Hybrids

Transportation is the second largest cause of CO2 emissions in the US. As our population continues to grow, this will only increase. Furthermore, as developing nations like China, India and others become more and more industrialized, the need for transportation will exponentially grow throughout the globe. This obviously creates a need for vehicles that are more efficient and emit fewer (or zero) GHGs. Also, developing vehicles less dependent on oil will help to diversify our energy portfolio, lessening our reliance on foreign resources.

My current senior design project at Northeastern is related to the automobile industry, forcing me to conduct a great deal of research and learn quite a bit about hybrid vehicle technology. Surprisingly, there are quite a few options out there for vehicles that aren't completely driven by an internal combustion engine (ICE).

Some of the major alternatives to these ICE vehicles are categorized as the following: electric vehicles (EVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and hybrid hydraulic vehicles (HHVs), and more recently fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).

One of the best resources I have found for analysis of alternative vehicle technology is The State of the Art of Electric, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Vehicles, written by C.C. Chan, a fellow of the International Association of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).


Electric Vehicles
At the start of the industrial revolution, many thought the electric vehicle(EV) would become the primary mode of transportation. In fact, the first car ever made by Ferdinand Porsche was an EV, built in 1898. However, limitations with battery technology at the time and developments in the mining of fossil fuels allowed combustion engines to reign supreme for the next century. In the future, electric vehicles provide the most opportunity for emissions free personal transportation. However, I don't think they are the best solution for the time being.

EVs use battery technology to store energy in the form electicity and then utilize this to power an electric motor for propulsion. The car itself uses zero oil, gasoline or fossil fuels. But, the reason why I don't think EVs are the best solution today is because the majority of our electricity is generated from coal run power plants or from other fossil fuels. We do need to develop our battery technology, but this should not be our primary focus. We must first fund the development of other clean energy technologies like wind, solar, nuclear, gasification and developing a more capable electric grid. Once this is done and the majority of our electricity is derived from clean resources, EVs will then be the appropriate solution. If we develop these EVs first without adapting the source of our electricity, it will appear like we are reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, when in fact we're not.

EVs on the market today use lithium-ion batteries and have a range on the order of 100 to 150 miles per charge. However, eventually these batteries will need to be replaced, a cause for concern due their cost, as well as the fact that lithium is an alkali metal that is also a limited resource. While EVs have a very promising future, we shouldn't be throwing all of our eggs in this basket until we can adequately support this technology.


Hybrid Electric Vehicles
The majority of hybrids you seen on the road today are likely hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). The Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid, for instance, are HEVs. I'd be willing to bet that a large portion of automobile users don't even really know what "hybrid" infers, however.

In laymen's terms, an HEV combines an electric motor with an ICE to generate power. The technology is actually fairly sophisticated and pretty incredible. HEVs can be arranged in various configurations, primarily "in series" or "in parallel".

Series means that the mechanical output of the ICE is first converted to electricity through a generator and then fed through the electric motor to accelerate the car. This actually makes it an ICE assisted EV, as the electric motor becomes the primary propulsion unit. However, the efficiency of this system is usually lower due to the use of two systems in series. This system allows the car to run on the electric motor alone (powered by batteries), the ICE alone, or both in series.

A parallel HEV is somewhat different. Here, the electric motor and ICE are separated, and then indivicually linked to the driveshaft using two clutches. This makes it an electrically assisted ICE vehicle as opposed to the series setup. The electric motor can charge the battery through regenerative braking or by absorbing power from the ICE when it generates more than the required load. This is a more simple setup than a series vehicle, as a generator is not required. The majority of hybrids on the road today are parallel HEVs. The electric motors for these vehicles range from 2.5kW at 12V ("micro" hybrids) to 50kW at 200-300V (full hybrids, i.e. the Prius). The Honda Insight is somewhere in between and classified as a "mild hybrid" (10-20kW motor at 100-200V). Most hybrids on the road can be fueled at gas station, but there are some that can be plugged into the electric grid to power the batters (plug-in HEV, PHEVs). A PHEV has a range of about 18-36 miles when only running on the electric motor. This virtually makes it a limited range EV, and is the most efficient when you only need to drive short distances.

