Crowd Sourced Carbon Free Energy
Combating Climate Change via Massive Inductive Distribution of Crowd-Sourced Energy Generation and Discharge
|
Raanan Liebermann [11]
Abstract Addressing the debate over whether climate warming is a natural phenomena and refuting it, we examine new forms of clean energy, their impacts and drawbacks, culminating with the introduction of research results for a new, paradigm-shift technology for combating and resolving the climate change situation. The paradigm-shift centers on collecting clean energy rather than directly generating it, where the public at large affects its indirect generation and distribution as an authentic crowd-sourced clean energy. The essence of the technology entails capturing wasted mechanical energy during vehicle mobility, converting it to electrical energy in the vehicle and discharging it to designated external collectors forming a modern distributive electric grid. Further analysis follows, presenting its over all benefits that go beyond clean energy and covers economic benefits and global utilization, as well as the practical levels, enabling the successful activation of this technology. |
|
Introduction
We are witness to an alarming and foreboding situation of an approaching global calamity, where the first perilous signs are already seen in the melting of the glaciers, rising sea levels, starved polar bears and other unique animals, due to the effect of global warming. While a political debate continues as to the validity of a foreboding prediction for our planet, there exist evidence to the effects already established. With almost general acceptance of the factual climate change, the debate over its validity has evolved to whether it is a natural stage in climate cycles that has been occurring over millennia or the result of human making in the footsteps advent of the industrial revolution.
We will briefly examine both assertions, contrast one school of thought and then proceed to consider new solutions and their efficacy and drawbacks, culminating with new developed paradigm-shift technology that seems to have no drawbacks, while at the same time answering several other beneficial needs, including the provision of beneficial economic implications. Namely, this new technology that will be introduced as crowd-sourced green energy has implications reaching beyond clean energy generation and supply. This technology can also be extended to crowd-sourced green energy storage, providing a solution to storage issue of capacity versus cost. It could also be a cornerstone for the future type of electric grid required, due to reasons including infrastructure sustainability, when large quantities of energy are generated, such as by solar or wind farms amidst shifting local demands.
The Debate over the cause of Climate Change
As has so eloquently been presented by Tom Goreau[1], Data mapping of the entire Arctic coast done repeatedly on a monthly basis by satellites during the recent last 30 years is evidentiary of the decreasing sea ice. While periodic fluctuations of increase and decrease of some one million square kilometers are evident, the declining trend of the sea ice is unmistakably a cause for concern, indicating a trend of climate warming. Pointing to a single period of "momentarily" warming and ignoring the cumulative evidence of the total trend is methodically inappropriate, as well as misleading the public to a false sense of security from the foreboding calamity, if change is not brought about in time. Further corroboration of such general evidence can be found in the measured long term Arctic, as well as Antarctic temperatures over thirty years ending in 1990, proving an ongoing warming trend. The melting of the ice covering such large territory is not only a sobering proof to climate warming, but also an accelerating agent in further warming of the climate. Such accelerating effect is due to the fact that while ice reflects back to space the warming rays of the sun impinging on it, the melted ice now in its liquid form, absorbs the warm rays, resulting in further heating, causing more ice melting and an accelerating cycle is increasing the heating effect. The fraction of the solar short wave radiation reflected from Earth back to space is highest when it hits ice, but absorbed by water and trees that are heated.
So far, one could argue, it points to a natural phenomenon of solar energy being behind such warming processes. However, when considering greenhouse emissions that are clearly of our own making, the picture turns grim. Namely, the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is the highest it has been in the last 3 million years. The question therefore is, whether such 3 million years are not just a segment of the global cycle occurring in such large span of time cycles. It will clearly become apparent, when looking at the rate of increase of greenhouse gasses compared to the past. There are three major components to the greenhouse gasses; Carbon dioxide, Methane and Nitric oxide. All the three show the largest increase in our time compared to the past. According to some sources[5], more than 34 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released each year in our time, where the major contributors in carbon dioxide emissions tend to be largest in the world industrialized countries[5]. Methane gas has 25 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, and according to some scientific theory, was a major contributor to natural global warming in its cycles, noting that its major sources are the permafrost in the polar regions and ocean hydrates escaping into the atmosphere. The nitric oxide emission however, cannot be attributed to any past natural activities and is more ominous since it has long atmospheric lifetime of 120 years and its global warming power is 310 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The rude awakening to us all, is the fact that burning fossil fuel is a contributor to its prevalence. Since other contributors to its prevalence are produced naturally by a variety of biological sources in soil and water, we turn our attention to the comparison of the prevailing amounts over a period of time that includes the industrial revolution. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, being the leading international body for the assessment of climate change, global average of atmospheric concentrations of nitric oxide in the last 250 years (between 1750 to 1998) grew 16%, whereas in the last decade alone it grew 2.5%, which means, several times more than before the industrial revolution and some of its following initial years that according to the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee took place between 1760 and 1840. It goes without saying, that the warming contributors to the global warming appear unmistakably to be attributed to man-made activities. We would refer henceforth to green or clean energy, that is void of all these three substances.
