In all realms of human achievement, we celebrate the one individual, rising against the odds to save us/lead us/protect us. Some call it the "great man theory", college basketball fans call it the "Danny Manning factor", and previous generations celebrated those "titans of industry" who single-handedly forged America out of nothing. The truth about these myths and celebrations holds that it takes many more than the one individual to accomplish almost anything of value to us as a people. Especially as the scale and severity of our problems challenges our traditional beliefs in how to survive and thrive, we need to look not for that individual savior, but for more effective paths to solutions. It is the path of cooperative problem solving that we are investigating at IIT, experimenting with a cluster of student project teams working on related problems within a theme.
For the better part of two decades, IIT has had an interprofessional project program (IPRO) in which students across disciplines join together around a topic to solve a problem. This kind of interdisciplinary thinking already dodges the stoic "lone wolf problem solver" theme, promoting cooperation among a group to reach a goal normally unattainable by the individual. Sometimes, however, this format still promotes an atmosphere in which an individual or small band can drive a team toward a particular solution, even when faced with equally meritorious options. Additionally, the program associated with these teams had begun to focus on the competition among them, highlighting those judged to have accomplished the most or performed the best. Although competition for resources forms the basis for a modern working economy, competition in the idea setting sometimes led to more conservative solutions than innovative ones. With this in mind, we have set down a new path, and one that we hope will both promote innovation, and introduce the students to an arena more common in the marketplace of ideas.
By introducing a cluster model to problem solving, we hope to take advantage of a broader information and knowledge base to promote idea development and actualization at a faster pace and with greater efficacy. Traditionally, teams of five to fifteen would work with a faculty mentor (and sometimes an outside sponsor) to solve a problem posed by the mentor. In the cluster model, as many as fifty students will work in a themed area (our area focuses on solutions for community-level problems), divided into as many as five to ten teams. The students will receive problem "prompts" - broad ideas based upon previously known issues - then divide into these areas. Once divided, they will further develop the problem statement and eventually the solution within their smaller teams, but at the same time, they will remain connected to the larger cluster. Through project updates, team liaisons, and resource sharing (the resources not only include space and mentors, but presentations from outside experts and access to existing communities) the cluster will act as a loosely organized cooperative. In addition, the concept of community will extend beyond the borders of the country, with several teams establishing working relationships with experts and teams working in Turkey and Mexico.
There can be no doubt that one individual idea can change the world. We are banking on the concept that one individual idea - created in a setting where collaboration sparks ideas, and honed by effective challenging and questioning - holds even greater promise to accomplish that change. And that several ideas, all realized in concert, and examined together, can take us further.
We shall see, but the odds are in our favor.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
On the whole, we have a lot of information, but not enough knowledge about science
The interpretation of the story of the Tower of Babel, for me, has always missed the point. Although we hear in Genesis that the people of the world were building a tower to the heavens, and God disbursed them and effectively created the different languages of the world so that they could never coordinate in this manner again. (Esperanto be damned!) This focus on language has distracted from the larger issue of technology...that all the nations of the world could agree upon a technology, or have enough understanding of it to blend them all together seamlessly, stands as the greater accomplishment. (Just ask anyone who flew United Airlines after they merged with Continental and decided to use Continental's older, incompatible ticketing system.) The accomplishment in Babel was not just the information, or the ability to communicate it, but the real knowledge that manifested in the ability to apply thought into technology. For the thousands of years since the mythical Tower of Babel, we have pushed the boundaries again in terms of communication and information - even agreeing on a new universal language of mathematics - but have not even come close to such an accomplishment because of one simple fact. People know less about science and technology than they ever have.
With my children and I returning to school this week, I may have my antennae a little more tuned to all things school than normal, but I have seen much written lately about the opportunities available to increase access to math and science education for younger students. Recent posts in an excellent blog about computer science and technology written by Dr. Ray Klump from Lewis University discuss camps for kids as young as three in coding and engineering. I also recently came across a related piece in the LA Times discussing a course in entrepreneurship for high schoolers in LA. The existence of all these extra-curricular forms of experience-based education (which forms the core of science and technology learning) highlights the loss of real science education throughout our formal learning process. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we have experienced the stagnation of science education in our formal learning process, and the increased specialization of real knowledge of science. Kids still learn about the hydrologic cycle and the parts of a plant, but has basic education included discussions of MRI technology and semiconductors at inspirational ages. Those "real science" problems we leave to the experts...the few who can survive high school geometry and chemistry without heavy doses of anxiety medication.
One need look no further than the declining number of students pursuing science and technology as a field of study (not just percentages of population and enrollees, but total number declining) over the past forty years, while overall college participation has increased steadily over this same time period. Meanwhile, the almost complete obliteration of shop courses in high schools has removed the natural science outlet for those that did not want the more "bookish" form of study. Fifty years ago, not only did we naturally do more science on our own through unscheduled play and exploration, but as we progressed in education, we had many alternatives to create an understanding of science and technology as it is applied to our lives. If I did not want to study physics or chemistry, I could still take an auto shop class, or carpentry shop to gain knowledge about how to apply science. I also had the option to take a cooking class, or pottery, some other hands-on class that would increase my understanding of the world in which I lived. It's no surprise that with the explosion of complexity in the applied sciences, we have seen a corresponding decrease in the overall knowledge of science and how it affects our lives.