Difficulties with all HEVs are assosiated with the cost as well as limitations in the batteries. However, recent improvements have been made in each of these areas. In fact, the 3rd generation Toyota Prius starts at only $22,000 and boasts 51/48 mpg (city/hwy).

Fuel Cell Vehicles (to be continued...)

Needs and Desires

It being the holidays and all, I've been reminded about how much "stuff" people buy. Sure, it's nice to have a new t.v. once in a while or a new pair of shoes. It's a nice feeling. But, in reality, most of this "stuff" at one point or another turns into waste. As I walked around Boston yesterday, I couldn't help but be amazed at the swarms of people literally running from store to store to buy somebody the latest iPhone or the new Jordans or this or that. Do we really need all of this stuff? Or do the constant reminders of a media-based society obsessed with Gizelle and Tom just make us think we do? There's obviously no straight answer to this, but I'm going to try anyway.

The majority of my posts have been related to energy so far. You may think this is unrelated, but in my mind it's very closely related. Let me explain...

I just finished re-reading Mitch Albom's Tuesday's With Morrie. It reminded me about how often people, in this country at least, confuse the things they really need with the things they want. Being in Egypt for six weeks last summer was an eye opening experience, and I realized how much we really do take for granted in this country. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we need to go back to the stone age here. People work very hard in this country and deserve to spend their money however they please. But, at the same time, its difficult to deal with the fact that a substantial percentage of the world's population is struggling to find food or clean water from day to day, yet millions, if not billions, of tons of waste are disposed of in America alone each year.

In my opinion, I believe a lot of people in this country value materialistic things more than they do the other parts of life. One can have all of the nicest things in the world, but I don't think anyone will be truly happy unless they value the un-measureable qualities of life like family, health, self-confidence, and having a basic appreciation for the well-being of others and not just yourself.

I'm sure a lot of people would tell me, "It's not that simple". But I think it really is.

The confusion of things we need with things we desire also lead to an enormous amount of material waste that, at the present time, primarily gets deposited in landfills. Landfills are one of the largest emitters of GHG's and until we redevelop how we manufacture, re-use, and recycle products to eliminate waste, I believe this confusion has a direct impact on the environment. Let's be honest, the human population has an unbelievable demand for energy of all kinds. And, as our population continues to grow, the amount of stuff we buy will only increase.

All in all, I think a primary cause of a lot of this is because many people don't think and act with a "global" perspective in mind. Your actions will always have consequences. Instead of pushing them aside for someone else to deal with, we will all be better off if we deal with them ourselves.

We're Sustainable! (Not Really)

A very fitting quote I heard today about the sudden craze to be sustainable:

"Sustainability is like having sex in high school. Everyone says they do it. Most people are lying, and the ones who actually do aren't very good at it."

What a Waste

So far I've focused on different ways that we can produce clean energy while avoiding use of fossil fuels. To me, this is only part of the problem.

Think about this: you wake up the morning, turn on your lights in your room, shut off your alarm clock that has been ticking all night, walk into the shower (while probably leaving the lights on in your room), leave the shower (while probably forgetting to shut the lights off in the bathroom), then go into the kitchen to make some breakfast. It seems pretty warm in your kitchen, so you open the window and let heat and energy dump outside because unfortunately your landlord didn't give you climate control. Not to mention, he didn't care to put in better insulation in your apartment because he's cheap, even though it would have save him lots of money in energy costs in the long run.

You can easily tell what time it is as the displays on the coffee pot, stove, microwave and any other appliances have been up and running all night even though no one has been using them. You turn on the television to watch the morning news, but wait a minute...you didn't plug them in. This means these appliances, too, have been consuming energy all night even though no one wants to use them.

