No Such Thing as a Free Ride - Not Even in the Air Car

I recently saw a TV show on green car technologies. I'm always excited to hear about a new one. Surely, one of these days they're going to come up with something that does better than 40 miles per gallon that you can actually buy. One of the featured cars was the "air car" invented by Guy Negre of Motor Development International (MDI). Using compressed air as an energy carrier, it has zero emissions, and is very compatible with renewable energy. They showed pictures of a little girl breathing fresh air, and then someone saying how nay-sayers just don't have the imagination to see such simple solutions. The range for a single tank or charge wasn't bad at 200 km, and with speeds up to 60 mph, it sounded like a viable option. But as the show went on, one of the promoters said something about how an on-board air compressor could be used to refuel the car. Not bad. Just plug it in, and the energy is as clean as your grid. But then, he goes on to say that someday we could run the air compressor off the car to refuel the car - perpetual motion! Apparently they have also discovered a way to overcome the first law of thermodynamics - conservation of energy.

I felt that sinking feeling that you get in the pit of your stomach when you realize something that you really wanted to believe just can't be true. Clearly it must be me who is lacking imagination - to think that we can't get around the basic principles of thermodynamics. In case it's been a while since high school physics, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It simply changes forms, for example from potential energy to kinetic energy. Another way of saying this is that you can't get more energy out of a system than you put into it. So you can't have perpetual motion unless you have no energy losses like friction or heating. If there were no friction between the tires and the road then the car wouldn't move.

Why couldn't they just stick with what is good about the car and not go making ridiculously impossible claims? So then I became suspicious. If they're trying to make it sound like this car runs for free and won't need any external energy source to power it, what else are they lying about? So I did a little bit of web research. Surely something this hot should be all over the place. Right? Well the most recent news headline was from 2008, stating that these cars would be released in 2009 or 2010. Hmmm. The actual title itself was also telling "Air-powered Car Coming to U.S. in 2009 to 2010 at Sub-$18,000, Could Hit 1000-Mile Range." No, that's not a typo. It actually says one thousand mile range. That would be very cool - but who do they think they're fooling?

Finally I found an article that wasn't just reporting the specs from the manufacturer. It was written by someone who actually test-drove a prototype of the MDI 2010 Airpod, published as recently as June 2009. You can find it on the Edmunds Inside Line website. Nick Kurczewski of Green Car Advisor flew to Nice, France for the test-drive. He reported that the car could go up to 30 mph, but that acceleration was "glacial". The air inside the car was not, however. It was very hot since the prototype had not yet incorporated the cooling effects of the decompressed air emissions. Kurczewski didn't get to drive it long enough to test out the range, but MDI claims it to be between 90 and 125 miles. Regardless of how slow the thing is, or what its range is, at least now we know it really exists.

But what happened between June 2009 and now? Why the media silence? Well, it wasn't big news in the U.S., but in December 2009, MDI delivered two AirPods to KLM, the Royal Dutch Airways at Schiphol airport for testing. Around the same time, a team of researchers from UC Berkeley and Stanford published a report concluding that compressed air engines are significantly less efficient than battery operated electric vehicles. This loss of efficiency means that even though there would be no emissions at the car's point of use, if the grid that is used to compress the air is powered by a coal intensive power mix, than it would actually produce more greenhouse gas emissions than a conventional gas-powered car. Bummer. However, if that grid were mostly powered by renewables like solar and wind, the car would do better than a gas-powered car, and is cheaper to produce than a battery electric car. The same report also concludes that a compressed air and combustion hybrid would be feasible and less expensive to produce than battery electric hybrids.

So where does that leave us? It seems that MDI has made some worthy contributions to the search for a more fuel-efficient vehicle, but for now they do not quite have a road-ready, zero emissions vehicle. So I'm annoyed by their over-inflated advertising, but pleased that they're out there working on an alternative to our beloved gas-guzzlers.

Duh, let's have three categories

The G77+china want's US, UK, etc. to pay more, but China is the biggest CO2 emitter. despite the fact that those countries that have historically spewed more CO2 have also advanced technology for all, isn't there a middle ground?

