On Hole Cards, Or, "Drill, Baby, Drill"? Why? Is Canada Out Of Sand?

In America, today, there are three kinds of drivers: those who look at the other gas pumps down at the ol’ gas station and think: “Oh my God, I can’t believe how much that guy’s spending on gas”, those who look at their own pump down at the ol’ gas station and think: “Oh my God, I can’t believe how much I’m spending on gas” – and those who are doing both at the same time.

Naturally, this has brought the Sarah Palins of the world back out in public, and once again the mantra of “Drill, Baby, Drill” can be heard all the way from the Florida coast to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But what if those folks have it exactly backwards?

What if, in a world of depleting oil resources, the last thing you want to do is use yours up?

To put it another way: why isn’t all our oil part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

Consider the inexorable logic of the Big Lie. If a man has a consuming love for cats and dedicates himself to the protection of cats, you have only to accuse him of killing and mistreating cats. Your lie will have the unmistakable ring of truth, whereas his outraged denials will reek of falsehood and evasion.

--From the book “Ghost of Chance”, by William S. Burroughs

So here’s the thing: we produce a surprising amount of our own oil right here in the USA (in fact, we’re the world’s third-largest oil producer), but we don’t produce enough to cover our current use, and that’s why we import about half of the roughly 19 million barrels of oil we use daily. The vast majority of that is used in vehicles or for heating; almost none is used to generate electricity.

Our largest suppliers of oil, despite what you might think, are not all from the Middle East: instead, it’s Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela, in that order.

(Perhaps you’re thinking: “Canada? Oil?” Yes. Canada and Oil. They provide us with more than twice as much as Saudi Arabia from huge “oil sand” resources, primarily in Alberta; the exploitation of those resources has created a huge environmental controversy.)

Now if you ask me, an ideal situation would be one where we decided to get out of the business of using oil altogether – and to help make my point, we have some helpful numbers from a guy that you pay every day to figure this stuff out: Mark Doms; he’s the Chief Economist for the US Department of Commerce, and, to paraphrase Little Feat, he’s always handy with a chart.

According to Doms, 60% of our 2010 trade deficit (about $265 billion) represents the cost of imported petroleum products, and if things continue through December as they did the first three months of this year, in 2011 every American, man, woman, and child, will pay a “tax” of about $1000 to import all that petroleum.

Do you know what we, individually, spend on gas? In March of this year, the average household spent just over $300 on that month’s gasoline; 5 months ago that number was $56 lower. The way it works out, every time gas goes up 10¢ a gallon, it costs the average household another $7 a month.

And that’s not all: less than half of the total cost of imported oil is paid at the pump: about 44% of imported oil is used by businesses; another 15% is used by governments across the USA, and that means almost 60% of the cost of imported petroleum is “folded into” the price of everything else.

(A quick author’s note: you’ve seen the words “oil” and “petroleum” used liberally in this story; the exact literal reality is that in each instance we should really be referring to “petroleum products”, and that’s because we import and export not just crude oil, but a variety of other petroleum products. I get tired of using the phrase “petroleum products” over and over, and I’m probably using “oil” and “petroleum” more interchangeably than I should.)

So get this: if we were out of the importing oil business, we’d save about $300 billion a year – and as it turns out, over a 10-year period we could actually convert the entire US auto fleet to electric cars powered by windmills by providing $15,000 cash “buy-outs” for today’s 135,000,000 gasoline cars and building the wind generation and “smart grid” we’d need to support the effort…and doing all that would cost…wait for it…about $250 billion a year.

If I get the math right, 20 years after we first started building windmills and subsidizing cars, everything would be paid off; and every year after that the US economy would generate a $300 billion “profit” on our investment – unless the price of a barrel of oil goes up. If it does, the amount of money coming back to our wallets every single year from then on, obviously, also goes up.

And if we were out of the “using oil for driving” business, once everything was paid off we could put almost $4000 a year (in today’s dollars) right back in the pocketbooks of every family in this country – which, if you ask me, represents a pretty good “tax cut”.

Let’s also keep in mind that any new oil drilled on our public lands might not necessarily end up in the US; that’s because even if oil companies were 100% free to “Drill, Baby, Drill” in our waters to their hearts’ content…they’d also be perfectly free to sell as much of that same oil, anywhere in the world, to whatever entity might end up being the highest bidder – and today, our friends in places like India and China are desperate to be that high bidder.

