Very limited time, several very high priorities. I was planning on an article of TOD exposing the "smoke" of this approach.
Just one "Act" with my comments in italics.
Act II - The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act ("Long Haul")
Objective
To at least double the fuel efficiency of America's commercial transportation sector, including heavy truck, rail and airplane fleets by 2020.
Description
In the United States, about 2/3 of all oil use is for transportation. Gasoline, in turn, accounts for about 2/3 of the total oil used for transportation in the United States. Based on current GHG emission reporting guidelines, the transportation sector directly accounted for approximately 27 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2003. Transportation is also the fastest-growing source of U.S. GHGs and the largest end-use source of CO2, which is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will allow businesses and manufacturers to accelerate depreciation for the development or purchase of heavy trucks whose fuel efficiency and pollution metrics are at least 50% better than the US fleet average (adjusted annually),
I am quite unconvinced that truck mileage can be increased by 50%, certainly not more than doubled !
and will include R&D tax credits to help spur innovative solutions in the long-haul, rail and airplane markets. In addition, the Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will: a) increase the maximum allowable truck load to 110,000 pounds, b) increase maximum trailer length from 53 feet to 59 feet, and c) increase maximum truck height to 14 feet for all federal highways.
How will bigger and heavier trucks improve fuel economy ? It will reduce labor costs and allow WalMart et al to use lower labor costs to offset higher fuel costs and avoid a switch to MUCH more fuel efficient railroads
The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will allow airlines to accelerate depreciation for the purchase of new aircraft whose fuel efficiency and pollution metrics are at least 25% better than the fleet average (adjusted annually) or at least 50% better than aircraft they are replacing (as long as these aircraft are removed from flyable inventory).
The only commercial aircraft that even comes close to meeting this criteria (claims of 20% fuel savings vs 767; likely to get ~25% fuel savings) is the Boeing 787, and they are sold out for many years of production. The concept of commercial aircraft fuel economy is QUITE complex, as Airbus vs. Boeing sales campaigns illustrate. AB can claim that their a/c has 3% better fuel economy than Boeing's offering. Boeing can counter claim that their a/c has 4% better fuel economy than the Airbus. BOTH claims are true and valid, depending ...
In addition, this act will direct NASA to work with the Department of Defense to develop fuel efficient technologies and approaches that will be provided to US airlines and airplane manufacturers with US presence for improving the fuel efficiency of aircraft.
This is against WTO rules. NASA developed winglets and Airbus was the first to put them on a commerical a/c (AFAIK). Was the US harmed that a French firm used a NASA invention ? In the end, the verdict is no
Benefits
The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will increase heavy truck fleet fuel efficiency from 6.2 mpg today to 14 mpg or more by 2020,
Quite a few of the 2006 trucks (bought to avoid 2007 pollution rules that will decrease fuel economy) will be part of the 2020 fleet. Increasing the new 2020 models to 14 mpg is a pipe dream and I do not think technically possible. Increasing the 2020 fleet (a mix of 2006 to 2020 models) to an AVERAGE of 14 mpg is a hallucination !
allowing commercial transport-related oil consumption to drop from 4 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day. In total, this act will save Americans $20 billion per year on average (at today's prices), or over $300 billion in energy costs through 2020. In addition, this act will cut commercial vehicle-related carbon emissions by nearly 75%, or 30 million tons per year by 2020, worth nearly $600 million per year in carbon credits at current market prices.
Investment
The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will cost an estimated $3 billion
Only $3 billion ?!? If such savings were possible, zero gov't incentives would be required. $3 billion over 13 years is too small to affect any decisions anyway.
Please note that railroads were mentioned in the header and never mentioned again. Not one word on electrifying railroads, where honest effiency gains of x2.5 to x3 are possible. Trucks, trucks, trucks and one worthless idea about aircraft.
We can trade 20 BTUs of diesel for 1 BTU of electricity by shifting freight from heavy trucks to electrified railroads. Instead they want to keep freight on trucks by reducing their labor costs !
When I was looking over Peak Oil sites in order to find the one worth my time & efforts (Only time for one with my efforts in New Orleans), I looked at Daily Kos and their siamese twin Energyize America.
A VERY liberal blog based in Paris and run by a self described member of the French technical elite has no chance of generating broad based support in the US IMO.
Which blog, might I ask, is "based in Paris and run by a self described member of the French technical elite"?
Daily Kos is not a Peak Oil site ... even though there are those within that community who are passionate about energy, global warming, such issues.
And, well, perhaps you should read the principles section (section 4) in the annotated briefing to see the radical 'business based' concepts that are core to EA2020 development.
Jerome a Paris is, as his screen name suggests, based in Paris and he describes himself as a member of the French technical elite. AFAIK, both Daily Kos and Energize America are blogs started by him. His name is certainly at the top of the masthead.
Some French might take umbrage at a conservative Texas oilman running a blog on, say French healthcare and employment law and coming up with detailed legislative acts to radically reform both French healthcare and employment law and then submitting these to members of the Assemblée Nationale.
A similar response may await Enerygize America if they ever gain any traction.
Daily Kos is a VERY liberal website, whatever the principles they espouse. Energize America is the conjoined Siamese twin of Daily Kos, announcing different principles does not make it otherwise.