You then walk out the door, forgetting to shut all the lights off or turn down the heat, to head to the subway at 7am and see some city maintenance workers raking up every last leaf in the neighborhood and dumping them into the trash can. What did these leaves do to us? Why do we feel the need to throw them out, even though they are biodegradable? Anyways, you get to the subway station (assuming that you don't drive in your gasoline powered car to work) and, what do you know!...the escalator is running, and has been all night, even though no one is using it. And, of course, the lights in the station are on as well. Too bad no one thought to add a few more windows in the station, after all its 7am and the sun is brightly shining.

My point is, we live a very wasteful lifestyle in this country, and most other developed countries too. We can develop all the technology we want to try to produce clean power to avoid the effects of climate change, but that won't totaly solve the problem.

I think there are two fundamental things we need to do to deal with our waste issues:

1) BE LESS WASTEFUL! We need to start at the top and live less wasteful lifestyles. I'm not saying we need to go back to the stone age. We can definitely continue to live the way we do in a less wasteful manner, as long as we think about what we're doing and change our lazy and wasteful mentalities on a day to day basis. Why not walk to work or take public transit when you live only 2 miles away? Do you really need to drive there? Don't throw out those leaves in your yard. Design houses to be more efficient. Don't put on 2 sheets of wrapping paper on a sandwich at the local sub shop. Use less packaging and plastic when selling products. The list goes on and on.

2) SMART GRID. Why can't the electric grid supply energy to appliances only when we need to use them? Why does every single thing need to be plugged into our house and draining energy when we're probably not using them 90% of the time? You've probably seen the IBM ad's about developing a smart grid. This is a huge priority in my mind. First, it will allow us to be less wasteful. Second, it well be able to handle all of these alternative technologies we're developing in a much better way than our current grid does, which will likely bring down the costs associated with these technologies in the long run. Learn more about the Department of Energy's plans for a smart grid here.

It is a global problem, but America needs to lead the way.

Part II: Energy Options (continued)

Sorry for the long delay...before I get into any more discussion about energy options, check out the Energy Information Administration. The EIA is Department of Energy resource with substatial information about all types of energy production.

Another good resource for alternative methods of energy production is Ze-gen, Inc.'s blog, Rethink. Ze-gen is renewable energy company that I currently work for, developing waste gasification technology.

Solar

I had an interesting discussion a couple of weeks ago with someone at work about how all the energy we produce and consume comes from one of two sources: the sun or a nuclear reaction. You might be thinking, "you just wrote about wind, what about that?". In fact, the power stored in wind is actually built up solar energy. As solar radiation reaches the surface, the temperatures of air along the ground rise. Since warm air rises, this pocket of air moves up into the atmosphere creating a pressure difference, and wah-lah, you have wind.

Long story short, the sun is the primary source of energy for our planet. It is what allows life on this planet to grow. Without it, we wouldn't be here right now. So one would think we should be able to capture and use all this solar energy, right? But, in 2008, less than 1% of the U.S.' consumed energy was supplied by solar power. Let's look into some solar power options that are currently being developed...

As of now there are two methods of utilizing solar energy for power: solar thermal and photovoltaic.

We've all heard a lot about solar photovoltaics, but a different solar technology grabs my interest more: Concentrated Solar Thermal or CST. CST doesn't get as much press as photovoltaics, but I think it has great potential in industrial and residential energy markets. Solar thermal energy production concentrates direct heat from the sun, generating useful heat at desired temperatures. Air or water can then be heated, making CST an interesting option for industries or commercial and residential buildings. For any area that requires a large volume of hot water (i.e. laundromats, restaurants, schools), solar thermal energy would be a cost-effective approach.

An issue with solar energy in general is the need to transport the energy from the sunny areas to the not-so-sunny but high energy density areas. However, solar thermal systems can be used to thermo-chemically alter or produce liquid fuels that can be more easily transported to areas in need.

We don't hear too much about solar thermal systems, but they clearly are an economically and environmentally efficient solution of the future.

