More Bad News about Ethanol

[johnnymk]

http://www.reformer.com/ci_6267559?source=most_viewed

Is ethanol the silver bullet that will solve our energy problems?

The raw material used for producing ethanol is corn from the Midwest, so why should we care? As a matter of public policy all of us as taxpayers subsidize the production of ethanol so it is our tax dollars that help meet the cost of producing this gas additive. Beyond that, there are environmental impacts so this is a story about getting it right at the start of a new government fuel-development program.

Prices for corn and the land used to produce corn have all gone up because of the sharply increasing market for corn. Twenty percent of all the corn grown in the United States last year went to ethanol production. Secondary economic effects will soon be felt in the price of food given the large amounts of corn used to feed pork and poultry. That increase will affect families everywhere, including here in our valley.

Will ethanol reduce pressure on the use of fossil fuels and our dependence of imported oil? Ethanol requires an input of 1.75 units of energy to generate 1 unit of energy as ethanol. The source of that added energy at this time is fossil fuels: coal, gas and oil. The future may hold other ways to produce ethanol, but for the intermediate future, ethanol is an energy waster and represents a net loss in terms of climate change. Ethanol also lowers the fuel efficiency of your car since it does not contain the same level of energy as gas.

Along with enticing farmers to till their land to the field edges, the increase in the value of corn has begun to affect farmers who have their land enrolled in the conservation reserve program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Farmers are taking their land out of the program. USDA recently announced it is considering allowing early withdrawal of land from the program with no new enrollments for 2007 or 2008.

The worry here is conversion of grasslands to corn lands with the attendant loss of the wetlands and watery potholes mixed in the grasslands. A significant loss of the wetlands and potholes would damage the duck factory in the upper Midwest. Conservation reserve program improvements in habitat have meant an increase of 2.2 million ducks since the start of the program in 1985.

People involved in protecting the health of our fisheries are concerned about the impacts of ethanol production on the water environment. One gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons of water to produce, either in the corn field or at the factory. The water either comes from surface water withdrawals or is pumped out of the groundwater aquifers that supply the surface waters. Either way rivers lose.

Corn produces an incredible amount of toxic runoff, whether through direct overland runoff or through erosion of soil laden with pesticides and nutrients. The major watersheds in the areas where most corn is commercially grown eventually flow to an expanding 8,000-square-mile area in the Gulf of Mexico that is classified by conservationist Ted Williams as a dead zone, where the lack of oxygen in the water is lethal to just about anything that breathes with gills.

So, the effects of ethanol are to raise food prices, cost taxpayers money to subsidize its production, cause lower gas mileage in our vehicles, cause pollution, reduce habitat for fish, birds and wildlife and use more energy to produce than it gives back. The silver bullet is looking a bit tarnished and we should ask our elected federal officials to be realistic when evaluating proposals for increasing use of ethanol in our gasoline

[InfiniteNothing]

Corn doesn't equal ethanol there are other places to get ethanol other than corn.

[johnnymk]

Corn doesn't equal ethanol there are other places to get ethanol other than corn.

In America currently, that's where the technology is.

[InfiniteNothing]

Currently is the operative word. Ethanol is a long term investment.

[johnnymk]

Currently is the operative word. Ethanol is a long term investment.


Maybe..maybe not. If Americans wise up soon (which I doubt), then they will force Congress to give up on this horrible alternative fuel.

[Napoleon54]

Ethanol is a giant turkey, a load of BS. Corn --> ethanol is extremely wasteful and inefficient for all of the reasons mentioned in this article. But the political benefits of pushing corn are enormous. It is a cheap and simple way to give the appearance of doing something about alternative fuels. The farmers and the states they live in are all for it 'cause it puts cash in their pockets. But this is all for naught because it isn't a viable solution... just one that is politically attractive at the moment. Hopefully the public will wake up to this fact soon.

[zippyjuan]

The outcry will grow as food prices rise more. Milk is already higher with the combination of higher demand and the rising cost of feed (corn) for the cattle it comes from- in many places, higher than a gallon of gas. Want to use soy milk instead? Soy production is down due to more fields being converted from soy to corn. That will also effect your tofu burgers and other tofu products. Meats still haven't gone up that much yet.