This loss of true knowledge comes at a time when we all need so desperately to understand science. In an era when scientists and engineers hold places of esteem in our society nearing that of the military, understanding the greatest modern threat to human existence comes down to whether or not the science as explained makes sense to us all. Having abdicated our responsibility to understand nature, and the science behind her many processes, we are left to a question of trust instead of a question of knowledge. If someone began running around the streets yelling, "Gravity is failing! We will all be sucked out into space!", we have enough common understanding to know that is not true. However, do we have enough understanding to know whether 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is enough, or whether a growth study for corn yields in the Amazon applies to Iowa, or whether water flows causing eutrophication have man-made origins or natural ones? Given the tenor and substance of our global debate, my current assessment is we do not.
As a great piece by Jurgen Mittelstrass points out, we have an explosion of information, but not necessarily one of knowledge. Having all the information in the world in front of someone does not inherently make them more productive, or guarantee that they will come to the right solution. The knowledge to sift through the information and find the kernel that leads to an improved quality of life comes from a commitment to a lifetime of experiential learning. This makes it easier for those who do have the background and experience to build, maintain, and repair items, but it does not create a society of "do-it-yourself" computer, appliance, and home system repair technicians. We have created a cultural need for more and more of these specialists as we become less and less able to maintain our own houses and equipment. As Samuel Arbesman points out in his piece on "big data" in the Washington Post, even the new levels of data processing that are making analyses of large data sets easier will not provide answers if a learned population does not ask the right questions.
When my grandfather was going to school, and then into the navy, there was a premium on hands-on technology education (what we sometimes call vocational education) for both college-bound and non-college-bound students. Coming out, he became a stationary building engineer, and on the side he would work on houses. Even though my father did not pursue a similar path (he became a history/social studies teacher and principal), he still had the ability to frame walls, hunt down electrical problems, and service gas heaters. During both of their careers, there was a healthy level of respect among those who were college-educated or union-trained recognizing that they were two sides of the same technology. Contributing to the polarization of society - and the vilification of the union employee - is less and less appreciation for the scientific understanding they possess. When more of society understood - and frankly revered - science, it was easier to appreciate the hard work and skills of another.
We have reached a critical point in our understanding of education and its role in society. Should we focus only on a bare-bones education, allowing those who can afford it to have access to a greater breadth of knowledge? Or should we, at even the earliest of ages, return to a more hands-on understanding of how our world works? Would doing so mean that we focus less on some of what remains in our educational system - reading comprehension and basic math - or can we find a way to use one to reinforce the other?
I have no firm answers right now, only a challenge. If those who can afford it are sending their children to camps to work on coding, and engineering, and entrepreneurship....then maybe we should be finding ways to give everybody the opportunity. Our life, quite frankly, depends on it.
With my children and I returning to school this week, I may have my antennae a little more tuned to all things school than normal, but I have seen much written lately about the opportunities available to increase access to math and science education for younger students. Recent posts in an excellent blog about computer science and technology written by Dr. Ray Klump from Lewis University discuss camps for kids as young as three in coding and engineering. I also recently came across a related piece in the LA Times discussing a course in entrepreneurship for high schoolers in LA. The existence of all these extra-curricular forms of experience-based education (which forms the core of science and technology learning) highlights the loss of real science education throughout our formal learning process. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say we have experienced the stagnation of science education in our formal learning process, and the increased specialization of real knowledge of science. Kids still learn about the hydrologic cycle and the parts of a plant, but has basic education included discussions of MRI technology and semiconductors at inspirational ages. Those "real science" problems we leave to the experts...the few who can survive high school geometry and chemistry without heavy doses of anxiety medication.
One need look no further than the declining number of students pursuing science and technology as a field of study (not just percentages of population and enrollees, but total number declining) over the past forty years, while overall college participation has increased steadily over this same time period. Meanwhile, the almost complete obliteration of shop courses in high schools has removed the natural science outlet for those that did not want the more "bookish" form of study. Fifty years ago, not only did we naturally do more science on our own through unscheduled play and exploration, but as we progressed in education, we had many alternatives to create an understanding of science and technology as it is applied to our lives. If I did not want to study physics or chemistry, I could still take an auto shop class, or carpentry shop to gain knowledge about how to apply science. I also had the option to take a cooking class, or pottery, some other hands-on class that would increase my understanding of the world in which I lived. It's no surprise that with the explosion of complexity in the applied sciences, we have seen a corresponding decrease in the overall knowledge of science and how it affects our lives.
This loss of true knowledge comes at a time when we all need so desperately to understand science. In an era when scientists and engineers hold places of esteem in our society nearing that of the military, understanding the greatest modern threat to human existence comes down to whether or not the science as explained makes sense to us all. Having abdicated our responsibility to understand nature, and the science behind her many processes, we are left to a question of trust instead of a question of knowledge. If someone began running around the streets yelling, "Gravity is failing! We will all be sucked out into space!", we have enough common understanding to know that is not true. However, do we have enough understanding to know whether 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is enough, or whether a growth study for corn yields in the Amazon applies to Iowa, or whether water flows causing eutrophication have man-made origins or natural ones? Given the tenor and substance of our global debate, my current assessment is we do not.
