Re: Energy strategy

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Gordon Peterson <gep2 () terabites com>
Date: December 14, 2008 11:25:08 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Energy strategy

I agree that Mr. Potter's suggestions don't go far enough, but then  
neither do Greg's.

The root problem with both of their approaches, as far as urban and  
suburban transportation at least, is their failure to recognize that  
the real problem is due to the curious notion that the automobile has  
to be self-contained, and that it somehow has to carry its own energy  
supply along with it.

While this made eminent good sense back when there were essentially no  
cars and a lot of streets and "roads" (well, "trails" might have been  
a better term for many of them, back then), I believe that in urban  
and even most suburban areas, the balance of vehicle density compared  
to miles of streets has shifted such that the "intelligent vehicle/ 
stupid roadway" is today a far less desirable design approach than  
"stupid vehicle/intelligent guideway".

It strikes me that a better design concept is one that is based on a  
PASSIVE VEHICLE (lightweight, cheap, safe, very-long-lived) pushed  
about by an intelligent, modular, active guideway system.  Besides the  
fact of moving a lot of mass out of the vehicle (where it takes energy  
to transport it) and putting it in the stationary guideway instead,  
this also essentially eliminates the need for vehicles to carry their  
own stored energy with them.  Instead, the guideway can be powered  
directly from the electrical grid.  This eliminates in one fell swoop  
all the gnashing of teeth about how we desperately need a wonderful,  
nonexistent battery technology breakthrough.

Moving to an active, intelligent guideway also brings with it a whole  
array of other revolutionary advantages... you eliminate traffic  
snarls, traffic law violations and accidents.  You eliminate driver  
error, drunk driving, and vehicle breakdowns.  Vehicles become much  
cheaper, and suddenly there is almost nothing in them anymore to wear  
out or break down.  We cam take advantage of this great opportunity to  
radically change the vehicle form factor, since the new vehicles don't  
need to travel on existing roads and streets.  I like the idea of a  
round vehicle (with no "front" or "back" end, and which therefore  
doesn't need to be rotated when it goes around a corner!) and about 12  
feet in diameter, giving legroom equivalent to a stretch limousine,  
and a much more agreeable travel experience... more akin to a living  
room conversation grouping than strictly regimented rows of seats, all  
facing just one direction.

Once the vehicles are deterministically moved about by the guideway,  
you also no longer need to stop at intersections.  The guideway can  
route and schedule vehicles such that their footprint on the guideway  
is reserved for them all the way through to their destination, before  
the journey begins.  This eliminates the energy wasted to accelerate  
and brake the vehicle many times during a journey.

The intelligent modular guideway can be inexpensively mass-produced,  
rather than the very costly "custom made onsite" nature of existing  
streets and roads.  This results in a guideway system which allows for  
a "dense mesh" topology, more analogous to individual streets and less  
like the limited-access, congestion-prone "freeway" concentrations  
we've been used to in urban highway design during the last fifty or  
sixty years.

Distributed intelligence in the guideway system allows us to eliminate  
the need for a central control system... improving reliabilty and  
allowing the system to be enlarged and modified in an incremental and  
modular way, rather like a LAN, the Internet, or the worldwide  
telephone system.

Note that passive vehicles are hardly an unproven, radical idea.  The  
legendary San Francisco cable cars are one example of a passive  
vehicle system.

And of course, it's hardly revolutionary to supply the power directly  
from the guideway or track, either.  Trolleycars have done that for a  
century or more.  The European high-speed trains are virtually all  
powered by the electrical grid, rather than carrying their own energy  
supply aboard.

Roller coasters and most airport luggage handling systems are just two  
more examples of "passive vehicle" systems.

If we are willing to think adequately "out of the box", other stunning  
advantages suddenly become practical.  Considering the vehicle to be  
more of a supremely comfortable and luxurious "pallet" than a  
"vehicle", we can probably even dispense with the suspension system  
aboard the vehicle, too... moving yet more mass and mechanism out of  
the vehicle and into the stationary guideway.  (This also allows the  
suspension to be directly tailored to the speed and characteristics of  
the guideway section where it is found.)

Let's think less like a light rail or monorail system (with the  
accompanying disadvantages of only allowing infrequent and bulky  
switches and interchanges) and do something more in concept like an  
air hockey table, where vehicles can be moved in any direction  
desired, and thus allowing vehicles to move directly off the guideway  
to adjacent parking or boarding positions, or even off onto "lifts"  
which would allow the vehicle to descend from the guideway level down  
to the pedestrian mall (or household, for that matter) level.

Let's not just design an improved automobile.  Let's close the era  
completely on the "auto-mobile" and its systems, and move into a far  
safer, more reliable, less expensive, greener, and more advantageous  
system altogether!

