Sunday, November 20, 2022

Transportation Equity is Basic Physics

We have only one place left to go, and that is to question the unquestioned urban configuration of machines and humans competing on the same plane, terra firma. Put people and 2-tonne machines in the same place, and the machines will win. They've been winning for over 100 years. Here's a slice of time, from 1982:
"What a difference there was between the new and the old parts of Mexico City only 20 years ago [e.g., 1982-20 = 1962, 60 years ago]. In the old parts of the city the streets were true commons. Some people sat on the road to sell vegetables and charcoal. Others put their chairs on the road to drink coffee or tequila. Others held their meetings on the road to decide on the new headman for the neighbourhood or to determine the price of a donkey. Others drove their donkeys through the crowd, walking next to the heavily loaded beast of burden; others sat in the saddle. Children played in the gutter, and still people walking could use the road to get from one place to another.

"Such roads were built for people. Like any true commons, the street itself was the result of people living there and making that space liveable. The dwellings that lined the roads were not private homes in the modern sense - garages for the overnight deposit of workers. The threshold still separated two living spaces, one intimate and one common. But neither homes in this intimate sense nor streets as commons survived economic development.

"In the new sections of Mexico City, streets are no more for people. They are now roadways for automobiles, for buses, for taxis, cars, and trucks. People are barely tolerated on the streets unless they are on their way to a bus stop. If people now sat down or stopped on the street, they would become obstacles for traffic, and traffic would be dangerous to them. The road has been degraded from a commons to a simple resource for the circulation of vehicles. People can circulate no more on their own. Traffic has displaced their mobility. They can circulate only when they are strapped down and are moved...."
Silence is a Commons, Ivan Illich, 1982
The Spartan Superway team at San José State University is designing a mobility system that separates humans (+pets, deer, kangaroos…) from machines. The team of mostly mechanical engineering students is applying basic physics to design a mobility system that is intrinsically safe: "No two objects can occupy the same place at one time." (At the quantum level, it's called the Pauli Exclusion Principle.) Paying attention to fundamental physics beats the electric vehicle (still a car), the autonomous vehicle (still a car, friendly to the machine and hostile to the human), the bus (a car on steroids), light rail (slicing communities in half), "Safe Streets" (pure rhetoric), "Complete streets" (Would you drop your child off to daycare at a lions den?!), PR campaigns (edutainment trumps physics?), and laws against drunk driving (after the fact). 

Kids playing under the Spartan Superway

Transportation equity is the bicycle, unencumbered by life-threatening monsters on the streets.

Rise above!!


Saturday, July 31, 2021

Hold anyone responsible for starting the fires accountable

A couple days ago I heard on BBC News that Turkish officials promised to "Hold anyone responsible for starting the fires accountable." I was lucky enough to track down a video on Reuters with captions that confirmed what I had heard on the radio. 

Turkish officials promised to hold anyone responsible for starting the fires accountable
Mert Ozkan, July 30, 2021, Reuters

Where do we place the blame when the atmosphere belongs to all of us and we all contribute in some way to the accumulated emissions of CO2 (methane, etc.) which have driven the world to this beleaguered state of siege by Mother Nature. This can get downright personal. A week ago I was on the smokey edge of the Dixie fire in the Sierra Nevadas. My host was accommodating 4 fire refugees whose homes were on the fire's path. I'd like to know who's responsible for starting that fire, since we're sleuthing anyway. 

The responsibility could be framed this way:


The oil companies are responsible. Oh, you bought gasoline from one of those actors? What is your standing, then?

Percentage of Global CO2 emissions by country

The industrialized countries are responsible. Oh, you live in one of those big polluter countries/regions? What is your standing, then? 

2000 World-GHG-emissions Sankey Flow Chart  by WRI

The transportation, electricity, industry, and agriculture sectors are responsible.  Oh, you work in or interact with some of these sectors? What is your standing, then?  

If we all confess to the Turkish officials, where could they find enough judges, courtrooms, and jail cells? 

There must be better ways to tackle these crimes. How about following the example of Whatcom County in Washington State?
"Whatcom County has been a fossil fuel hub for years, but its council just banned new fossil fuel activity. It could be a game-changer."

Local commitments make a lot of sense. 

Sunday, June 20, 2021

First we bail out Detroit – then we bail out the oil patch

Channeling Leonard Cohen on Father's Day...