Turning our attention next to technical solutions for reducing greenhouse emissions, beyond reduction of such causes by cessation of use, an inconsistent approach is noted. Namely, the mere activation of such alternative green energy usage may also contribute to greenhouse emission, as can be seen in the production of electricity for charging electrical vehicle batteries. We examine the inconsistency, view other already existing new methods and their impact on the environment as a whole that should cause us taking a pause before their total embrace. Optimistically though, we turn our attention to a new paradigm-shift promising future technology, appearing to provide total encompassing benefits.
Electricity generation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, followed by transportation [3], and it is that major contributor to greenhouse emissions that has the potential of undergoing a comprehensive change with the new technology, while eliminating the traditional form of electrical generation from fossil fuel.
With the advent of electric vehicles becoming more prevalent, wherein the electric grid is utilized for charging their batteries, the inherent negative elements are being ignored. The United States is not alone in such greenhouse contribution, directly related to the recharging of electric vehicle batteries, adding to the total worldwide, net emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities to at least 35 percent increase in the last 20 years, making the new technology described below, applicable worldwide, let alone urgently desired.
New Technologies of Clean Energy Generation
Examining current implemented and exercised solutions for combating climate change, we recognize three major efforts. (a) Electric Batteries (EV) ; (b) Solar Energy; (c) Wind Energy. We will consider each of the three methods, as to their potential impact on reducing green house gasses, as well as their general impact on the environment.
(a) Electric Batteries.
Electric battery does provide the energy needed for vehicles to operate and even the current issues of finding sufficient plug-in locations for recharge may be on its way for an acceptable solution. Further, the high price of such batteries should drop with increase usage, so it's just a matter of time.
However, right from the outset, the solution to reduce greenhouse gas by utilizing electric batteries, should give us all a pause, as it appears to be a disillusioned solution for the following reasons.
Usage of electric batteries for cars, requires charging the batteries after their energy depletion with car usage. However, it takes more fossil fuel to generate the energy for the vehicle's battery, than the greenhouse gas emitted by the vehicle operating on fossil fuel. Then, a few years down the road of usage, the electric battery needs to be discarded and replaced by another EV, because the electric battery contains electrodes that erode with usage. The discarded batteries contain electrolytes that sip into the ground. The net result therefore, appears to be that we added more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and on top of it, we harm the earth soil with the discarded batteries. Namely, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pointed out in its 2013 report that nickel and cobalt that are both also used in the production of lithium ion batteries, also represent significant additional environmental risks[6]. Further, a 2012 study titled “Science for Environment Policy” published by the European Union ranked lithium as the worst in greenhouse gas emissions with up to 2.5kg of CO2 emitted per kg of battery[6]. Also, the Okopol, Review of the European List of Waste[7] remarked about the recycling problems of lithium because it ends up in landfill due to very low collection rates. Thus, the EV solution does not appear to constitute an attractive solution to combat climate change.
(b) Solar Energy.
We will ignore for a moment, the important drawbacks to solar energy technology, such as poisonous hydrofluoric acid and sodium hydroxide ingredients, used in solar panels that can leak into the environment and damage it[8]. Such drawbacks can be fixed with different choice of ingredients and do not constitute inherent problems that we will encounter below.
Economically, solar energy solution appears ideal, since besides the installation costs that are amortized over time, it constitutes cost free energy that does not contain any greenhouse gasses. However, as has been so eloquently described in the article by Yonat Eshchar[8], such operation cannot be isolated from the environment a whole, since it requires reception from the sun being the energy source. Such exposure attracts to it ecological elements, such as insects attracted to the warm beams of energy. Obviously, due to the high temperature of the concentrated sunlight beams, such insects are incinerated, making them ideal feed for birds. Unfortunately, birds seeking to feed on the incinerated insects are instantly burned when entering such a heat inferno. It is estimated[9] that in such environment of the Ivanpah Solar plant that started feeding the California Grid in 2014, obtaining its energy for its turbines from solar energy, some 6,000 birds are incinerated every year, albeit the responsible and commendable efforts taken by the plant to discourage birds access to the dangerous ambient air around the plant's beams. It's importance goes beyond humane considerations, as birds are essential element in the survival[10] of our ecosystem, by spreading nutrients across different habitats. As such, solar energy does not appear to be a suitable solution, in spite of its advantages.
(c) Wind Energy.
Wind farms, constituting of wind turbines present an even more formidable danger to the ecosystem, where birds and bats are considered. Birds during the day and bats during the night become a fatality when they get caught by the fast rotating blades of the turbines, as well as the pressure differences caused by it[14],[4]. At least 20,000 birds a year become a fatality to this energy generating technology. Once again, such a solution is far from ideal.
The New Promising Technology.
It appears therefore, that any one of the listed renewable energy systems is flawed in its total environmental offering. An alternative to combat climate change that is beneficial to the environment under all aspects is presented below, together with its added economic benefits, which appears to constitute a paradigm-shift in energy generation and distribution. The technology utilizes some of the very same protagonists occurring in EV, although in a different manner.
In a nutshell, the essence of this new technology, elaborated below, entails the generation of energy by mobile vehicles that is crowd-sourced to the electric grid.