David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Greg Wood" <ghwood () gmail com>
> Date: December 14, 2008 5:42:16 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Energy strategy
> Dave,
> Mr. Potter's suggestions are all reasonable (though of differing
> degrees of technical and political challenge) if we assume we're
> starting with the best possible land use plans (housing,
> manufacturing, agriculture) and transportation infrastructure. But we
> are not. So, IMO, these kinds of suggestions are akin to suggesting we
> grow/climb taller trees to reach the moon.
> That is, they miss the fundamental (and much more difficult/important)
> challenge we face, which is to rethink how we plan and build our
> cities and towns, and how and where we manufacture/grow and distribute
> our food and products to be less energy intensive in the first place.
> The truth is, most of the policies and planning that shapes our
> current physical infrastructure assumes cheap energy and works best
> with relatively low population densities. A quick look at the 16-lane
> freeways of Los Angeles (or any sprawling city around the world) shows
> our current model of cars as large portion of our transportation mix
> does not scale.
> And, we'll likely gain a lot of side benefits by considering more
> fundamental changes to how we transport. For example, recent studies
> show a correlation between average car commuting and obesity.
> Designing cities and towns (and other policies) that promote (or even
> permit!) walking as a viable part of the transportation mix is
> critical, but not (yet) common, in suburbia.
> I do agree this is a unique opportunity for new leadership and to
> establish a new model and I detect indications that the Obama team is
> considering the challenge we face at this level.
> I'd be extremely interested in the views of others on IP because in
> many ways, I think, this issue is analogous to the discussions now
> underway about rethinking the Internet architecture.
> Best,
> -Greg
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 5:12:57 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada  
> Eastern
> Subject: [IP] Energy strategy
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Robert J. Potter" <rjpotter () rjpotter com>
> Date: December 14, 2008 3:17:19 PM EST
> To: <dave () farber net>
> Cc: "File" <rjpotter () rjpotter com>
> Subject: Energy strategy
> Reply-To: <RJPotter () rjpotter com>
> Dave,
> Here is a paper I've written to address the energy crisis.
> Perhaps it might be of interest to your IPs.
> BARACK OBAMA
> CAN SOLVE THE ENERGY CRISIS
> by
> Robert J. Potter
> There is a way to solve our energy crisis with strong leadership.
> Either candidate could have done it, and Barack Obama should do it.
> If our rich and prosperous country's President defines the strategy,
> implements the tactics and requires results, he could free the USA of
> dependence on foreign oil, clean the atmosphere, lower the cost of
> mobile fuel and enrich our national technology all simultaneously.
> Barack Obama must recognize that this problem is a national priority……
> equivalent to the space race with the USSR and the development of the
> atomic bomb to win World War II.
> The critical steps are:
> 1.         Evolve autos from gasoline/diesel to hybrid to plug-in
> hybrid.
> 2.         Develop a battery that can run 200 miles on a 10-minute
> recharge.
> 3.         Strengthen America's electrical distribution system.
> 4.         Recharge cars in garages, public places and service  
> stations.
> 5.         Build nuclear power plants to enlarge the supply of
> electricity.
> 6.         Use all alternate sources of energy, i.e., wind, natural
> gas, solar.
> America is a representative democracy, and there are many forces on
> our President-elect.  However, this is a time when we need the firm
> hand of a strong leader like Barack Obama, who can take command and is
> not dependence on consensus to mobilize our nation to generate
> abundant energy.  The key is to define a new fuel and vehicle system
> to serve affluent civilizations during the 21st century without being
> dependent on exhaustible or foreign resources.
> The fundamental strategy is to evolve to an electric transportation
> system and an electricity-based refueling infrastructure.
> The internal combustion engine that powers our cars and trucks is 100
> years old.  Our organization of gasoline stations is effective and
> well established with over 160,000 service stations throughout the USA
> on interstate highways and in our cities, which should be made
> obsolete in the twenty-first century. A swift transition to electric
> cars and the ability to conveniently recharge them is the best energy
> policy for the future.
> The first step is to require or convince auto manufacturers to swiftly
> evolve from gasoline and diesel engines to hybrid electric and then to
> fully electric vehicles within ten years.
> The second step is to enable our vehicles to be recharged in our
> homes, parking lots, parking garages and service stations.  The
> electrical distribution system in the USA can be expanded to provide
> capacity to gasoline stations, evolving them into recharging
> stations.  Parking spaces in the public and private environment can
> also have a plug-in charging system.
> The major challenge is to develop a battery system that is small,
> light and rechargeable in 10 minutes for a 200-mile capacity, even
> though most drivers refuel often and do not require that much range.
> This technology is not available today, but American ingenuity,
> entrepreneurship and invention can make it possible.  We are
> accustomed to recharging devices and equipment from cell phones to
> electric drills.  The problem is that the battery technologies used in
> our laptops, iPods and cameras are not adequate for automobiles.  The
> technical challenge is clear and can be solved.
> Here are two historic examples to suggest that this task can be done.
> Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the Manhattan Project, to build an
> atomic bomb based on the theories of a dozen or so scientists.  In
> just a few years, creative determined people defined a complex new
> technology and built an entire industry to isolate the materials for
> the first few atomic bombs.  The 'atomic bomb industry' was as a large
> as the domestic automobile industry at that time.  They did it
> secretly.  It was a life or death race with the Nazis to build the
> atomic bomb.
> Secondly, John F. Kennedy said, "I believe that this nation should
> commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of
> landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."  The
> complex technology development was successful because of determined
> leadership and an unambiguous target: win the race with Russia to land
> a man on the moon.
> Americans respond to competition.  Now, Barack Obama must realize the
> threat to our economy and lifestyle to give him the motivation and
> authority to launch an all out effort to win energy superiority.
> In the 21st century, the President of the USA can authorize and
> prioritize the development of a suitable battery and recharging
> system, an easier task than the two examples above.  It will require a
> well-organized and adequately funded development program.
> The electricity will come from the current electrical generation
> system of waterfalls, coal plants, wind farms, solar panels, gas
> turbines, and supplemented by an extended network of nuclear power
> plants.  The increased requirement for electricity will be satisfied
> without polluting the environment, will not contribute to global
> warming, and will not generate complex carbon waste.
> If the consumer charges his battery at night in his home, using off-
> peak electricity, his cost would be about $2.00 for a full charge.  If
> he recharges during the day in a parking lot or garage over a multi-
> hour period, he would pay about $4.00.  If he wants a high-speed
> charge from an on-the-road recharging station, he would pay about
> $15.00 for 200 miles.  The high-speed charge of 40-kilowatt-hours will
> require 1,000 to 2,000 amperes at 110 to 220 volts, a significant
> upgrade to our electrical system.
> We need safety regulations, patents and all of the checks and balances
> of our federal system.  Nevertheless, Barack Obama will have the power
> to fund and keep the transition on track, not to satisfy his own
> needs, but rather to benefit the citizens of the USA.
> As President, Barack Obama cannot be reckless.  He must require the
> highest standards of safety.  Today's scientists and engineers
> understand how to expand Thomas Edison's electrical distribution
> system and can do it.  Our leader would make the grid safe and less
> vulnerable to blackouts.  An appropriate amount of analysis would be
> encouraged but political bickering and bureaucratic delays should not
> be allowed to stand in the way of the development of a process to free
> the USA of foreign oil, high prices and irrational energy tactics.
> Barack Obama can change our driving patterns more dramatically than
> the Interstate Highway System did.  In 1956, President Eisenhower and
> the Congress had the wisdom to launch the Interstate Highway System,
> which replaced the hodge-podge of state highways.
> Over these last 52 years, we have invested the equivalent of $425
> billion in 2006 dollars developing the infrastructure of our highways
> so we can travel by automobile or ship freight by truck throughout the
> USA on a sophisticated well planned, nicely managed, organized network
> of high capacity highways. Virtually 100 percent of the construction
> and maintenance costs were funded through fuel taxes collected by
> states and the federal government, and tolls collected on toll roads
> and bridges.
> Now the time has come to expand the electrical distribution system to
> power our vehicles and provide an equally elegant organized electrical
> distribution system to service stations, parking lots, homes and
> shopping centers.  The electrical distribution system also has to
> connect the various sources of electricity such as coal burning
> plants, hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants, wind
> farms, solar thermal arrays and semiconductor solar cells.  All of
> these power sources are different in cost, structure and capacity.
> However, the beauty of electricity is that when we plug in our
> television sets, kitchen appliances or light bulbs, we do not care,
> nor does it matter, where or how the electricity was generated.  A
> kilowatt-hour from a wind farm and a kilowatt-hour from Niagara Falls
> are indistinguishable.
> It is not necessary to build the entire supply grid in one step, nor
> is it necessary to build the distribution system to recharge stations,
> parking lots and homes simultaneously.  Just as the Interstate Highway
> System evolved over five decades and just as fiber optics long
> distance communications lines expanded over two decades, the same is
> true of an elegant powerful electrical distribution system.  It can
> grow to meet the needs along with safeguards to make it safe,
> reliable, useful, cost effective and efficiently managed.
> If we are going to do things that have never been done before, we must
> use methods which have never been used before.  Powerful leaders have
> done this before.  Now is the time for President Barack Obama to
> define and drive a superior mobile energy system into place for all
> Americans.
> TEL  (972) 869-8270
> FAX  (972) 869-6593
> CELL (972) 489-5400
> E-MAIL RJPotter () RJPotter com
> www.RJPotter.com
> Robert J. Potter
> R. J. Potter Company
> Williams Square, Suite 360
> 5215 N. O'Connor Boulevard
> Irving, Texas 75039
> Copyright (c)2008 Robert J. Potter

--

Gordon Peterson II
http://personal.terabites.com
1977-2007:  Thirty year anniversary of local area networking




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com