... Well, it's Father's Day, and everybody's wounded
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin

This week's US rig count is 470; a year ago it was 266 (having plummeted from over 900 at the beginning of 2020). That 470, a far cry from what it was before Covid, is a harbinger of high prices and gas lines like 1973. It's just a matter of time. 

Meanwhile, back in Washington DC...

First we bail out Detroit

Millennials are buying fewer cars and cities around the world are banning cars from their central districts; Covid motivated people to work from home and drive less. Seeing all these looming threats to the automotive market, Biden et al are on a roll to bail out Detroit with a big push for electric cars (not sustainable with fossil-fuel-intensive manufacturing, but still a well-meaning friendly gesture to corporate America and union jobs). 

But what can governments do for the oil patch?

Then we bail out the oil patch

Here comes the IEA's get-off-oil report on the threat of uncontrollable climate change, the Dutch court ruling against Royal Dutch Shell on climate issues, and the ExxonMobile board of directors fight to bring about a response to climate change. 

Imagine that most intelligent oil company leaders know full well their days are numbered with peak oil breathing down their necks. Now all of a sudden they have a cover story: climate change. Under that smoke screen (literally), they can carry on with all kinds of shenanigans. For starters, governments can now begin subsidizing them to get off oil and into renewables.

There may be other ways to scoot down the slippery right-hand slope of the Hubbert curve without killing civilization, but this one just might get enough votes for all of us to squeak by.

Friday, February 28, 2020

Consider your sources

There are conflicting views about nuclear energy vs. renewables in the climate debate. Is nuclear energy safe? Are there sufficient resources and time for renewables to scale up to meet demand as nuclear and fossil fuels are rapidly curtailed? Does nuclear encourage profligate energy use? Is the nuclear industry offering a Faustian bargain to climate restoration advocates?

These may all be useful questions, but there's one overriding concern that affects everyone.

Stable governance

Is there a globally effective government (whether a superpower acting unilaterally or all governments in concert as "united" nations) that has demonstrably kept all nation-states and powerful private interests accountable to clean up the radioactive "waste" from nuclear power plants?
"As of the first quarter of 2019, 162 units are globally awaiting or in various stages of decommissioning... Overall, only 19 reactors, with a capacity of 6 GW, were fully decommissioned ... only 10 have been returned to greenfield sites... 
"When analyzing decommissioning policies, one needs to distinguish between the process itself (in the sense of the actual implementation), and the financing of decommissioning...." [The World Nuclear Industry, pg 158-159]
Since radioactivity lasts a long time, is there a robust global government that has maintained stability for several thousand years? No? Well then, it would seem that one more nuclear power plant in the hands of the current club of despots is very risky business (not the least of which is the American nuclear superpower's own home-grown "very stable genius").

Speaking of unsavory characters... the Kock brothers weigh in

Renewables are criticized for using more land than fossil fuels or nuclear power (for example, in The Footprint of Energy: Land Use of U.S. Electricity Production). It turns out that the publisher of this report, Strata Policy Institute, gets it support from incumbents with an agenda:
"In 2016, the Charles Koch Institute contributed $1,677,500 to Strata" [Energy and Policy]
Now that's not to say their data is entirely wrong, but by publishing independently, they are thereby not under the same rules as academic publications which respectfully require conflict of interest statements.
 
When you connect the dots, it gets easier to understand what's going on:
Correcting Anti-Renewable Energy Propaganda
"... Renewable energy gets cheaper each year, nuclear power gets more expensive each year — how come they still adamantly claim that renewables are not a cost-effective way of decarbonizing?

The answer, of course, is that the studies are flawed. Taking a look at these studies shows that several patterns can be observed in many of these studies. Among these flaws are ridiculous overestimates of storage requirements, overestimates of grid expansion needs, and the insistence on uneconomical strategies of storing electricity, such as insisting on batteries to store several weeks worth of grid electricity consumption.
James Hansen

It is strange to find someone so gifted as James Hansen caught up in this drama.

We can be thankful for Hansen's monumental contributions to climate awareness. That said, he wrote a bizarre opinion piece 6 years ago, "Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power and Galileo: Do Scientists Have a Duty to Expose Popular Misconceptions?" In this piece, Hansen tackles "Energy misconceptions" (meaning, his views on renewables, as if he were the arbiter who knew what he was talking about). Unfortunately, his understanding of the technology and its applications is limited and his assumptions are far off the mark.