Put all of this together, and you get back to the question I posed at the top of the story: why in the world would we be in a hurry to “Drill, Baby, Drill”, when we could, instead, put all our efforts into getting out of oil, which would save us so much money that the conversion pays for itself?

Then, when oil’s running $400 a barrel or so, let’s use our oil to pay China back the trillion dollars we owe ‘em…which, at current production rates, would only take about 400 days, assuming it were possible to divert all our production for that purpose.

To state it a bit more ironically, it may be that the smartest thing we can do right now is to conserve every possible drop of oil we have…until we don’t need it any more, and it becomes a sort of Strategic Cash Reserve that can help strengthen the dollar and reduce the national debt in the years to come, both at the same time.

Or to put it another way, the next time someone tells you they want to “Drill, Baby, Drill”...you can step right up, look them square in the eye, and ask: “Why do you hate America?”

And won’t that be fun?

On Being American, Or, "A Hybrid? Not Unless It Has Tail Fins"

It’s great to see that people are starting to think about hybrid vehicles, but so far, they really haven’t been for me.

You know why?

Because for the most part, they have no...style.

The Prius?
If you look at it sideways, and squint, it looks more like a pepita than a car.

The Insight?
They say it’s stylish...but it looks like a Prius to me.

You know what I want?
I want someone to build the biggest, nastiest, most oversized hybrid the world has ever seen.

Something drenched with chrome, with seating for...many, and a convertible top; and maybe, if all my dreams come true: tail fins.

Something crazy.
Something ridiculous.
Something...American.

Well, guess what?

Somebody’s already gone out and had one built—and ironically, that somebody is Neil Young, Canadian.

So let me tell you what Neil Young did: lately, he’s been tearing around the countryside in a converted 1959 Lincoln Continental Mark IV that he calls the LincVolt.

Here’s the good part: it’s a “series hybrid” vehicle that gets 65 miles to the gallon.

To be more accurate, I should say today it gets 65 MPG.

The car reportedly will compete for the Automotive X Prize: a competition that seeks to award a vehicle that can (among other requirements) achieve the equivalent of 100 MPG and emits less than 200 “equivalent grams” of CO2 per mile...and the engineering team is confident they can pull it off.

Now here’s the really good part: it is truly an American car: it’s fast. It is indeed huge...in fact, it’s just about 19 feet long. And it is dripping with chrome.

Tail fins?
This car is so over-the-top it has front fins.

The interior?
The usual: tuck-and-roll, tons of dashboard...and the requisite computer-aided status monitoring system.

“If all the cars in the United States were placed end to end, it would probably be Labor Day Weekend”

--Canadian Racing Champion Doug Larson

So what, you might ask, is a “series hybrid”?

For all intents and purposes, it’s the same propulsion design found on locomotives: an engine, powered by a fuel, turns a generator that supplies power to one or more electric motors that turn the wheels. (It’s also the design that will be used in the Chevy Volt.)

The engine that turns the generator operates (as much as possible) at one constant speed. If the electric motor (or motors) that turn the wheels require extra power, additional current is provided from the electrical system, not the engine.

Constant speed operation of the generator’s engine is more efficient than the acceleration and deceleration cycles of engines in today’s cars...and because the electric propulsion system itself is more efficient than a mechanical power transfer system, a smaller engine (it can be 1/4 the size of a standard auto engine) and generator gets you more power with less energy input than today’s car engines.

In the case of the LincVolt, a variety of fuel capabilities are being built into the car, including natural gas, plug-in, and biodiesel.

Now this story did not start as a LincVolt story. The original intent of the story was to ask why someone doesn’t throw a series hybrid engine/generator setup on electric motors, lose the fancy batteries, and produce some cheap 40 MPG pickups and minivans?

Well as it turns out, there are good reasons not to do that. One reason has to do with power storage. If the car is generating power it doesn’t need at the moment, it can “reserve” that power in batteries—and when the batteries are full, the car can run with the engine and generator shut down until more charge is needed.

Later, if the car is climbing a steep hill, that extra power can be sent to the motor or motors; keeping voltage and the speed of the engine as constant as possible.

As it turns out, that same stored power can also be used to “brake” the electric motor system, making the process even more efficient.

It’s quite a cruisin’ car, the LincVolt is...and to make it even cooler, from time to time they do live webcasts from the car as it’s driving down the road...which eventually become videos that can be seen at the LincVolt website or on LincVolt's YouTube channel.

