How the navy will turn seawater into fuel - SmartPlanet

How the navy will turn seawater into fuel - SmartPlanet:

'via Blog this'

Most interesting. I will need to speak to my more expert friends to understand what effect fuel made from CO₂ from seawater, burned, and exhausted to the atmosphere might have on the ocean-atmosphere system.

ETA ("edited to add"): Lest no one misconstrue, this is NOT any sort of magic. The process requires significant energy input, that is, the EROEI ("energy return on energy invested") is less than one. In that sense, it's similar to hydrogen as a fuel. Yes, hydrogen can be burned or combined with oxygen in a fuel cell to provide motive power, but the energy required to get the hydrogen from natural gas or water exceeds that available from the internal combustion engine or fuel cell. But this technology would enable renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) etc. to produce fuel that could be used for transportation, stored for burning in gas turbines for peaking power, etc. Also, see this article from the U.S. Navy Research Laboratory. Particularly take note of some of the skeptical comments.

Drag and weight as parameters of fuel economy in passenger cars

Image credit: www.modified.com

I've published previously that, for my car of that time that, below about 50 m.p.h., rolling resistance is the greater contributor to my need to burn fuel and above, it's aerodynamic drag. That vehicle was a Land Rover LR3 HSE, a much larger, heavier, draggier vehicle than my current chariot (a Lexus CT200h). Going through the same calculations, I find the crossover point to be about 38 m.p.h. That is (at steady speeds), below 38 m.p.h, rolling resistance provides the greater force to be overcome by burning fuel (or running electrons from high potential to low), above 38 m.p.h., it's aerodynamic drag. Below is a graphic taking these fractions from 0 to 40 m/s (about 89 m.p.h., far above my maximum). It should be noted that, in all of this, I only consider the external forces being overcome.

At my highway speed of 55 m.p.h., about 68% of my fuel is burned to overcome aerodynamic drag. And, since something like 70% of the miles I drive are on the freeway at my typical freeway speed, it's clear that drag represents a large portion of my fuel expenditures.

So let's take a look at how fuel economy in miles per gallon varies with the coefficient of aerodynamic drag (C_d). Below is a graphic showing an estimate of fuel economy as a function of C_d at 60 m.p.h. for a Toyota Camry-like vehicle (note that axes are not zero scaled). While the curve in this range looks to be close to linear, over larger ranges it's not, since fuel economy is inversely proportional to C_d and thus the graph is that of a hyperbola.

So what can be accomplished by reducing C_d from, say, 0.32 to 0.29? At 60 m.p.h. (and using my very simple model), this would result (for the Camry-like vehicle) in an increase from about 47.5 m.p.g. to 50.7 m.p.g. In a typical 12,000 mile year with 50% of the miles driven at highway speed, this would save some 8 gallons of fuel that might cost $32. Meh.


I attended a conference sponsored by the American Physical Society entitled "Physics of Sustainable Energy" (this was the third triennial such conference, I attended the second as well) at UC Berkeley. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute was the banquet speaker and made a presentation during the course sequence as well. Mr. (though Lovins has several honorary doctorates, I'm not sure that the "Dr." honorific is appropriate) Lovins has a huge portfolio of concepts that he claims, if implemented, would result in massive reductions in energy use in buildings (industrial, commercial, institutional, residential), transportation, and manufacturing. As time allows, I'll look into some of these.


But with respect to the topic of this post, Mr. Lovins stated that "two thirds of the energy used in a personal car is mass dependent." It seemed high when I heard it, let's consider. Energy is used in a car to accelerate (very much mass dependent but, in a hybrid, some of the kinetic energy imparted by accelerating a car's mass can be recovered by regenerative braking during deceleration), climb hills (very much mass dependent but descending hills can recover some, and in the case of hybrids with regenerative braking, much of the energy used in climbing), overcoming rolling resistance (mass dependent), overcoming aerodynamic drag (not mass dependent), and overcoming drive line friction and inertia moments of the rotating masses (both indirectly mass dependent in that lighter cars will need smaller, less powerful engines and, hence, lighter drive line components).


So, a lot of the energy is mass dependent. Is two-thirds a reasonable estimation? This is a complex question and will vary by car and by driver, but surely we can approach it. I'll assume that the car is not a hybrid. In addition to the usual coefficient of rolling resistance (C_rr) assumptions, a number of others are required, among them: fraction of city vs. highway miles (I assumed 0.4 and 0.6); stops and starts per mile for both city and highway (I assumed 4 highway accelerations per 25 miles and 4 per mile in the city), engine efficiency (I assumed 22%). I ignored hill climbing (this would sway the fraction we're seeking higher). Should my readership clamor for it, I can elaborate on the process I used to calculate. In the end though, my estimate of the fraction of energy used in mass dependent aspects of fuel economy in this personal vehicle is 37%.

It's actually more complex than this since, at very low speeds, a large proportion of the energy used is devoted to keeping the engine going. In the extreme, stopped at a light, all of it is (though in my hybrid, the engine shuts off at a stop and I used to turn off the engine in my LR3 to eliminate this). And the amount of energy devoted to keeping the engine turning is dependent on the size of the engine and, thus, on the mass of the car. This argues for increasing the estimate of the mass dependent portion of energy used. But for the car I'm considering, it's hard for me to imagine that that portion exceeds half.

It's clear though that changes in the assumptions will have a large effect on this calculation. For example, reducing the highway portion would increase mass dependent energy; decreasing the average stop/accelerate cycles per mile in city driving would decrease it. In any event, it's clear that mass reduction in a vehicle will significantly enhance fuel economy. This post is already pretty long, so I'll elaborate in a future post.

Elio Motors proposes an 84 m.p.g. "car"

The Elio Motors three wheeler is a design by Paul Elio that is expected to achieve a highway fuel economy of 84 m.p.g. (and a city fuel economy of 49 m.p.g.). The vehicle is expected to be on sale in 2015 at a price of $6,800. The price includes air conditioning, power windows, power door lock, AM/FM stereo, "and more." It's expected to have a 5 Star Crash Test Rating (the Elio has a reinforced roll cage, antilock brake system, stability control, airbags, and is made from carbon fiber composite).