Another Myth

A country needs to spew CO2 in-order to advance an economy, right?

It's not true today, It wasn't yesterday, and it won't be true tomorrow.

Don't be fooled. An economy is fueled by its values, not CO2.

However, the financial positions of some companies that are too lazy to adapt are fueled by spewed CO2. For them, it's simply cheaper and more profitable in the short-term to spend cash on political contributions and manipulative advertisements to hijack the political process and public opinion than it is to invest in clean energy alternatives and green jobs.

Don't let those lazy companies define your economy's values. Invest locally in clean energy:

• energy audits
• wind energy
• photovoltaics
• zero-emission transport

These are all local decisions...in the words of Sinbad:

'the opposite of pro is con, that is plainly seen. If progress means go forward, what does congress mean?'


.

COP15

It’s a sequel, but not some Hollywood re-hash of an old storyline – we hope. COP15 refers to the 15th Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change which will take place in Denmark later this year. The goal of this conference is the next global treaty on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with the aim of reducing the impact of global warming. The outcome of this conference could affect every living (and non-living) entity on our planet.

Of course there are many controversial issues including:
What percentage reduction and by when? (ie 40% by 2020, 20% by 2040, 5% by 2050?)
How to manage the situation in developing countries (who want their turn to spew pollution into the atmosphere)?

Europe wants modest goals (ie 30%) – but is willing to do more if others do more, US is looking at legislation more like 20%, ‘developing’ countries have VERY ambitious goals – like 0%.

Hmm. This could be very long post if we dissected all of these bargaining positions. Two more considerations:

1. 40% is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming
2. A myth exists that you need to spew CO2 in-order to advance an economy

Here’s my proposal to bridge the chasm of what’s being discussed and what’s needed:
1. Designate countries by income or modernization level into three categories, say XYZ – X is US, Europe etc, Z is Mozambique, Mali, Haiti, etc. Y includes the middle.
2. Set ambitious reduction requirements 50%, 60%
3. Z countries get triple credit, Y get double, etc.

This would stimulate North-to-South investment and technology transfer. Additionally, while poor, developing economies are not now the largest contributors of GHG emissions, won’t they be in ~75yrs if they are not covered by today’s treaty? There’s no reason why countries can’t modernize with wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars instead of the high-carbon alternatives.

“A wise person learns from their mistakes. A wiser person learns from the mistakes of others.”

Sell Outs

Dems are going to give away a degree or so of global warming and a foot or so of ocean level rise to coal and other special interest groups if they pass a bill that does not require an auction 100% of the carbon credits:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503367.html?hpid=topnews

The current bill calls for 85% of the credits to be given away.

I am so so disappointed.

Energy laden with pollution, that causes cancer, asthma, and other dangers IS NOT cheap energy, no matter what the price.

Once again, politicians and corporate powerbrokers are stealing from 5-yr-olds.

Back

There really is a good reason for the six month hiatus. My son is now three months old. Throw in the third trimester, two moves (yes, two), and there you go.

Back on point: here's some things my son has to look forward to when he is my age:

• possible 1 degree increase in earth's average surface temperature, thanks to our decisions today (and yesterday)
• increasing ferocity of storm events
• decreased crop yields
• an older global population
• 35% more population
• delta regions at risk (uh, New Orleans perhaps?)

Just some background information. The word 'possible' might trouble some. To those people I ask: has science always gotten it right? have economic models never failed?

And finally, one more question: What harm would it do to REALLY embrace renewable energy like solar photovoltaics and wind for the vast majority of our energy needs?

If, in 50, 100 years we discover everyone was wrong about global warming and consuming fossil fuel did not cause any damage whatsoever, then it would still be there...

Contrary to the harm, here's the good it could do to really embrace renewable energy:

• stimulate high-quality knowledge economy jobs
• stimulate more manufacturing
• demonstrate inter-generational leadership
• reduce local air pollution
• take money away from un-democratic power mongers that continue to oppress women
• keep money for energy nearby
• make things better for my son

Here's a cool website. All you have to do is gather an electric bill or two, estimate your annual kWh consumption. Next, plug in your zip-code here:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/how-clean.html

Now, calculate the CO2 you are responsible for every year.