As a great piece by Jurgen Mittelstrass points out, we have an explosion of information, but not necessarily one of knowledge. Having all the information in the world in front of someone does not inherently make them more productive, or guarantee that they will come to the right solution. The knowledge to sift through the information and find the kernel that leads to an improved quality of life comes from a commitment to a lifetime of experiential learning. This makes it easier for those who do have the background and experience to build, maintain, and repair items, but it does not create a society of "do-it-yourself" computer, appliance, and home system repair technicians. We have created a cultural need for more and more of these specialists as we become less and less able to maintain our own houses and equipment. As Samuel Arbesman points out in his piece on "big data" in the Washington Post, even the new levels of data processing that are making analyses of large data sets easier will not provide answers if a learned population does not ask the right questions.
When my grandfather was going to school, and then into the navy, there was a premium on hands-on technology education (what we sometimes call vocational education) for both college-bound and non-college-bound students. Coming out, he became a stationary building engineer, and on the side he would work on houses. Even though my father did not pursue a similar path (he became a history/social studies teacher and principal), he still had the ability to frame walls, hunt down electrical problems, and service gas heaters. During both of their careers, there was a healthy level of respect among those who were college-educated or union-trained recognizing that they were two sides of the same technology. Contributing to the polarization of society - and the vilification of the union employee - is less and less appreciation for the scientific understanding they possess. When more of society understood - and frankly revered - science, it was easier to appreciate the hard work and skills of another.
We have reached a critical point in our understanding of education and its role in society. Should we focus only on a bare-bones education, allowing those who can afford it to have access to a greater breadth of knowledge? Or should we, at even the earliest of ages, return to a more hands-on understanding of how our world works? Would doing so mean that we focus less on some of what remains in our educational system - reading comprehension and basic math - or can we find a way to use one to reinforce the other?
I have no firm answers right now, only a challenge. If those who can afford it are sending their children to camps to work on coding, and engineering, and entrepreneurship....then maybe we should be finding ways to give everybody the opportunity. Our life, quite frankly, depends on it.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Friday Five: August 16, 2013
A lesson in solving wicked problems: invent something that can solve multiple problems at the same time while providing a bridge to solve more. A Japanese inventor and his company have developed a machine that uses 1 kWh of electricity (worth about $0.10 - $0.15 in the US) and 1 gallon of water (worth about $0.0015 in the US) to turn 1 kg of plastic packaging and material (worth about $1.50) into 1 liter of oil (worth about $2.50). So if you paid nothing to the consumer to recycle their plastic, you could produce a product for just over 15 cents and sell it to urban markets for $2.50 per liter. You then avoid the costs of transporting the product, the emissions associated with current heating methods for recycling, and provide a steady source of oil that can help ease the transition to a fossil fuel-less future. All this, and the potential for residential or community-scale enterprise. Although I am no fan of compromise on continuing the use of fossil fuels, it is hard not to love this idea. (Add to it the fact that if implemented on a national scale, it could drastically lower the price of oil and still allow the process to make money...SOLD!)
Plastic to oil fantastic
"'If we burn the plastic, we generate toxins and a large amount of CO2. If we convert it into oil, we save CO2 and at the same time increase people’s awareness about the value of plastic garbage.'"
The fact that three of the top twenty sit near or on the largest freshwater reserve in the world should raise eyebrows. The number of cities in California and Florida on this list should raise alarm bells. The fact that it's a list of cities should not have prevented the authors of the study from listing the State of New Mexico in its entirety. We have more than enough water on the planet to support the projected population, but people do not always live where the water is, and localized issues are going to present major problems going forward...especially as sea levels rise and pollute freshwater aquifers with salinated water.
Could these 20 cities run out of water
"Unlike many other analysis, this study incorporated both local rainfall and the availability of stored and imported water – what the authors called 'hydraulic' sources. These sources include man-made reservoirs and aqueducts that can transport water from one drainage basin to another. The study also accounted for natural variability in rainfall and water availability to classify each urban area as low, medium, or high in vulnerability."
I am one of the first to confess my enjoyment of smartphones and small-computer technology, and my corresponding ambivalence to the energy use that supports it. My house is hyper-efficient relative to electricity use, so I do not notice - or pay for - much of the electricity that makes my devices possible. (Including the electricity that makes my blog available for viewing or updating 24/7/365.) As the efficiency of our heating, cooling, and refrigeration equipment has dropped significantly over the past two decades, we retain high rates of electricity use because of this device proliferation, and the energy needed to support cloud data centers. With development of infrastructure in an era of cheap electricity, there is no incentive to make things cheaper.
Your iPhone uses more electricity than your fridge
"The global digital economy, also known as the ICT system (information-communications-technologies), sucks up as much electricity today as it took to illuminate the entire planet in 1985. The average iPhone requires more power per year than the average refrigerator. It’s like you’re walking around all day with a fridge’s worth of electricity in your pocket (but no hummus!)."
Even with this growing energy consumption by our personal devices, we still need to prioritize improving our homes. Thankfully, the market rewards transparency, efficiency, and renewable energy. Especially for those that have the ability to take advantage of historically low costs of capital, the investments in energy technology and efficiency will pay huge dividends in reclaimed value.
Study finds solar panels increase home values
Unlocking the value of an energy efficient home
"The premium ranged from $3.90 to $6.40 per watt of capacity, but tended most often to be about $5.50 per watt. This, the study said, 'corresponds to a home sales price premium of approximately $17,000 for a relatively new 3,100-watt PV system (the average size of PV systems in the study).'"