It's not actually a "car" in the sense that we commonly think of them, it's a three wheeled vehicle. It seats two in a tandem configuration. For most states, that means that the Elio is regulated as a motorcycle (and in some states, a helmet will be required as things stand now). Pre-orders for the vehicle (with deposit) are said to be at 12,000, and Paul Elio believes that he can sell 250,000 Elios per year.

I can think of several applications where such a vehicle could excel. For example, I drive to work alone nearly every day and, in fact, well over 90% of the miles I drive my Lexus CT 200h are solo. I ran a quick check and the Elio would reduce my 400 gallons per year to 322 gallons for a savings of something like $312. Were I buying a new car, such a choice might be attractive at the $6,800 price point.

The Elio would likely also be a good candidate for a second vehicle for grocery shopping and other errands in a soccer mom family with the requisite minivan or SUV.

What about taxis? Here it's not so clear. The only door is to the driver's left and the rear seat is, charitably speaking, not optimized for the passenger experience (not to say claustrophobia inducing). And much taxi driving is in cities, where the Elio doesn't do any better than a Prius hybrid (and lots of my taxi rides recently have been in Priuses).

Fleet vehicles? Possibly, it certainly depends on the fleet and its intended use. What about for rental agencies? Here I'm also not so sure. I don't put a lot of miles on my rental cars when I'm out of town, I'm not so sure that I'm atypical. Thus, the fuel economy might not be particularly attractive. On the other hand, if the rental agency were to reduce the rental charge in proportion to the acquisition price of the Elio, we might have a deal.

Elio has a variety of fascinating financing options, the best article on those that I've seen is at this article in "the truth about cars" web site. The basis is that you get a credit card whose balance is the remainder of what you owe on the car after your deposit/trade in credit. You make payments on the card and when you purchase gas, you're billed for three times the gasoline cost. The difference between that price and the actual cost is used to pay down the car loan balance. The theory is that you're getting three times the fuel economy so you get the new Elio without paying anything beyond what you're used to paying for fuel for your (presumably) old, inefficient vehicle.

Now, one could say that the Volt, the Leaf, etc. do better than the Elio with respect to fuel cost (be they gallons or kilowatt hours) and one would be right. And those are four seat, four wheel vehicles. But, for the price of a Volt or a Leaf, one could buy an Elio and have some $30K left over. And it would certainly seem to be strong competition for the two seat Smart Car.

What about the mileage claim? The vehicle weighs about 1,000 pounds and sports a 70 horsepower, three cylinder engine. It doesn't look to be an aerodynamically smooth vehicle, but aerodynamics can be extremely deceiving. I can find no figures on drag coefficient or frontal area. But such trifles haven't stopped me before, so I'm going to plug and chug to see what results.

I'll assume a weight with driver of 1,170 pounds, a C_d of 0.32 (purely a guess, and one that I think favors the vehicle), tire rolling resistance coefficient of 0.0085 (assuming that Elio will go with low rolling resistance tires), an efficiency for the internal combustion engine of 30%, a frontal area of 2.3 m² and a highway speed of 60 m.p.h. Running this in my little Mathematica model of vehicle fuel economy yields an estimate of 67 m.p.g., 17 m.p.g. below Elio's claim. I think I've been generous with respect to engine efficiency, so the likely areas where I've "cheated" the Elio would be drag coefficient and frontal area. Frankly, I think I've been pretty generous here as well, so I'll be very surprised if the typical driver* achieves 84 m.p.g.

Finally, I have to apologize for the lack of posts in the last nearly three months. As my karate instructor made us say when he asked us why we made some mistake in form or execution, "NO EXCUSE SIR!"

*Driving at 55 m.p.h. as I do yields an estimate of 78 m.p.g.

Your share of the world | Grist

Your share of the world | Grist:

'via Blog this'

A fascinating perspective on available resources and what I've referred to as "self-poisoning." While the credit at the site is given to "Grist Staff," it was actually written by my college friend Dr. Michael Tobis, who now edits the Planet3.0 web site.

MPGe?

The Nissan Leaf is rated by the EPA to achieve a so-called "MPGe" (miles per gallon gasoline equivalent) of 129 city, 102 highway, and 115 combined (note that the EPA sticker to the left is for an earlier year of the Leaf, I couldn't find a 2014 version). What is this "MPGe" of which they speak? While the linked Wikipedia article gives a thorough explanation, I want to briefly cover a couple of aspects.

First, the EPA makes the assumption that a gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.7 kWh (kilowatt hours) of electrical energy. In a straight comparison of chemical potential energy to electrical potential energy, this is accurate to within the variability of the myriad blends of gasoline available. The energy content of various fuels is listed here (though not in units I prefer).

I pay $0.16/kWh, so the 33.7 kWh would cost me $5.39, whereas a gallon of gasoline (I bought 8.6 of them yesterday) would cost me $3.639. On the other hand, that gallon will take me a trifle more than 50 miles whereas the 33.7 kWh will (by the EPA's reckoning) take a Nissan Leaf 115 miles. And my driving habits enable me to better the EPA rating of 42 m.p.g. for my car by about 21% so I might be able to drive the leaf 140 miles. Thus, I spend about 7.1 cents per mile for energy in my CT200h versus the 3.8 cents/mile I might spend in a Leaf.

What gives? The fact is that the battery to electric motor to driving wheels efficiency of the power train in the Leaf is going to be close to 90%, while the fuel to heat to mechanical motion to wheels in the internal combustion engine will be well under 30% on a good day. Over 70% is exhausted to the environment as waste heat.

It must be kept in mind that, neither in the EPA sticker ratings nor in my calculations for my car, is the energy used in getting the battery or tank filled included. That is, the energy to generate and transmit the electricity and the energy to extract crude, refine it to gasoline, and deliver it to the gas station is not included. It counts only what's in the vehicle. Supposedly, the CAFE ratings DO utilize the so-called "well-to-wheel" efficiency. There's a very nice comparison (albeit written by Tesla employees but still very credible) of the well-to-wheel efficiencies of a few examples of internal combustion engine vehicles, hybrids (non-plug in) and the Tesla battery electric vehicle here. The Tesla is about twice as efficient as a Prius on that basis. And DAMN those Tesla Model S roadsters look good!

