[Tfug] OT: Battery Powered Transportation: Converting Thermal to Electrical Energy

[Bexley Hall]

[grrrr... replying to my own post... must have hit the wrong
combination of keystrokes and magically SENT this prematurely  :< ]

> Hi Charles,
> 
> > Thank you Bexley,
> 
> Don  :> 
> 
> > > I think the fallacy in the "article" you cite is the premise
> > > that *all* transportation energy needs will be replaced with
> > > electricity.
> > 
> > The article I cite is my own.
> 
> Yes, I assumed that by noting no author information in
> the "Document Properties"  :>
>  
> > Firstly, the motive for electric vehicle transport is to
> > make a significant impact on the consumption of hydrocarbon
> > fuel by the transportation sector, ie. foreign fuel, perhaps
> > using low-emission energy such as windmills, nuclear plants,
> > etc.
> 
> See, this is where I disagree.  I don't think the impact will
> be "significant" (a subjective term, of course... perhaps
> my idea of significant differs from yours?).  I think this is
> just part of an overall shift in mindsets that must (?) take
> place to bring energy demands down to something more
> reasonable.
> 
> For example, to get people thinking about smaller vehicles
> as *acceptable* modes of transportation.  Or, for a variety
> of vehicles at your disposal to more closely fit your exact
> "task specific" needs.
> 
> So, instead of driving your land yacht to the grocery store
> half a mile away, you possibly walk (gasp!) instead. Or,

use the equivalent of an electric golf cart, Segway, etc.
instead.  Why haul 3000 pounds of steel/iron/plastic down
the street just to carry 20 pounds of groceries *back*?

Note that the mindset shift also impacts urban planning
approaches.  If people start thinking about clusters of
housing/retail/employment instead of the 1950's model
of "living in the suburbs" and "driving to the ______",
then there is an attendant ENERGY savings that is reflected
in hydrocarbons and/or electricity consumption.  But, it
is predicated on getting people to think of transportation
in terms OTHER THAN gas guzzling soccer-mom vans and
trucks on steroids.

> > Secondly, the context of the article are the three orders
> > of magnitude: 1) using only 10% (not *all*) of the
> > transportation sector hydrocarbon energy consumption
> > -converted to electricity WITHOUT ANY loss, 2) and again, on
> > the consumption side, another order where vehicles are about
> > 10 times more efficient than they are today, and 3) on the
> > production side, that hypothetical nuclear power plants have
> > ten times their current output.
> > 
> > All three orders to the *benefit* of the "electric vehicle
> > argument" have to be unargued for electric vehicles to be a
> > rational form of transportation.
> > 
> > I could've just as well argued, without the three orders,
> > that there are needed 5,000 x 1,000 nuclear power plants.

I'd have argued the "100% case", first, and then rationalized
how even more generous assumptions would still eave the
argument lopsided (but, that's just a debate style issue)
 
> > Also, moving electricity does have costs, called "loss of
> > transmission" as does moving liquid fuel.  I disbelieve
> > either of these losses are significant considering the
> > context of the article (the three orders), being that it
> > doesn't take several semitrailers of fuel to transport a
> > semitrailer of fuel across the country.

Yes, but it *does* take a lot of energy to physically move 
hydrocarbons around.  It takes the fuel to move them, the
vehicles, wear and tear on roads, etc.  Granted, there are
also costs with transporting electricity but I think you
can get electricity to more places for less (total) money
than hydrocarbons.

> > Is my math wrong, my assumptions??
> > 
> > Perhaps there is an argument that battery powered vehicles
> > will soon be thousands of times more efficient; I see no
> > other.

As I said at the onset, I think the problem lies in (your)
assumption that you are going to replace a significant
portion of the hydrocarbons used in transportation with
electricity.  I see far less of a direct 1:1 replacement
and more of an overall shift in the total energy "requirements"
brought about by getting people to rethink their attitudes
towards energy.

How much did gasoline consumption drop when the price hit $4/G?
But, this was only a temporary change in consumption!  People's
attitudes didn't change, just the amount of money they had
available to put in their tanks!

I grew up in New England.  Water has never been an issue there
(well, once about 40 years ago there was a severe drought but
that's about it).  The idea of watering your lawn wasn't
something you thought about.  If you were lazy, *God* watered
it for you (since rain is frequent enough that the grass can
live quite well relying solely on natural irrigation).  If
you were obsessed with the appearance of your lawn, you could
drag out a garden hose and water it *daily*.  To go anywhere
in/around town, you typically had to skirt one or more lakes
and/or reservoirs.  Rivers actually had running water in them
(and not just *dust*!).  People NEVER stopped what they were doing to
WATCH the rain; rather, it was cursed:  another rainy day!

OTOH, when I moved West, it quickly became apparent that this
bounty doesn't extend to all parts of the country.  Now, in Tucson,
I *harvest* rainwater -- something I would never have considered
Back East.  I'm sure my (personal?) water consumption is a small
fraction of what it was Back East.  Yet, there's still lots of
water (waiting for me) when I go back for visits.

This is the change that has to come about with energy.  Electric
cars are a visible symbol of that to people.  And, it is a 
COMMITMENT, unlike the transient "savings" brought about by
high gas prices.  Once you purchase an electric vehicle, you
are NOT buying gas every time you drive it.

Personally, I'd love to build an electric unicycle for my
short trips around town (those that are a bit far to walk
yet not far enough to justify using a car).  But, I think
I'm too old to handle the attendant FALLS that this would
entail.  :<  So, I'm now looking at a tricycle design
(a unicycle for old farts?) that would give me a more
realistic (less injury prone) way to get around.

<shrug>  Dunno.  Perhaps you might want to rethink your
article from *that* perspective.  I.e., how much would
alternative means of transportation have to DIRECTLY
save in order to bring about a measurable davings consequential
to behavioural changes in The Market itself?

HTH,
--don