Unfortunately, the market still favors incumbents, so we need smart market development and regulation to make sure that we can transition to smarter uses of energy and not just ones that provide economic benefit to existing companies. Utilities need to be a part of the solution, and need to adopt a more flexible business model: one that allows them to maintain and transition their distribution infrastructure, but also allows them to participate in the renewable energy and community energy arenas.
Why US power companies don't want you putting solar panels on your roof
"The solar companies, however, fear this will make solar more expensive, hurting both their business and the spread of green energy as direct subsidies fade away. They argue that the utilities are overplaying their hand. A study they commissioned argues that the utilities actually benefit from distributed solar’s ability to help the grid meet local demand. This is especially true, it says, when utilities are required to use a certain share of renewables, and when customers are paying 'smart rates' that vary depending on when they purchase their power."
Happy Friday!
Plastic to oil fantastic
"'If we burn the plastic, we generate toxins and a large amount of CO2. If we convert it into oil, we save CO2 and at the same time increase people’s awareness about the value of plastic garbage.'"
The fact that three of the top twenty sit near or on the largest freshwater reserve in the world should raise eyebrows. The number of cities in California and Florida on this list should raise alarm bells. The fact that it's a list of cities should not have prevented the authors of the study from listing the State of New Mexico in its entirety. We have more than enough water on the planet to support the projected population, but people do not always live where the water is, and localized issues are going to present major problems going forward...especially as sea levels rise and pollute freshwater aquifers with salinated water.
Could these 20 cities run out of water
"Unlike many other analysis, this study incorporated both local rainfall and the availability of stored and imported water – what the authors called 'hydraulic' sources. These sources include man-made reservoirs and aqueducts that can transport water from one drainage basin to another. The study also accounted for natural variability in rainfall and water availability to classify each urban area as low, medium, or high in vulnerability."
I am one of the first to confess my enjoyment of smartphones and small-computer technology, and my corresponding ambivalence to the energy use that supports it. My house is hyper-efficient relative to electricity use, so I do not notice - or pay for - much of the electricity that makes my devices possible. (Including the electricity that makes my blog available for viewing or updating 24/7/365.) As the efficiency of our heating, cooling, and refrigeration equipment has dropped significantly over the past two decades, we retain high rates of electricity use because of this device proliferation, and the energy needed to support cloud data centers. With development of infrastructure in an era of cheap electricity, there is no incentive to make things cheaper.
Your iPhone uses more electricity than your fridge
"The global digital economy, also known as the ICT system (information-communications-technologies), sucks up as much electricity today as it took to illuminate the entire planet in 1985. The average iPhone requires more power per year than the average refrigerator. It’s like you’re walking around all day with a fridge’s worth of electricity in your pocket (but no hummus!)."
Even with this growing energy consumption by our personal devices, we still need to prioritize improving our homes. Thankfully, the market rewards transparency, efficiency, and renewable energy. Especially for those that have the ability to take advantage of historically low costs of capital, the investments in energy technology and efficiency will pay huge dividends in reclaimed value.
Study finds solar panels increase home values
Unlocking the value of an energy efficient home
"The premium ranged from $3.90 to $6.40 per watt of capacity, but tended most often to be about $5.50 per watt. This, the study said, 'corresponds to a home sales price premium of approximately $17,000 for a relatively new 3,100-watt PV system (the average size of PV systems in the study).'"
Unfortunately, the market still favors incumbents, so we need smart market development and regulation to make sure that we can transition to smarter uses of energy and not just ones that provide economic benefit to existing companies. Utilities need to be a part of the solution, and need to adopt a more flexible business model: one that allows them to maintain and transition their distribution infrastructure, but also allows them to participate in the renewable energy and community energy arenas.
Why US power companies don't want you putting solar panels on your roof
"The solar companies, however, fear this will make solar more expensive, hurting both their business and the spread of green energy as direct subsidies fade away. They argue that the utilities are overplaying their hand. A study they commissioned argues that the utilities actually benefit from distributed solar’s ability to help the grid meet local demand. This is especially true, it says, when utilities are required to use a certain share of renewables, and when customers are paying 'smart rates' that vary depending on when they purchase their power."
Happy Friday!
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Hyperloop is not alchemy or mysticism, but Musk just might be another Newton
Elon Musk, the entrepreneur behind PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla Motors and SolarCity, has responded to California's plan to create a nearly $100 billion high-speed rail corridor between San Francisco and Los Angeles by publishing a plan to create high-speed transportation between the cities for one-tenth the cost and besting the time by hours. In an open-source posting on the SpaceX website, Musk encourages anyone to use his idea and build the Hyperloop, or to offer suggestions for improvement, adjustment or refinement. The Hyperloop works using a low-pressure air tunnel installed above ground (picture the love child of the Monorail at Disney and the pneumatic tube communication system used at your local bank drive-up window) through which capsules carrying passengers - and potentially cargo - travel at speeds up to 700 miles per hour. This would limit the trip from San Fran to LA to about 30 minutes plus a couple of station stops along the way. This beats plane travel by an hour (not including the saved time going through security and waiting to board), and Musk predicts the ticket price could come in at around $20 each way, about twenty percent of even the best fare one could get.