For example, has he scrutinized his cohorts when he joined a presentation with Michael Shellenberger at COP23, in a session titled "Nuclear Power? Are Renewables Enough?" 



Shellenberger has been on the take from the nuclear power industry for a long time. He bolsters his creds by weaving a grand story of his conversion from solar. In this presentation, Shellenberger concludes his remarks by invoking the weight of a rock star, Sting:



The very idea that Shellenberger would manipulate his audience on matters of engineering and physics by quoting a celebrity whose credentials are limited to having once sung a song, "Nuclear Waste," is plainly fraudulent. Furthermore, Sting advocates for "massive amounts of power" which completely misses the point. What we need is good engineering, to do more with less and stop trying to power a brute force fossil fuelish world with nuclear. We need an elegant new energy system which directs sophisticated energy to where it's really needed. 

(At the end of the steam era, locomotives were typically only 6% efficient; a few reached 12%. Diesels came along at ≈20% efficiency and put steam locomotives out of business. Would we now go back and use solar energy to power a steam locomotive? With electric motors at more than 80% efficiency, we can find better ways to move things.)



Consider your sources.


Monday, February 24, 2020

Can we wean ourselves off fossil fuels?

In that light, a new energy policy editorial ("opinion") just came to my attention, which offers the opportunity to address a gross misunderstanding that prevails in the political community. Here's the article:
In turn, that article makes reference to this list of supposedly great ideas for energy policy:
Now then, let's tease this apart...

Looking at the first article, here's the sweetener (to butter you up as the reader for what's next):

"To begin with, fossil fuels will remain essential since they are plentiful, easy to find, extremely efficient, easy to transport and generate thousands of jobs.

And here's the "clincher," the absurd statement by the "opinionator" ......

"To think we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels any time soon is a pipedream..."

A "pot calling the kettle black," he is the dreamer:
  • We aren't likely to "wean ourselves off fossil fuels". Especially in the overextended USA, fossil fuel "production" (actually _extraction_) is likely to collapse — drop like a stone — because of the limits to Mother Mature's endowment (long story, happy to show you details later);
  • As climate change impacts accelerate, humanity may be forced to abandon fossil fuels. Maybe Americans will be clueless, but Europeans, Chinese and Indians may move so quickly that they will be putting pressure on Americans within the next 5 years or so.
So here's what's going on. Consider the author of the first diatribe -- "Jerry Haar is a professor of international business at Florida International University and a global fellow of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C." Well, first of all, his PhD is in Political Science, not engineering or science, and secondly, what do you make of the scientific prowess of the pretentiously named Wilson Center?
While it might be hard for the layman to understand what's going on with the second article, you have the advantage of starting with what I told you yesterday. Do you think there is a chance that _any_ of the 10 initiatives spelled out, now before Congress, arrived there without bias ... and with an eye to correct the egregious wrongs of the past? I'll leave that for you to dig into. Just looking at who is behind these and who is benefiting would be a great exercise to take on. You can look directly into the search paths I've given you here.

And that leads you to my article, which I referred you to yesterday, available in either of these two libraries (both the same):
Stated differently,
  
http://www.energycrisis.com/swenson/


Sunday, February 23, 2020

Thin is in!

You ask about the adequacy of natural resources for a solar future. It's a good question.

Sunshine is diffuse; we can be very glad for that. Otherwise we would burn to a crisp, of course. The further advantage is that it is universal. Even the Swedes have sunshine ... or I wouldn't be here. Somehow my ancestors managed to thrive in a climate where there was little or no sunshine for months at a time in the winter. (They used solar energy exclusively. We can be at least as smart as our ancestors, don't you think?!)

So how do we handle diffuse energy sources? We use thin energy receptors. It's that simple. I was prompted to post this today when I saw a news article that explains it well:
Speaking of thin, I suggest you watch this long video which explains in a very compelling manner how ideas are formulated out of thin air and then propagated as if they were real:
Solar electricity is so magical that people have a hard time getting their heads wrapped around it. Skeptics with an agenda can have a field day with it because so few people have an idea how it works. (Did you know that Einstein got his Nobel prize, not for relativity (e=mc^2) but for the photoelectric effect, what we now call photovoltaics?!

