing and traffic management logic could reduce stops at lights by a third, 0.6% of our oil use might be saved. And the carbon in a gallon will combine in the engine with atmospheric oxygen to create about 19 pounds of carbon dioxide, so this would save 139,700 tons of CO2 per day.
For me, adjusting the figures to reflect my vehicle, I waste about 0.195 gallons per day at an approximate cost of $0.59. A little under a nickel per light. In a year, this is about $213. Not a fortune, obviously. In fact, my time at the lights is worth considerably more (depending on whom you ask). And, as above, it's impossible to live in a world with no traffic signals, so reducing my stops at lights by a third would save me about $71. Again, not a huge amount of money. But, if asked, I'd rather have $71. than not have it.
So, it's frustrating, it loses time for me (and others of course), and it does waste fuel. But how much? And if we could figure out a way to eliminate them altogether, what could be saved? Sounds like a time for estimates and calculations since I can't find figures on how many stoplights are stopped at each day. I've repeatedly mentioned Fermi and so-called Fermi problems where plausible estimates are made. I'll give it a try.
Fuel is wasted in two ways at a stop light. First, the kinetic energy at speed is wasted, though the waste from this can be minimized by utilizing coasting to a stop. While your kinetic energy still goes to zero, you use less gas in getting there. But you still have to extract the potential energy from the gas to change to kinetic energy in getting back to speed. Then, you waste fuel idling at the light. I mitigate this to an extent by shutting off the engine at some long lights (the efficacy of this is controversial and the subject of future experimentation). But I'll ignore that technique for this analysis.
I'll calculate figures for what I think are average cars, drivers, and routes. I'll figure a 3000 pound car (including fuel and payload)and accelerating to 32 m.p.h. (my typical average speed over a tankful). I estimate that the average driver stops at 12 stoplights each day (is this high?) and spends 45 seconds at each. Finally, I'll estimate that an average car burns 0.35 gallons of fuel per hour at idle.
Using these numbers, I have to add 139,350 joules of kinetic energy to get the vehicle up to speed. This means I need to burn about 557,400 joules worth of gasoline, about 0.00446 gallons to add back this lost energy (since I have to burn four joules worth of gasoline to get a joule of useful work, with the 25% efficiency of the engine). And 45 seconds of idling at 0.35 gallons per hour burns 0.004375 gallons of fuel. I'll add another 0.00097 gallons for the fuel used during the coast to a stop. Thus, as an approximation, a single stoplight will waste about 0.009805 gallons of fuel. In a day of 12 stoplight encounters, this is 0.11766 gallons.
Now, I'll figure about 125,000,000 people do this in a day, for a burn of 14,707,500 gallons nationwide, representing $44M. At 19 gallons of gasoline in a barrel of oil, this is represents the gasoline in 774,000 barrels of oil. Of course, the other 25 gallons of oil are used, so all of this wouldn't be saved. Figure 1/2 of this, or 387,000 barrels. This is about 1.8% of our daily oil use.
Of course, it's not possible to have no traffic lights, so if proper sequencing and traffic management logic could reduce stops at lights by a third, 0.6% of our oil use might be saved. And the carbon in a gallon will combine in the engine with atmospheric oxygen to create about 19 pounds of carbon dioxide, so this would save 139,700 tons of CO2 per day.
For me, adjusting the figures to reflect my vehicle, I waste about 0.195 gallons per day at an approximate cost of $0.59. A little under a nickel per light. In a year, this is about $213. Not a fortune, obviously. In fact, my time at the lights is worth considerably more (depending on whom you ask). And, as above, it's impossible to live in a world with no traffic signals, so reducing my stops at lights by a third would save me about $71. Again, not a huge amount of money. But, if asked, I'd rather have $71. than not have it.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Headwinds
I live in Southern California, and we experience a phenomenon known as "Santa Ana Winds." These winds can literally reach hurricane speeds, I heard that a gust reached 108 m.p.h. today. These winds are invariably extremely dry and typically result in a rash of wildfires. Such has been the case today.
I was driving back to my house from Lakewood, an easterly trip down the 91 freeway. Santa Ana Winds originate in the Great Basin and thus are typically northeasterly. As I tooled down the freeway at my usual 55 m.p.h., I noted sand, pebbles, leaves, etc. blowing into my windshield as my car experienced significant buffeting. Looking at my miles per gallon display, on a level stretch where I expect to see 21.5 m.p.g. I noted 17.2 m.p.g. I had heard that the sustained winds in this area were on the order of 30 to 40 m.p.h. with possibly something like a 22 to 29 m.p.h. headwind component (it was off my nose by maybe 45 degrees), and so presumably that's the sort of gas mileage I could expect in the range of 80 m.p.h. (using the average of 22 and 29 as the headwind component).
