Recorded at TED2011, March 2011, in Long Beach, CA. Duration: 10:41
Category Archives: Energy
Italy Rushes Forward in Clean Energy Race
The new Pew Clean Energy Program report (Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race?) mentions several times that the U.S. has quickly dropped to third place. The U.S. has more venture capital-backed investments compared to other countries by a large margin. Could that be a factor? I was tempted to focus on the U.S. or China, yet I could not avoid noticing a different and very positive point:
Italy saw 124 percent growth in clean energy investments in 2010, the 3rd highest among G-20 members. With almost $14 billion invested, Italy rose up the ranks of G-20 members to take the 4th position. Sixty-two percent ($8.6 billion) of 2010 clean energy investments were directed toward small scale solar projects. Italy also attracted a healthy $4.5 billion in wind energy investments. With high conventional energy prices and abundant solar resources, Italy is the first country in which solar power has achieved price parity with other electric sources.
Hey, look at Italy. First price parity nation for clean energy.
Italy’s 71% growth rate over five years also helped them jump from 8th position last year to 4th position. They achieved the #2 investment intensity (0.79% per $GDP) behind Germany. What do the Italians have to do to be in position to move ahead of the U.S. in the overall standings next year? Is America even threatened by Italy in the same way as Germany? Instead of emphasizing and exploring the Italian rush, or the German move to second place overall, the report makes the point that the West is losing to the East.
…it is clear that the center of gravity for clean energy investment is shifting from the West (Europe and the United States) to the East (China, India and other Asian nations).
Why go with an East, West theme?
A look at the entire globe shows five-year growth rates for countries in the southern hemisphere are even higher than Italy’s. Pew mentions high growth for Latin America, but the question also could be whether the whole southern hemisphere — Argentina (115%), South Africa (94%), Indonesia (89%), and Brazil (81%) — will see the same success as Italy. High one-year growth numbers in Argentina (568%) and Australia (104%) are likewise not just isolated to Latin America. It is curious to me to see an East, West divide when there is powerful (pun not intended) industry data from other countries to the South.
Another interesting issue is that Spain and the UK dramatically scaled-back clean energy investments, yet Italy did not. It may not be useful to depict the very different individual states into a unified West. Likewise, China alone may not be a good representation of the East.
Perhaps this Pew study is meant really to highlight the policies of China (“continued ability to attract record levels of clean energy investments”) and compare to the U.S. (“disproportionate government supports for century-old fossil fuel sources”). All other data points/countries could be just thrown in for good measure but are not meant to interfere with what seems to be the Pew (named after Sun Oil Company founder Joseph Pew) message to America: when China is winning the clean energy race, America is losing.
Efficiency of Police Cars – LA to Save $20mil
I see Ford pushing the efficiency card in some new marketing (also here).
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – the largest sheriff’s department in the world – operates a fleet of 6,200 vehicles that patrol an area the size of Connecticut. In 2010, those vehicles drove more than 27 million miles. A fleet-wide 20 percent fuel economy gain would save the department at least $20 million a year at today’s fuel prices of nearly $4 per gallon.
Good overall point about saving money through efficiency.
I am curious, though, if I did not know how big Los Angeles County is why would I be familiar with or want to look up the size of Connecticut? Might as well just look up the size of Los Angeles County. It would have been much cooler if they had made a space reference like 27 million miles is a third of the way from the Earth to the Sun; or they could have said 27 million miles is longer than the circumference of the Earth at the equator. What’s the Connecticut connection?
I also am curious about the mention of a $4 per gallon fuel price. Consumers clearly demonstrate that pump price is not the only influence, but maybe Ford is emphasizing that particular price for a reason. Car companies seem to have the odd fixation on a belief that people only care about efficiency when pump prices rise above a certain point. Maybe $4 is Ford’s magic number.
The pump price is a red herring to me. It distracts from the massive amount of time saved by fewer stops for fuel. This could be an even more critical point for the police — not having to stop for gas during a chase. How many more hours can the police be on the beat now with fewer stops for fuel?
The British Navy famously innovated with anti-fouling chemistry (observing copper sheets left in the ocean attracted the fewest barnacles) in order to keep their warships at sea longer and running faster…in their defeat of Napoleon’s forces.
I usually try to explain the efficiency angle like this. You can’t decide what you will pay at the pump (the price is always fluctuating beyond your control) but you can decide how often you want to stand around holding a nozzle and inhaling fumes. Do you really want to spend all that time at the pump, let alone have to divert to refuel when you need to chase and intercept? Forget pump price, there are many other/better reasons why efficient engines are superior.