Under the laws of physics, when a force is exerted on any object, an equal force is exerted back on the original exerting cause. A mobile vehicle, be it a car, truck, or a train exerts force on the road, or rails, upon which it travels and the road or rail impacts force back on the vehicle. Since the wheels rotate rapidly, a vehicle absorbs such impacts from the road, several hundred times per minute. Vehicles use springs and dampers, so that passengers would not feel the impacts. Namely, this is wasted mechanical energy. The new developed technology does not manufactures energy, but rather captures that mechanical energy[15] and through specialized developed contraptions in the vehicle[16], converts it to electrical energy. Such contraptions can either be constructed in new models of vehicles, or be built as add-ons to existing vehicles. Since the salvaged mechanical energy is not directly related to the energy mobilizing the vehicle, there is no violation of the laws of physics in the resulting electrical energy generated from the converted salvaged mechanical energy, being larger than the amount of energy the vehicle needs for mobility. Therefore, the surplus energy is housed in special storage that can receive and emit the energy almost instantaneously. Alternatively, a second electric battery or multiple smaller capacity electric batteries can be charged either from the electric grid or from the generated energy in the vehicle and shuffled appropriately to provide the needed mobilizing energy for the vehicle.
After the resulting electrical energy is temporarily stored in the vehicle, comes the subsequent step of discharging it to external collectors. Such external collectors are composed of the same storage technology utilized in the vehicles, enabling rapid charge and discharge of electricity by vehicles with such installed technology, passing in their proximity. Such vehicles recognize such recipients of energy and automatically discharges the extra energy housed in their temporary storage. The external collectors move the energy to sub-stations that can feed the electric grid. The designated areas for the external collectors may be next to traffic lights, stop signs, parking lots next to shopping areas, toll booth stations on the highways, etc. Since beside the installation cost and routine maintenance, the generated energy does not cost any money, the owners of the vehicles receive monetary remunerations as incentives for the few seconds of their slowing down during the discharge operation and recognition of their contribution.
The technology therefore is Crowd-Sourced Carbon-Free energy that the electric grid can now sell to the industry and homes, which it obtains at competitive cost to the purchase and operation of fossil fuel needed to generate electric energy. There are already several patents pending for the technology[15],[16] and one patent was already allowed.
Specific Detail
The new technology for capturing and converting clean energy as crowd-sourced has five major steps to it.
Step I: The Alternative Energy Capturing and Generation
Step II: Local Energy Storage
Step III: Crowd Energy assembling
Step IV: Energy Discharge by Crowd to intermediary collectors
Step V: Transfer from the intermediary collectors to customer distributive systems
We will first describe the steps, then discuss the economic viability of the various options, arriving at an economic viable solution for all.
Step I: The alternative energy is generated by individual vehicles, while being mobile. The mobility occurs due to at least one of the following systems, which could operate singularly or in combination with at least one of the others. Namely, the vehicles can be propelled by either: existing combustion engine; the water-carbide combustion engine (new technology)[15]; the systems based on Newton third law in physics, utilizing the force exerted on the vehicle in motion by the road on which it travels (new technology)[15]; mobility due to enhanced axle rotations (new technology)[15]; the Two-Stroke Superconductors (new technology)[15]; or piezoelectric plates (new technology)[16]. The new technologies for the alternative energy generation systems are patent pending, where the Two-Stroke superconductor system patent has already been allowed.
Step II: The generated energy may be partially used for full mobility or assisting mobility with other existing system, such as combustion engine or electrical battery, whereas the rest is stored in an on-board storage facility. The current choice for the storage facility are Supercapacitors or Ultracapacitors residing in each vehicle. The choice for supercapacitors indicates those made of Graphen, and even better, Hemp Supercapacitors, due to the rapid charge and discharge quality that will be discussed in Step IV below.
Step III: The energy generated in each vehicle and discharged to external collectors is assembled in a collective collector system, with a marker for each contributor and the amount of each individual contributor. The assembling system itself is described below.
Step IV: The energy discharge to intermediary holding stations via collectors may be through traditional conductive plugs into electrical sockets or preferably via conductive capacitance, with no physical contact between the energy dissipating device and the external collectors. The latter system can be utilized for massive collection of stored energy and the system for it will be discussed below.
Step V: The intermediary energy holding stations are positioned in a relative close proximity to external energy collecting systems. Energy for customer utility may be provided either directly to adjacent customers, such as residents in the premise of discharge, or to such customers as merchants close to a parking lot where energy was transferred from vehicle to the intermediary holding units. The major amount of energy deposited through the massive collection system is moved to customers upon demand, since the massive collection system is part of the national electric grid operated by such entity as the U.S. Energy Supply (designated entity not yet functional) comprising utility member entities of the electric grid. Thus, the massive collection system is comprised of energy holding facilities, secondary distribution to endpoint customers and a record keeping system that accounts for energy contribution of individual vehicles.