Convert my CT200h to plug-in?

My Lexus CT200h is EPA rated to get 42 miles per gallon combined. In it, over the 2 1/2 years I've had it, my total net has been 51.0 miles per gallon. The CT200h has a hybrid power train with a 1.4 kWh (kilowatt hour) NiMH (nickel metal hydride) battery. This battery is good for a mile or so at very low speed in so-called "EV mode." Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) will have much larger batteries, enabling them to travel further and faster in EV mode. For example, the Prius PHEV is estimated to be able to travel 11 miles and at a maximum EV mode speed of 62 m.p.h. It achieves this with a 4.4 kWh battery pack. And the Chevy Volt now sports a 16.5 kWh battery pack that is estimated to provide an EV mode range of 38 miles.

I wondered if it would be possible to install a larger battery back and charging capability to my CT200h to convert it into a PHEV. As it happens, the answer is yes. And a huge variety of installations are possible, all the way from 2 kWh to 15 kWh capacity. Note that the Nissan Leaf, a pure electric vehicle (EV), sports a 24 kWh battery pack and a claimed range of 75 miles.

Should I install any conversion and, if so, which one? This can be looked at from an economic viewpoint and from a CO₂ emission viewpoint. I'll look at both. As a baseline, my most common drive is the daily commute from my home in Anaheim Hills to my office in Long Beach. This round trip is about 62.5 miles and I do it, on average, four times each week. I'd be able to charge the vehicle at work, though I'd have to park at our laboratory facility about two blocks from our corporate offices. Such a strategy would enable me to utilize a battery pack with a 35 mile range to, on a typical day, never have to use the internal combustion engine.

What would this look like? The 7 kWh pack theoretically provides this 35 mile range, and I'd assume it would do so by discharging no more than 90%, but let's be conservative and assume that I'd need 14 kWh of charging per day. Assuming the charge system is 85% efficient, I'd draw about 16.5 kWh from the grid. At $0.16/kWh, this would cost about $2.64. I'll round down to $2.50 because I don't really quite go 70 miles on my daily commute.

Currently, with my 51 m.p.g. average, I use about 1.22 gallons of fuel in my commute. At a current price of $3.699/gallon, this costs about $4.50 per day. Thus, the conversion would save me something like $1.86 per day and, for 200 trips per year, I'd save $372/year. It's not completely clear from Plug In Supply's pricing page but it looks like I'd pay $9,875 for the 7 kWh system fully installed. Clearly, from a purely financial point of view, this makes no sense.

As to CO₂ emissions, this is a bit more problematic to compute. I'd be getting half of my electrical energy from our house, where the City of Anaheim provides our electricity, and the other half in Long Beach, where Southern California Edison is the provider. And, assuming that some combination of coal, nuclear, and natural gas provides almost all of the electricity, I won't figure in emissions resulting from extraction and transportation of these fuels. This is reasonable, I'm not figuring the emissions resulting from extracting, refining, and transporting the gasoline I burn.

The calculation for the CO₂ emissions from burning 1.22 gallons of fuel can't be exact as I don't know how much ethanol is in the fuel, and the mix of the various hydrocarbon chain lengths. I'm going to assume that the gasoline consists of n-heptane, C₇H₁₆ at that its density is 6 pounds per gallon. The chemical reaction would be C₇H₁₆ + 11O₂ → 7CO₂ + 8H₂O. A mole of heptane has a mass of 100.2 grams. This mole results in 7 moles of carbon dioxide, each with a mass of 44 grams for a total of 308 grams.

Now, I'll be a bit general and figure that I use 1/51=0.0196 gallons of gasoline per mile. This gasoline weighs 0.118 pounds or 53.4 grams. This produces (308/100.2)*53.4 or 164 grams of CO₂ per mile (this is the typical metric for vehicular carbon dioxide emissions) for a total on my commute of 62.5*164=10,250 grams or 10.25 kg of CO₂.

That was the easy part. The electrical emissions are much more problematic because I've not been able to determine the mix of sources for Long Beach electricity. I'll just speculate. In any case, I need to determine the emissions related to 7 kWh from the City of Anaheim and 7 kWh from Southern California Edison in Long Beach.

I'm not able to find the appropriate mix of generating facilities to use to calculate for Long Beach, so I'll back into it from information from California State University Long Beach on this page, where it's stated that the renewable generation of 656,000 kWh avoided the emission of 471 metric tons of carbon dioxide. CSULB is only a couple of miles from our office, so this will have to suffice. So the generation of 7 kWh would involve the emission of 8.25*(471,000,000/656000) or 5,923 grams of CO₂.

From Anaheim, I'll use the figures from my previous post on the Nissan Leaf. Using those numbers (and sparing my readers the gory details) I can figure that those 8.25 kWh involve the emission of 9,051 grams of CO₂. The total emissions are thus 9,051+5,923 or 14,974 grams of carbon dioxide. Call it 15 kg. This is half again as much as my CT200h emits burning gasoline and the main culprit, as was the case for the Nissan Leaf I looked at, is that the City of Anaheim derives a surprising amount of its electricity from the burning of coal. And this information comes straight off of our bi-monthly bill!

So, when all is said and done, it makes no economic sense, and certainly no sense with respect to CO₂ emissions, to undertake such a conversion. That's comforting because I don't have a spare $10K to throw at such a project!

And all of this probably overestimates the gains. The careful reader may have noticed that the Chevy Volt uses a 16.5 kWh pack to go 38 miles or 0.43 kWh/mile. The Nissan Leaf uses a 24 kWh pack to go 75 miles, or 0.32 kWh/mile. The Plug-In Supply site, where I got these figures, claims 35 miles on 7.33 kWh or 0.29 kWh/mile. It's true that these figures represent a Prius rather than a CT200h but I'm skeptical that the Prius is that much more efficient in terms of aerodynamics and rolling resistance than a Chevy Volt or a Nissan Leaf.

Ack! ANOTHER "capture the energy of walking/driving" system

I really don't want to turn this blog into a debunking site but some things just must be said. Here I described a completely impractical system for "capturing energy from pedestrians." And now we find an article from Science Daily about Mexican entrepreneur Héctor Ricardo Macías Hernández, pictured at left, who's developed yet another system for capturing energy from passing traffic - vehicular or pedestrian.