Saturday, February 22, 2020

More about Windows

A note from a friend raised an important point:
The most efficient solar is the sun warming things, right?

That is not how Title 24 thinks, which can drive up energy use. Basically Title 24 assumes outside inputs are bad and the way to manage temperature is to seal a house from the outside - and as efficiently as possible use energy inside. This is based on a lifestyle assumption – that you need to live at a constant temperature. If you are OK with letting the sun in to heat your home and having temperature vary by 10º or 15º over the course of a day Title 24 works against you by limiting glass area while mandating sun blocking windows and roof insulation that prevents internal solar gain.
Yes, he's right and that's a long story. The good news is that Title 24 offers the alternative of demonstrating performance compliance through good design.

So you can hire folks who know what they're doing and prepare calculations which show compliance.  Here are a couple of short web pages explaining the basics:
The most challenging detail to grasp is the Solar Heat Gain Coefficient. Window manufacturers don't want to confuse people with too much information, so they train their sales forces to promote "one size fits all" and for God's sake, don't let the sun come in and fade your drapes and furniture!

So if the customer says "energy conservation," they will get low-e glass (good insulation) with the standard _low_ solar heat gain—which works well on the southwest or west sides of the home, but for windows on the south, very little heat will come in during the winter when it's needed.

You can read glowing reports (such as US DOE's Energy Star propaganda) that will confuse you even more. So instead, here are a couple of articles (one from Canada where there are 4 seasons) explaining why you will want to specify the high solar heat gain coefficient on your south-facing windows:
All the more reason to know your home's compass headings... North-South, East-West.

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Responding to climate emergency with a sense of agency

I thought I had misread the statement below, written and submitted to me today by one of the fellows in the Spartan Superway who has just graduated and is considering his next move:
"As a young person, [I see] all projections point to catastrophic climate destabilization in my lifetime. It has never been more critical to have a sense of agency about carbon emissions."
Don't you mean, "a sense of urgency"?

Oops, au contraire, he meant just what he wrote: a sense of agency "is the subjective awareness of initiating, executing, and controlling one's own volitional actions in the world...."

Can we really afford to invest a scarce minute of our precious time to better engineer fossil fuel use? If not us, who can deliver a turn-it-around solution for our children's sake? What might happen if we just say no to coal?

Are we young enough to care about their (our) future?
"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now-w-w-w."
                                                                 My Back Pages, Bob Dylan

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Cities are ruining our cars

An article in Verge claims that "Self-driving cars are on a collision course with our crappy cities" as if to say cities are ruining the possibilities for our fancy new self-driving cars.

¡No! Au contraire, cars are ruining our cities! Letting Google be the driver won't change that. In fact, it could get much worse.

Consider the author's statement of the obvious: "[R]ide-hailing apps like Uber and Lyft, are shockingly creating more traffic problems than they are curing," as if to say this fact could somehow be fixed if cities would only do things differently.

¡No! An on-demand taxi service carrying one passenger will deliver less than 1 person per vehicle-mile (km) by definition: the back seat has to be empty ("dead-head") en route to picking up the fare-paying passenger. 

Friday, January 6, 2017

Fossil Fuel Free Nations

Several nations have declared their intent to become fossil-fuel-free. In this post you can find websites and news articles with more details about this international movement.
NOPEC The theme of Non-Oil, Power-Exporting Countries ("NOPEC") was first presented online in 1989:
Several papers about NOPEC and the goal of 100% renewable energy have been presented at ASES and ISES conferences, and in Solar Today magazine since that time:
Several organizations have been helping to organize international commitments to 100% renewable energy:

Saturday, October 29, 2016

The Wall. How Tall?

The Donald wants to build a wall and he wants them to pay for it.

What a pity. If they pay for it, they will own it. If they own it, they will make billions!

The Donald wants to give away all the profits that could have been destined for America. And he wants to build it 30-40 feet high. That's to be expected from a man who thinks small, but there's little profit to be made in such a limited and limiting project.

Let's be ambitious. Let's build a wall 30-40 stories tall, from Tijuana / San Diego to Matamoros / Brownsville, something like this: 

Linear City architecture by Gilles Gauthier
Linear City architecture by Gilles Gauthier
We're talking about 1,989 miles (3,201 kilometers) of linear city.

