The Sunny Side?

[woodgeek]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html#

rings pretty true to me.

 

[jebatty]

The ubiquitous automobile remains the thorn which prevents 100% carbon fossil abandonment in our direct energy consumption scenario. But also remaining, and largely unaddressed, is fossil carbon from consumption habits. Need to work on that with new vigor. And the automobile likely will be addressed within 2-5 years.

 

[woodgeek]

Cars are a problem. But if CAFE regs can double new car fleet efficiency over the next 10-15 years, and EVs take it from there, we can see the path. As you imply.

 

[begreen]

Interesting article, thanks for posting. Planes are also a problem and yet we still lack an action plan for a high-speed rail system linking east coast cities.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[woodgeek]

A follow up critique of the first article, from the inimical and very well-informed David Roberts:

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/13/9313727/chait-climate-optimism

He agrees with Jim and BG regarding vehicle usage, along with scoring other issues.

See also: http://www.timdechristopher.org/sunny_climate_nonsense

 

[dougstove]

The David Roberts/Vox critique assumes that developing countries will industrialize, and thus intensity their energy consumption.
Some surely will (Vietnam in progress), but will all go through a heavy industry phase?
If automated manufacturing continues to take hold, how many steel plants, automotive factories etc. will we need?

I am struck in China by the students; latest smart phone, stylish clothes, but living in simple (by N.Amer. standards) accommodation.
Ursula K. LeGuin postulated several future world scenarios of high tech peasantry; fast communications, maybe health care, but simple living circumstances.

So maybe some developing countries will jump directly to a post-industrial, low energy intensity situation without ever industrializing?
I am not a utopian, but maybe not everyone in the world will even want to live in McMansion in a gated community. I know that some immigrant communities in Canada find the society cold and isolating, with everyone crouched within their private dwellings.
With growing communications, why do people still flock to cities, to earn enough money, to retire to a hobby farm?

back to work.

 

[begreen]

I thought China's recent weather experiment was quite telling. Sunny skies are possible with a single important change.
http://www.upworthy.com/beijing-ban...-blue-guess-what-happened-the-next-day?c=ufb1

 

[iamlucky13]

Interesting article, thanks for posting. Planes are also a problem and yet we still lack an action plan for a high-speed rail system linking east coast cities.

Aviation is 3% of US carbon emissions. Not only it currently one of the least significant sectors, it is also the one working most aggressively on its own initiative to reduce carbon initiatives - granted, not for the carbon reduction directly, but because reducing CO2 emissions goes hand in hand with saving huge amounts of money on fuel.

Currently, the average airline fuel economy is somewhere around 70 passenger miles per gallon, and that's neglecting benefits like reduced reduced miles traveled due to more direct routing and reduced infrastructure (2 miles of pavement at each end instead of hundreds of miles of road or rail), not to mention speed.

The result is the environmental benefits of rail end up being a lot smaller than most people expect. A recent UC Berkeley life cycle analysis found that assuming the average California High Speed Rail Car was 50% full (vs 35% average on many current systems), and carrying 35 million passengers per year (the high end of the rail ridership estimates - currently 3.6 million fly that route annually. I don't know how many drive, but obviously, many would continue to use each method), it would take 70 years for the rail system to save enough greenhouse gases to make up for those produced in building the system. It looks worse if those numbers turn out to be as exaggerated as critics currently contend.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...sessionid=5E3FBB32533520153249644E4F5AD4ED.c1

Regardless of the touted and doubted environmental benefits, plans for high speed rail are going to continue to stagnate as long as they're talking about budgets that would make the military blush - $68.4 billion for phase 1 o t

Currently, they're talking about pricing of $86 per ticket each way for the proposed California high speed rail system. Current airline pricing is generally in the ballpark of $100 per ticket for LA to San Francisco, although you can find it as low as $63.

They figure the $86 per ticket will generate $700 million per year more than their operating expenses, which means they never intend to pay off the $68 billion construction cost. Even the ultra-cheap 3% municipal bonds California has access to for funding it would cost 3 times that much each year in interest.