It apparently consists of a traffic wearing surface that sits five centimeters above street or sidewalk level. Passing traffic squeezes a bellows, compressing air into a tank (the linked article says "...where it is compressed..." but I don't imagine that that's accurate) from which it is expanded into a turbine to generate electricity.

Think about it. Your engine (either that of your vehicle or of your metabolism) is squeezing air into a tank. This work will reduce your gas mileage (or use your food energy) as your vehicle or your feet do the work of compression. There is no free lunch here. I'm surprised to see it in Science Daily which, although it is sometimes prone to exaggeration, usually doesn't publish nonsense.

There are no figures given, either in the Science Daily article or the articles linked from there, so I don't know what kind of traffic would be claimed to generate what kind of power. But I do know that, whatever the amount generated, it would be more efficient to burn natural gas in a turbine. Both vehicular internal combustion engines and human metabolisms are inefficient and compressing air is a lossy process. I'd love to see figures for this but it's yet another candidate for my prospective Greenwashing Hall of Fame. Yes, I know that the term "greenwashing" is typically applied to deceptive ad campaigns but I think it's equally applicable to deceptive products.

Update: In thinking about it, I suppose that one could concoct a scenario wherein a developing country with few energy resources would rather have the "rich" who own cars spend some of their energy (i.e., gasoline or diesel) purchase on providing energy for township than purchase natural gas, oil, or coal and then charge the poor residents for the electricity or pay for the fuel with taxes. But even there, better a gasoline tax with the proceeds used to pay for more efficient energy generation.

Solar panels on a truck?

I took my family to the LA Auto Show yesterday. Despite studies and articles contending that young people today are not so attached to automobiles, my son is absolutely captivated by them. He knows the makes and models, what he'd like, how he'd modify it, etc. I knew he'd have a great time and he did. I wanted to see developments in electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids (PHEV), etc., both production and concept.

I noted a pickup truck with a tonneau cover consisting of a solar panel and wondered about its practicality. Neither the Via Vtrux pickup (a series PHEV) nor the SolTrux panel option are in production, which is anticipated for 2014. It's a nice looking truck.

But is the solar panel practical? I have a Jeep pickup into which I've installed a 32 gallon water tank and other items designed to let me be self-sustaining in the Mojave, Sonoran, and Great Basin deserts of the Southwest. Where better to capture the sun?

So what are the appropriate numbers? We'd like to have battery capacity, dimensions and efficiency of the solar panels, and the claimed output. Here we find that the battery pack is 22 kWh. The dimensions of the panel array aren't given. but the standard bed is 78.7" long. The width isn't given but might be 65". The larger panel is stated to be 800 watts.

I see here that, in March (about average) I can expect on the order of 5 kWh/(m^-2*day) (kilowatt hours per square meter per day) for a panel mounted horizontally as it would be on a tonneau cover or roof rack. If I assume that the panels are 72" X 60", or 2.8 m^2 they should intercept 2.8*5 14 kWh per day. At 20% efficiency, I should get (surprise) 2.8 kWh/day. Assuming that I'd never let the battery pack below 20% charge, it would take 17.6/2.8 or a bit over 6 days to fully charge the battery. And the 22 kWh is represented to be good for 35 miles (though my desert miles are VERY hard on energy use). At that ratio, a day's worth of sunshine would take me (2.8/17.6)*35 or about 6 miles and probably a lot less in the rugged terrain where I'd be operating.

I suppose that, were I (through incredible stupidity or possibly a punctured fuel tank) out of gas and stranded, I could drive six miles per day for however many days it took to get to civilization (a very long way from the places I go). The fact of the matter is that it simply takes a lot of square meters to provide significant power. Verdict? NOT worth the estimated $3,000 price for the panels.

Update: Here's a clickable link to the article cited in the comments by Anonymous.

Embarrassed to be conservative - a (sadly) continuing series

And yet, within MY definition and one that I will defend, I still am.

This Does Not in Any Way Imply That All Climate Deniers Are Obnoxious Blowhards | Climate Denial Crock of the Week:

'via Blog this'

A digression - should interest in sci fi be a qualifier for gifted programs?

Since my blog muse has, hopefully temporarily, abandoned me and my calculations regarding the energetic plausibility of carbon dioxide sequestration via carbonate minerals is taking much more time and effort than I'd anticipated, I'm going to go completely outside any subject space I've dealt with.

As a youngster, I read a LOT of Isaac Asimov's writing. While Asimov is very well known for his science fiction, I read none of it. What I read were his essays, which covered such an amazing breadth of topics that it's hard to believe that a single individual could do it. However, one that I read rankled.

Asimov was clearly a prodigy and, back in my youth, some regarded me as such. All that ever interested me was science and math and I was fortunate enough to attend a progressive (in the academic rather than the political sense) school. I was accelerated, I was offered training in scientific investigation, and I was offered the opportunity to choose what I studied, at least to an extent (I managed to squander most of this advantage upon reaching college but that's a story for another time).

But Asimov wrote an essay (I can't find it but remember it distinctly) suggesting that school children be assessed for accelerated learning or "gifted" (a label sometimes applied to me) programs based on their level of interest in science fiction. I found it then and find it now to have been pretty self-serving and self-aggrandizing for such an otherwise objective thinker.

I started both Asimov's "I, Robot" and his "Foundation" series and finished none of the stories, finding them much less interesting than reading and studying science and mathematics. I could likely count the science fiction stories I've read on the fingers of a hand (and I wouldn't need the thumb). I read "The Hobbit" and found it quite boring, and made it through two and a half of the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy (at Northwestern University in the early '70s, at least in my circles, it was a scarlet letter offense not to have read these - I had a fraternity friend who prided himself on reading the entire trilogy every year). Halfway through the third novel, I concluded that "this sucks, I'm reading it only because I'm supposed to" and put it down, never to complete it. Yes, I realize that Tolkien's works are fantasy rather than science fiction but I'm sticking with the point.

