There are two recent and very disheartening stories about energy technology. The first has to do with the new standards for automobile gas mileage in the U.S.:
The proposal, which would require automakers to achieve 35 miles per gallon on average, is similar to a measure that was passed in the summer by the Senate but was bitterly opposed by the auto companies, who argued they did not have the technology or the financial resources to reach that goal.The auto companies gave up their long-held opposition to fuel- economy increases not long before the Senate version was passed, but proposed a much weaker alternative.
...The latest version of the measure, if it becomes law, will force wrenching changes on the American car companies, from design studios to new-car showrooms to executive suites. Automakers now have to achieve 27.5 miles per gallon on cars, a figure that has not changed since 1984, and 22.2 miles per gallon for light trucks, including minivans, sport utility vehicles and pickups. Under the compromise, the companies will retain the distinction between the classes of vehicles, but must still meet a combined 35 m.p.g. fleetwide standard.
...The Big Three automakers have warned that complying with the new fuel economy rules will cost them tens of billions of dollars and rob consumers of choices. But even if they meet the law's mandate, the fuel efficiency of the American car fleet will still lag far behind that of other major industrialized countries.
European auto companies, for example, must average 40 miles per gallon and China requires a 35 m.p.g. standard. Automobiles sold in those countries are generally smaller and less powerful than the most popular models in the United States, however.
So the best we can do is catch up to China in thirteen years? Instead of acting as giant automobile loan companies, maybe the car companies should spend a little more time on building better cars. At least one guy has figured out how to do it [link]. Meanwhile, we're falling behind on solar energy:
Europe is considering plans to spend more than £5bn on a string of giant solar power stations along the Mediterranean desert shores of northern Africa and the Middle East.
More than a hundred of the generators, each fitted with thousands of huge mirrors, would generate electricity to be transmitted by undersea cable to Europe and then distributed across the continent to European Union member nations, including Britain.
....Only small stations have been tested, but soon plants capable of generating 100 megawatts of power could be built, enough to provide the needs of a town. The Desertec project envisages a ring of a thousand of these stations being built along the coast of northern Africa and round into the Mediterranean coast of the Middle East. In this way up to 100 billion watts of power could be generated: two thirds of it would be kept for local needs, the rest - around 30 billion watts - would be exported to Europe.
An idea of how much power this represents is revealed through Britain's electricity generating capacity, which totals 12 billion watts.
But there is an added twist to the system. The superheated steam, after it has driven the plant's turbines, would then be piped through tanks of sea water which would boil and evaporate. Steam from the sea water would piped away and condensed and stored as fresh water.
'Essentially you get electricity and fresh water,' said Knies. 'The latter is going to be crucial for developing countries round the southern Mediterranean and in north Africa. Their populations are rising rapidly, but they have limited supplies of fresh water. Our solar power plants will not only generate electricity that they can sell to Europe, they will supply drinkable water that will sustain their thirsty populations.'
There are drawbacks, however. At present electricity generated this way would cost around 15-20 eurocents (11 to 14p) a kilowatt-hour - almost twice the cost of power generated by coal. At such prices, few nations would be tempted to switch to solar. 'Unless it is extremely cheap, it won't stop people using easy-to-get fossil fuels,' John Gibbins, an energy engineer at Imperial College London, told Nature magazine last week.
However, Desertec's backers say improvements over the next decade should bring the cost of power from its plants to less than 10 eurocents a kilowatt-hour, making it competitive with traditionally generated power.
It's not like the U.S. doesn't have a couple of deserts lying around. Even if a similar program had to be subsidized initially, it's a better use of tax dollars than giving Paris Hilton a tax cut.
On the other hand, we are number one in exporting the Big Shitpile...
Related post: Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog:
John Dingell and his allies on Capitol Hill have done the nation enormous damage. Don't tell me that with the technological geniuses this country produces that we couldn't be doing so much better than we are in the auto industry. Instead of saving the auto industry, Dingell has brought it to the brink of extinction. It's become a dinosaur, much like him.
- Log in to post comments
Want to really stick it to the man? Check out Aptera. I am seriously considering buying one... And I am by no means made of money.
http://www.aptera.com/
Oh noes!!! Save our precious consumer choices!!! They are apparently more important than anything.
I like that quote from Howard Kunstler; "Stop thinking of yourself as consumers and start acting like citizens."