|
The Massive Collection System
Since the amount of energy generated, as described in Step I is not insignificant, the economic question arises as to whether the cost for such energy storage systems for each individual vehicle is economically sustainable for the individuals purchasing the vehicles, or the add-on technology for their existing vehicles, when rapid discharge is mandated, let alone size and weight components. The cost for storage systems has been declining significantly in the last several years, but even so, with a storage potential of some 200 kWh every 4 hours for vehicles traversing the national highway system, it would amount to some $20,000 for a storage unit, even at $100 per kWh storage facility. Even an unrealistic proliferation of such storage devices would not bring down their price drastically enough in a timely fashion to warrant their installation in vehicles and a different approach is warranted. To this end, The Massive Collection System (TMCS) has been developed, which is described next. TMCS is based on the merging of three technologies. (1) Graphen or Hemp Supercapacitors that can discharge massive amounts of energy within single digit seconds; (2) the technology that enables to discharge via inductive capacitance transfer; (3) Local Distributed Substations. Apart of the economics, there is the issue of added weight to the vehicle on account of the storage unit, that weighs some 10 Kg per 1.2 kW storage, which would translate to over a ton and a half for the 200kWh storage discussed. Obviously a realistic different solution is required which is presented next. |
|
The issue to resolve, is the appropriate reduction of the supercapacitance amount stored and weight reduction, without diminishing the amount of energy that can be carried around in the vehicle for sufficient distribution to the holding facilities. Yet, all that, while capturing the maximal energy possible from the generating mobile vehicles. The following utility for discharge and distribution provides the solution.
The Distributive Discharge System
Each vehicle will be equipped with a Hemp Supercapacitor, where we limit the storage capacity to only 40.366 kWh of the alternative energy generated, resulting in an added weight to the vehicle of 625 kg (1375 lbs.) on account of the supercapacitor. Before proceeding with the description of the system, a brief comparison to current electric batteries in vehicles, shows them to be heavier and more expensive. Namely, Tesla Model S battery weighs 4,464 lbs., while the Supercapacitor in the proposed system weighs only 1,375 lbs. and Tesla Model S battery can cost between $16,200 to $24,300 per battery, whereas the proposed Supercapacitor estimated cost is some $4,037.
The reason we cut down on the Supercapacitor size, capacitance and cost, is due to our shifting away the cost element from the consumer, because of our ability to generate the energy while in motion, and not depending on lengthy charging time and the need to hold significant amount of energy for mobility purposes.
The last segment of the design pertains to the structure and system for providing green energy generated for public consumption. To balance out the relatively small energy housed and without sacrificing the large amount of energy needed nationally, the following cost effective mechanism and utility is outlaid.
The U.S. Grid Supply
We start with the outlay of the system, followed by a realistic and satisfying economic model. The system presented below for the U.S. can be duplicated to other areas as well.
The System Outlay
Based on the rapid discharge time of the hemp Supercapacitors, the plan calls for innervating the National U.S. Highway system with segments of energy collectors. The 47,856 miles of the U.S Highway system will be divided into 1914 collection segments, allowing stored energy collection from vehicles passing by or over those segments. The speed of vehicles over these segments, each of which will be less than a quarter of a mile long (about 1/16 of a mile) will be reduced to 25 mph, by artificial and /or legislative means. This will allow drivers of vehicles to slow down to 25 mph for about 10 seconds every half hour of driving, assuming an average speed of 50 mph on the highway. In urban areas, collectors may be placed next to stop signs, traffic lights, and parking areas.
Local Distributed Substation
The collected green energy from passing vehicles, discharged by inductive capacitance at highways or urban energy collection segments, is directed to substations in proximity to the discharge area. The energy is converted at the substation to high voltage and transmitted to end users in the locality, or transmitted to the nearest substation receiving high voltage from the electric generating companies for standard use. A proposed central U.S. Grid Supply handles the Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) for the substations and their integrative elements with the existing electric power distribution system, making it an integral part of the electric grid. In essence, the new technology also enables a restructuring of the electrical grid to a modern distributive system in lieu of the older and currently overloaded electrical grid system.
The Distributive Discharge System
Each vehicle will be equipped with a Hemp Supercapacitor, where we limit the storage capacity to only 40.366 kWh of the alternative energy generated, resulting in an added weight to the vehicle of 625 kg (1375 lbs.) on account of the supercapacitor. Before proceeding with the description of the system, a brief comparison to current electric batteries in vehicles, shows them to be heavier and more expensive. Namely, Tesla Model S battery weighs 4,464 lbs., while the Supercapacitor in the proposed system weighs only 1,375 lbs. and Tesla Model S battery can cost between $16,200 to $24,300 per battery, whereas the proposed Supercapacitor estimated cost is some $4,037.
The reason we cut down on the Supercapacitor size, capacitance and cost, is due to our shifting away the cost element from the consumer, because of our ability to generate the energy while in motion, and not depending on lengthy charging time and the need to hold significant amount of energy for mobility purposes.
The last segment of the design pertains to the structure and system for providing green energy generated for public consumption. To balance out the relatively small energy housed and without sacrificing the large amount of energy needed nationally, the following cost effective mechanism and utility is outlaid.
The U.S. Grid Supply
We start with the outlay of the system, followed by a realistic and satisfying economic model. The system presented below for the U.S. can be duplicated to other areas as well.
The System Outlay
Based on the rapid discharge time of the hemp Supercapacitors, the plan calls for innervating the National U.S. Highway system with segments of energy collectors. The 47,856 miles of the U.S Highway system will be divided into 1914 collection segments, allowing stored energy collection from vehicles passing by or over those segments. The speed of vehicles over these segments, each of which will be less than a quarter of a mile long (about 1/16 of a mile) will be reduced to 25 mph, by artificial and /or legislative means. This will allow drivers of vehicles to slow down to 25 mph for about 10 seconds every half hour of driving, assuming an average speed of 50 mph on the highway. In urban areas, collectors may be placed next to stop signs, traffic lights, and parking areas.