(You can also view live telemetry from the car as it operates and view a fascinating gallery of time-lapse photography of the entire “build-out” of the car from start to finish.)

Johnathan Goodwin, who did this conversion, is famous for building “Eco-Hummers” that run on biodiesel, get 25 miles to the gallon...and still manage to put up 650 horsepower or better.

Neil Young and the LincVolt appeared at San Francisco’s DreamForce Conference in November of 2008; since then the car has appeared around the country, and the website offers hints of a cross-country live-webcasting adventure to come.

So how about that?

We started with a question about generators and batteries, and we ended up with a 65 MPG multifuel/plug-in version of one of the largest passenger cars ever known to grace the surface of the planet...and in true American fashion, 65 MPG wasn’t good enough...so now they’re “kicking it up a notch” and shooting for 100 MPG and the Automotive X Prize.

Which leads me to the one and only conclusion that we can draw from today’s conversation:

When we finally take over Canada, Neil Young’s gonna fit right in.

UPDATE 5/26/09:

A commenter at the DailyKos site had questions about the methodology Johnathan Goodwin uses in his performance claims.

This is an excerpt from one of his comments:

“So, how can a car that's heavy and has a bad drag coefficient get 65mpg? Simple: the PHEV game.

Question: How much mpg does a PHEV that is running purely in electric mode get?
Answer: Infinite

Realizing this, you can see that it's trivial to give an arbitrary PHEV any mpg figure you want -- you just have it run in a scenario where you make X% electric and Y% gas, and you pick the percents. That's exactly what they've done here. Not to mention that that 65mpg number isn't for the US06 drivecycle -- it's for steady-state driving, so even if they weren't cheating, it still wouldn't be comparable to EPA figures.

I hate this sort of dishonesty, yet it's pervasive in the PHEV industry. The federal government really needs to step in and regulate it. Goodwin is a particularly bad example of this -- he always plays the PHEV game and never uses proper drivecycles.”

I sent that excerpt to Johnathan Goodwin for a response.
He did reply by email, and this was the comment I received:

“This is Goodwin, I see many out there doing the backwards math. To date i have only stated what i do in the mannor of simple math. Fill the tank, drive the car 100 miles and refill the tank. The consumption for a distance gives you your fuel econimy. I am not a fan of plug ins. I am a fan of fuel efficiancy without sacrifice in power or room. A train is one of the most fuel efficiant modes to date. This car is a posterchild to old technoligy in a new way. What i have done is made a 6k car have 500lb tourque and 50+ mpg with a 650 cu inch motor. The efficiancy of the small generator is were you get great results. Not the electric side. I only use that for the power end. I wish those that critisize would spend there time assisting the ones who are trying to make changes. We would get there much faster.”

WARNING—Self-promotion ahead: I am competing for a Netroots Nation scholarship, and I was not selected in the first round of voting. There are two more chances to be selected, and the voting has restarted from scratch...so even if you’ve done so before, I still have to ask you to stop by the Democracy for America site and click on the “Add your support” link to offer your support for me again. Thanks for your patience, and we now return you to your regular programming.

On Greener Trains, Or, Who Doesn't Love A Bargain?

Americans used to love their trains.

Casey Jones, the Golden Spike, the Wreck of the Old 97-all are a part of our legend, and even today trains are seen as a romantic link to another time.

These days, we see the future in trains.
There are a variety of new train concepts floating around-literally-and new variants of traditional designs as well.

There is one train concept, however, that has the potential to completely change all we know about moving people and freight.

It’s cheaper to build than any other current design, but more importantly, this concept appears to forever alter how we think of energy use for mass transit.

Having piqued your interest, let’s add background information to set the stage...

Virtually all trains you see today are operated by electric motors.

In the “standard” locomotive design, electricity for those motors is provided by generation onboard the train itself (diesel engines operate generators which are the electricity source).

Other designs use electricity provided through a centrally-generated electrical distribution system. The “third rail” familiar to subway riders is one form of distribution. Overhead (catenary) wires are another, and the United States Capitol subway system offers an example of this method.

As of today, virtually all passengers and freight move by one of these designs.

The biggest changes on the horizon involve ways to move passengers faster

The Japanese “bullet trains” (Shinkansen), introduced in 1964, are a “steel-wheel-on-steel-rail” system-essentially a “standard” train on steroids. These trains require dedicated and fenced right-of-ways, special rail installations, and no contact with other traffic (no railroad crossings, for example).