Good information to have. If you'd like to go a step or two further, I offer the following:

1. Implement cost-effective energy saving measures:

http://hes.lbl.gov/

2. Recalculate, and then offset your remaining CO2 pollution from your electricity use:

Here one (there are many many out there). I like this one because they verify their offsets according to the Chicago Climate Exchange procedures:

http://www.liveneutral.org/

It's all really about paying it forward....

It's good to be back!

You've Come A Long Way....

I can't believe Hillary is joining forces with McCain in proposing a 'summer tax holiday' on the federal gasoline tax. Does anyone really believe that the money will end-up back in the consumers hands? I'm not anti-hillary (or against any of the three contenders) at all, but the next president really needs to drive home a sensible energy policy. Why do you think food prices are rising? Hmm, let's see energy prices up and unpredictable, greater cost of fertilizer, transporation costs, etc. Food prices and energy prices go-up, so goes inflation. Anyway, she's come a long way from the days of idolizing the agitation politics of Saul Alinsky...

On a more optimistic note this is great site to help you navigate the maze of rebates and incentives available in your state for renewable energy such as rooftop photovoltaics, household-level wind energy systems, etc.:
http://www.dsireusa.org/
I think the biggest case for these systems is the ability to drive so much uncertainty out of your future cost of energy. Look at this chart I made as part of a project a couple years ago showing the volatility and overall trend in California electricity prices (1990-2006):.

Hedging

Even the country of Jamaica has set a Renewable Portfolio Standard of 15% by 2015. When is the US going to set one? There are abundant domestic sources of renewable energy in the United States, yet the US spends three orders of magnitude more on the military budget than on renewable energy research. Are those proportions consistent with your values US taxpayers?

What percentage of GDP should the US spend to ensure unlimited, domestically-source, renewable energy from wind, solar and other really renewable sources? 1%, 2%?

Jamaica's quest for more renewable energy development:
http://www.our.org.jm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=519&Itemid=579

Leading by example....

Check this out - he'll make a big plus-sign right through the USA:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080418/us_nm/usa_oil_pickens_wind_dc;_ylt=AnAdPs_P7tBu4mZFP1haZhMDW7oF
The question is, how can YOU benefit from investments in renewable energy such as photovoltaics and wind energy?

Earth Day 2008

Well, at least a bunch of us carpooled to work today (public transit nor walking/biking are really options for me - I biked to work at my last job and loved it. uh, both the job, and the biking). So my wife and I are expecting our first child, and as you can imagine it helps reinforce how high the stakes are about the decisions we make about renewable energy today.

Speaking of decisions, I thought it would be useful to read what the US presidential candidates have to say about renewable energy in their platforms from their websites (only snippets are quoted, follow the links for more):

John McCain:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/65bd0fbe-737b-4851-a7e7-d9a37cb278db.htm
"He has offered common sense approaches to limit carbon emissions by harnessing market forces that will bring advanced technologies, such as nuclear energy, to the market faster, reduce our dependence on foreign supplies of energy, and see to it that America leads in a way that ensures all nations do their rightful share. "
(there is also some energy related stuff in his economic plan:)
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm
"John McCain Believes We Should Institute A Summer Gas Tax Holiday. Hard-working American families are suffering from higher gasoline prices. John McCain calls on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day"

Hillary Clinton:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/
"To take the steps necessary to transition to a clean and renewable energy future, Hillary will urge all of the nation's stakeholders to contribute to the effort. Automakers will be asked to make more efficient vehicles; oil and energy companies to invest in cleaner, renewable technologies; utilities to ramp up use of renewables and modernize the grid; coal companies to implement clean coal technology; government to establish a cap and trade carbon emissions system and renew its leadership in energy efficient buildings and services; individuals to conserve energy and utilize efficient light bulbs and appliances in their homes; and industry to build energy efficient homes and buildings."

Barack Obama:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

Today's post is dedicated to First Lieutenant Gaylord Nelson...