Musk has already begun to hear from skeptics about the plan, which for the guy who founded one of the most disruptive car companies in the last fifty years probably means very little. Having read a few, I have to note that there appears to be more than a bit of knocking the king off his pedestal going on. Musk admits that the plan could likely be tweaked, and offered it up open-source for precisely that reason...well that and running or co-running four entrepreneurial ventures already takes up just a bit of his time. Also, reading the plan, I was struck by his plain-spoken language available to almost anyone to read and understand at least the concept. In addition, he acknowledges the limitations of the concept for trips over the distance between SF and LA, that it would likely not best supersonic air travel in any of the relevant metrics. It appears to me that Musk has given more than a cursory effort into the concept, and has hit upon if not a perfect idea, at least one that merits some consideration. What I do not get is the immediate dismissal of the concept as underwhelming or quixotic. Nor do I think Musk's reputation will get damaged in any way because of it. Newton spent many hours trying to turn lead into gold (which no one would want these days as it would further devalue gold), and Bohr spent years trying to refute or defend (depending on your point of view) the concept of mind controlling matter as part of quantum physics. Comparatively, postulating that travel across states can happen more cost effectively in a low-resistance tunnel powered by solar radiation seems positively sane.
As intriguing as attacking or defending Musk might be, I want to focus on the potential his idea has for changing the way we perceive location, and for changing the conversation about energy and transportation. If we look at the miles per energy input of various forms of transportation, we see:
Walking - 336 Btu/mile
Bicycling - 168 Btu/mile
Electric car - 1,237 Btu/mile
High mpg diesel car - 2,200 Btu/mile (55 mpg)
Passenger plane - 2,000-3,000 Btu/mile
Passenger train - 2,400 Btu/mile
Ship - 8,500-9,000 Btu/mile
Low mpg gasoline truck - 9,000 Btu/mile (13 mpg)
At about 7.4 million passengers each way for 350 miles each way, the total passenger miles equals about 5.18 billion per year. At an average power draw of 21 MW over the course of a year, that gives us a total energy draw of around 630 billion Btu per year, resulting in a net of about 120 Btu/mile...besting bicycle travel! Even with the overall production efficiency of the system running under 25%, the efficiency of the travel is impossible to beat. Add to this, a solar panel system that generates twice as much energy as the system need, and you have a combination fuel-free travel system and local energy generator for transit-oriented development around the stations.
I talk frequently about a low-entropy economy: one where we focus less on the inherent efficiency of the system as a means to lowering fuel consumption, and more on meeting the service need that energy delivers within the framework of the naturally available energy to the system. Even if Musk is off by a factor of two (and right now that looks unlikely), the system would still work within the available natural energy...making Hyperloop the only net-zero form of transportation (even for walking we need food transported to us).
It is okay to challenge creative thinkers...they usually welcome it as a way to make their ideas better. But we need to focus more on ways to implement the idea or best it. We need a major sea change in our approach to transportation, and the cascading effects on our way of life. Elon Musk might have hit on a concept that will revolutionize our approach to urban development and the way in which we connect with people...and like he says in his design description, until someone invents the transporter, we need a better way.
Musk has already begun to hear from skeptics about the plan, which for the guy who founded one of the most disruptive car companies in the last fifty years probably means very little. Having read a few, I have to note that there appears to be more than a bit of knocking the king off his pedestal going on. Musk admits that the plan could likely be tweaked, and offered it up open-source for precisely that reason...well that and running or co-running four entrepreneurial ventures already takes up just a bit of his time. Also, reading the plan, I was struck by his plain-spoken language available to almost anyone to read and understand at least the concept. In addition, he acknowledges the limitations of the concept for trips over the distance between SF and LA, that it would likely not best supersonic air travel in any of the relevant metrics. It appears to me that Musk has given more than a cursory effort into the concept, and has hit upon if not a perfect idea, at least one that merits some consideration. What I do not get is the immediate dismissal of the concept as underwhelming or quixotic. Nor do I think Musk's reputation will get damaged in any way because of it. Newton spent many hours trying to turn lead into gold (which no one would want these days as it would further devalue gold), and Bohr spent years trying to refute or defend (depending on your point of view) the concept of mind controlling matter as part of quantum physics. Comparatively, postulating that travel across states can happen more cost effectively in a low-resistance tunnel powered by solar radiation seems positively sane.
As intriguing as attacking or defending Musk might be, I want to focus on the potential his idea has for changing the way we perceive location, and for changing the conversation about energy and transportation. If we look at the miles per energy input of various forms of transportation, we see:
Walking - 336 Btu/mile
Bicycling - 168 Btu/mile
Electric car - 1,237 Btu/mile
High mpg diesel car - 2,200 Btu/mile (55 mpg)
Passenger plane - 2,000-3,000 Btu/mile
Passenger train - 2,400 Btu/mile
Ship - 8,500-9,000 Btu/mile
Low mpg gasoline truck - 9,000 Btu/mile (13 mpg)
At about 7.4 million passengers each way for 350 miles each way, the total passenger miles equals about 5.18 billion per year. At an average power draw of 21 MW over the course of a year, that gives us a total energy draw of around 630 billion Btu per year, resulting in a net of about 120 Btu/mile...besting bicycle travel! Even with the overall production efficiency of the system running under 25%, the efficiency of the travel is impossible to beat. Add to this, a solar panel system that generates twice as much energy as the system need, and you have a combination fuel-free travel system and local energy generator for transit-oriented development around the stations.