Who is benefitting? Few farms are family own or run- most are owned by big corporations who have friends in Washington. Monsanto and DuPont are the top two corn seed providers. Corn production is at its highest level since 1944 and its price is at a ten year high. http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/070627/newamer.html?.v=1 Monsanto's profits are up 71%- mostly from corn. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a29KvIFqfTpY&refer=news

In the last ten years, ethanol production has risen from 1.3 billion gallons (made from 500 million bushels of corn) to over four billion gallons and 1.6 billion bushels of corn in 2006. http://www.ksgrains.com/ethanol/useth.html

The leading producer of ethanol? Archer Daniels Midland by a very long shot- producing one quarter or 1.07 billion barrels last year (out of a reported total of 4.3 billion in this chart). The next largest producer, VeraSun energy Corporation, only made 230 million barrels or about 5.3 percent of the total output. http://www.ethanolmt.org/plants.html I saw an older article that put the ADM share at closer to 40%. ADM receives large subsidies for ethanol production and gives some of that money back in the form of political contributions. Subsadies are estimated to cost taxpayers between five and seven billion dollars a year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/keyraces98/stories/keycash061198.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/business/25ethanol.html?ex=1308888000&en=3db79885d5ce7f34&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
From the New York Times, June 25th 2006:

While farmers are seeing little of the huge profits ethanol refiners like Archer Daniels Midland are banking, many farmers are investing in ethanol plants through cooperatives or simply benefiting from the rising demand for corn. With Iowa home to the nation's first presidential caucuses every four years, just about every candidate who visits the state pays obeisance to ethanol.

"There is zero daylight" between Democrats and Republicans in the region, said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit research policy group in Washington, and a veteran observer of agricultural politics. "All incumbents and challengers in Midwestern farm country are by definition ethanolics."

The ethanol explosion began in the 1970's and 1980's, when ADM's chief executive, Dwayne O. Andreas, was a generous campaign contributor and well-known figure in the halls of Congress who helped push the idea of transforming corn into fuel.

Ethanol can be produced from a number of agricultural feed stocks, including corn and sugar cane, and someday, wheat and straw. But given the glut in corn, the early strategy of Mr. Andreas was to drum up interest in ethanol on the state level among corn farmers and persuade Washington to provide generous tax incentives. But in 1990, when Congress mandated the use of a supplement in gasoline to help limit emissions, ADM lost out to the oil industry, which won the right to use the cheaper methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, derived from natural gas, to fill the 10 percent fuel requirement.

Past Scandal

Adding to its woes, ADM was marred by scandal in 1996 when several company executives, including one of the sons of Mr. Andreas, were convicted of conspiracy to fix lysine markets. The company was fined $100 million. Since then, ADM's direct political clout in Washington may have waned a bit but it still pursues its policy preferences through a series of trade organizations, notably the Renewable Fuels Association.

Some 14 months ago the company hired Shannon Herzfeld, a leading lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. But she is not a registered lobbyist for ADM and said in an interview that the company was maintaining its long-held policy that it does not lobby Congress directly.

"Nobody is deferential to ADM," contended Ms. Herzfeld, who says she spends little time on Capitol Hill.

But ADM has not lost interest in promoting ethanol among farm organizations, politicians and the news media. It is by far the biggest beneficiary of more than $2 billion in government subsidies the ethanol industry receives each year, via a 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit given to refiners and blenders that mix ethanol into their gasoline. ADM will earn an estimated $1.3 billion from ethanol alone in the 2007 fiscal year, up from $556 million this year, said David Driscoll, a food manufacturing analyst at Citigroup.

[And the company may be concerned by the recent statement by Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, who suggested that if prices remain high, lawmakers should consider ending the ethanol subsidy when it expires in 2010. "The question needs to be thought about," he said on Friday.]

ADM has huge production facilities that dwarf those of its competitors. With seven big plants, the company controls 1.1 billion gallons of ethanol production, or about 24 percent of the country's capacity. ADM can make more than four times what VeraSun, ADM's closest ethanol rival, can produce.

Last year, spurred by soaring energy prices, the ethanol lobby broke through in its long campaign to win acceptance outside the corn belt, inserting a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that calls for the use of 5 billion gallons a year of ethanol by 2007, growing to at least 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. The industry is now expected to produce about 6 billion gallons next year.

The phased removal of MTBE from gasoline, a result of concerns that the chemical contaminates groundwater and can lead to potential health problems, hastened the changeover. Now, government officials are also pushing for increasing use of an 85-percent ethanol blend, called E85, which requires automakers to modify their engines and fuel injection systems.