What point is that? It's not really clear, but it's a rant I've kept inside for decades. The trailers for "The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug" are popping up and brought it to mind. I've not seen any of the previous Tolkien adaptations (for the matter of that, I saw the original "Star Wars" in 1977 and have seen none of the prequels or sequels). I did watch all of "Star Trek" and some "Star Trek TNG" so I guess I'm not completely immune, but these shows could almost as well have been done as westerns!

In any case, I'm not at all sure that Asimov's razor (as I'll call it) would be the appropriate metric for determining the suitability of elementary school students for gifted programs (assuming such programs still exist in this day of No Child Left Behind-based teaching to the test). I'm sure it's a reflection of both my ego and my ability to hold a grudge that an essay I read, probably, over 40 years ago still causes resentment but perhaps this post will allow me to finally let it go!

Blog host ethics

Certainly there are no laws on the ethics of hosting/publishing a blog and there are all manner of blogs out there. Some thrive on flame wars, insult hurling, etc. and do no moderation. Others are moderated strictly and say so up front. Still others, though, represent that they welcome open dialogue but moderate comments that disagree with the host's point of view. In my opinion, this is or should be in violation of what I'd consider to be a "blog publisher code of ethics."

The case in point involved a blog to which I linked from mine up until yesterday. It's published by Mark Chu-Carroll ("MarkCC") who publishes "Good Math Bad Math." This blog covers quite a few things that are of interest to me, among which are computer science, math and physics crackpottery, (lately) probability, and others. MarkCC also discusses recipes, music, and other eclectica.

But MarkCC will also delve into social issues and clearly comes from an extremely liberal viewpoint. That's all well and good and I certainly respect his right to hold, promote, and publish his point of view, though I frequently disagree.

Yesterday, MarkCC published a post entitled "It's easy not to harass women." And while I agreed with some of what he wrote and with some of the comments, I hold a contrary point of view on a few of the things. In particular, it's my opinion that the legal, legislative and administrative machinery make it all too easy for opportunists to hold employers, institutions, etc. hostage with the threat of lawsuits over things that may rightly be considered offensive or not even that. Careers, families, etc. are ruined in response to perceived slights using a regulatory schema that rightly seeks to protect (most commonly but certainly not exclusively) women from reprehensible conduct such as the "casting couch," offer of career advancement or employment in return for sexual favors, and other such clearly actionable conduct.

This happens despite the fact that no harassment or sexual innuendo was intended. I do not speak hypothetically. And, frankly, unwelcome sexual innuendo should be handled without lawsuits and without destroying people. And, let there be no doubt, this is neither to condone such behavior nor to suggest that there are no behaviors that merit the full legal arsenal.

On MarkCC's site, I left several comments. None were vulgar, extreme, or confrontational. None were of an ad hominem nature. But, after the first couple of comments and literally in the middle of discussion threads, my comments disappeared without notice or explanation. In fact, a reply to one my purged comments was left so that the subsequent comment was replying to a comment that was no longer there.

Now, can MarkCC do this? Obviously, since he did, he can. Should he be able to? Absolutely and unequivocally, yes. Do I think it's ethical or right? I do not. My respect for Mark has declined precipitously.

Am I writing this in "revenge?" Heavens no, I doubt that MarkCC will ever know that I wrote it and I doubt that his commenters and readers will ever see it, his readership is much larger than mine. But I did want to "get it on the table" and assure my readership that, if it's not spam and it doesn't make a threat, all comments at my site will stay. Even if they insult me personally (which some have).

Farewell to The Oil Drum

Graphic credit: TheOilDrum.com

For those interested in a holistic understanding of our energy predicament from an educated and technically savvy point of view, there are a variety of sources of data (BP supplies two of them, the U.S. Energy Information Agency, EIA, is another), there are many blogs devoted almost entirely to energy (some are linked in the blog roll to the right of this post), and many more that touch on the topic.

But occupying a unique place among those who study energy and especially fossil fuels was The Oil Drum. The last post in this amazing resource was made on September 22, 2013, and the site is now an archive of the incredibly deep, varied, and informed discussion that has comprised the site's content since April, 2005. It will be a valuable resource for years to come.

The Oil Drum's demise has been described by its editors as being due to "a dwindling number of contributors" and high costs (both in terms of time and money). Unsurprisingly, those who believe in the fairy tale that the free market can create an infinite supply of a finite resource trumpeted this development as indicative of the capitulation of the "peak oil fanatics" to the technological and financial developments that will always and inevitably overcome resource scarcity.

Without getting into a deep discussion of what "peak oil" really means, suffice it to say that it predicts a plateau and then a decline in the rate (yes, rate) at which oil can be extracted as we exhaust the easiest and cheapest sources first and then the progressively more difficult and expensive sources. All this transpires in the face of increasing world wide demand and massive growth in demand from developing nations. The free market "true believers" (and I lean in this direction but am willing to be flexible in the face of data) believe that price will solve all problems of both source and rate. The chart below indicates otherwise (data from the BP site linked above). While oil prices have multiplied ten-fold since 1976 (albeit in nominal $, but see below), production has risen by a bit under 30% in the face of ever growing demand in the developing nations, especially China.

Update: Dan took me to task in a comment for only showing nominal crude price. I've added an inflation adjusted price using CPI-U data. The inflation adjusted price has risen 116% while production has risen 30%.

Learned discussion by knowledgeable experts at The Oil Drum of the technical, economic, and political aspects of energy availability (not at all limited to crude oil) will be sorely missed. While the thoughts and writings of many of the regular contributors to The Oil Drum can be found elsewhere (and links to many of their blogs and web sites are available at the final post of The Oil Drum) and the articles and comments archived for use, the lively discussions are irreplaceable.

Farewell to the site and to its participants!

Looking into the CT200H mileage trends

What with work and family, sometimes I don't have as much time as I'd like to devote to authoring posts. And some of them take a significant amount of time. In this case, I've made a couple of posts regarding the the possibility of sequestering CO₂ from power plants in carbonate rocks, pavers, bricks, etc. I still owe my audience an analysis of this process in terms of energetics and economics. Those are taking some time.

In the mean time, I want to take a look at some of the data from my records of mileage in the Lexus CT200h that's my daily driver. To the left is a plot of the mileage at each fill-up since my acquisition of the car. It raises some questions.