Alan, dailykos was founded by Markos Moulitsas -- a.k.a. "kos" And he's hardly French
Markos Moulitsas was born on September 11, 1971, in Chicago, IL. The son of a Salvadoran mother and Greek father, Moulitsas spent his formative years in El Salvador (1976-1980), where he saw first-hand the ravages of civil war. His family fled threats on their lives by the communist guerillas and settled in the Chicago area.
Anyone can post a diary to dailykos. The users then rate the diaries and the better ones make it to a recommended list.
Sometimes a moderator selects a diary as notable as well.
I was just piling in on the end of the thread. Since you had pointed out that Jerome did not start Daily Kos, I figured I would add that he wasn't exactly a typical French liberal either.
My snide comment was directed at Alan. Apologies for any confusion.
DailyKOS was one of the initial gathering points of the liberal blogosphere. It has thousands of diarists and is considered probably the most successful partisan online community from either party. Like other notable internet communities, it's spawned memes that have made it into the public consciousness - but as a political site, with concepts like "the netroots" as opposed to "all your base."
I don't read it so much anymore, too many posts, too little time. I miss billmon, one of their initial contributors.
As a former employee of an aircraft manufacturer, I agree with Alan that incresing the fuel efficiency of aircraft by a factor of 1.5 is an impossible task. The limits of fuel efficient technology have been reached with the Boeing 787. Only other means to reduce air traveler's use of fuel is to eliminate all short haul flights (less than 400 miles) and create a larger airplane with higher seating density and limit passenger/baggage weight. This would also mean the end of all air freight on passenger planes.
Better solution is to have a federal program that partners with the states & cities for upgrading rail corridors up to 400 miles with faster track and electric propulsion. Developing a hybrid diesel powered locomotive for shorter distance intercity and commuter train operations would help reduce use of oil energy. Again, some program of tax credits may be needed as the payback in fuel cost reduction does not justify the expenditures for new locomotives alone. Perhaps a program to retrofit older diesel locos with hybrid technology would be justified.
Trying to keep the current modal split of near 85% going by car, 12% going by air and 3% going by bus and train will not work in the energy constrained future. A large part of the public will have to shift to electric powered rail transportation or even diesel hybrid reail transportation if we are to make serious headway in reducing oil consumption and GHG. Other option is to just tell people to stay home and watch a good portion of the US economy, the travel industry, collapse.
I have had some private discussions with a locomotive manufacturer about an electric battery switching locomotive (or use in rail yards) and we touched on hybrids. I am not quite as optimistic about diesel hybrids as you are. They will have, IMHO, a very limited role. Current battery technology cannot store the energy from slowing a freight train for example. Perhaps a lighter, short passenger train.
Diesel-electric locos can be rebuilt as all electric locos fairly easily.
Best Hopes,
Alan
BTW, larger is not always the way to go for highest efficiency in avaition. The 80 m x 80 m limitations for very large a/c caused the A380 to have relatively short, fat wings instead of the long thin wings of other modern a/c with a related efficiency penalty. And Mr. Sutter, father of the 747, calculated that a double deck added more structural weight than is saved in aerodynamics.
I have had some private discussions with a locomotive manufacturer about an electric battery switching locomotive (or use in rail yards) and we touched on hybrids.
Boeing has pushed the edge further than Airbus is willing to follow, even at a later date, for the repeatedly redesigned proposed A350. There is some risk that Boeing will fail and have serious technical problems with some of their aggressive goals.
The engines are also "bleeding edge", but I would assess that the risk to GE & RR is lower than Boeing.
The one dog is the shorter range 787-3. "Everyone" agrees that a dedicated design to replace the A300 & A310, even with less advanced technology, would be more fuel efficient that this cut down version of the 787-8.
I think I read somewhere that the 787 is supposed to get about 86-90 passenger miles/gallon. That is awesome. 2-3 times better than driving across the country in a single occupancy vehicle. Maybe you could get better with blimps.
Point was that assertion was, basing it on stated experience, that an absolutely technological limit had been reached. Hmmm ...
And, well, the 787 is restricted in many ways. For example, Boeing remained with a 'traditional' concept of a plane. A flying wing would be, from everything I have seen, a more fuel efficient approach.
That is not 'fantasy' but lets look at a not too far off potential -- solar embedded in air frame / wings that proivdes power into aircraft systems, extending range/improving fuel efficiency.
And, so on ...
Absolutely statements of technological limits ... don't sit well with me ... especially when they fly in the face of real possibilities for getting past those cited limits.
The 787 will be "bleeding edge" technology when it goes into service; a major jump forward in many ways (all composite/plastic fuselage and wings, electric airplane are two of the biggest jumps).
The 737 replacement (EIS 2012 or so) will be a modest step forward from the 787. The 787 is "conservative" as the first of it's type. The 737 replacement will be less conservative.
I think BWB is not likely before 2020, and probably not then. But it will come one day if airports can be adapted to the concept.
solar embedded in air frame / wings that proivdes power into aircraft systems, extending range/improving fuel efficiency.