This is not a new idea...

Roadtown, 1910
"I would take the apartment house and all its conveniences and comforts
out among the farms by the aid of wires, pipes and of
rapid and noiseless transportation."
Edgar Chambless, Roadtown, 1910

And there's plenty of support for the idea, including City Mayors from around the world.

Along the Rio Grande, it could look like this...

Arcosanti along the Rio Grande by Paulo Solari
Arcosanti
Paolo Soleri
Now what does this have to do with solar nations? Well, take a look at this ...

Map of Mexico South of USA South of Canada

As you can see from the map, Mexico is south of the USA. So all the offices, shopping centers, condos, and podcar networks on the Wall will face south — from one end to the other.

Windows South from the Anasazi Mesa Verde to George Washington Thomas Jefferson
... and properly sized overhangs will shade the south-facing windows
from the high summer sun.
(See more at the Windows South website.)
Now you might ask how everyone in a high rise can have south-facing windows. Aren't half of the units going to face north?

Nope, not if we take Michael Graves' approach:

Michael Graves design
Grounds for Sculpture, Michael Graves
(YouTube)

... which was modeled after Unite d' Habitation in Marseilles, the architectural scheme originally developed in 1952 by Le Corbusier:









... in which all units had both south and north façades.

You can learn more by exploring the Four Donkey Method of Bioclimatic Design.
Plus there will be Solar Skyways running continuously along the entire route, eliminating the need for Mexican Oil ... or oil of any sort, for that matter.

And Solar Powered General Transportation's podcar platoon

Conclusions?

The election hasn't happened yet, so the future of "the wall" is to be determined. For now, I can say this much:
  • The expansion of a border wall is ludicrous – and an environmental disaster to boot. 
  • On the other hand, more livable border cities? Well that might be worth further consideration.
  • Solar-oriented buildings (along the border or otherwise) will bring greater comfort and reduce border tensions.
  • Solar transportation will help the energy transition (whether in linear cities or where you live now).
  • Good design can give bright, sunny, comfortable living spaces featuring functional, effective south and north facades.
  • If, in order to pass through the border, you must have dinner with someone living in the linear city, then people on both sides will become better neighbors. 
Let's build solar powered cities, along the border and beyond!

Sunday, June 19, 2016

The US DOT-Advocacy or monopoly?

We have a lot to think about...
An Act in Relation to Removal of Obstructions to Navigation in the Mouth of the Mississippi River
"What a vast field would the exercise of this power open for jobbing and corruption! Members of Congress, from an honest desire to promote the interest of their constituents, would struggle for improvements within their own districts, and the body itself must necessarily be converted into an arena where each would endeavor to obtain from the Treasury as much money as possible for its own locality.  The temptation would prove irresistible."

President Buchanan's veto message, February 1860
Eight presidents have proclaimed foreign oil to be an enemy.



The US Department of Energy has a "sustainable transportation" program within its EERE Office. Is there money for sustainable transportation within that program?

Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies$105 m
Bioenergy Technologies279 m
Vehicle Technologies468 m

What do you think?

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Disruption is 10X – Innovation is 2X

In Silicon Valley we hear a lot about innovation. It is the mantra for entrepreneurs, managers, engineers, educators, even our local politicians.

Disruption >> Innovation

What's a little harder to see is disruption to the entire order. We are so used to change in Silicon Valley that we don't always see how fast a complete transformation shifts into place ... or what it takes for that shift to happen.

Since I first heard Bucky Fuller explain the essential discipline of doing more with less, shifting from "fossil fuels" to renewable energy has been the obvious answer for me. I still regularly encounter skepticism, but that's normal for those of us who act upon the pressing need for clean energy.

One person who has done an excellent job of articulating this need and the opportunity it represents is Tony Seba [video]. He calls it Clean Disruption [slide deck]. Clean disruption goes far beyond clean innovation. Echoing that sentiment in the context of becoming Solar Nations, it's high time for humanity to make an about-face, to abandon fossil fuels, not only because it's necessary but also because it's more effective, and more economical ... by far.