I talk frequently about a low-entropy economy: one where we focus less on the inherent efficiency of the system as a means to lowering fuel consumption, and more on meeting the service need that energy delivers within the framework of the naturally available energy to the system. Even if Musk is off by a factor of two (and right now that looks unlikely), the system would still work within the available natural energy...making Hyperloop the only net-zero form of transportation (even for walking we need food transported to us).
It is okay to challenge creative thinkers...they usually welcome it as a way to make their ideas better. But we need to focus more on ways to implement the idea or best it. We need a major sea change in our approach to transportation, and the cascading effects on our way of life. Elon Musk might have hit on a concept that will revolutionize our approach to urban development and the way in which we connect with people...and like he says in his design description, until someone invents the transporter, we need a better way.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Engineers do smart things that get us into trouble
Reports surfacing that ExxonMobil may have known about the risks associated with moving diluted bitumen through the Pegasus pipeline in Arkansas brings about the following response from me:
Yep.
I say this not in a "of-course-the-evil-corporate-behemoth-knows-that-its-likely-to-kill-nature-and-babies-and-doesn't-care" sort of way, but rather because EM employs thousands of engineers and as a rule - especially for the engineers oil companies can afford to hire - they inherently understand the imperfection in systems like pipelines. Engineers design, maintain, and reconfigure systems based upon the best information available at the time, the best practices at the time, and the acceptable level of risk given by ownership at the time.
And therein lies the point: the acceptable level of risk to an executive looking to tap into new markets varies greatly from the acceptable level of risk to a parent raising a child within a mile of a pipeline being reconfigured for use beyond its intended design.
The engineers who oversaw the reconfiguration of the pipeline used information from "the 2006 hydrotest [ExxonMobil] performed on that stretch of pipe ... conducted at stress pressures appropriate for calibrating maximum operating pressures, but not at levels experts believe is necessary to rid a pipeline of seam crack threats. The stress pressure Exxon used in 2006 also was lower than the stress pressure it used in 1991 to test a newer segment of the Pegasus." Engineers have an ethical requirement to protect the health, safety and welfare of people when they sign off on design work, and that would have applied to this effort as well. But they also have to be faithful trustees to their employer, and as long as their employer asks of them something legal and not in conflict with protecting health, safety and welfare, they are obligated to do it.
And therein lies the second point: by allowing the pipeline to run near a residential area, the people of Arkansas told ExxonMobil - and therefore its engineers - that having a pipeline with "acceptable level of risk" running near people was ok. No one associated with the approval process considered the pipeline accident-proof, and as long as the engineers relied upon practices consistent with the standard of care in the industry, they did everything they were supposed to do. (As did engineers designing Fukushima, and Three Mile Island)
Which leads us to the last point: that makes no sense.
Elizabeth Douglas at Inside Climate News suggests that "Exxon took calculated risks given the known condition of the 20-inch pipeline and either used a flawed integrity management plan, or had a good plan and didn’t adhere to it." But that tries to assign blame to the company when the blame lies with us. It is just as likely that the engineers at ExxonMobil did everything they were supposed to do within the ethics of their practice, standards in the industry, and legal requirement to protect the people near the rupture site. Pointing blame at ExxonMobil minimizes the true issue:
We have to allow our engineers to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard.
As long as balance sheets and insurance rates tell engineers how much they can threaten the health, safety, and welfare of people, they will be bound to provide their clients with solutions such as what happened at Pegasus. If we stiffen regulation on professionals and require them to calculate the likely risk scenarios, and prove that more people would be harmed by inaction than by action, then corporate decisions such as the one that lead to the reconfiguration of Pegasus will not happen in the future.
But be prepared, neither will new coal plant construction, new car manufacturing, or bridge opening (to name a few). We have told our engineers - our stewards of applied science and gatekeepers of our quality of life - that risking the lives of some to maintain quality of life for many is ok.
If you do not think it is, then you need to do something about it.
Yep.
I say this not in a "of-course-the-evil-corporate-behemoth-knows-that-its-likely-to-kill-nature-and-babies-and-doesn't-care" sort of way, but rather because EM employs thousands of engineers and as a rule - especially for the engineers oil companies can afford to hire - they inherently understand the imperfection in systems like pipelines. Engineers design, maintain, and reconfigure systems based upon the best information available at the time, the best practices at the time, and the acceptable level of risk given by ownership at the time.
And therein lies the point: the acceptable level of risk to an executive looking to tap into new markets varies greatly from the acceptable level of risk to a parent raising a child within a mile of a pipeline being reconfigured for use beyond its intended design.
The engineers who oversaw the reconfiguration of the pipeline used information from "the 2006 hydrotest [ExxonMobil] performed on that stretch of pipe ... conducted at stress pressures appropriate for calibrating maximum operating pressures, but not at levels experts believe is necessary to rid a pipeline of seam crack threats. The stress pressure Exxon used in 2006 also was lower than the stress pressure it used in 1991 to test a newer segment of the Pegasus." Engineers have an ethical requirement to protect the health, safety and welfare of people when they sign off on design work, and that would have applied to this effort as well. But they also have to be faithful trustees to their employer, and as long as their employer asks of them something legal and not in conflict with protecting health, safety and welfare, they are obligated to do it.
And therein lies the second point: by allowing the pipeline to run near a residential area, the people of Arkansas told ExxonMobil - and therefore its engineers - that having a pipeline with "acceptable level of risk" running near people was ok. No one associated with the approval process considered the pipeline accident-proof, and as long as the engineers relied upon practices consistent with the standard of care in the industry, they did everything they were supposed to do. (As did engineers designing Fukushima, and Three Mile Island)
Which leads us to the last point: that makes no sense.
