Paradox, when looking at the cycle efficiency, you need also to look at the efficiencies associated with each stage of the cycle. In the case of the electric vehicles, that means you need to look at the cycle efficiency of around 35% in a typical steam turbine plant, about 90% in the transmission and distribution lines and, of course, about 80% in electric motors actually providing the motive power in the vehicle. That yields an overall efficiency of about 25%, which is a bit better than your best typical Otto or Diesel cycle. For urban transport purposes, the best advantage lies in electric motors' high starting torque, which is great for the stop'n'go traffic one sees in cities and surburbs where the current internal combustion cycles don't really come close to their best. Of course, electricity's real attraction is that it can be produced from multiple sources - physical, chemical, nuclear and solar - which expands its availability enormously.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at October 16, 2008 10:38 AMWell, you're skipping over the great thing about the internal combustion engine, which is that you get to take your fuel along with you, in a highly concentrated form. OK, electric cars sound great. And the electricity comes from where?
--hydroelectric dams
--coal-fired plants
--nuclear plants
--wind turbines
Essentially, you've got to turn a turbine to generate electricity.
Yes, there could also be solar cells, but while they'll work on a relatively small scales for individual buildings, in places with enough sunlight, it's hard to see them working to generate electricity on the scale that an industrialized economy demands.
And dams, coal-fired plants, nuclear plants do not get built without a lot of heavy equipment that itself is likely to depend upon internal combustion engines.
This is not meant as an excuse for business as usual or as a way to diss what paradox is writing about, only as a way to try to highlight some of the challenges.
I for one would like to see a lot more use of wind turbines. While travelling in Europe this past summer I saw quite a few. But they were most definitely in the sort of places that Americans would object to on the grounds of "visual pollution".
We cannot have it all, folks. Why are we in Oregon (say) considering proposals for wind farms in some truly remote areas in the high desert--in the southeast part of the state--where the infrastructure for getting the electricity to the population centers--in the Willamette Valley mainly--simply does not exist? It would make a lot more sense for wind farms to be located close to the Columbia River, close to existing power-transmission infrastructure. But proposing to do THAT immediately runs into objections from the folks who want the Columbia River Gorge to be "preserved". So what are we supposed to do? Spend a fortune on wind farms in SE Oregon to generate the electricity for people to drive their electric cars on day trips to the Gorge? Kind of doesn't compute, I would suggest.
Posted by joel dan walls at October 16, 2008 11:29 AMJoel, I've always thought that those who object to the building of wind farms have taken a particularly short view, both in terms of visual disruption as well as in terms of climate impact. Wind farms have a relative light footprint on the environment, unless one wants to get into discussions about the effect on wind patterns, bird kills, and the like.
One can put up the towers and take them down thirty, forty, maybe fifty years later and only the ground pads and the connections to the transmission system would remain. Most of that would be overgrown in a lifetime. It offers a decent source to help bridge to more sustainable controlled energy, like fusion or space-based solar arrays or tidal power.
Also, why can't wind turbines be considered beautiful or even be made beautiful. One sees art pictures of windmills dotting the coasts of Europe from Denmark to Spain and even in the Mediterranean region. Those windmills were not put there for artistic purposes. They were working structures once upon a time, designed to grind grain or pump water or pound ore for some industrial purpose. How does that differ from a wind turbine generating electricity for modern commerce? The folks who object really just demonstrate their own selfishness in this regard, because they clearly don't want to become part of the solution, just part of the precipitate.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at October 16, 2008 12:06 PMElectricity is a "physical element"?
I thought it was a form of energy!
Paradox, I forgot to make a further observation about your title. You do understand that "Amps and Ohms Forever" can be read in a theological context, since the abbreviation for amps is "a" or alpha and for ohms is "omega." In this sense, the title could be read to mean "electricity, the alpha and omega, per secula seculorum" which, of course, would be blasphemy in some circles. Just thinking.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at October 16, 2008 12:13 PMElectricity is part of the answer...along with curbing suicidal over-consumption. How about building a high speed, electric train system run down existing interstates? If we are going to borrow trillions from future tax payors, they mignt as well benefit directly from that loan.
The large issue is that perpetual growth will not be maintained through the transition to other than fossil fuels. Our economic system will not survive that transition either.
I believe the term is uncharted waters.
Posted by brisa at October 16, 2008 12:22 PMI absolutely agree with PrahaPartizan. I've never understood why some people object to windmills or wind farms. I personally have always found them to be beautiful and elegant in their modern form and appearance. It's such a simple, clean, silent design and I have always loved gazing at them whenever I see them, with the simple fact that it's FREE POWER, culled from mother nature and hurts virtually nothing. Hydroelectric is vastly more disturbing to the environment than wind is, especially when artificial dams are created and thousands of acres that were formerly dry are flooded. Imagine the flora, fauna and animal habitat that is either displaced or outright destroyed. I read somewhere once that large, old pine trees, when submerged thusly will eventually start to secrete mercury into the water as part of their decomposition process. That's kinda scary...
What the f**k is so scary about wind power??
Posted by Marty at October 16, 2008 12:43 PMSaw a show recently (on IFC, I think) that showcases 'green' solutions, and the guy being highlighted had designed and constructed nicely contained wind turbines that sit on the roofs of buildings. These are similar in design and function to the ones on Cousteau's ship with the tall 'sails.' Basically cylindrical, and these turbines can be caged to prevent the 'bird lunch' syndrome.
And as for nuke plants, it has always been my opinion that storage of waste on this planet is beyond stupid. If you have all that electricity at your disposal, build a f---ing big rail gun and shoot the waste towards the sun. It will disintegrate and be harmlessly blown past us on the solar wind.
ADDENDUM:
Why the f--- didn't anyone listen to Gerard K. O'Neill 30+ years ago?
Posted by Dr. Wellington Yueh at October 16, 2008 01:09 PMPlease note that Mr. Ampere was French and Mr. Ohm was German.
Posted by kune at October 16, 2008 02:48 PMLet me add that Nuclear plants need not be the behemoth barely contained disasters that they are now. The heat alone from radioactive material can be used to create electricity (this is how Nasa generally does it)
Non-reacting Nuclear power can be as safe as any other source, and could actually solve our storage problem as well.
Posted by Dilapidus at October 16, 2008 04:18 PMThat yields an overall efficiency of about 25%, which is a bit better than your best typical Otto or Diesel cycle.
Also take into account the relative weights. The weight of an IC engine and fuel versus the weight of an electric engine and batteries. Usually the electric/battery combo wins.
Of course, if you can pick up electricity as you go, as we used to have with trollies and electric busses, then the efficiency is even better.
Posted by Anonny at October 16, 2008 04:26 PM... Non-reacting Nuclear power can be as safe as any other source, and could actually solve our storage problem as well.
First.. sorry for capitalizing nuclear all the time.. at least I didn't write nucular.
Second, for 'solving the storage problem' I mean nuclear waste storage. Only the the low rad stuff would be unusable, and that is much easier to store.
Posted by Dilapidus at October 16, 2008 05:04 PM