Tony sees the big picture. It's not hard, after all. Here's how he laid it out for transportation in his presentation (slide #70):

3D - Clean Disruption of [Transportation]
©2016 Tony Seba
Well, if you look closely, you will notice that he has actually drawn vehicles for a 2D world where the configuration driver is still rubber tires on asphalt (a variation on the theme of fossil fuels, a substance that breeds potholes in the end). And the Law of Conservation of Momentum still holds, dictating that sooner or later, energy efficient, asset utilizing, autonomy capable cars will still bump into things. (Ouch!) And because of that, they can't go very fast, either. They gotta watch out for people and things on the ground.

In the modern 3D city, transportation will soon become 3D too, something like this:

The Solarevolution™
Come the Solarevolution, solar-powered, automated, non-stop, elevated podcars will run on high strength steel lasting 10X longer than asphalt -- and cheaper. The pods will weigh 10X less than Teslas. (They don't have to carry lots of heavy batteries and be built like tanks to protect their occupants.) The pillars will require 1000X less land area than cars, freeing up the ground level for human activity.
4D - Clean Transportation
(with apologies to Tony Seba)
Ooops.... Excuse me while I make a little adjustment...
Ahh, that's better.
So now we have room in our cities for people, pets, pedals and petals!
4D Transportation as if people mattered

And travelers win too. Because elevated vehicles can't hit people, the passengers in podcars zooming overhead will get to where they're going much faster.

Now that's what I call disruption!

(Clean, too!)

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Energy Storage Innovation

With the emergence of electric cars, much attention is being focused on battery innovation. And yet there are many other innovative energy storage technologies which have better performance than batteries, especially at small to medium (microgrid) scale and at large grid scale. Here are some of those, at various levels of innovation and commercialization.

Gravity Energy Storage

Pumped hydro, a long established energy storage technology
Gravity Power
Advanced Rail Energy Storage (ARES), "Gravity Train"

Compressed Air Energy Storage

LightSail
Underwater Compressed Air

Closed Cycle Heat engines

Isentropic, hot rocks
TerraJoule, hot water






Saturday, September 26, 2015

Streets are the Commons

Recently I was invited to watch a TED Talk by a passionate social reformer. She spoke first about "changing and controlling the narrative."

I propose a new narrative for transportation planning: Streets are the Commons.

Searching for some local indicators of passionate concern for protecting children on streets, I came across this recent article which reminded me of the process of education that was contrived when cars first invaded cities a century ago.* Here we are in the 21st century with incredible technology at our fingertips and urban transportation officials are still designing policies which ignore the laws of physics** and instead depend upon clever advertising to educate thoughtless drivers, to compensate for their inability to design a transportation system that is intrinsically safe:
Will “Little Nudges” Slow Drivers Down to New NYC Speed Limit?

"... an ambitious campaign to reduce the city’s 4,000 annual pedestrian injuries and 250 deaths through citywide strategies that include stricter enforcement and safer design...

“It really emphasizes the vulnerability of the human body to vehicles,” Williams says. When the firm tested their concept on focus groups, she says, drivers showed a marked change.

This method has left street users in harm's way for a century. Instead of depending on educating fallible drivers, imagine educating engineers to design a transportation system with attention to the law of conservation of momentum** — a system that separates two-ton machines in motion from people on the ground where they rightfully belong, maybe something like this:

A roller coaster above people at Gröna Lund in Stockholm



Imagine a city where people on the ground can safely coexist with machines moving above. Pedestrians and bicyclists will thrive and travelers will speed non-stop to their destinations twice as fast as cars, buses and street cars inching their way from stoplight to stoplight.


* See Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City (Inside Technology) by Peter D. Norton
"Before the advent of the automobile, users of city streets were diverse and included children at play and pedestrians at large. By 1930, most streets were primarily a motor thoroughfares where children did not belong and where pedestrians were condemned as "jaywalkers." In Fighting Traffic, Peter Norton argues that to accommodate automobiles, the American city required not only a physical change but also a social one: before the city could be reconstructed for the sake of motorists, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where motorists belonged. It was not an evolution, he writes, but a bloody and sometimes violent revolution. Norton describes how street users struggled to define and redefine what streets were for. He examines developments in the crucial transitional years from the 1910s to the 1930s, uncovering a broad anti-automobile campaign that reviled motorists as "road hogs" or "speed demons" and cars as "juggernauts" or "death cars." He considers the perspectives of all users--pedestrians, police (who had to become "traffic cops"), street railways, downtown businesses, traffic engineers (who often saw cars as the problem, not the solution), and automobile promoters. He finds that pedestrians and parents campaigned in moral terms, fighting for "justice." Cities and downtown businesses tried to regulate traffic in the name of "efficiency." Automotive interest groups, meanwhile, legitimized their claim to the streets by invoking "freedom" -- a rhetorical stance of particular power in the United States. Fighting Traffic offers a new look at both the origins of the automotive city in America and how social groups shape technological change."
** The amount of momentum object 1 gains from a collision is the same as the amount of momentum object 2 loses. The total momentum remains the same.


Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Is solar energy intermittent?

Once Bucky Fuller told a story about being at MIT, talking to some of the brightest people in the world. There he asked to see hands: would anyone deny that the sun rises every morning? Of course there were no hands. Then he pointed out that they were all wrong — we have known for centuries, if not millennia, that the earth spins; the sun is constant. In the morning as the Earth revolves the sun into seeability, we experience sunsight.

The other day I chanced upon a TED Talk by Bill Gates, Innovating to zero (zero carbon, that is). When he got around to renewables, he said "these are intermittent sources."

Genius in a box!
Life emerged from the deep because the Earth spins on its axis, generating thermodynamic processes. Substances pulsing between hot and cold eventually captured the flux and complexified, surfing at the margins as it were. A planet with one side always facing its sun is a dead planet.

We can be thankful that the sun gives us respite every night, time to cool off and reconsider the wisdom of Bill Gates.

I am more interested in hearing what engineers have to say about all this. Good engineering starts with a clear understanding of the constraints. I for one am ecstatic that our Sun's energy is constant and the Earth spins. I can design accordingly.

Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers. If trees can make it through the night without burning fossil fuels, so can we.

Immediate not Gradual Liberation from Fossil Fuels

In 1824 Elizabeth Heyrick published a pamphlet in England arguing for "Immediate, not Gradual Abolition." Respecting her genius, in like fashion I propose Immediate, not Gradual Liberation from Fossil Fuels.

In 1824 the cry went out — Oh, we must be practical and do it gradually. Let's simply stop kidnapping and shipping slaves from Africa to the West Indies (the dirtiest side of the business). But Elizabeth Heyrick persevered, others joined her cause and the transformation was made rapidly and peacefully

What can be gradual about a leap across the divide?

In the USA it wasn't so easy. Instead of switching to machines delivering by then kilowatts of power tirelessly, as was the case in the northern states, southern masters continued to use slaves producing 100-200 watts of power. A war ensued, entangling masters, slaves and soldiers in abject suffering, with repercussions persisting to this very day.

In like fashion the quest for fossil fuels has already led to untold suffering, entangling millions of people in violent oil wars, since World War I. In World War II, Hitler invaded Russia to conquer the Caspian Sea: "Unless we get Baku oil, the war is lost." And oil wars persist without respite.  

The burning of fossil fuels is transforming the atmosphere and the oceans. The earth's atmosphere and oceans have changed before; the earth will survive. But will humans? Will we move directly now to the age of electricity? Will we continue to fight over oil? Will humanity's old friend Fire transform the atmosphere until we won't even be able to breathe? 

And I can hear the cry going out — Oh, we must be practical. We must preserve our way of life. Some climate change activists will say we must avoid burning coal (the dirtiest side of the business) but burning natural gas is sorta okay. 

But is that so? Who has sufficient understanding to unequivocally guarantee that humans can continue to test Mother Nature's limits without consequences?

If we follow the example of Elizabeth Heyrick's profound courage, there are only two possible futures for humanity and fossil fuels — get off or die off.

With quiet, clean, safe, low maintenance, economical renewable energy technology reaching maturity in the marketplace, it's an easy choice to make.

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Spartan Superway 4

Building on the achievements of San José State students over the past three years, forty San José State Mechanical Engineering students have just joined the Spartan Superway project, together with several more including several grad students working in Solar Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Software Engineering. A new blog has been created to showcase their progress over the course of the 2015-2016 academic year. You can check it out at SpartanSuperway.Blogspot.com.

The new students have a solid foundation of work upon which to build. In addition to the previous three years of effort, this past summer nineteen engineering students from Brazil, South Korea, Sweden and France joined a handful of California students from San Jose State, Carnegie Mellon and UC Davis to continue developing the Spartan Superway.