Elizabeth Douglas at Inside Climate News suggests that "Exxon took calculated risks given the known condition of the 20-inch pipeline and either used a flawed integrity management plan, or had a good plan and didn’t adhere to it." But that tries to assign blame to the company when the blame lies with us. It is just as likely that the engineers at ExxonMobil did everything they were supposed to do within the ethics of their practice, standards in the industry, and legal requirement to protect the people near the rupture site. Pointing blame at ExxonMobil minimizes the true issue:
We have to allow our engineers to hold themselves to a higher ethical standard.
As long as balance sheets and insurance rates tell engineers how much they can threaten the health, safety, and welfare of people, they will be bound to provide their clients with solutions such as what happened at Pegasus. If we stiffen regulation on professionals and require them to calculate the likely risk scenarios, and prove that more people would be harmed by inaction than by action, then corporate decisions such as the one that lead to the reconfiguration of Pegasus will not happen in the future.
But be prepared, neither will new coal plant construction, new car manufacturing, or bridge opening (to name a few). We have told our engineers - our stewards of applied science and gatekeepers of our quality of life - that risking the lives of some to maintain quality of life for many is ok.
If you do not think it is, then you need to do something about it.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Return of Request Monday: Car purchase under $12k
For a while, I stopped getting asked questions, so Request Monday went on hiatus. For those who miss it, you can either ask me a question (which is what normally prompts a RM post) or visit a couple of other interesting blogs of similar nature: Ask Umbra at Grist and Mr. Green.
Today's question came from some friends who did not give me permission to post their name, so they will remain the Tom and Trish Needacar from Chicago. Tom has a job that requires him to drive about 500 miles a week, so they are now in the market, but can only spend about $12,000 for a new car. They want to be as conscious of the environment as they can, so what do they do?
First, I need to make an assumption, which hopefully does not stretch too far. If I assume a maximum cost in the neighborhood of $12,000, to me that means I will assume a maximum monthly car payment of about $225.00. I used the rate from my credit union (3%) for a 60-month loan. The exact cost and outcome of the analysis will vary if the term and rate change, but the relative comparison will not since I assume all of the cars will have the same term and rate of loan.
With that out of the way, I did a little shopping at Carmax to find a couple of used car options and found the following:
2005 Honda Civic ($10,500)
2005 Toyota Corolla ($12,000)
2007 Hyundai Elantra ($9,000)
All of these still get good gas mileage (around 30-35 combined city/highway), and have decent maintenance backgrounds. Note that for this analysis, I will only consider the cost of purchase and the cost of gasoline as part of the financial analysis. Because maintenance record varies by the manufacturer and dealer, the Needacars will have to determine their tolerance for used car maintenance versus new car maintenance.
For new cars, the only ones that fit into the budget of the Needacars are:
2013 Nissan Versa ($11,990)
2013 Chevy Spark ($12,170)
2013 Mazda 3 Sedan ($16,945)
I included the Mazda because it has the next step up in fuel efficiency (about 10% more efficient than either the Spark or Versa) and I wanted to see if that increase had any real impact on the value. To consider hybrid and electric options, I added:
2014 Chevy Spark ($27,500)
2013 Prius c Hatchback ($19,080)
With this list of eight as the basis for the analysis, I used FuelEconomy.gov for the official combined miles per gallon, emissions and list MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price). Then using a price of gasoline at $3.75 per gallon, I came up with a first year cost of ownership for driving about 25,000 miles per year. The results are as follows:
First Place: 2007 Hyundai Elantra
It is hard to beat the lowest first cost. At the current price of gas, the used option has the greatest value (again, ignoring maintenance costs) with better than average fuel efficiency. Total annual cost: $4,910.64.
Second Place: 2005 Honda Civic
The low sticker price again provides value, and although the fuel efficiency - on average - beats the Elantra, the difference does not make up for the over 10% better sticker price. Total annual cost: $5,064.33.
Third Place: 2014 Chevy Spark EV*
The surprise entry in the top three comes from the US-made electric Spark. We should note that part of the reason for this is a generous tax credit of $7,500 that the owners must take to lower the overall purchase price (something that would take a bit of wrangling since they will need to find a way to monetize that, but it is possible). The other piece that cannot be precisely determined is how much of the charging will be done where. If all of the charging is done at home, then the Spark drops out of first, but if Tom's place of work will provide access to a vehicle charger, then the net cost is $5,136.05.
The rest all fall between $5,300 and $6,300 per year, with the Prius and Mazda coming in near the top and the new Versa and Spark (non electric) coming in at $5,400 and $5,500 respectively. That puts the annual cost difference for used versus new at about $500. Pending the warranty and maintenance deals that the Needacars can get, that gives them a starting point for comparison.
I should note that looking at the sensitivity of the analysis to the price of gas, if the price of gas climbs to $4.25 a gallon, then the Spark EV (with employer charging) holds onto its value and becomes less expensive annually than any other option. The relative position of all other cars stays the same. At $5.00 a gallon, the Spark EV betters the used cars by at least $500 making it cost competitive, even if Tom and Trish had to charge it at home. Surprisingly, even a 25% increase in gas prices does not change the position of the Prius Hybrid. It remains a better value than the cars in its class, but it cannot compete with the lower-priced options.