Ha! You have to look at the weight of everything that goes into an aircraft. Without even doing a back of the envelope calculation I can almost guarantee you the absolutely microscopically miniscule amount of energy you could gather from solar cells will be overwhelmed by the additional fuel you'll have to burn to lift the extra weight.
Then, of course, there are issues with having to survive high-vibration environments at -55 degrees, with possible lightning strikes and ice shedding and...
You're right, an absolute statement such as "won't be able to do better than the 787" is unwise, but, again, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the odds of being able to improve efficiency by 50% (in a commercially viable aircraft) are so miniscule as to be not worth thinking about. It ain't gonna happen.
You can quote that back to me if I turn out to be wrong and I'm still alive, but I expect to live for a few more decades and don't expect to hear back. :-)
Look ... experimental and otherwise, solar cells have been flying ... won't be surprised to see them in commercial aircraft as an option in not that long a time period.
I would. The power/weight is about 2 orders of magnitude lower than aircraft engines. If a pound of PV can't yield as much energy as a pound of fuel during one flight (and it can't), it costs you fuel to haul them around.
90 passenger-mpg for something that fast is awesome. It pales in comparison, however, to over 300-passenger-mpg for the Transrapid maglev at 400 km/h or over 600-passenger-mpg for the TGV Duplex.
Neither of those will get you across an ocean, nor are they as fast on long trips, but on short-to-medium length trips they are time competitive.
Now where, again, should we be focussing our efforts? Squeezing out that last bit of efficiency from aircraft, or changing to a far more efficient mode to replace "short haul" air traffic?
Slowing down the TGV from 300 kph would dramatically improve it's fuel economy. A top speed of 200 kph (still 120 mph) should DOUBLE the energy economy.
SBB (the best railroad in Europe) will run their high speed passenger trains (depending upon route) at 200 & 250 kph and they will be full.
Trying to keep the current modal split of near 85% going by car, 12% going by air and 3% going by bus and train will not work in the energy constrained future. A large part of the public will have to shift to electric powered rail transportation or even diesel hybrid reail transportation if we are to make serious headway in reducing oil consumption and GHG. Other option is to just tell people to stay home and watch a good portion of the US economy, the travel industry, collapse.
The mode split way of looking at this is partly correct. Focussing only/primarily on efficiency is a recipe for disaster. The only flaw in the above argument is the last bit about staying home. Conducting commerce more at the local level is imperative to keeping economic vitality. Continued dependence on transporting people and goods all the time, everywhere for everything is not sustainable no matter what mode is used (except maybe non-powered modes like walking and biking).
The federal gov't may or may not have a large role in reestablishing local economies but probably can have some incentive-based role in helping that along. At the very least, we should look at policies that hinder this from occuring, and change or get rid of them. The feds do have a role in basically connecting local economies with other local economies with transport as was mentioned.
As a former employee of an aircraft manufacturer, I agree with Alan that incresing the fuel efficiency of aircraft by a factor of 1.5 is an impossible task.
...
Better solution is to have a federal program that partners with the states & cities for upgrading rail corridors up to 400 miles with faster track and electric propulsion.
...
Trying to keep the current modal split of near 85% going by car, 12% going by air and 3% going by bus and train will not work in the energy constrained future.
Wow. Well said. It's surprising such things are not more commonly understood. I laughed at the "50% better fuel economy" idea as well. The only way to achieve that with aircraft is to STAY HOME. Do these people have any clue whatsoever about aircraft? Take an example, a very very common example: the Cessna 172, first model built 51 years ago. Fuel economy has essentially remained unchanged over all that time. Ok, you say, but fuel economy is not a big deal with a small aircraft, and a 172 is not at all efficient, with a fixed pitch propellor and using extra unburned fuel for engine cooling. All true, yet if you can fit 4 people in a 172 (shorter trips) the economy works out to 50 passenger-miles-per-gallon. Compare against the latest, all new technology (composite construction), smaller cabin, high-aspect-ratio wing, liquid-cooled diesel engine wonder, the Diamond DA-42, which achieves... 70 passenger-mpg, at a guess.
Meanwhile the A320 and B737 both achieve about 60-70 passenger-mpg in actual service. (Again, see table for details.) You can't simply wish the laws of physics away. Unless someone comes up with some magic not-astronomically-expensive material significantly lighter per unit strength than aircraft aluminum or composites, there isn't going to be a big change in aircraft weight. Where, then does the efficiency improvement come from? Shifting fuel around rather than suffering aerodynamic losses for trim was a great idea. Been there, done that, decades ago. Wings have been optimized for the particular use for eons. No big breakthrough likely there. A totally different plan? Flying wing? Dual fuselage? Maybe, but such things have been done. The supposed huge advantages always seem to melt away by the time all the real-world issues are dealt with.
But these simpletons don't need to worry about any of that. They will simply legislate incentives, and the physical world will move out of the way.
Back to your post. What do you mean by "hybrid diesel powered locomotive"? Every mainline locomotive in North America, as far as I know, is diesel-electric. This is the way it's been for decades. Perhaps you're referring to a dual-mode locomotive, i.e. one that would work in electrified sections of track as well as non-electrified?
I laughed at the "50% better fuel economy" idea as well. The only way to achieve that with aircraft is to STAY HOME. Do these people have any clue whatsoever about aircraft?