 

[begreen]

Airports have to be away from city centers. That usually means a lot of ground transportation to and from the airports. This is normally not added to the carbon load but it is still there. Yes, by procrastinating we are way behind in developing high-speed rail and thus the cost escalates. The east coast with its closer urban centers and greater population density makes more sense to develop. Infrastructure is expensive, even for airports. LaGuardia is going to cost at least $4B to replace and that is just one airport.

Also, jet contrails significantly affect weather. And the idea of showering down jet fuel on the air below is not accounted for. There are notably higher cancer rates near airports that also cost society. And then there is the non-stop noise. All costs to society that are unaccounted for.

 

[iamlucky13]

Cars are a problem. But if CAFE regs can double new car fleet efficiency over the next 10-15 years, and EVs take it from there, we can see the path. As you imply.

I'll believe the 54 mpg CAFE goals when I see them actually achieved.

I've worked in the vehicle engineering (industrial, not automotive. Fuel consumption stresses out greedy capitalists watching fleet vehicles burn their money up for 8-16 hours per day more than it does individual environmentalists watching personal cars spit out greenhouse gases for an average of less than 1 hour per day).

Reducing fuel consumption has received huge amounts of investment and engineering effort over the last 4+ decades, and a lot of progress has been made. I remember one really big brainstorming session we held specifically to come up with development projects to reduce fuel consumption. Dozens of ideas came up. Most of them turned out to be technologies that were either already implemented, or the big boys in Detroit (who have far more expertise and funding than we did) had either tried and found unworkable, or were still trying to make work. This was 6-7 years ago. A few of the ideas are starting to come to fruition now, like recapturing energy from hydraulic systems when lowering loads. Big ideas like that gain a few percent. Little ideas like replacing halogen lights with LED's save less than a percent.

Only a politician would be foolish enough to think that he can step into that kind of situation, mandate a further doubling in a mere decade, and expect it to become reality.

 

[woodgeek]

I was a little flippant. Actually it was assumed that EVs and hybridization would be required to achieve the 54 mpg figure. If I recall correctly, the car company execs were fine with the feasibility and timeline for the new CAFE standards, they just wanted to know that the competition was being held to the same standard before they tackled the problem.

Just the sort of thing that a central reg can stimulate. We only have these nice, affordable LED bulbs now because of the infamous 'lightbulb ban' law put in place 8 years ago. The tech was there, but no-one was going to develop it.

 

[Bret Chase]

I'll believe the 54 mpg CAFE goals when I see them actually achieved.

I've worked in the vehicle engineering (industrial, not automotive. Fuel consumption stresses out greedy capitalists watching fleet vehicles burn their money up for 8-16 hours per day more than it does individual environmentalists watching personal cars spit out greenhouse gases for an average of less than 1 hour per day).

Reducing fuel consumption has received huge amounts of investment and engineering effort over the last 4+ decades, and a lot of progress has been made. I remember one really big brainstorming session we held specifically to come up with development projects to reduce fuel consumption. Dozens of ideas came up. Most of them turned out to be technologies that were either already implemented, or the big boys in Detroit (who have far more expertise and funding than we did) had either tried and found unworkable, or were still trying to make work. This was 6-7 years ago. A few of the ideas are starting to come to fruition now, like recapturing energy from hydraulic systems when lowering loads. Big ideas like that gain a few percent. Little ideas like replacing halogen lights with LED's save less than a percent.

Only a politician would be foolish enough to think that he can step into that kind of situation, mandate a further doubling in a mere decade, and expect it to become reality.

I completely agree... The gov't can pick any number it wants.... but at some point you're going to come up against physics.. amount of btu's in the fuel... vs the amount of btu's required to do the job...

 

[woodgeek]

Yar, you can't beat thermodynamics. But 54 mpg at current curb weights and air friction (shape) is about 40% efficiency converting BTUs to the wheels. With weight reduction (like Alum frame) or aerodynamic improvements (like having an adaptive grill that closes when not needed), the efficiency needed is even lower.

Again, the car companies thought the target was totally engineerable and would be cost effective when sold at volume, they just had no incentive to spend the upfront money on the engineering, unless they knew their competition was doing it too.