Part II: Energy Options

I often hear people arguing how solar power is better than wind power, or wind is better solar, or neither are really good solutions, or how everyone should use electric cars or that electric cars are not a good solution, etc. Yes, it's true that some methods of clean energy production are more efficient than others. Yet, in my opinion, we are not going to solve this energy crisis using one or two methods of energy production. I think (or at least hope) that is is a pretty common and apparent observation throughout the country.

What we really need is to maximize each technology where it is most productive throughout the country. For example, develop wind farms on the coasts and in areas with strong and continuous wind patterns. Use solar arrays in areas receiving a constant supply of solar energy. Develop an infrastructure of electric car charging stations in cities and densely populated areas. We hear a lot about these popular clean energy technologies. What we don't hear too much about are the many smaller and less developed technologies that, in my mind, will be equally necessary to integrating a sustainable energy network. So what options are out there for clean energy solutions?

WIND

The fundamental idea behind wind power is simply to convert the kinetic energy that exists in moving wind currents and, using a wind turbine, electrical gearboxes, transformers and generators, convert it into electricity. The American Wind Energy Association is a great resource to learn more about the basics and the details of wind energy.

Opponents to wind power pose the argument that it is not a viable method because it only works in very windy places. This is true. It wouldn't make any sense to put a windmill where the wind doesn't blow. But, surprisingly, there are a lot of places in America that have great potential for wind power. And, the windiest of the windiest places aren't on the coasts or along the shore but in the open plains of the midwest, like North Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. Research institutions have shown that if used to its full potential, wind could produce about 20% of the nation's energy requirement. So why don't we see these wind mills everywhere?

Like any technology, wind power has its advantages and disadvantages. There are many obvious advantages of wind power: GHG emissions would be reduced, jobs would be created to manufacture these turbines, there would be less demand (and thus cheaper costs) of current power options like natural gas, etc. However, certain problems do exist. First, costs of electricity produced by wind power plants are still not as cheap as current electricity prices. Though they have decreased significantly in the last decade, cheaper materials and better manufacturing processes are needed in order to allow wind power to be competitive solution on the market. Also, the national electrical transmission grid needs to be refined in order for wind, and various other alternative power solutions, to reach its full potential. The best sites for wind power are often far away from densely populated areas requiring the most energy. Also , current wind turbine designs have little storage capacity, creating problems when the wind isn't blowing. However, as battery and capacitor technology continues to develop, combining these technologies may help to solve this problem. Finally, in my opinion, one of the biggest inhibitors to wind power development is the "not in my backyard" attitude of many residents in areas with high wind potential. It is true, there will be some visual impact when large wind mills are built, but who says this is a bad thing? Growing up in Bourne, the Massachusetts Maritime Academy installed a fairly large windmill just of the Cape Cod Canal. Personally, I think it made the landscape look better, adding a clean and progressive touch to something that hadn't changed in decades. But, there is a large population on the Cape, and elsewhere in the US, that are opposed to wind power plants because of this change of scenery. This is a major problem with the development of Cape Wind, an offshore project that would generate power for the entire Cape. That's a lot of power, and to me the advantages far outweigh the small change to the Cape Cod shoreline.

If we as a country hope to solve this energy crisis, we have to accept the fact that things are going to have to change. We cannot live the way we do and expect to solve these problems without changing the way we live our every day lives. I bet when the first telephone poles or electricity lines were put up, people complained. Now, you probably don't even think twice about it as you drive down the street, but enjoy the use of your phone and lights in your house. Sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot.

That's it for now...more to follow soon.

Climate Change and The Energy Crisis: Part 1

I was talking recently about energy reform with a colleague at work who works in D.C. quite a bit. He mentioned how even though it may hold greater long term importance, many politicians have put off energy bills until after the health care issues are ironed out. So, I'm pretty antsy to discuss the National Health Care Reform activity going on, but I'm not too knowledgeable yet, so I want to learn more before discussing. So I'm moving on to the second most important issue in my mind today: climate change and energy. There's a lot I want to talk about here, so I'm breaking it up into some parts: Part 1, general intro and background information regarding climate change; Part 2, why we need to change our energy infrastructure and what options are out there.