Of course, neither the Cessna 172 nor its powerplant have changed much since WWII.
Perhaps you'd like to take the issue up with Velocity Aircraft and Delta Hawk Engines? A Velocity SE with a 200 HP Delta Hawk should cruise about 180 knots (207 MPH) on 11.2 GPH of Jet-A, carrying 4 people at about 74 passenger MPG.
That's for an aircraft designed for speed. If you made one closer to a motorglider, you could increase the PMPG radically at the cost of MPH. It's all a tradeoff.
Re Truck-fuel efficiency, perhaps you want to take on Walmart planning which will have their truck fleet double fuel efficiency well within that time period and, perhaps, reach a tripling. Your statements about truck fuel efficiency are simply 180 degrees out from the material that I have seen from Walmart.
Re trucks, airplanes ... You might wish to check into Winning the Oil Endgame as to that public discussion of truck fuel efficiencies and aviation opportunities.
And, I am glad that you are looking to the concepts that were packaged as a conceptual holistic package last year. There were some great things and others that merited significant additional work.
Maybe there is no substance to the claims but, generally, companies don't do that in today's legal structures re investment.
And, well, Wal-Mart's fleet is already at the higher end of efficiency in terms of the US truck fleet.
Don't have time to go back to Winning the Oil Endgame at this time -- though glad you looked at it. Believe that the words you quoted are drawn from the higher end, 3x fuel efficiency improvement concepts rather.
I stated a few days ago on another thread that 9 mpg was about the upper end for an 18 wheeler with current technology. I am glad to see this detailed breakdown.
I will note that reduced packaging is one of their future fuel savings concepts. GOOD for WalMart, but this is NOT improved truck efficiency as EA envisions; and is not applicable to many cargoes (plywood, automobiles, bulk chemicals, etc.)
I strongly suspect that a Business School graduate came up with the future doubling of WalMart's fuel mileage (I immediately thought of Dilbert and his boss when I first read of this goal). I just do NOT believe it can be done, but I can envision the short, bald boss issuing the order.
And, as I noted, even if they came up with (by some miracle) a super efficient truck by, say, 2015; their 2020 fleet would still be made up of largely older, less efficient trucks.
Exactly, and why stop there? using Walmart logic I will introduce legislation that all vehicles in the USA will get 123 mpg in 2012. Ok Then, energy crisis solved. Move along....nothing to see here...
* Yes, Walmart looks to be using a systems-of-systems analysis. It is fuel efficiency of their system-of-systems of 900 million miles of truck transport.
* Walmart turns over their truck fleet relatively fast relative to the overall economy.
* And, thank you, important point if/when we return to the trucking -- to clearly differentiate between "truck" in terms of current size, "truck" system in terms of doing things like increased size to reduce total truck miles, and "truck" system-of-system in terms of things like packaging. (And, yes, you are right about many loads not having much relevance in this regard.)
* And, again, agree with you that right system-of-system would move much (most) of this to rail.
You keep emphasizing trucks, which is a major part of the problem. Along with most rail and essentially all shipping involving North America, you are talking about an oil fueled transport system, one which is likely to be facing declines in fuel availability every single year - unstoppably.
That is, this year's 3% gain means that next year, you still need to find 3% to cut. And of course, next year too. I don't think turnover in terms of internal combustion vehicles will be even a middle term help.
Of course, shipping less means less fuel used - but you seem to reject the idea of less meaning just that - only by shipping less, both in terms of weight and in terms of distance can Walmart have any chance to continue in business - except that this approach is anathema to how Walmart operates today.
In Germany, I can see the electrified trains running every day, powered in part from hydroelectric (with track along the Rhine, it is hard to avoid) sources. I do not need to imagine the interest of political figures to get that ball rolling, along with the idea of local agriculture.
But if you attempt to change the environment Walmart thrives in, Walmart will lash out, like the threatened beast it is, within the American political system.
I don't share the opinions of many here that 'humanity' or 'civilization' is doomed merely because fossil fuels will become less plentiful, but when even thoughtful, intelligent individuals expend all their effort on trying to explain how the American Dream based on oil fueled transportation can survive in the following decades, the image of European generals sending their soldiers to be mowed down in chivalrous lines of corpses because glorious national character would overpower machine guns becomes inescapable.
Efficiency and conservation are less important than America living differently - a concept that is a threat to the center of how Americans live today.
This makes such change politically impossible, it appears. Unfortunately, reality has no more respect for the political process than it does for the American Dream of never-ending growth.
Care to elaborate?
Very limited time, several very high priorities. I was planning on an article of TOD exposing the "smoke" of this approach.
Just one "Act" with my comments in italics.
Act II - The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act ("Long Haul")
Objective
To at least double the fuel efficiency of America's commercial transportation sector, including heavy truck, rail and airplane fleets by 2020.