Civil aviation is much closer to the thermodynamic limit already: turbine engines, highly optimized aerodynamics and widespread use of lightweight materials. It would be v hard to get a 50% reduction in fuel use there. But notably, a full modern plane is about 60 mpg per passenger already, despite going 500 mph.

 

[iamlucky13]

Just the sort of thing that a central reg can stimulate. We only have these nice, affordable LED bulbs now because of the infamous 'lightbulb ban' law put in place 8 years ago. The tech was there, but no-one was going to develop it.

The tech actually wasn't there. The blue LED that our LED lights are based on simply did not exist until 1993, even though researchers had been trying to invent it for decades. Industrialization for mass production took several more years. A few more years were spent developing phosphors that produced reasonable light quality and had useful life expectancies. At that point there was finally technically competitive products, and several cycles of maturation eventually brought pricing to competitive levels.

LED's were hitting viable pricing several years before the bulb ban took effect. Philips was selling their 2nd generation AmbientLED 18 months before the ban took effect, which was a good 3 years before the last incandescents were finally sold on closeout from the stores in my area.

With automobiles, in contrast, the technology evolution goes back decades. There's no new, major breakthroughs on the horizon.

Of course, you can get 54.5 mpg in a car today, just like you could get 60 lumens/W in a light in 2008. That doesn't mean it's the product that will sell. With everybody playing by the same rules, the automakers will continue what they've always done when the ideals of CAFE fail to meet the realities of engineering and market demand - they will price the CAFE penalties into the lower performing products.

 

[Bret Chase]

The tech actually wasn't there. The blue LED that our LED lights are based on simply did not exist until 1993, even though researchers had been trying to invent it for decades. Industrialization for mass production took several more years. A few more years were spent developing phosphors that produced reasonable light quality and had useful life expectancies. At that point there was finally technically competitive products, and several cycles of maturation eventually brought pricing to competitive levels.

LED's were hitting viable pricing several years before the bulb ban took effect. Philips was selling their 2nd generation AmbientLED 18 months before the ban took effect, which was a good 3 years before the last incandescents were finally sold on closeout from the stores in my area.

With automobiles, in contrast, the technology evolution goes back decades. There's no new, major breakthroughs on the horizon.

Of course, you can get 54.5 mpg in a car today, just like you could get 60 lumens/W in a light in 2008. That doesn't mean it's the product that will sell. With everybody playing by the same rules, the automakers will continue what they've always done when the ideals of CAFE fail to meet the realities of engineering and market demand - they will price the CAFE penalties into the lower performing products.

I remember when the blue LED's came out when I was in college... Digikey had them for $25+ EACH.and those were just the standard low power indicator type...

Also... back in '93, my parents had a 55mpg car... a 3 cyl Geo metro... yep they were slow, but bafflingly durable cars. The problem was when gas was reformulated and MTBE was added.. that same car lost almost 10mpg overnight.

 

[Bret Chase]

Yar, you can't beat thermodynamics. But 54 mpg at current curb weights and air friction (shape) is about 40% efficiency converting BTUs to the wheels. With weight reduction (like Alum frame) or aerodynamic improvements (like having an adaptive grill that closes when not needed), the efficiency needed is even lower.

Another "problem" is the range that Cafe covers... you either can build a pickup that simply can't do the job to get to the cafe #... or have to build fly weight death boxes to compensate for them... (unless you're willing to go all composite... but then the $$ is just stupid). And let's not forget the safety requirements that have made vehicles heavier and heavier...

 

[begreen]

I remember when the blue LED's came out when I was in college... Digikey had them for $25+ EACH.and those were just the standard low power indicator type...

Also... back in '93, my parents had a 55mpg car... a 3 cyl Geo metro... yep they were slow, but bafflingly durable cars. The problem was when gas was reformulated and MTBE was added.. that same car lost almost 10mpg overnight.

The 2016 Prius is reported to be at 55mpg.

 

[woodgeek]

LED's were hitting viable pricing several years before the bulb ban took effect. Philips was selling their 2nd generation AmbientLED 18 months before the ban took effect, which was a good 3 years before the last incandescents were finally sold on closeout from the stores in my area.