Needless to say, I wasn't pleased but I wasn't willing to slow down to, oh, say, 30 m.p.h. to attempt to save fuel. Even my compulsiveness has limits. Besides, I didn't want a crash or a ticket. I've been pulled over for driving 55 m.p.h. in the right lane. Though the officer wouldn't say why he pulled me over, I'm sure he thought I'd been drinking (I've been sober for 28 years) and that I was trying to avoid being pulled over. He didn't even ask for my license and registration, he just shined his light in my eyes, told me to drive carefully, and left.
So what's to be learned from this headwind experience? There's not much to be done about it, but I can at least plug the numbers into my fuel consumption versus speed equation and see if they fit. Maybe my mileage gauge can serve double duty as an anemometer.
I was driving back to my house from Lakewood, an easterly trip down the 91 freeway. Santa Ana Winds originate in the Great Basin and thus are typically northeasterly. As I tooled down the freeway at my usual 55 m.p.h., I noted sand, pebbles, leaves, etc. blowing into my windshield as my car experienced significant buffeting. Looking at my miles per gallon display, on a level stretch where I expect to see 21.5 m.p.g. I noted 17.2 m.p.g. I had heard that the sustained winds in this area were on the order of 30 to 40 m.p.h. with possibly something like a 22 to 29 m.p.h. headwind component (it was off my nose by maybe 45 degrees), and so presumably that's the sort of gas mileage I could expect in the range of 80 m.p.h. (using the average of 22 and 29 as the headwind component).
Needless to say, I wasn't pleased but I wasn't willing to slow down to, oh, say, 30 m.p.h. to attempt to save fuel. Even my compulsiveness has limits. Besides, I didn't want a crash or a ticket. I've been pulled over for driving 55 m.p.h. in the right lane. Though the officer wouldn't say why he pulled me over, I'm sure he thought I'd been drinking (I've been sober for 28 years) and that I was trying to avoid being pulled over. He didn't even ask for my license and registration, he just shined his light in my eyes, told me to drive carefully, and left.
So what's to be learned from this headwind experience? There's not much to be done about it, but I can at least plug the numbers into my fuel consumption versus speed equation and see if they fit. Maybe my mileage gauge can serve double duty as an anemometer.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
More on A/C
With the Scan Gauge 2 I can find out a lot about what my engine is doing. I have it set to provide a continuous display of speed (it's about 2 m.p.h. slower than the dashboard speedometer display), r.p.m., instant mileage, and absolute manifold pressure. The manifold pressure is a very sensitive indication of throttle position, since throttling is accomplished by restricting the flow of air through the throttle body.
I've found a few stretches of freeway where it seems like the road is level, or at least its slope is constant (constant slope will suffice for this). Thus, with cruise control on, manifold pressure will remain quite constant on these stretches. This is an ideal time to experiment with turning the air conditioning on and off to see if there is an effect on manifold pressure, indicating that throttle position is increased in order to operate the compressor while still maintaining the selected speed.
So what happens? Well, the manifold pressure increases by approximately 0.4 p.s.i., typically from 9.1 p.s.i. to 9.5 p.s.i. I found this to be a consistent and repeatable result. What does it mean in terms of fuel consumption? I can run a few calculations and come up with a number, but I'm not extremely confident in the accuracy because the indications on the instant gas mileage display are not as dramatic, consistent, or repeatable.
But let's proceed anyway. PV=nRT in an ideal gas, we'll assume (inaccurately) that that's what we have. Since, for a given length of time the volume, V, and the temperature, T, are fixed, and R is the universal gas constant and thus never changes, a change in P means that n, the quantity of the gas (number of moles), must change by the same proportion. A change from 9.1 p.s.i. to 9.5 p.s.i. represents an increase of about 4.4%, so fuel consumption should increase by a similar amount. Since I'm typically looking at about 21.7 m.p.g. or so, I should see a decrease to something like 20.8 m.p.g. It doesn't seem like I see this much of a decrease, but I'm going to be doing some more checking.
In another post I determined the LR3 uses something like 24.5 horsepower to cruise on a level highway at 55 m.p.h. Since burning fuel provides this horsepower, the additional fuel burn should reflect the increased power required to run the air conditioner. How much power? It works out to be just a tiny bit over 1 horsepower, and as I concluded in my previous post on air conditioning, I find that to be a number that squares nicely with my intuition.