These trains normally operate at about 200 mph, and they typically operate between destinations that are 100 to 500 miles apart.

The fastest of these trains, the French TGV, set a world speed record of 357 mph just about 3 weeks ago (April 3rd).

There is another design you might be familiar with, the “magnetic levitation” or Maglev design. This concept is radically different from other trains. First, the trains have no wheels, and instead “float” on a magnetic field, generated by electromagnets, within the rail system. Propulsion is provided by “switching” the polarity of other magnets, in a controlled manner, as the train passes by. The principle of magnetic repulsion, which occurs when the negative and positive polarities of the train and track magnets interact, moves the train along the track.

If you are still a bit confused over all this, the description at this site will help make things more clear. A helpful 8-minute video can also be seen here. (Click on the “MPEG 1” link to the right of the train.)

The fastest of the Maglev trains has a speed record 4 mph faster than the TGV.

Another difference of Maglev trains, compared to “standard” trains,
is the absence of an engine. The propulsion system does not use motors (or any other moving parts); meaning that all the cars on such a train can be passenger-carrying cars.

There are Japanese and German versions of the Maglev concept, and each resolves braking and stability issues in different ways, but the basic designs are reasonably similar.

An extensive list of high-speed rail projects worldwide is available, courtesy of Railway-Technology.com. At the moment, the only commercially operating Maglev system connects downtown Shanghai and Pudong Airport (about 30km), and pictures of that train in action are here.

While high-speed trains are relatively green (using air travel as a basis for comparison), they either require lots of amperage sent to electric motors, or lots of amperage sent to banks of electromagnets in order to operate. The Japanese Maglev design uses more current than its German counterpart due to the fact that its electromagnets are cooled to obtain a superconducting effect, and the cooling creates an additional electrical load.

The low-level electromagnetic fields created by the Maglev systems are an additional hazard, and those with pacemakers, for example, will be unable to ride those trains. The “steel wheel” trains are disadvantaged by friction, and the Maglev trains experience “magnetic drag”.

OK, so now we get to the good part.

Imagine if you could take the wheels off the train, removing the friction disadvantage of TGV, and remove the electromagnets and cooling system from the Maglev, reducing energy requirements to a fraction of what was previously thought possible.

Imagine being able to move 2500 pounds over flat level ground, at substantial speeds, while using only ½ horsepower of energy?

For that matter, imagine if the same technology could operate escalators, move container freight around the yard, or even launch spacecraft?

Earth, meet Karl Lamb.

In typical American style, he has invented a new approach to the Maglev concept, patented the idea, and has now decided to take on Germany, France, and China pretty much single-handedly.

And guess what? He may just pull it off.

His company, Magna Force, Inc. Is promoting the LevX system as an alternative.

What’s the difference between this and other systems?

Permanent magnets-not electromagnets-suspend the cars above the guideway.

With permanent magnets no current is required to keep the load suspended above the track, and no current is required to cool conductors, as in the Japanese design. This system results in enormous savings in electricity over any other concept we’ve discussed.

A linear induction motor (also described in the movie above) provides motive force. To give you an idea how much speed such a “motor” can provide, consider that a variation of this design is the linear accelerator, which propels objects at velocities approaching the speed of light.

Here’s the crazy part-the system can be scaled up or down in size. In other words, designs ranging from a 1 person people-mover, to a sort of “container pipeline”, to platforms that assist aircraft to launch and land from shorter runways (aircraft carriers?) are all possible-and would all be greener than current methods of accomplishing the same thing.

Can this concept work? Check out the last two pages of the “Letters” link for an independent engineering analysis. Long story short, it absolutely can work.

Now let’s talk money.

Because this system requires no electromagnets, no elaborate cooling technologies, and very little power for propulsion, there is a giant reduction in operation and maintenance costs. The folks at Magna Force (who were kind enough to talk to me-thanks Jo!) report that the difference is in “orders of magnitude” compared to a light-rail system such as the Sound Transit system being built in Seattle.

If that wasn’t enough, it’s much, much cheaper to build as well.

So how’s that for a great way to wrap up Earth Day?

An American company that has an exciting new technology that saves huge amounts of carbon; saves huge amounts of money, and who, if all goes well, may soon be able to announce their first commuter project. (Because there are currently no formal commitments, and no official announcement has been made, I’ll wait for developments before providing more information there.)

The best part- if this takes off, we’ll see the greenest trains ever.