Of course, the very low and very high numbers are related to the profile of driving done during the applicable tank. The lowest, for example, involved climbing into the mountains above Los Angeles for an outing with my son.

But I noted a trend, beginning at the end of the third quarter of 2012 and extending to the end of the first quarter of 2013, of declining mileage. I took the vehicle in for scheduled service in mid-March and told the service crew about the declining fuel economy. When they returned the car, they said they'd checked all applicable parameters in the fuel delivery system, the engine control unit, etc. and found no anomalies and adjusted nothing. But the mileage increased noticeably and is still appearing to be on that upward trend.

Now, to the best of my ability, I always drive in the same way (much to the frustration of my passengers - those who will still ride with me anyway - and the vehicles that share that road with me). And, to the extent possible, I try to always purchase gasoline from the same station. Assuming that it's not related to my route or driving techniques, what could explain it?

One possibility is "winter blend" vs. "summer blend" gasoline. In summer, particularly in California, refiners must use gasoline blends with lower vapor pressure to minimize vaporization due to warmer temperatures (and more driving). In winter, refiners add butane to blends because it's cheaper (thereby partially explaining winter's lower gas prices) and the higher vapor pressure of butane containing blends isn't as harmful due to the lower temperatures and lesser total vehicle miles driven. And butane has a lower specific energy content, thus possibly explaining my reduced fuel economy.

Is there such an annual "signal" in my fuel economy data? I've got 90 data points, and so ran a Fast Fourier Transform of the data. Such a process is used to transform data from the "time domain" (as in a time series) to the frequency domain (showing periodic components in the data). If the winter/summer blend switch, which happens annually, is a significant part of the fuel economy changes I've noted, my theory is that such periodicity should appear in the frequency domain. If you squint, you can even convince yourself that it's there - lower in winter and higher in summer.


Alas, there's no such peak apparent in the Fourier Transform. It's back to the drawing board. I can't imagine that the dealer fixed  or adjusted something and didn't charge me for it!

Can we use the carbonate "rocks" from carbon sequestration?

Photo credit: Construction Consulting and Testing

In my previous post, I discussed the launch of a pilot plant by a group of entities with the goal of sequestering CO₂ in manufactured carbonates that would subsequently be used in construction. These uses may include bricks, aggregates, pavers, etc. Of course, even were the CO₂ not used, it's better to have it in an inert mineral material than contributing to radiative forcing in the atmosphere. I suppose that any unsold inventory could simply be dumped. But what about a market?

The claim I mentioned in the previous post was that 50 plants could sequester a gigatonne of CO₂. The veracity of the claim aside, what would this mean? For a start, how much rock is represented by converting a gigatonne of carbon dioxide to calcium carbonate (CO₂ + CaO → CaCO₃₎, or possibly magnesium carbonate (CO₂ + MgO → MgCO₃)?  As an aside, it should be noted that these are EXTREMELY simplistic versions of the actual production reactions. A paper giving technical details is available here. Anyway, the molar weight of CO₂ is 44 grams, the molar weight of CaCO₃ is 100 grams. Thus, converting a gigatonne of carbon dioxide would produce (100/44)*1 billion tonnes, or 2.27 gigatonnes. The same calculation for MgCO₃ yields 1.92 gigatonnes. Let's call it 2 gigatonnes. Of course, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to convert this to cement (!) so what's the demand for bricks and aggregate worldwide?

What is typically thought of when "brick" is mentioned is the iconic red clay brick. These are usually formed by an extrusion process of pulverized clay materials mixed with water. The most common result is a brick of length 4", height 2 1/4", and depth of 4" weighing 2.7 kg. A similar volume of calcium carbonate weighs 3.20 kg, and of magnesium carbonate, 3.49 kg.  A gigatonne is 1000 kilograms, so 2 gigatonnes is 2 trillion (~2*10^{12}~) kg. I'll use 3.3 kg to determine that 606 billion bricks could be manufactured. The best information I was able to find says that around "seven to nine billion" bricks per year are used.

OK, can't use it all in brick, what about aggregate? This site estimates that demand for construction aggregate worldwide is on the order of 26 gigatonnes. Clearly, this is where the manufactured carbonates are best used. And, it would seem, there is sufficient demand. In fact, working backward, 26 gigatonnes of calcium carbonate aggregate would absorb 13 gigatonnes of CO₂, about 40% of our annual emission. And, one would assume, as emissions rise with a growing developing nations economy, so would aggregate demand. If it works, I like it!

There are two further considerations: energetics and economics. After all, if the energy required to manufacture the carbonates is excessive, particularly if it involves fossil fuel energy, there's a problem. And if the cost is too high, it won't matter about demand because it won't be purchased (unless, of course, carbon is taxed or credited in such a way as to balance the price).

I may or may not be able to get a handle on the economics but I should be able to nail down the energetics. I'll do that in my next post.

A home for CO2?

Photo credit: MIT

A hybrid group comprised of The University of Newcastle (through it's commercial entity, Newcastle Innovation), Orica (a chemical company), and GreenMag Group (appears to be an ecologically oriented innovation facilitator) has launched a pilot plant that converts carbon dioxide into bricks, pavers, aggregate, and other construction products. The idea is to capture CO₂ from power plants and other large industrial emitters and turn it into such products. It's seemingly plausible. After all, cement is made, in large part, by cooking the CO₂ out of limestone, which is CaCO₃, i.e., calcium carbonate, to form CaO, lime. The Mineral Carbonation International facility, in a simplistic view, reverses this.

In the inhabitat.com article that alerted me to this concept, it's stated that "fifty carbon capture plants around the world could potentially sequester over a billion tons of CO₂ annually." Now, our species emits on the order of 31.6 gigatonnes (Gt) annually, so this potential, if it's real, represents maybe 3.2% of our emissions (I'm assuming that metric tons or "tonnes" is the unit, if not, then it's 2.9%). I'm assuming that the sequestration plant would be collocated with the carbon dioxide emitter. I wouldn't think compressing and shipping the CO₂ would be feasible. There are some 50,000 coal fired power plants worldwide. So, if they all had such capability, we could sequester some 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂, 32 times our actual total annual emissions! Woo hoo, let's get started!