Description
In the United States, about 2/3 of all oil use is for transportation. Gasoline, in turn, accounts for about 2/3 of the total oil used for transportation in the United States. Based on current GHG emission reporting guidelines, the transportation sector directly accounted for approximately 27 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2003. Transportation is also the fastest-growing source of U.S. GHGs and the largest end-use source of CO2, which is the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will allow businesses and manufacturers to accelerate depreciation for the development or purchase of heavy trucks whose fuel efficiency and pollution metrics are at least 50% better than the US fleet average (adjusted annually),
I am quite unconvinced that truck mileage can be increased by 50%, certainly not more than doubled !
and will include R&D tax credits to help spur innovative solutions in the long-haul, rail and airplane markets. In addition, the Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will: a) increase the maximum allowable truck load to 110,000 pounds, b) increase maximum trailer length from 53 feet to 59 feet, and c) increase maximum truck height to 14 feet for all federal highways.
How will bigger and heavier trucks improve fuel economy ? It will reduce labor costs and allow WalMart et al to use lower labor costs to offset higher fuel costs and avoid a switch to MUCH more fuel efficient railroads
The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will allow airlines to accelerate depreciation for the purchase of new aircraft whose fuel efficiency and pollution metrics are at least 25% better than the fleet average (adjusted annually) or at least 50% better than aircraft they are replacing (as long as these aircraft are removed from flyable inventory).
The only commercial aircraft that even comes close to meeting this criteria (claims of 20% fuel savings vs 767; likely to get ~25% fuel savings) is the Boeing 787, and they are sold out for many years of production. The concept of commercial aircraft fuel economy is QUITE complex, as Airbus vs. Boeing sales campaigns illustrate. AB can claim that their a/c has 3% better fuel economy than Boeing's offering. Boeing can counter claim that their a/c has 4% better fuel economy than the Airbus. BOTH claims are true and valid, depending ...
In addition, this act will direct NASA to work with the Department of Defense to develop fuel efficient technologies and approaches that will be provided to US airlines and airplane manufacturers with US presence for improving the fuel efficiency of aircraft.
This is against WTO rules. NASA developed winglets and Airbus was the first to put them on a commerical a/c (AFAIK). Was the US harmed that a French firm used a NASA invention ? In the end, the verdict is no
Benefits
The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will increase heavy truck fleet fuel efficiency from 6.2 mpg today to 14 mpg or more by 2020,
Quite a few of the 2006 trucks (bought to avoid 2007 pollution rules that will decrease fuel economy) will be part of the 2020 fleet. Increasing the new 2020 models to 14 mpg is a pipe dream and I do not think technically possible. Increasing the 2020 fleet (a mix of 2006 to 2020 models) to an AVERAGE of 14 mpg is a hallucination !
allowing commercial transport-related oil consumption to drop from 4 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day. In total, this act will save Americans $20 billion per year on average (at today's prices), or over $300 billion in energy costs through 2020. In addition, this act will cut commercial vehicle-related carbon emissions by nearly 75%, or 30 million tons per year by 2020, worth nearly $600 million per year in carbon credits at current market prices.
Investment
The Transportation Industry Efficiency Act will cost an estimated $3 billion
Only $3 billion ?!? If such savings were possible, zero gov't incentives would be required. $3 billion over 13 years is too small to affect any decisions anyway.
Please note that railroads were mentioned in the header and never mentioned again. Not one word on electrifying railroads, where honest effiency gains of x2.5 to x3 are possible. Trucks, trucks, trucks and one worthless idea about aircraft.
We can trade 20 BTUs of diesel for 1 BTU of electricity by shifting freight from heavy trucks to electrified railroads. Instead they want to keep freight on trucks by reducing their labor costs !
Best Hopes for Reality Based Planning,
Alan
When I was looking over Peak Oil sites in order to find the one worth my time & efforts (Only time for one with my efforts in New Orleans), I looked at Daily Kos and their siamese twin Energyize America.
A VERY liberal blog based in Paris and run by a self described member of the French technical elite has no chance of generating broad based support in the US IMO.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Which blog, might I ask, is "based in Paris and run by a self described member of the French technical elite"?
Daily Kos is not a Peak Oil site ... even though there are those within that community who are passionate about energy, global warming, such issues.
And, well, perhaps you should read the principles section (section 4) in the annotated briefing to see the radical 'business based' concepts that are core to EA2020 development.
Jerome a Paris is, as his screen name suggests, based in Paris and he describes himself as a member of the French technical elite. AFAIK, both Daily Kos and Energize America are blogs started by him. His name is certainly at the top of the masthead.
Some French might take umbrage at a conservative Texas oilman running a blog on, say French healthcare and employment law and coming up with detailed legislative acts to radically reform both French healthcare and employment law and then submitting these to members of the Assemblée Nationale.
A similar response may await Enerygize America if they ever gain any traction.
Daily Kos is a VERY liberal website, whatever the principles they espouse. Energize America is the conjoined Siamese twin of Daily Kos, announcing different principles does not make it otherwise.
Alan
Alan, dailykos was founded by Markos Moulitsas -- a.k.a. "kos" And he's hardly French
http://www.dailykos.com/special/about2
I stand corrected.
What then is Jerome a Paris's role in Daily Kos and Energyize America ?
Alan
AFAIK he's just another diaryist.
http://www.dailykos.com/user/Jerome%20a%20Paris
Anyone can post a diary to dailykos. The users then rate the diaries and the better ones make it to a recommended list.
Sometimes a moderator selects a diary as notable as well.