The late part of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century was a remarkable time in this country. Industry went through a dramatic reform, lead by substantial improvements to manufacturing methods by industrialists like Henry Ford. The way things were designed, manufactured and assembled was revolutionized. Henry Ford realized that if he could make a car that was less expensive to purchase, more people would buy them, allowing them to get to work easier, travel more, etc. During the decades to follow, this proved to have a dramatic impact on the productivity and efficiency of the American population. In 1911, sales of the Model T totaled about 40,000. By 1927, Ford had sold 15 million. During this time period, America's economy was booming and things were very, very good.

We face the need for a revolution of a different sort today. To be honest, I'm sick of people saying that Climate Change is not a serious issue. The fact that lobbyists, oil executives, and even some politicians can pretend that this isn't a serious issue is unbelievable in my mind. Scientists, researchers, and engineers all across the world have presented statistical evidence supporting the negative impacts of human-related green house gases to the Earth's climate patterns. Kind of ironic that most of these green house gases are attributed to the very same technologies that came out of the First Industrial Revolution, isn't it? Before I get too far into this discussion, I'd like to present some of the facts.

As my interest in this field has developed over the last few years, I was intrigued to find out more details about climate change from someone other than the television. So, I took a class last spring at NU called Global Climate Change, given by Daniel Douglass. I wasn't sure how in depth it would be, but I figured it couldn't hurt and I'd learn a decent amount. It ended up being one of the better classes I've taken at Northeastern and provided me with pretty good resources and knowledge on the subject.

The fact of the matter is, human activity since 1850 has definitely increased the concentration of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in the Earth's atmosphere. The most dangerous of these include carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, nitrous oxide and ozone. I'll try not to get too detailed, but a brief background about the greenhouse effect is helpful if you want to form an actual opinion on this subject. (Sidenote: this is the kind of info that the quick-fix media usually chooses to omit, sometimes leaving the audience without an adequate knowledge to make an assessment.)

There are two main types of radiation acting in the atmosphere: short-wave solar radiation coming from the sun and long-wave thermal radiation that reflects off the surface of the planet. Of all the solar radiation which reaches the Earth's surface, 30% is reflected off the surface (this reflection percentage is known as the Earth's albedo). This creates a net influx of energy and the surface of the Earth naturally heats up. A common misconception is that Global Warming itself is the problem, but in fact it is a completely natural process that has ebbed and flowed for billions of years. Granted, it is what creates cold and hot periods, but there is nothing we can do to effect this normal process.

Abnormalities in warming patterns is clearly evident starting around 1850 (hmm, this is just about the time of the start of the industrial revolution, isn't it?). Automobile use, industry emissions, methane release in landfills, and a number of other human activities are all examples of processes that occur every day, and the frequency of these events will continue to increase as our population continues to grow. Currently, these activities require fossil fuel use for energy, and GHGs are subsequently released and linger in the atmosphere. This creates a "barrier" of sorts that acts to re-reflect energy back towards the Earth's surface, heating it up even more. The interesting point here is, solar radiation is only acting during the daytime, but this re-reflection occurs 24/7 all around the world and therefore has a significant impact.

Some argue that we can't clearly define what's causing the Earth's temperature to continue to rise. For lack of better words, I think this is bullshit. The International Panel on Climate Change was established by the UN to report the current state of climate change and its potential consequences from a scientific perspective. In their 2007 Summary for Policymakers, they reported the following: "Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas. The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280ppm to 379ppm in 2005." Over the last 10 years, the annual increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide has dramatically increased compared to what it was even 50 years ago. They continue, "The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use." And, this is only carbon dioxide. Methane never seems to get much attention from the press, but when it remains in the atmosphere it is much more harmful than carbon dioxide.