But how do we reconcile these numbers? A "typical coal fired power plant," per the Union of Concerned Scientists, emits 3.5 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. If I assume they're utilizing short tons, it fits fairly well with an estimate calculated from Wikipedia that yields 2.4 megatonnes, using a one gigawatt power plant at 80% capacity factor. OK, so 50,000 plants times 3.5 million tons per plant yields 175 billion tonnes, or over five times worldwide emissions. Nothing sensible there either, clearly none of that makes sense unless the average coal fired plant is much smaller than a gigawatt plant. The Union of Concerned Scientists must be referring to a very large, gigawatt scale coal fired power plant.

OK, finally, looking through the EIA site, I can estimate that about 14 gigatonnes of CO₂ are emitted worldwide via coal combustion for energy. So the average annual emission of a plant would be 14 billion/50,000 or 280,000 tonnes per plant per year.  Does THIS make sense? The estimate in the previous paragraph of 2.4 megatonnes came from my plugging in a 1 gigawatt nameplate capacity plant at 80% capacity factor. That would mean that the "average" plant operates at (280,000/2,400,000)*800 megawatts or 93 megawatts. I don't find this to be unrealistic, there may very well be many thousands of relatively small coal fired power plants around the world.

But back to the claim that 50 pilot plants can sequester a gigatonne. That would be 20 megatonnes per plant, FAR more than the 2.4 megatonnes emitted by a large (gigawatt size) power plant. The only way for the claim to make sense is if, in contradiction to my speculation above, carbon dioxide is compressed and transported to a sequestration facility. Sorry, I doubt it. Next post: how much carbonate will be produced and what can be done with it? After that, energetics and economics.

The (probably) last post on regenerative braking

I've posted a couple of times on regenerative braking in my CT200h. This will, I expect, be the last. In the previous post I estimated that regenerative braking on a trip saved me about 5.9% of the gasoline I'd have used without it. I decided that a better test would be a full tank, so I monitored all of the regenerated watt hours for my most recent tank. Since it's kind of a pain in the rear, I'm not going to keep it up.

Calculating in a more efficient way than the very detailed way in the previous post, the results are as follows:

• The measured economy by miles divided by gallons at fill-up: 50.60
• The calculated economy without regenerative braking: 47.55
• Gallons per 100 miles: 1.976
• Gallons per 100 miles without regenerative braking: 2.103
• Per cent fuel savings: 6.04%

Not much different, so I think that it's safe to say that regenerative braking saves about 6% of the fuel I'd otherwise use.

I'm a bit surprised that the number is that low. In this post I discussed some of the factors that make hybrids so much more fuel efficient than their non-hybrid cousins and the regenerative braking was one of the factors I considered most important.

There is no non-hybrid CT with which to compare the fuel economy. I went to the DOE fuel economy site for the Camry (the four cylinder version)  and for the Camry hybrid. Using the combined highway and city estimates for each (28 m.p.g. and 41 m.p.g. respectively) it looks like the hybrid, per the government's test protocol, will use about 31.7% less fuel over any distance. It's reasonable to infer that, while the regenerative braking is a significant fuel saver, other factors (operating more frequently on more efficient areas of the engine map, capturing energy while coasting, automatic engine shut-off where appropriate, etc.) are at least as important.

A response to "it's not hurting you, what do you care?"

Along with shaking my head at homeopathy, faith healing, etc., another guilty pleasure of mine is reading the amazing developments chronicled at the free energy site "Pure Energy Systems News." The site is primarily devoted to various manifestations of energy from (the vacuum, cavitation, magnetic dipoles, zero point, etc. ad infinitum), though its publishers are also hugely invested in pretty much any conspiracy theory out there.

Without going into a lot of detail, the site got excited over a supposed live demonstration of a "self-looped motor generator" developed by one Charles Pierce, who claims a Ph.D. from Bethany University (which never offered either doctorate or science degrees and is now defunct) in "Thermonuclear Reactors." Self powered energy devices (and their their pre-electricity ilk) have been around a long time and the idea here, as usual, is that you use batteries to start a motor that spins a flywheel that runs a generator that turns the motor that spins the flywheel that runs the generator that .... you get the idea. Such schemes have been around for centuries (overbalanced wheel gravity engines are pre-electronic examples) but now they typically come dressed up in jargon involving "quantum tunneling," "resonance with ambient energy," etc. You can make people believe in some pretty bizarre contraptions by throwing the word "quantum" into your explanation (albeit, quantum mechanics is, in fact, quite bizarre in any case).

Anyway, the live demonstration was to have taken place August 8, and Sterling Allan, the site's proprietor, blogged the failure to launch. I (along with others) made a sarcastic comment. The moderator responded with the usual "what harm does it do?" The following was my reply (as of this writing, it's still in moderation):

Your contention that "there's nothing to lose" is, in my opinion, very much false. If I want to have the hobby, for example, of throwing the i-ching or drawing tarot cards, or whatever, that's my business and it's no more harmful than collecting baseball cards or birdwatching. If I choose to guide my life by such activities, that's also my business. But when I try to convince the naive that i-ching or tarot really can foretell the future and then I motivative them to make life decisions based on the chance arrangement of printed cardboard or yarrow stalks, I've crossed the line. When I solicit money to inflict such nonsense on the gullible, I've crossed the line. 

So-called "free energy," given the available evidence (that is, none), is of a kind with i-ching and tarot. People want it to work, I want it to work. But I'd also like it if I could rely on yarrow stalks to assist me in making the best decision at each stage of my life. Sadly, neither has been shown to work and there is excellent rationale and mountains of evidence, dating back hundreds of years, to show that neither can work. Yes, people can make their own decisions on what to do with their lives, their intellectual, physical, emotional, spiritual, and financial resources but, for all Sterling's, Hank's, your belief you are doing actual harm when you lead them down these paths. 

This doesn't even address the many people who have been taken in and lost financially on such schemes (though there are many, as you well know) and I don't (at this point anyway) accuse Mr. Pierce (I will NOT use the honorific "Dr." as it's clear that that's made up B.S.) of running a financial con. Whether or not Mr. Pierce actually believes in his system is an open question for me. People who truly think they've succeeded in producing a free energy device are the most mysterious to me. Con men and hustlers I get. Those who brilliantly design within the constructs of ever-evolving known physical theories, I get. Those who occupy the middle ground (assuming there are such people - not being psychic, of course, I don't know) I don't get. 