As to energize america, I don't know.
I also believe that Jerome is an investment banker, hardly the profile of a typical "liberal".
Your starting to sound like a charter member of the iron triangle yourself now.
Are you replying to me or Alan?
I was just piling in on the end of the thread. Since you had pointed out that Jerome did not start Daily Kos, I figured I would add that he wasn't exactly a typical French liberal either.
My snide comment was directed at Alan. Apologies for any confusion.
Ever heard of George Soros?
DailyKOS was one of the initial gathering points of the liberal blogosphere. It has thousands of diarists and is considered probably the most successful partisan online community from either party. Like other notable internet communities, it's spawned memes that have made it into the public consciousness - but as a political site, with concepts like "the netroots" as opposed to "all your base."
I don't read it so much anymore, too many posts, too little time. I miss billmon, one of their initial contributors.
As a former employee of an aircraft manufacturer, I agree with Alan that incresing the fuel efficiency of aircraft by a factor of 1.5 is an impossible task. The limits of fuel efficient technology have been reached with the Boeing 787. Only other means to reduce air traveler's use of fuel is to eliminate all short haul flights (less than 400 miles) and create a larger airplane with higher seating density and limit passenger/baggage weight. This would also mean the end of all air freight on passenger planes.
Better solution is to have a federal program that partners with the states & cities for upgrading rail corridors up to 400 miles with faster track and electric propulsion. Developing a hybrid diesel powered locomotive for shorter distance intercity and commuter train operations would help reduce use of oil energy. Again, some program of tax credits may be needed as the payback in fuel cost reduction does not justify the expenditures for new locomotives alone. Perhaps a program to retrofit older diesel locos with hybrid technology would be justified.
Trying to keep the current modal split of near 85% going by car, 12% going by air and 3% going by bus and train will not work in the energy constrained future. A large part of the public will have to shift to electric powered rail transportation or even diesel hybrid reail transportation if we are to make serious headway in reducing oil consumption and GHG. Other option is to just tell people to stay home and watch a good portion of the US economy, the travel industry, collapse.
I agree whole heartedly.
I have had some private discussions with a locomotive manufacturer about an electric battery switching locomotive (or use in rail yards) and we touched on hybrids. I am not quite as optimistic about diesel hybrids as you are. They will have, IMHO, a very limited role. Current battery technology cannot store the energy from slowing a freight train for example. Perhaps a lighter, short passenger train.
Diesel-electric locos can be rebuilt as all electric locos fairly easily.
Best Hopes,
Alan
BTW, larger is not always the way to go for highest efficiency in avaition. The 80 m x 80 m limitations for very large a/c caused the A380 to have relatively short, fat wings instead of the long thin wings of other modern a/c with a related efficiency penalty. And Mr. Sutter, father of the 747, calculated that a double deck added more structural weight than is saved in aerodynamics.
Boeing looked at a 1000-passenger blended-wing aircraft which would have been 33% more efficient than the A-380.
However, rumors of plans to develop it were false.
http://www.railindustry.com/coverage/2002/2002g02a.html
http://www.railpower.com/products_hl_howitworks.html
http://www.railpower.com/products_hl_benefits.html
Just in case you weren't aware of it.
GE is working on a hybrid road locomotive, as opposed to the switching locomotives railpower have made. See https://www.getransportation.com/general/locomotives/hybrid/hybrid_defau...
They claim that it will have enough battery capacity to store the energy from braking a big freight train.
As a polite question, did you really mean to write that "The limits of fuel efficient technology have been reached with the Boeing 787"? Seriously?
Boeing has pushed the edge further than Airbus is willing to follow, even at a later date, for the repeatedly redesigned proposed A350. There is some risk that Boeing will fail and have serious technical problems with some of their aggressive goals.
The engines are also "bleeding edge", but I would assess that the risk to GE & RR is lower than Boeing.
The one dog is the shorter range 787-3. "Everyone" agrees that a dedicated design to replace the A300 & A310, even with less advanced technology, would be more fuel efficient that this cut down version of the 787-8.
Bets Hopes,
Alan
I think I read somewhere that the 787 is supposed to get about 86-90 passenger miles/gallon. That is awesome. 2-3 times better than driving across the country in a single occupancy vehicle. Maybe you could get better with blimps.
Point was that assertion was, basing it on stated experience, that an absolutely technological limit had been reached. Hmmm ...
And, well, the 787 is restricted in many ways. For example, Boeing remained with a 'traditional' concept of a plane. A flying wing would be, from everything I have seen, a more fuel efficient approach.
That is not 'fantasy' but lets look at a not too far off potential -- solar embedded in air frame / wings that proivdes power into aircraft systems, extending range/improving fuel efficiency.
And, so on ...
Absolutely statements of technological limits ... don't sit well with me ... especially when they fly in the face of real possibilities for getting past those cited limits.
Within what time frame ?
The 787 will be "bleeding edge" technology when it goes into service; a major jump forward in many ways (all composite/plastic fuselage and wings, electric airplane are two of the biggest jumps).
The 737 replacement (EIS 2012 or so) will be a modest step forward from the 787. The 787 is "conservative" as the first of it's type. The 737 replacement will be less conservative.
