Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertSmalls
|
Using this graph as the basis for a comparison (seems like it reflects most of the real costs and effects) I think we need to think in terms of each system individually.
Short term improvements.
Long term improvements.
As yet unrealized but possible future technological breakthroughs.
The most effective short term improvement that requires no technological breakthrough should be the first order consideration and implementation.
Idle elimination
Regenerative braking
Limiting engine operation to only highest points of BSFC (all or nothing).
Aerodynamics
Rolling resistance
These are in vehicle improvements that I feel should be mandated or a least seriously encouraged cost wise.
Virtually every source of renewable energy is primarily based on solar (even petroleum) or lunar (tides) and geothermal (subterranean heat) sources. Properly utilized these various sources of conversion and capture represent many times more power than required by the total population of planet earth today and for any reasonable period in the future.
I disagree with any statement like, "since it's solar energy, efficiency is irrelevant". Everything is relevant, cost, life expectancy, break even points, all of those factors are totally relevant. The solution is to render them irrelevant by resolving the issue with better design, that is less complicated, less repair intensive, and provides a break even financial return time period that no sane person could argue against rationally.
As I read the various threads it becomes apparent that many here believe that this or that method is the best pathway to success. Some are convinced that electrification of transportation is imperative and fossil fuels are poison. Others think electrification is a future means of transportation that requires some more "breakthroughs" in development to accomplish the goal.
As far as how we measure consumption. I find the graph in my quote to be a decent representation of the overall costs at this point in time, and this point is what is relevant today.
ANY MEANS OF IMPROVING ANY INDIVIDUAL DESIGN AND REDUCING THE OVERALL COST IN CARBON IS SUCCESS AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS SUCH.
Priorities and agendas will never be a solution, but will certainly be an impediment to the two primary issues.
Energy independence
Pollution reduction
While we can debate (or stupidly argue) the priorities, the real goal remains elusive to those who only focus on something like how we measure consumption of any energy, when we should focus on maximizing the benefit of every btu of energy we use for any purpose.
I read a book a long time ago about a Japanese submarine Captain in WW2. His boat was the I 15. When they pulled into the docks near the Burma oil fields the light sweet crude was pumped through a filter separator, directly into the fuel tanks of the submarine. I could use that point to argue (stupidly) that that represents the lowest cost to provide consumable fuel to transportation.
What is the future? No one really knows, so why not just consider the most practical short, medium, and long term solutions, with the priorities that we can agree on as providing the best solutions that are economically feasible and practical. Future developments, especially something as significant as an inexpensive long range, cost competitive, battery powered car, would absolutely change the priorities as far as where development and implementation of vehicle design was concerned.
My question is why do we allow some very simple improvements that require no technological breakthroughs, to remain utilized. The most glaring of the two are engines that idle, and brakes that convert precious inertia into more wasted heat energy. Those two examples alone if implemented NOW would go a long way in the right direction. They are fairly simple. I am not talking about hypermilers who minimize those two glaring defects through intelligent operation, as hypermilers represent the smallest minority of drivers.
It goes to the philosophy of blame the system. I know some do not agree, but the system (vehicle) as the focus of applied technology will be a much more effective way of accomplishing the ultimate goal, than any dream of retraining the driving population of planet earth.
Is this off topic? Well, maybe so, but doesn't this thread demonstrate that we all have agendas and priorities which serve to cloud our opinions and create a lot of noise which serves only to disguise the real issues.
regards
Mech