Local Distributed Substation
The collected green energy from passing vehicles, discharged by inductive capacitance at highways or urban energy collection segments, is directed to substations in proximity to the discharge area. The energy is converted at the substation to high voltage and transmitted to end users in the locality, or transmitted to the nearest substation receiving high voltage from the electric generating companies for standard use. A proposed central U.S. Grid Supply handles the Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) for the substations and their integrative elements with the existing electric power distribution system, making it an integral part of the electric grid. In essence, the new technology also enables a restructuring of the electrical grid to a modern distributive system in lieu of the older and currently overloaded electrical grid system.
|
The Beneficiaries
1. The Climate without the damaging greenhouse gasses. 2. The vehicle's drivers / owners, being remunerated for their energy contribution. 3. The companies forming the electric grid obtaining green and less expensive energy and possibly revamping the system to a modern distributive one. 4. The economy where beneficiaries are: The vehicle industry. The Supercapacitor industry. Individuals in the labor industry working on highway or urban construction. Technical personnel building the substations (and later managing them). |
|
The Economics
The economic factors of major relevance are the added cost per vehicle due to the installed technology and the cost of highways and urban infrastructure where inductive collectors are embedded in it or otherwise constructed along side to it. There is also the cost of transporting the generated energy from the holding storage next to the highway and urban areas, which is left to be undertaken by the electric utility companies that will obtain green energy at a fraction of their current cost to generate electricity using fossil fuel. The electric utility companies under the proposed U.S Grid Supply would be able to transport the energy to customers in areas that are in close proximity to the highway and urban sections where energy was initially collected from passing vehicles, or other designated areas at their prerogative. This could also be a base for revitalizing the electric grid as a host of distributive local nodes.
As was already noted, the cost of the supercapcitors amount to some $4,000 per vehicle, which is less than the $12,000 cost of the current electric vehicle battery. If we take the most expensive electric generating components in the vehicle that convert the free mechanical energy, being the new technology of piezoelectric transducers plates[16], utilized for converting the mechanical energy from the road to electrical energy, it is likewise still inexpensive. Each piezoelectric unit costs less than $1.00, thereby the populated plates amount to approximately $2,000 together with the controller per vehicle. Thus, the add-on technology to the vehicle would be price competitive to equivalent constructs in existing electric vehicles, even as add-on components, let alone in a new vehicle construct. Other developed new technologies for converting the mechanical energy to electrical energy in the mobile vehicle, mentioned before[15],[16], are much less expensive.
It appears therefore that the major cost for utilizing the technology, amounts to the infrastructure installations on the highways and in urban areas. The expense for such installations in urban areas can be amortized, being covered by local jurisdictions that can be reimbursed over time from a fraction of the low price paid by the utility companies receiving the energy. The calculations and monetary transactions would be handled by the centralized proposed entity of the U.S. Grid Supply. However, the expense for highways installations is not insignificant and amounts to some $18.5 billion in highway installations. Such a figure could be financed by the federal government, which is not unrealistic, when it is realized that currently the U.S. Federal government subsidies solar energy infrastructure expense to the tune of $39 billion, which is more than twice the cost of the proposed project. However, as will be seen below, there is another path to such financing, resulting from solid business decisions.
Practical Stages for Increasing Vehicle Contribution of Energy
It makes sense from practical aspects, to start with the vehicles capable of contributing more energy than others. However, such vehicles should be able to house also larger amounts of energy, carry substantial more weight and the cost of larger storage capacity should be relatively commensurate with their overall cost, in line with what has already been shown above. To this end, it makes sense to start with multiple-axle vehicles, and in that group to focus first on fleets belonging to specific entities. Namely, there are some 15.5 million trucks in the United States, ranging from 2-axle vehicles to 11- axle vehicles.
The 15.5 million trucks in the U.S comprise 2 million tractor trailers. Statistics from Truckinfo.net related to 2006, shows that "the transportation industry logged 432.9 billion miles. Class 8 trucks accounted for 139.3 billion of those miles". Namely, the class 8 tractor trailers are 33,000 to 80,000 lbs, with 5 to 7 axles. That means the potential for generated energy per a 5-axle truck with 10 piezoelectric plate-modules, is 122.29 kWh. Assuming an average 50 mph speed per tractor trailer, then if not for the economic storage consideration we discussed, there is a theoretical generation of 340 billion kWh, or 0.3 billion MWh, which is not an insignificant amount, being 7.69% of the 3.9 billion MWh electrical needs of the U.S.[12]. However, realistically we need to consider the storage, and as such, the amount of usable energy produced will be smaller.
The proposed incentive to the vehicle drivers of 1.6 Cents per kWh of green energy generated, may seem insignificant from the outset. However, the operating ratio estimate for the trucking industry is 95.2, which means that for every dollar of revenue, the trucking company has a burden of 95.2 Cents, leaving only 4.8 Cents profit for every dollar. Contrasting that with the amount to be received from the energy generated, we have the following:
Assuming a Class 8 (5 axle vehicles) traveling at an average 50 mph and traversing 12.2 miles per consumed gallon, which at the current (2016) cost of $2 per gallon amounts to 4.098 gallons per hour at a cost of $8.19.