Sure the LED bulbs started to come out a few years before the ban (expensively), but the the ban was made law 7 years before it went into effect! The bulbs started to appear in the field several years after the law (imposing a future ban) was passed. No-one I know of was investing the billions required to make practical room lighting from (1990s) blue LEDs before the law was passed in 2007. They figured they could never compete with incandescent bulbs that cost 20 cents to manufacture, despite a lower lifetime cost of ownership.

As for the CAFE standard...54 mpg is a new car fleet average. There will still be muscle cars and pickups. I am still at a loss re why you guys have such a problem with the new regs when the car cos themselves DON'T have a problem with it. I'm old enough to remember the crappy underpowered cars of the early 80s....and so are the car companies able to remember how those sold and destroyed their brand.

With automobiles, in contrast, the technology evolution goes back decades. There's no new, major breakthroughs on the horizon.

Hybridization, CVTs, EV drivetrains, aluminum structural elements are all recent major breakthroughs that are still rolling out.

 

[iamlucky13]

Hybrids are now established technology. CVT's and aluminum / alloy steels are as well, and only a minor efficiency contributor anyways. EV's are a separate category.

No-one I know of was investing the billions required to make practical room lighting from (1990s) blue LEDs before the law was passed in 2007.

Nor afterwards. Once the basic technology elements of the blue LED's and the phosphors were worked out, actual LED bulbs are more in the ballpark of tens of millions of dollar investments.

I've never seen evidence of a step-change in the investment into LED bulbs following the law's passage. Philips and Cree appeared to simply continue their existing LED chip development, and once those reached price and performance levels that were compelling, other companies started making lamps out of them.

Nor did they need to. Not only CFL's, but also halogen bulbs then on the market already met the efficiency requirements, and the latter have generally equal color quality to incandescents.

 

[woodgeek]

With automobiles, in contrast, the technology evolution goes back decades. There's no new, major breakthroughs on the horizon.

Hybridization, EV drivetrains, and aluminum structural elements are all major breakthroughs that are rolling out.

Hybrids are now established technology. CVT's and aluminum / alloy steels are as well, and only a minor efficiency contributor anyways.

My point is that none of those technologies has penetrated far into the fleet. They are all major breakthroughs (in the more or less recent past) that can and will be used to reach the CAFE targets.

EV's are a separate category.

Huh? EVs are not cars? They will be included in the CAFE fleet efficiencies, and are thus another breakthrough technology for meeting the goals.

 

[Bret Chase]

[quote="woodgeek, post: 1970114, member: 4013"

As for the CAFE standard...54 mpg is a new car fleet average. There will still be muscle cars and pickups. I am still at a loss re why you guys have such a problem with the new regs when the car cos themselves DON'T have a problem with it. I'm old enough to remember the crappy underpowered cars of the early 80s....and so are the car companies able to remember how those sold and destroyed their brand.
.[/quote]

exactly... it is the fleet average.. which means there's going to have to be a massive leap on the high side to cover the up to truck market up to the cutoff.

I am not a fan of AL structural elements for one exact reason.... AL doesn't have the near infinite fatigue limit that iron alloys have.... I don't think I'd buy a car that would have to be inspected to near FAA levels ever 100... or 500 hours. Using it for the skin is fine... if it cracks, while a PITA, is not dangerous.

 

[Bret Chase]

The 2016 Prius is reported to be at 55mpg.

congrats... it matches the mileage of a 28 year old Suzuki product. if it was 70, 80mpg... then I'd be impressed.

 

[dougstove]

"And let's not forget the safety requirements that have made vehicles heavier and heavier..."

Along... with heated seats, stowaway seats in vans that cannot be removed, 'Infotainment' systems and speakers that I do not want but that are included 'features'...
My 2014 Prius gets good mileage, but some measurable amount of the fuel energy is going into an Infotainment system with no 'off' switch, that dumps heat all the time and which adds some measurable fraction to the weight of the car.
I already have an internet connected phone, I don't need a crap one built into my car.
End of rant.

 

[begreen]

congrats... it matches the mileage of a 28 year old Suzuki product. if it was 70, 80mpg... then I'd be impressed.

Which model had an EPA tested mileage of 55? There's a big difference in weight, options, quality, safety, passenger comfort, quiet, etc. between the cheapy Suzique and a modern Prius.