I think BWB is not likely before 2020, and probably not then. But it will come one day if airports can be adapted to the concept.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Ha! You have to look at the weight of everything that goes into an aircraft. Without even doing a back of the envelope calculation I can almost guarantee you the absolutely microscopically miniscule amount of energy you could gather from solar cells will be overwhelmed by the additional fuel you'll have to burn to lift the extra weight.
Then, of course, there are issues with having to survive high-vibration environments at -55 degrees, with possible lightning strikes and ice shedding and...
You're right, an absolute statement such as "won't be able to do better than the 787" is unwise, but, again, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the odds of being able to improve efficiency by 50% (in a commercially viable aircraft) are so miniscule as to be not worth thinking about. It ain't gonna happen.
You can quote that back to me if I turn out to be wrong and I'm still alive, but I expect to live for a few more decades and don't expect to hear back. :-)
Look ... experimental and otherwise, solar cells have been flying ... won't be surprised to see them in commercial aircraft as an option in not that long a time period.
I would. The power/weight is about 2 orders of magnitude lower than aircraft engines. If a pound of PV can't yield as much energy as a pound of fuel during one flight (and it can't), it costs you fuel to haul them around.
90 passenger-mpg for something that fast is awesome. It pales in comparison, however, to over 300-passenger-mpg for the Transrapid maglev at 400 km/h or over 600-passenger-mpg for the TGV Duplex.
(Calculations at http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html)
Neither of those will get you across an ocean, nor are they as fast on long trips, but on short-to-medium length trips they are time competitive.
Now where, again, should we be focussing our efforts? Squeezing out that last bit of efficiency from aircraft, or changing to a far more efficient mode to replace "short haul" air traffic?
Slowing down the TGV from 300 kph would dramatically improve it's fuel economy. A top speed of 200 kph (still 120 mph) should DOUBLE the energy economy.
SBB (the best railroad in Europe) will run their high speed passenger trains (depending upon route) at 200 & 250 kph and they will be full.
Best Hopes,
Alan
The mode split way of looking at this is partly correct. Focussing only/primarily on efficiency is a recipe for disaster. The only flaw in the above argument is the last bit about staying home. Conducting commerce more at the local level is imperative to keeping economic vitality. Continued dependence on transporting people and goods all the time, everywhere for everything is not sustainable no matter what mode is used (except maybe non-powered modes like walking and biking).
The federal gov't may or may not have a large role in reestablishing local economies but probably can have some incentive-based role in helping that along. At the very least, we should look at policies that hinder this from occuring, and change or get rid of them. The feds do have a role in basically connecting local economies with other local economies with transport as was mentioned.
Wow. Well said. It's surprising such things are not more commonly understood. I laughed at the "50% better fuel economy" idea as well. The only way to achieve that with aircraft is to STAY HOME. Do these people have any clue whatsoever about aircraft? Take an example, a very very common example: the Cessna 172, first model built 51 years ago. Fuel economy has essentially remained unchanged over all that time. Ok, you say, but fuel economy is not a big deal with a small aircraft, and a 172 is not at all efficient, with a fixed pitch propellor and using extra unburned fuel for engine cooling. All true, yet if you can fit 4 people in a 172 (shorter trips) the economy works out to 50 passenger-miles-per-gallon. Compare against the latest, all new technology (composite construction), smaller cabin, high-aspect-ratio wing, liquid-cooled diesel engine wonder, the Diamond DA-42, which achieves... 70 passenger-mpg, at a guess.
http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
Meanwhile the A320 and B737 both achieve about 60-70 passenger-mpg in actual service. (Again, see table for details.) You can't simply wish the laws of physics away. Unless someone comes up with some magic not-astronomically-expensive material significantly lighter per unit strength than aircraft aluminum or composites, there isn't going to be a big change in aircraft weight. Where, then does the efficiency improvement come from? Shifting fuel around rather than suffering aerodynamic losses for trim was a great idea. Been there, done that, decades ago. Wings have been optimized for the particular use for eons. No big breakthrough likely there. A totally different plan? Flying wing? Dual fuselage? Maybe, but such things have been done. The supposed huge advantages always seem to melt away by the time all the real-world issues are dealt with.
But these simpletons don't need to worry about any of that. They will simply legislate incentives, and the physical world will move out of the way.
Back to your post. What do you mean by "hybrid diesel powered locomotive"? Every mainline locomotive in North America, as far as I know, is diesel-electric. This is the way it's been for decades. Perhaps you're referring to a dual-mode locomotive, i.e. one that would work in electrified sections of track as well as non-electrified?
Of course, neither the Cessna 172 nor its powerplant have changed much since WWII.
Perhaps you'd like to take the issue up with Velocity Aircraft and Delta Hawk Engines? A Velocity SE with a 200 HP Delta Hawk should cruise about 180 knots (207 MPH) on 11.2 GPH of Jet-A, carrying 4 people at about 74 passenger MPG.
That's for an aircraft designed for speed. If you made one closer to a motorglider, you could increase the PMPG radically at the cost of MPH. It's all a tradeoff.