With 122.29 kWh generated during such time at 1.6 Cents per kW, it amounts to $1.95, which is 23.8% of the current amount that would be spent for fuel during that time. However, with the alternative energy generation from at least one of the sources mentioned in Step I, being also utilized for mobilizing the vehicle, the total amount credited to the vehicle becomes $8.19+$1.96 = $10.14 net per hour for a single Class 8 truck.
The class 8 trucks cover 139.3 billion miles a year and at an average of 50 mph that means 2.78 billion hour drive. With 12.2 miles per gallon, and assuming $2.00 per gallon of diesel, it translates to a net revenue of 2.78 billion hours time $10.14, or $28.189 billion. This is no longer an insignificant contribution to that industry, which is a strong incentive to install and operate the new technology.
Statistics on average operating cost in 2008, according to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) indicated that the average cost per mile was $1.73 per mile and $83.68 per hour. Considering the proposed new technology, it appears to be over 12% reduction in such cost, for the Class 8 trucks alone. Further, as already noted, estimates of operating ratio is 95.2. This means that for every dollar in revenue the trucking company has a cost of 95.2 cents. Leaving the company with a profit of 4.8 cents of every dollar. Thus, it appears that by incorporating the new technology, their profit margin would be quadrupled.
Therefore, with such incentive to the trucking industry, it stands to reason, starting initially with installation of the new technology in the 3.46 million Class 8 trucks in the U.S, which would provide enough monetary incentives even without the need for the government subsidizing such installations.
The energy to be produced a year by the 3.46 million Class 8 trucks in such a starting stage is 122.29 kWh times 2.78 billion hours yielding 0.33996 Billion MWh, which is 8.7 % of the U.S consumption of electrical energy.
The next group under such reasoning will be the remaining 12.04 million trucks on the U.S. highways logging 8.658 billion hours a year, assuming an average 50 mph for the 432.9 billion miles covered a year. The energy to be generated by these 2-axle trucks amount to 0.718 billion MWh, or 18.4 % of the U.S. consumption of yearly electrical energy. Thus, the total energy to be produced by the trucking industry will amount to 27.1 % U.S. consumption of electrical energy.
Next will come the rest of the 240.5 million vehicles in the U.S. with 2 axles each, logging 3,873 billion miles, which we'll assume to be at only 30 mph, yielding 129 billion hours. This translates to 6.31 billion MWh generated by this group, which together with the generation by the trucking industry amounts to 7.36 billion MWh, which surpasses the 3.9 billion MWh of electricity needs in the U.S.
It is noted that the presented plan calls for starting with the trucking industry, even though it would produce much less electricity than the general public segment. However, the basic surmise is based on the assumption that it would be easier and much faster to start with organized entities, such as the trucking industry, which would also serve as a model to follow by the rest of the population.
Another point worth noticing, is that that generation of electricity by the tracking industry alone, amounts to 27.1% of the electrical consumption needs in the U.S., whereas it appears[13] that the sum total of all other renewable sources amounts to only to 14.9%.
Exporting Crowd-Sourced Clean Energy and Other Usages
The remainder of decarbonized energy generated after usage in the U.S. could be transported to underdeveloped nations, or countries that do not have large fleets of vehicles to enable appropriate magnitudes of such clean energy generation. Such future transported energy could be done by utilizing magnetic field transport through space, or variably laser beams to space stations redirecting the return energy to the designated location [however, additional research is required for such utilization].
The presented new technology in this manuscript, can operate in tandem with other energy producing technologies, such as solar energy and wind farms. However, this new technology has benefits surpassing such current known methods, and in a way can also augment them as is discuss next.
Solar energy generation has an inherent problem of forced inability to generate electricity during the night, while wind farms likewise cannot produce energy when there is no wind blowing. Solution for such situations suggest in first blush, storage of portions of energy produced for usage at such time of production inability. However, economic storage technology has not kept up with such demands and a different economic solution is desired.
To this end, the new technology of crowd-sourced clean energy is a viable solution, where energy generated and discharged by vehicles as crowd-sourced, could be transported from the external collectors to locations that also include locations energized by solar and wind farms, during the times they are inoperable. Further, the technology enables such energy producing vehicles, to be "refused" of discharge to external collectors, such as when an external collector is in temporary full capacity and has not yet further transferred its load. In such cases, vehicles maintain their produced energy to full capacity until a signal is received by their own controller, based on a cue from an external collector providing permission to discharge. Thus, such vehicles turn to become also crowd-sourced storage facilities that can be used when appropriate. Therefore crowd-sourced storage facility in vehicles is economically sound, inexpensive, and can be made available from local vehicles at times of inactive solar energy generation, as well as also provide energy to wind farms customers during times when no wind is blowing.
On the economic side, since the above presented technology and calculations yield more than the needed electrical needs of consumption in the U.S., it also leaves room for variations in the basic assumptions presented, potentially leading to a more economical arrangement of factors. For example, a reduction in the size and thereby cost of the storage facility on individual vehicles. Thus, the above presentation should be considered as an initial concept presentation, being subject to evolution and advances in engineering.