Students and mentors from 5 countries in front of their flags
at the Spartan Superway Design Center
just a couple blocks from San José State
You can check out the earlier student work at the INIST Library.

Welcome to the new members of Spartan Superway 4!

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Spartan Superway in the News

Here are some news articles about Spartan Superway at Intersolar in July and Maker Faire in May.

2014-07-15  Automated Transit Network (ATN) at Maker Faire 2014
An interdisciplinary team of engineers, industrial designers, urban planners, and business students are designing a paradigm-breaking, sustainable transportation system - the Spartan Superway. The Superway is a solar-powered automated transit network (ATN) that has potential to significantly impact urban transportation. 

2014-07-11  Spartan Superway showcases sustainable transportation
The Spartan Superway special exhibit at Intersolar North America demonstrated practical applications of PV in the transportation industry. Students and faculty from San Jose State University showcased their futuristic transportation system, which utilizes solar power to move compact, fully automated vehicles along above ground steel rail system. The concept is designed to maximize efficiency by ensuring cars only accelerate and decelerate between stops once. The system generates 1 MW per mile of track, moving the vehicles close to 40 miles per hour to the occupant’s destination. Faculty staffing the booth explained the advantages to the system.

2014-07-10  A Little Trouble And A Lot Of Hope At The Spartan Superway Project:
The Spartan Superway Project is a multi-disciplinary team of student engineers, designers and urban planners at San Jose State University. The group envisions cities where on-demand, elevated transport alleviates traffic congestion and gets people to destinations faster – and all of it would be powered by renewable energy.

2014-07-08  New Innovations Shown at Intersolar Conference in SF
The sun can move lots of things -- like one day, a public transit system.

"And move people with the energy that they're sitting underneath," said Inist.org project manager Sam Ellis.

Here, it's not just about making more power, but using less.

"You don't want to have rubber tires on an asphalt road," Ellis said. "You want to have steel wheels on a steel rail."

2014-05-10  SJSU students to unveil their innovative solar-powered Automated Transit Network design at upcoming Maker Faire
In an interdisciplinary effort, San José State University engineering, business, design and urban planning students are determined to revolutionize transportation with their new Spartan Superway, a 100 percent solar-powered Automated Transit Network (ATN), using driverless podcars. The ATN project was first motivated by a solar design challenge proposed by the Institute of Sustainable Transportation (INIST) two years ago, to help cities move toward a more sustainable future.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Beyond Fire, Insurance

The term conservative has more than one meaning. In politics, conservative means "disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."

In risk assessment and decision-making, conservative means: "cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate."

Another consideration is that risk can be asymmetrical. The likelihood that buying fire insurance will bankrupt you is very low. But even though the probability that your house will catch fire is very low, if you don't have fire insurance and your home does burn down, your finances will be in shambles.

There is a fire alarm wailing – people in the know are telling us that climate change will lead to unprecedented chaos. We have been alerted that the fire danger today is extreme. But does the fire brigade even hear the siren? You realize, of course, that losing a planet is far worse than losing your home. A house can be replaced, but good planets are hard to find. (They're scarce and few.) It is highly unlikely that humanity could find another one if ours burns up.

Compared to the asymmetrical risk asssociated with lighting the match that would destroy our planet's experiment in consciousness, the cost of insurance is obviously negligible, even if it turns out to be a full time task for every human being on the planet to put out the fire.

A yardstick against which climate change has been measured is global temperature, influenced in turn by CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. Another yardstick is the acidity of the oceans.

What if we create a better world for nothing?A politically conservative response might be to leave well enough alone: "... disposed to preserve existing conditions..."

For effective risk assessment and decision-making, on the other hand, clearly the conservative estimate would mean to err on the side of doing too much.

In 1824, Elizabeth Heyrick (1769-1831) wrote a pamphlet, "Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition." Her appeal was the first public voice that dared to challenge the notion that abolition must, by its very nature, be gradual and measured. A few years later, one bloody war and the Emancipation Proclamation put slavery to rest.

Many suffered under slavery. Continuing to use hydrocarbons as energy is a death sentence for all. This is a call for immediate, not gradual transformation from illicit energy to renewable energy. Ground transportation can be solar powered. We must prove that it can be done and expand it rapidly to alleviate the suffering inherent in climate change.