Alan,
Re Truck-fuel efficiency, perhaps you want to take on Walmart planning which will have their truck fleet double fuel efficiency well within that time period and, perhaps, reach a tripling. Your statements about truck fuel efficiency are simply 180 degrees out from the material that I have seen from Walmart.
Re trucks, airplanes ... You might wish to check into Winning the Oil Endgame as to that public discussion of truck fuel efficiencies and aviation opportunities.
And, I am glad that you are looking to the concepts that were packaged as a conceptual holistic package last year. There were some great things and others that merited significant additional work.
I just spent a few minutes following your link. The key phrase I found wrt heavy truck mpg was "possible to envision"
Lots of things are possible to envision.
Also a lot of rigmarole about equivalent mpg. Which is not real mpg.
Then railroads will become efficient by studying the wonderful possible to envision things the kossacks are doing with heavy trucks.
wtf?
Extracted from a public Wal-Mart presentation in January (have copies of slides but don't see them on web):
25% fuel efficiency improvement by 2007:
Fuel Efficient Tires: 6.00 %
APU Installation: 8.00 %
Fuel Additive: 1.60 %
Weight Reduction: .050 %
Aero Package Trailer: 6.25 %
Aero Package Truck: 3.00 %
24.90 % Verified ($60m/yr)
Testing continues for additional 6.5% :
- Other Aero Packages - Other Weight Reduction Changes - Gear Ratios - Engines
So, roughly, they expect a 30% increase in truck fuel efficiency over the past several years in their fleet. And, their intent is to further
"Double Fuel Efficiency by 2015:
1) Initiatives underway to reduce cube/packaging
2) Truck/Trailer R&D Work Underway:
"Aero Truck/Trailer Design
"Hybrid Diesel/Electric Class 8
"Exhaust, Coolant, Brake recovery concepts"
Maybe there is no substance to the claims but, generally, companies don't do that in today's legal structures re investment.
And, well, Wal-Mart's fleet is already at the higher end of efficiency in terms of the US truck fleet.
Don't have time to go back to Winning the Oil Endgame at this time -- though glad you looked at it. Believe that the words you quoted are drawn from the higher end, 3x fuel efficiency improvement concepts rather.
I stated a few days ago on another thread that 9 mpg was about the upper end for an 18 wheeler with current technology. I am glad to see this detailed breakdown.
I will note that reduced packaging is one of their future fuel savings concepts. GOOD for WalMart, but this is NOT improved truck efficiency as EA envisions; and is not applicable to many cargoes (plywood, automobiles, bulk chemicals, etc.)
I strongly suspect that a Business School graduate came up with the future doubling of WalMart's fuel mileage (I immediately thought of Dilbert and his boss when I first read of this goal). I just do NOT believe it can be done, but I can envision the short, bald boss issuing the order.
And, as I noted, even if they came up with (by some miracle) a super efficient truck by, say, 2015; their 2020 fleet would still be made up of largely older, less efficient trucks.
Best Hopes for Rail,
Alan
Exactly, and why stop there? using Walmart logic I will introduce legislation that all vehicles in the USA will get 123 mpg in 2012. Ok Then, energy crisis solved. Move along....nothing to see here...
Couple points:
* Yes, Walmart looks to be using a systems-of-systems analysis. It is fuel efficiency of their system-of-systems of 900 million miles of truck transport.
* Walmart turns over their truck fleet relatively fast relative to the overall economy.
* And, thank you, important point if/when we return to the trucking -- to clearly differentiate between "truck" in terms of current size, "truck" system in terms of doing things like increased size to reduce total truck miles, and "truck" system-of-system in terms of things like packaging. (And, yes, you are right about many loads not having much relevance in this regard.)
* And, again, agree with you that right system-of-system would move much (most) of this to rail.
You keep emphasizing trucks, which is a major part of the problem. Along with most rail and essentially all shipping involving North America, you are talking about an oil fueled transport system, one which is likely to be facing declines in fuel availability every single year - unstoppably.
That is, this year's 3% gain means that next year, you still need to find 3% to cut. And of course, next year too. I don't think turnover in terms of internal combustion vehicles will be even a middle term help.
Of course, shipping less means less fuel used - but you seem to reject the idea of less meaning just that - only by shipping less, both in terms of weight and in terms of distance can Walmart have any chance to continue in business - except that this approach is anathema to how Walmart operates today.
In Germany, I can see the electrified trains running every day, powered in part from hydroelectric (with track along the Rhine, it is hard to avoid) sources. I do not need to imagine the interest of political figures to get that ball rolling, along with the idea of local agriculture.
But if you attempt to change the environment Walmart thrives in, Walmart will lash out, like the threatened beast it is, within the American political system.
I don't share the opinions of many here that 'humanity' or 'civilization' is doomed merely because fossil fuels will become less plentiful, but when even thoughtful, intelligent individuals expend all their effort on trying to explain how the American Dream based on oil fueled transportation can survive in the following decades, the image of European generals sending their soldiers to be mowed down in chivalrous lines of corpses because glorious national character would overpower machine guns becomes inescapable.
Efficiency and conservation are less important than America living differently - a concept that is a threat to the center of how Americans live today.
This makes such change politically impossible, it appears. Unfortunately, reality has no more respect for the political process than it does for the American Dream of never-ending growth.