Regarding the average fuel economy, on of GM's most profitable areas is China. They make some very nice looking cars that get fantastic mileage in China.
The solar issue is interesting. They've already determined that using 90+ square miles of solar array in one of the U.S. deserts would supply 3 or 4 times the energy that we currently need. The issue is distribution since the network in the U.S. is setup to distribute AC power, not DC that solar would put out. But if you used the energy to generate steam and then fed power plants you could solve the AC issue easily.
Were not doing quite as bad as it at first seems. A good bit of solar technology is designed here. PG&E has plans for a gigawatt of solar thermal in the next few years. There are a lot of neat concept startups. But little federal support. The biggest problem is adopting cutting edge stuff. Bean counter mentality dominates our thinking. That basically means if we have two sources of power, one really cutting edge but currently 2% more expensive, we reject it.
matthew: that aptera would certainly turn heads! I doubt the occupant would do well if hit by a Ford Expedition though. The Detroit abetted big vehicle arms race has made it really tough to go in the right direction.
@ TonyP:
The AC/DC issue might not be much of a problem. High voltage DC transmission lines have been in operation for quite some time now; in fact, what amounts to an HVDC line minus the transmission line is used to permit power transfer between the 50 Hz and 60 Hz AC grids in Japan.
The power supply in your computer most likely works by directly rectifying the AC line power to DC and then using a switching DC-DC converter to produce the various low DC voltages required by the computer's circuitry.
Modern power electronics can do some pretty impressive things. Ultimately I won't be surprised to see the power transmission and distribution system eventually become all or nearly all DC, even to the end user, since switching PSUs can be designed to work from a DC power source as easily as they can be designed to work from an AC power source (there are a lot of switching PSUs designed for 48 VDC input on the market).
I believe the cost of AC to DC to AC conversion makes DC transmission lines of greater than 60KM economic. For undersea cables (where fluctuating mag field in salt water would cause serious loses) it is much shorter.
That Aptera looks incredible; I'm just a bit curious how well they'll manage at that price range. Tesla is making limited numbers of their high-end roadsters right now, and sounds like they're rather limited in production capacity.
Either way, here's hoping we start to see some electric wheels up here in Canada and across the rest of the US pretty soon, rather than just California.
The solar issue is interesting. They've already determined that using 90+ square miles of solar array in one of the U.S. deserts would supply 3 or 4 times the energy that we currently need.
Where do these numbers come from?
High voltage DC transmission lines for long distances is actually the best way to make long distance transmission lines. There are several of them in the US and there are a bunch of pictures of the plants in New Zealand on the web if I remember properly. There are indeed losses in the conversion process but beyond a certain distance and capacity they are less than the losses from capacitance or inductance of a high voltage ac trunk line. Since that is basically a steam plant the generators can be built to generate whatever they need, though it will probably turn out to be best to run higher frequency multi-phase alternators and rectify into high voltage DC for transmission and reconvert to AC at the other end.
Or for local use, just standard stuff same as any other steam turbine plant.
Course, there is the problem of all your lights going out after dark, and while they have reduced the size necessary of the array from a solar voltaic system, the number of batteries necessary would be a rather larger impact on the environment. I dont think that realistically we'll be able to import electricity from whatever hemisphere of the earth is in sunlight any time soon. A base generating capacity is still necessary and this particular cog in the gears of the universe thinks that nuclear gas turbines are the way to go!
http://www.atomicinsights.blogspot.com/
As far as cars is concerned, the big 3 auto makers can kiss my shiny metal cogs. Those guys are going to be in line behind the record companies, movie studios and residential broadband provider companies for public humiliation after the revolution comes....
The current production problems in the US are the result of a philosophy of government that elevates private profits above everything. The US car manufacturers make more profits on bigger vehicles, so that's what they want to make. As far as their inability to make cars that get better mileage, they have complained about every federal regulation they have ever had to meet. Making cars pollute less would break them. Making cars safer would break them. Now, making cars get better fuel economy will break them. Does anyone see a pattern here?
And there are some European models not available in the US that can kick most US cars' asses right off the autobahn, even while getting better mileage.
A good bit of solar technology is designed here. PG&E has plans for a gigawatt of solar thermal in the next few years. There are a lot of neat concept startups. But little federal support. The biggest problem is adopting cutting edge stuff. Bean counter mentality dominates our thinking.
A good bit of solar technology is designed here. PG&E has plans for a gigawatt of solar thermal in the next few years.