I will not provide a recommendation, because there are so many other factors that must go into a car purchase: comfort, size (for parking), reliability, and resale value. Also, on the environmental side, the embodied energy of a used car getting used to its maximum has value over producing a new car from raw materials, and although this gets a little fuzzy (since its debatable that one car purchase actually prevents a new car from being made), it still is a consideration. That said, if someone is looking to be cost and emissions conscious, the Chevy Spark EV provides a hedge against rising gas prices while still being within the total price range for a middle-class family.
* I should note that emissions-wise, the Spark EV - like all electric vehicles in the Chicago area - carries an emissions profile similar to that ove the Prius at about 50 mpg. This is because a significant portion of Illinois electricity comes from coal. As that changes (or if an owner charges from electricity generated only from renewables), then the emissions profile improves.
Today's question came from some friends who did not give me permission to post their name, so they will remain the Tom and Trish Needacar from Chicago. Tom has a job that requires him to drive about 500 miles a week, so they are now in the market, but can only spend about $12,000 for a new car. They want to be as conscious of the environment as they can, so what do they do?
First, I need to make an assumption, which hopefully does not stretch too far. If I assume a maximum cost in the neighborhood of $12,000, to me that means I will assume a maximum monthly car payment of about $225.00. I used the rate from my credit union (3%) for a 60-month loan. The exact cost and outcome of the analysis will vary if the term and rate change, but the relative comparison will not since I assume all of the cars will have the same term and rate of loan.
With that out of the way, I did a little shopping at Carmax to find a couple of used car options and found the following:
2005 Honda Civic ($10,500)
2005 Toyota Corolla ($12,000)
2007 Hyundai Elantra ($9,000)
All of these still get good gas mileage (around 30-35 combined city/highway), and have decent maintenance backgrounds. Note that for this analysis, I will only consider the cost of purchase and the cost of gasoline as part of the financial analysis. Because maintenance record varies by the manufacturer and dealer, the Needacars will have to determine their tolerance for used car maintenance versus new car maintenance.
For new cars, the only ones that fit into the budget of the Needacars are:
2013 Nissan Versa ($11,990)
2013 Chevy Spark ($12,170)
2013 Mazda 3 Sedan ($16,945)
I included the Mazda because it has the next step up in fuel efficiency (about 10% more efficient than either the Spark or Versa) and I wanted to see if that increase had any real impact on the value. To consider hybrid and electric options, I added:
2014 Chevy Spark ($27,500)
2013 Prius c Hatchback ($19,080)
With this list of eight as the basis for the analysis, I used FuelEconomy.gov for the official combined miles per gallon, emissions and list MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price). Then using a price of gasoline at $3.75 per gallon, I came up with a first year cost of ownership for driving about 25,000 miles per year. The results are as follows:
First Place: 2007 Hyundai Elantra
It is hard to beat the lowest first cost. At the current price of gas, the used option has the greatest value (again, ignoring maintenance costs) with better than average fuel efficiency. Total annual cost: $4,910.64.
Second Place: 2005 Honda Civic
The low sticker price again provides value, and although the fuel efficiency - on average - beats the Elantra, the difference does not make up for the over 10% better sticker price. Total annual cost: $5,064.33.
Third Place: 2014 Chevy Spark EV*
The surprise entry in the top three comes from the US-made electric Spark. We should note that part of the reason for this is a generous tax credit of $7,500 that the owners must take to lower the overall purchase price (something that would take a bit of wrangling since they will need to find a way to monetize that, but it is possible). The other piece that cannot be precisely determined is how much of the charging will be done where. If all of the charging is done at home, then the Spark drops out of first, but if Tom's place of work will provide access to a vehicle charger, then the net cost is $5,136.05.
The rest all fall between $5,300 and $6,300 per year, with the Prius and Mazda coming in near the top and the new Versa and Spark (non electric) coming in at $5,400 and $5,500 respectively. That puts the annual cost difference for used versus new at about $500. Pending the warranty and maintenance deals that the Needacars can get, that gives them a starting point for comparison.
I should note that looking at the sensitivity of the analysis to the price of gas, if the price of gas climbs to $4.25 a gallon, then the Spark EV (with employer charging) holds onto its value and becomes less expensive annually than any other option. The relative position of all other cars stays the same. At $5.00 a gallon, the Spark EV betters the used cars by at least $500 making it cost competitive, even if Tom and Trish had to charge it at home. Surprisingly, even a 25% increase in gas prices does not change the position of the Prius Hybrid. It remains a better value than the cars in its class, but it cannot compete with the lower-priced options.
I will not provide a recommendation, because there are so many other factors that must go into a car purchase: comfort, size (for parking), reliability, and resale value. Also, on the environmental side, the embodied energy of a used car getting used to its maximum has value over producing a new car from raw materials, and although this gets a little fuzzy (since its debatable that one car purchase actually prevents a new car from being made), it still is a consideration. That said, if someone is looking to be cost and emissions conscious, the Chevy Spark EV provides a hedge against rising gas prices while still being within the total price range for a middle-class family.
* I should note that emissions-wise, the Spark EV - like all electric vehicles in the Chicago area - carries an emissions profile similar to that ove the Prius at about 50 mpg. This is because a significant portion of Illinois electricity comes from coal. As that changes (or if an owner charges from electricity generated only from renewables), then the emissions profile improves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)