From that perspective I hope I am not alone in thinking it is exciting to hear Ford boast of efficiency gains. I am less excited to see that they settled on just a 20 percent fuel economy gain.
The new Ford Police Interceptors, both sedan and utility vehicle, can be ordered with a choice of three powerful V6 engines that deliver more horsepower and better fuel economy than the 250-horsepower, 4.6-liter V8 in today’s Crown Victoria police car.
The base 3.5-liter Duratec V6 engine in the new Police Interceptor sedan will deliver at least 280 horsepower. Also available in the sedan is Ford’s award-winning EcoBoost™ twin-turbo V6 that will have at least 365 horsepower. The EcoBoost-equipped Police Interceptor comes standard with all-wheel drive that enhances handling and safety during high-speed pursuits. The new Police Interceptor utility model will be powered by a 3.7-liter V6 and features all-wheel drive delivering at least 300 horsepower.
I refer you to my post on the 40mpg car designed by Ford and made by Tata for police in Europe.
The Jaguar XF Diesel S is powered by a 3.0-liter AJ-V6D Gen III diesel engine that delivers 275 hp. The Diesel S accelerates from 0-60mph in just 5.9 seconds, while top speed is limited to 155 mph.
That car has the same horsepower rating as the new Police Interceptor sedan in Los Angeles, yet double the mpg. Why are police in America getting shafted (pun not intended) by Ford on this technology? The County could be saving a whole lot more.
Here are some guestimates, based on the Ford press release. It says the current police car gets between 14 mpg and 21 mpg. A new engine will improve by 20 percent, which puts it at 17 mpg to 25 mpg.
Those are modest numbers, at best. Moving to a 40 mpg Jaguar XF Diesel S would achieve a 90 percent improvement ( (40-21) / 21 = .9 ).
The $20 million in savings from 20 percent better efficiency is nothing to sneeze at yet a 90 percent efficiency gain would save….
I have so far left this topic within the Ford family. Maybe we should run some numbers for a 125 mpg diesel-electric hybrid Volvo (285 hp). ( (125-21)/21 = 4.95 ) !
Just for the sake of argument lets use the 27 million miles and say they are driven at 21 mpg. That gives 1,286,000 gallons at $4 each for a total of $5,143,000.
The same 27 million miles driven at 125 mpg would be 216,000 gallons at $4 each for a total of $864,000, and a savings of $4,279,000. Hmmm, where did Ford find 20 million?
Imagine the Los Angeles County police fleet running with better performance and yet a 495 percent fuel economy gain. They might just want to get Volvo to change the marketing campaign.
Again, we are just talking pump price. When you factor in less time spent at the pump the savings and benefits to taxpayers are pushed even higher. And that’s before we even get started talking about police cruisers being able to sneak up on criminals with zero-emission zero-noise hybrid-diesels
Risks of (Wind) Power Overproduction
I should have called this post the risks of German power, but alas…here is an interesting look at the risks from harnessing the unlimited yet variable input of wind:
In 2006, when wind farms were few and far between, coal, gas and nuclear power plants produced just the amount of energy needed in eastern Germany at the time, but also created large amounts of nuclear waste and carbon dioxide emissions. The system was relatively stable. One average, engineers took action to stabilize the eastern German grid roughly 80 times a year.
Today, as the amount of electricity generated by the region’s 8,000 wind turbines rises and falls by the hour, engineers have to intervene every second day to maintain network stability.
Germans are now pushing so much power from wind through their system that it is in danger of overload. One new and different thing about wind (like solar) is that its variable rate of input means storage is important and a sensible way to convert it to a constant output. With petroleum it is stored and then converted into output, using storage to manage flow rates, but unfortunately a method of storing wind energy has not been engineered yet.
The article points out that petroleum power plants are instead supposed to be shutdown and give priority to wind during surges. That, of course, doesn’t happen because it puts the grid at a higher risk of variability and control issues (operational cost?) so they instead try to export their overproduction, which puts the grid at a higher risk of overload.
Although large high-energy long-life batteries are still considered so toxic that only the military is allowed to use them…what eastern Germany could do is create the equivalent of barrels of wind energy for consumers. That would give them the option to store or export energy just like with petroleum. Maybe it could take the form of hundreds of thousands stored energy blocks (batteries) hot-swappable into electric transportation, especially bikes.
Imagine riding across town and then pulling in to a grid/battery station and swapping out for a fresh charge. Storage problem solved, excess power problem solved, a more viable electric transportation market (longer range, faster recharge), with exports options still open and to an even wider market.
Storing power has never before been so much fun.
Maybe it’s just me, but the Deutsche Welle graphic of German power seems a little historically insensitive:
“Aggh! Ze plan ist to go hier und hier und…”