The economic factors of major relevance are the added cost per vehicle due to the installed technology and the cost of highways and urban infrastructure where inductive collectors are embedded in it or otherwise constructed along side to it. There is also the cost of transporting the generated energy from the holding storage next to the highway and urban areas, which is left to be undertaken by the electric utility companies that will obtain green energy at a fraction of their current cost to generate electricity using fossil fuel. The electric utility companies under the proposed U.S Grid Supply would be able to transport the energy to customers in areas that are in close proximity to the highway and urban sections where energy was initially collected from passing vehicles, or other designated areas at their prerogative. This could also be a base for revitalizing the electric grid as a host of distributive local nodes.
As was already noted, the cost of the supercapcitors amount to some $4,000 per vehicle, which is less than the $12,000 cost of the current electric vehicle battery. If we take the most expensive electric generating components in the vehicle that convert the free mechanical energy, being the new technology of piezoelectric transducers plates[16], utilized for converting the mechanical energy from the road to electrical energy, it is likewise still inexpensive. Each piezoelectric unit costs less than $1.00, thereby the populated plates amount to approximately $2,000 together with the controller per vehicle. Thus, the add-on technology to the vehicle would be price competitive to equivalent constructs in existing electric vehicles, even as add-on components, let alone in a new vehicle construct. Other developed new technologies for converting the mechanical energy to electrical energy in the mobile vehicle, mentioned before[15],[16], are much less expensive.
It appears therefore that the major cost for utilizing the technology, amounts to the infrastructure installations on the highways and in urban areas. The expense for such installations in urban areas can be amortized, being covered by local jurisdictions that can be reimbursed over time from a fraction of the low price paid by the utility companies receiving the energy. The calculations and monetary transactions would be handled by the centralized proposed entity of the U.S. Grid Supply. However, the expense for highways installations is not insignificant and amounts to some $18.5 billion in highway installations. Such a figure could be financed by the federal government, which is not unrealistic, when it is realized that currently the U.S. Federal government subsidies solar energy infrastructure expense to the tune of $39 billion, which is more than twice the cost of the proposed project. However, as will be seen below, there is another path to such financing, resulting from solid business decisions.
Practical Stages for Increasing Vehicle Contribution of Energy
It makes sense from practical aspects, to start with the vehicles capable of contributing more energy than others. However, such vehicles should be able to house also larger amounts of energy, carry substantial more weight and the cost of larger storage capacity should be relatively commensurate with their overall cost, in line with what has already been shown above. To this end, it makes sense to start with multiple-axle vehicles, and in that group to focus first on fleets belonging to specific entities. Namely, there are some 15.5 million trucks in the United States, ranging from 2-axle vehicles to 11- axle vehicles.
The 15.5 million trucks in the U.S comprise 2 million tractor trailers. Statistics from Truckinfo.net related to 2006, shows that "the transportation industry logged 432.9 billion miles. Class 8 trucks accounted for 139.3 billion of those miles". Namely, the class 8 tractor trailers are 33,000 to 80,000 lbs, with 5 to 7 axles. That means the potential for generated energy per a 5-axle truck with 10 piezoelectric plate-modules, is 122.29 kWh. Assuming an average 50 mph speed per tractor trailer, then if not for the economic storage consideration we discussed, there is a theoretical generation of 340 billion kWh, or 0.3 billion MWh, which is not an insignificant amount, being 7.69% of the 3.9 billion MWh electrical needs of the U.S.[12]. However, realistically we need to consider the storage, and as such, the amount of usable energy produced will be smaller.
The proposed incentive to the vehicle drivers of 1.6 Cents per kWh of green energy generated, may seem insignificant from the outset. However, the operating ratio estimate for the trucking industry is 95.2, which means that for every dollar of revenue, the trucking company has a burden of 95.2 Cents, leaving only 4.8 Cents profit for every dollar. Contrasting that with the amount to be received from the energy generated, we have the following:
Assuming a Class 8 (5 axle vehicles) traveling at an average 50 mph and traversing 12.2 miles per consumed gallon, which at the current (2016) cost of $2 per gallon amounts to 4.098 gallons per hour at a cost of $8.19.
With 122.29 kWh generated during such time at 1.6 Cents per kW, it amounts to $1.95, which is 23.8% of the current amount that would be spent for fuel during that time. However, with the alternative energy generation from at least one of the sources mentioned in Step I, being also utilized for mobilizing the vehicle, the total amount credited to the vehicle becomes $8.19+$1.96 = $10.14 net per hour for a single Class 8 truck.
The class 8 trucks cover 139.3 billion miles a year and at an average of 50 mph that means 2.78 billion hour drive. With 12.2 miles per gallon, and assuming $2.00 per gallon of diesel, it translates to a net revenue of 2.78 billion hours time $10.14, or $28.189 billion. This is no longer an insignificant contribution to that industry, which is a strong incentive to install and operate the new technology.
Statistics on average operating cost in 2008, according to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) indicated that the average cost per mile was $1.73 per mile and $83.68 per hour. Considering the proposed new technology, it appears to be over 12% reduction in such cost, for the Class 8 trucks alone. Further, as already noted, estimates of operating ratio is 95.2. This means that for every dollar in revenue the trucking company has a cost of 95.2 cents. Leaving the company with a profit of 4.8 cents of every dollar. Thus, it appears that by incorporating the new technology, their profit margin would be quadrupled.