In scientific terms, what will happen in the future because of these events is difficult predict, mainly due to the complexity of the Earth's climate and difficulty in producing computer models which take everything at once into account. However, scientists are still able to obtain a good idea of what probably will happen. In general, warm places are going to get warmer and cool places are going to get cooler. Sea levels are estimated to rise 0.2 meters to 0.6 meters over the next 100 years. That may not seem like a lot to you, but this is throughout the entire world! 0.2 meters is over 1/2 a foot, and these are conservative estimates! That's pretty much saying that by 2100, the majority of coastal areas (i.e. large sea ports and cities) will experience significant flooding. This then requires substantial renovations to buildings, roads, bridges, homes, ....well you get the picture.

This information is coming from the world's best scientists and is in pretty simple terms. But, somehow, there are big businesses, politicians and policymakers who can't understand the significance and urgent need for changes to our energy infrastructure. I understand it will take a lot of money and work to redefine our energy infrastructure, especially here in America. But instead, we choose to drill for oil in Alaska and in fishing areas and continue to build new cars and produce this so-called "clean coal" we hear of, and come up with all these excuses to avoid the actual solution. We need to stop relying on fossil-fuel based technologies and start to heavily invest in clean, fossil-fuel independent solutions.

It's not that difficult to understand.

Day 1 of Doing Something About It

Let me first say, I am not an extension of the media. As you will likely realize as I continue to write this blog, I think that the current state of the media in America is the greatest restraint on progress in this country. In high school, I was contemplating a career in journalism, but thought otherwise mainly due to lack of good salaries. Looking back, I'm glad I didn't go this route, not because of the money, but because of how much of a negative impact I feel that industry has. There will be much more of this to come. I am glad, however, that I can share my thoughts and opinions with others, in a completely unrelated way, through this blog (that said, I hope you share your thoughts and opinions with me).

There is a lot I dislike about this country. We are currently involved in two major wars, an energy crisis, have the largest unemployment rate in over 30 years, and are in the midst of the worst economic recession in a generation. On a more personal scale, every day I see roads and bridges that are falling apart, pass by dozens of homeless people on the street, most of whom are probably drunk or on drugs, yet still ask me to help them and spare some change, hear stories in the news about kids getting in car accidents while drinking and driving, and hear about high schools with dwindling graduation rates.

But, I'm writing this blog because there is a lot more that I love about this country. I was lucky to grow up with history teachers who legitimately cared and were able to instill in me a passion for this country that they clearly and adamantly held themselves. I have always had a strong desire to learn about American history and government in school and on my own(I recommend the book John Adams by David McCullough, for one). Over the last five years, I have been attending Northeastern University in Boston obtaining my BS in Mechanical Engineering. Unfortunately, during my time here I have not taken the time to get involved with many civil service or government related activities. Lately, however, I have been struggling to figure out what the hell I want to do with the rest of my life. I have become quite passionate about climate change and the current energy crisis (a topic I will write about in the coming days) and feel like this is a field I could work in for a long period of time, but that is some time down the road. I've had many opinions and emotions relating to various issues, yet up until now there hasn't been a whole lot that I've done about it.

So this is the first step. I am certain that I am not right in everything I am going to discuss in this blog. That isn't the point. If writing this blog gets even a few people more passionate about the dozens of issues concerning both themselves and the rest of this country, than I'll feel like I've made an impact, no matter how small. After reading Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason, the thing I agreed with him most was the fact that the majority of the American people (including my younger generation) base their opinions on the quick-and-dirty "facts" and blurbs that they hear everyday from the media. That is neither a valuable use of your time, or a good way to get educated about a subject. The internet has provided the means for intellectual discussions between millions of people which are much more informative and convey the opinions of the common people, not those of the CNN exec who sits in an office trying to make millions.

So I hope you check back regularly and participate in this discussion. Like I said, I don't think I have the answers to all these problems, but I do feel strongly about them. I hope you do too.

Many people say they are going to do something to help change the world. But very few actually do anything about it. Which do you want to be?