I've found a few stretches of freeway where it seems like the road is level, or at least its slope is constant (constant slope will suffice for this). Thus, with cruise control on, manifold pressure will remain quite constant on these stretches. This is an ideal time to experiment with turning the air conditioning on and off to see if there is an effect on manifold pressure, indicating that throttle position is increased in order to operate the compressor while still maintaining the selected speed.
So what happens? Well, the manifold pressure increases by approximately 0.4 p.s.i., typically from 9.1 p.s.i. to 9.5 p.s.i. I found this to be a consistent and repeatable result. What does it mean in terms of fuel consumption? I can run a few calculations and come up with a number, but I'm not extremely confident in the accuracy because the indications on the instant gas mileage display are not as dramatic, consistent, or repeatable.
But let's proceed anyway. PV=nRT in an ideal gas, we'll assume (inaccurately) that that's what we have. Since, for a given length of time the volume, V, and the temperature, T, are fixed, and R is the universal gas constant and thus never changes, a change in P means that n, the quantity of the gas (number of moles), must change by the same proportion. A change from 9.1 p.s.i. to 9.5 p.s.i. represents an increase of about 4.4%, so fuel consumption should increase by a similar amount. Since I'm typically looking at about 21.7 m.p.g. or so, I should see a decrease to something like 20.8 m.p.g. It doesn't seem like I see this much of a decrease, but I'm going to be doing some more checking.
In another post I determined the LR3 uses something like 24.5 horsepower to cruise on a level highway at 55 m.p.h. Since burning fuel provides this horsepower, the additional fuel burn should reflect the increased power required to run the air conditioner. How much power? It works out to be just a tiny bit over 1 horsepower, and as I concluded in my previous post on air conditioning, I find that to be a number that squares nicely with my intuition.
Tire pressure and the last 1%
Regular followers of my blog (mythical creatures though they might be) will have noted that I have compulsive tendencies. This character trait has expressed itself in various ways through my life, some destructive and others not. I consider my pursuit of maximum mileage from gasoline in my vehicle to be in the latter category. For that reason, I'm glad to continue my activities and analysis in this area.
I've had my Land Rover LR3 HSE for just shy of a year (324 days to be precise). I haven't spent a lot of time checking tire pressure, how important might this be? Various sites (see no. 4 here for example) give percentages of 2% to 4% as the excess consumption caused by under-inflation. Edmunds conducted some testing of various "tips" to save fuel, reported in a column entitled "We Test the Tips." Tire pressure is number 5 in their list of tested tips. They were unable to find consistent savings, though they did find what they termed "modest savings" in two vehicles.
What about the physics? Well, it's quite a complex topic to solve analytically, but I utilized a tool called "Dimensional Analysis" to make an approach to the problem. I concluded that rolling resistance is inversely proportional to the square root of tire pressure. This would mean that there might be approximately a 5% difference between overfilling by 2 p.s.i. versus being under-inflated by 4 p.s.i. Keep in mind that rolling resistance is only one of the external forces acting on the vehicle and that it decreases in relative importance as speed increases, since aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed. Interestingly, tire rolling resistance is independent of vehicle speed, at least insofar as the depth of the analysis I performed.
So at highway speeds, it's likely that an increase in rolling resistance of 5% might contribute about a 2% increase to overall resistive forces, exactly in line with what many of the fuel saving sites indicate. I'd better get that gauge out of the glove box.
I've had my Land Rover LR3 HSE for just shy of a year (324 days to be precise). I haven't spent a lot of time checking tire pressure, how important might this be? Various sites (see no. 4 here for example) give percentages of 2% to 4% as the excess consumption caused by under-inflation. Edmunds conducted some testing of various "tips" to save fuel, reported in a column entitled "We Test the Tips." Tire pressure is number 5 in their list of tested tips. They were unable to find consistent savings, though they did find what they termed "modest savings" in two vehicles.
What about the physics? Well, it's quite a complex topic to solve analytically, but I utilized a tool called "Dimensional Analysis" to make an approach to the problem. I concluded that rolling resistance is inversely proportional to the square root of tire pressure. This would mean that there might be approximately a 5% difference between overfilling by 2 p.s.i. versus being under-inflated by 4 p.s.i. Keep in mind that rolling resistance is only one of the external forces acting on the vehicle and that it decreases in relative importance as speed increases, since aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed. Interestingly, tire rolling resistance is independent of vehicle speed, at least insofar as the depth of the analysis I performed.
So at highway speeds, it's likely that an increase in rolling resistance of 5% might contribute about a 2% increase to overall resistive forces, exactly in line with what many of the fuel saving sites indicate. I'd better get that gauge out of the glove box.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)