Finally, to quote myself, "I've frequently seen (at PESN, on my blog, and elsewhere) a troubling retort to physics based debunking of alleged miracle fuel saving devices, miracle cures, etc. The retort is along the lines of 'I'm sure glad I never took physics so that my view isn't limited by the dogma of traditional physics. I can be open to new ideas.' It's sad, so very much is possible within what we know and, though we certainly don't know everything, we know a lot more than nothing. And knowing what is and is not possible, the 'man will never fly' and 'aerodynamics says bumblebees can't fly, yet they do' tropes aside, enables efforts to be directed at things that have, at least, the possibility of paying off.

Update: A somewhat edited version of my comment made it out of moderation.

More on fuel saved by regenerative braking

I published a post regarding how much energy is captured in the regenerative braking system in my Lexus CT200h hybrid. After some discussion with commenter Gabriel Grosskopf, I estimated that about 59% of the energy available (after subtracting the energy used to overcome aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and internal friction) was recaptured and used to charge the battery.

Since I (and others) have represented that the regenerative braking system is among the key reasons that hybrids achieve superior fuel economy, I decided to check the actual impact.

My round trip commute, generally downhill in the morning and uphill in the evening, is 62.46 miles and, for the last 10 fill ups, my average m.p.g. has been 52.47. So, to make my commute, I use, on average 62.46/52.47=1.190 gallons of gasoline. My display showed me today that my regenerative braking system added 700 watt hours or 2,520,000 joules to my battery that I could use for accelerating, hill climbing, etc. If I assume my electric motor is 90% efficient, I put 2,268,000 of these joules to work.

A gallon of gasoline (reformulated blend in this case) has an energy upon oxidation of 111,836 btu or 117,993,000 joules. I estimate that my internal combustion engine is about 25% efficient, so I put about 29,498,000 of these joules to work. My 1.19 gallons thus provide 35,103,000 joules that propel my vehicle (the remainder being lost as waste heat in myriad ways).

If I assume that I used all of the energy my brakes provided, then 35,103,000 + 2,268,000 = 37,371,000 joules of work were done to propel my car. Then, dividing by 0.25, I can estimate that 149,484,000 joules of oxidized gasoline would have been necessary to do this work. This is the energy in 1.267 gallons. Dividing this into 62.46, I find that the fuel economy without the regenerative braking would have been about 49.30 m.p.g. The regenerative braking thus upped my m.p.g. by 3.17.

As I've often said, it's much more intuitively informative to discuss gallons per mile, or gallons per 100 miles. So, the regenerative braking took me from 2.03 gallons per 100 miles to 1.91 gallons per 100 miles. So it takes me 5.9% less fuel to go a given distance, ceteris parabus.

There's no question that I'm carrying a lot more significant figures (apologies to John Denker) than are warranted by the precision of my data, but I think that the figure I've determined is probably in the ballpark.

Greenwashing Hall of Fame nominee

The Greenwashing Hall of Fame doesn't exist (to my knowledge) but it ought to. I've posted on a potential candidate or two myself. I may set it up and solicit nominees through my blog. The one I have in mind today was brought to my attention by BBC World Service on Sirius XM in my car. It was, seemingly, an advertisement for Pavegen Systems thinly disguised as a news feature (though I'm sure BBC doesn't think so).

Pavegen manufactures tiles that use piezoelectricity (I think it's safe to assume, though the site doesn't say) to "harvest" electricity from motion. They have a variety of posts for tiles installed in offices, at rail stations, schools and colleges, etc.

Specifications are given nowhere on the site, so I've had to use information from secondary sources (though I should be able to take a look at real-time generation at an office during regular hours by going here).

Looking at a couple of videos it looks like a tile deflects maybe a quarter of an inch (call it 0.006 meters) under the weight of a normal size adult male, say 76 kilograms and a weight of 750 newtons (round numbers here, they're just rough estimates). So the work done by 750 newtons through 0.006 meters is 4.5 joules. I'll assume that the tiles are 67% efficient at turning this work into electricity, making 3 joules available per step.

The source linked in the previous paragraph says that, at the West Ham Station installation, each tile got about 5 steps per minute and that a tile will produce about 75 watt hours of electricity "on a good day."  The information is confusing because it says that 50 steps per minute yields 6 watts which, in 24 hours, would yield 144 watt hours. But never mind. OK, back to the calculations. 3 joules times 5 steps per minute/60 second per minute is 0.25 watts. So, each hour would deliver 0.25 watt hours. Doing this for 24 hours would yield 6 watt hours. 50 steps per minute would yield 60 watt hours, close to the 75 cited above.

Anyway, the 6 watt hours would cost me 0.006 kilowatt hours * $0.16/kilowatt hour, or $0.00096 (96 thousandths of a penny). Though the price of a tile isn't given, it's pretty certain to take a very long time to pay off financially at a penny every 10 days or so.

I take something like 5000 steps per day, and would generate 5000*3=15,000 joules, or 3.6 kilocalories (that is, food type calories) were every step on a Pavegen tile. I step about 2.5 feet per step, so 5000 steps is 12,500 feet or about 2.4 miles. Here, we read that a 180 pound man burns about 100 kilocalories per mile as he walks, so I'd burn about 240 kilocalories (in other words, 240 kilocalories of food would be eaten) to walk this distance. I'm sure it's not exact, but here we read that, in order to feed me with 240 kilocalories, 2,400 kilocalories of fossil fuel is used.

So, putting it together, if the Pavegen system harvested the energy from every step of my walking, 2,400 kilocalories would go to produce 3.6 kilocalories of electrical energy. Of course, this isn't fair to Pavegen since I'd also, presumably, have gotten where I was going. On the other hand, I paid for the food to do that walking.

In the end, generating electricity through human effort is just not very efficient in comparison with other methods. If we're using muscle power for exercise and the effort would otherwise simply heat the environment, there may be a place for it (though I doubt it would ever pay off financially) but as a green power source, sorry, it's no sale.