Therefore, with such incentive to the trucking industry, it stands to reason, starting initially with installation of the new technology in the 3.46 million Class 8 trucks in the U.S, which would provide enough monetary incentives even without the need for the government subsidizing such installations.
The energy to be produced a year by the 3.46 million Class 8 trucks in such a starting stage is 122.29 kWh times 2.78 billion hours yielding 0.33996 Billion MWh, which is 8.7 % of the U.S consumption of electrical energy.
The next group under such reasoning will be the remaining 12.04 million trucks on the U.S. highways logging 8.658 billion hours a year, assuming an average 50 mph for the 432.9 billion miles covered a year. The energy to be generated by these 2-axle trucks amount to 0.718 billion MWh, or 18.4 % of the U.S. consumption of yearly electrical energy. Thus, the total energy to be produced by the trucking industry will amount to 27.1 % U.S. consumption of electrical energy.
Next will come the rest of the 240.5 million vehicles in the U.S. with 2 axles each, logging 3,873 billion miles, which we'll assume to be at only 30 mph, yielding 129 billion hours. This translates to 6.31 billion MWh generated by this group, which together with the generation by the trucking industry amounts to 7.36 billion MWh, which surpasses the 3.9 billion MWh of electricity needs in the U.S.
It is noted that the presented plan calls for starting with the trucking industry, even though it would produce much less electricity than the general public segment. However, the basic surmise is based on the assumption that it would be easier and much faster to start with organized entities, such as the trucking industry, which would also serve as a model to follow by the rest of the population.
Another point worth noticing, is that that generation of electricity by the tracking industry alone, amounts to 27.1% of the electrical consumption needs in the U.S., whereas it appears[13] that the sum total of all other renewable sources amounts to only to 14.9%.
Exporting Crowd-Sourced Clean Energy and Other Usages
The remainder of decarbonized energy generated after usage in the U.S. could be transported to underdeveloped nations, or countries that do not have large fleets of vehicles to enable appropriate magnitudes of such clean energy generation. Such future transported energy could be done by utilizing magnetic field transport through space, or variably laser beams to space stations redirecting the return energy to the designated location [however, additional research is required for such utilization].
The presented new technology in this manuscript, can operate in tandem with other energy producing technologies, such as solar energy and wind farms. However, this new technology has benefits surpassing such current known methods, and in a way can also augment them as is discuss next.
Solar energy generation has an inherent problem of forced inability to generate electricity during the night, while wind farms likewise cannot produce energy when there is no wind blowing. Solution for such situations suggest in first blush, storage of portions of energy produced for usage at such time of production inability. However, economic storage technology has not kept up with such demands and a different economic solution is desired.
To this end, the new technology of crowd-sourced clean energy is a viable solution, where energy generated and discharged by vehicles as crowd-sourced, could be transported from the external collectors to locations that also include locations energized by solar and wind farms, during the times they are inoperable. Further, the technology enables such energy producing vehicles, to be "refused" of discharge to external collectors, such as when an external collector is in temporary full capacity and has not yet further transferred its load. In such cases, vehicles maintain their produced energy to full capacity until a signal is received by their own controller, based on a cue from an external collector providing permission to discharge. Thus, such vehicles turn to become also crowd-sourced storage facilities that can be used when appropriate. Therefore crowd-sourced storage facility in vehicles is economically sound, inexpensive, and can be made available from local vehicles at times of inactive solar energy generation, as well as also provide energy to wind farms customers during times when no wind is blowing.
On the economic side, since the above presented technology and calculations yield more than the needed electrical needs of consumption in the U.S., it also leaves room for variations in the basic assumptions presented, potentially leading to a more economical arrangement of factors. For example, a reduction in the size and thereby cost of the storage facility on individual vehicles. Thus, the above presentation should be considered as an initial concept presentation, being subject to evolution and advances in engineering.
|
References
[1] Tom Goreau. Long term arctic ice trends and global warming, January 8, 2010; and [2] http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Arctic.htm [3] https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/greenhouse-gasesxxx [4] Michael Hutchins, Wind Energy and Birds, American Bird Conservancy, April 8, 2017 [5] https://www.wunderground.com/climate/co2.asp?MR=1 [6] Bodo Albrecht, How "green" is lithium, December 16, 2014; http://www.kitco.com/ind/Albrecht/2014-12-16-How- Green-is-Lithium.html [7] Okopol, Review of the European List of Waste, Final Report Executive Summary, November, 2008; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/pdf/low_review_oekopol.pdf [8] Yonat Eshchar, Davidson Institute, February 23, 2017 [9] Louis Shagun, Latimes, September 2, 2016 [10] http://www.environmentalscience.org/birds-ecosystem-services [11] Raanan Liebermann, is an Astrophysicist (Oxford Doctorate); can be reached by clicking on Contact Us. [12] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html [13] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 [14] David Biello, Scientific American, August 26, 2008 [15] USPTO Publication US-2009-0267348-A1, October 29, 2009 [16] USPTO Publication US-2010-0270810-A1, October 18, 2010 |
|