"It's been 30 years since we got a call from the White House asking for the agriculture industry, ADM in particular, to take a serious look at the possibilities of building facilities to produce alternative sources of energy for our fuel supply in the United States," said G. Allen Andreas, ADM's chairman and Dwayne Andreas' nephew.

Now, ADM is betting even more of its future on ethanol, embracing a shift from food processing to energy production as its focus. In April, it hired Patricia A. Woertz, a former executive from the oil giant Chevron, as the company's new chief executive.

While ADM has pushed ethanol, rivals like Cargill have been more skeptical. To Mr. Staley, ethanol is overpromoted as a solution to the nation's energy challenges, and the growth in production, if unchecked, has the potential to ravage America's livestock industry and harm the nation's reliability as an exporter of corn and its byproducts.

Threat to Food Production

"Unless we have huge increases in productivity, we will have a huge problem with food production," Mr. Staley said. "And the world will have to make choices."

Last year corn production topped 11 billion bushels — second only to 2004's record harvest. But many analysts doubt whether the scientists and farmers can keep up with the ethanol merchants.

"By the middle of 2007, there will be a food fight between the livestock industry and this biofuels or ethanol industry," Mr. Basse, the economic forecaster, said. "As the corn price reaches up above $3 a bushel, the livestock industry will be forced to raise prices or reduce their herds. At that point the U.S. consumer will start to see rising food prices or food inflation."

If that occurs, the battleground is likely to shift to some 35 million acres of land set aside under a 1985 program for conservation and to help prevent overproduction. Farmers are paid an annual subsidy averaging $48 an acre not to raise crops on the land. But the profit lure of ethanol could be great enough to push the acreage, much of it considered marginal, back into production.

Mr. Staley fears that could distract farmers from the traditional primary goal of agriculture, raising food for people and animals. "We have to look at the hierarchy of value for agricultural land use," he said in a May speech in Washington. "Food first, then feed" for livestock, "and last fuel."

And even Cargill is hedging its bets. It recently announced plans to nearly double its American ethanol capacity to 220 million gallons a year. Meanwhile, the flood of ethanol plant announcements is making the American livestock industry nervous about corn production. "I think we can keep up, assuming we get normal weather," said Greg Doud, the chief economist at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. "But what happens when Mother Nature crosses us up and we get a bad corn year?"

Beyond improving corn yields, the greatest hope for ethanol lies with refining technology that can produce the fuel from more efficient renewable resources, like a form of fuel called cellulosic ethanol from straw, switchgrass or even agricultural waste. While still years away, cellulosic ethanol could help overcome the concerns inherent in relying almost exclusively on corn to make ethanol and make the advance toward E85 that much quicker.

"The cost of the alternative — of staying addicted to oil and filling our atmosphere with greenhouse gases, and keeping other countries beholden to high gasoline prices — is unacceptable," said Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York. "We have to struggle through the challenges of growing and producing biofuels in the right way."

But the current incentives to make ethanol from corn are too attractive for producers and investors to worry about the future. With oil prices at $70 a barrel sharply lifting the prices paid for ethanol, the average processing plant is earning a net profit of more than $5 a bushel on the corn it is buying for about $2 a bushel, Mr. Basse said. And that is before the 51-cent-a-gallon tax credit given to refiners and blenders that incorporate ethanol into their gasoline.

"It is truly yellow gold," Mr. Basse said.

[Houdini]

Ethanol is a giant turkey, a load of BS. Corn --> ethanol is extremely wasteful and inefficient for all of the reasons mentioned in this article. But the political benefits of pushing corn are enormous. It is a cheap and simple way to give the appearance of doing something about alternative fuels. The farmers and the states they live in are all for it 'cause it puts cash in their pockets. But this is all for naught because it isn't a viable solution... just one that is politically attractive at the moment. Hopefully the public will wake up to this fact soon.

Well stated. CH3OH has one carbon bond. C8H18 has 8. Breaking the bonds releases the energy, and both have pretty low density. So, not even counting the cost of making EtOH however you want to, you'll have to build bigger gas tanks, and you'll still make CO2 and water, just like gasoline. Almost a zero-sum solution.

[gdstark]

I suspect the transportation solution of the future will have the following attributes:

1) fully automated (no human drivers as too inneficient)
2) electric motors (can't beat their efficiency)
3) runs on a rail (99.99% of all travel is across the SAME routes)

So basially something like this:
www.pptproject.com (http://www.pptproject.com)

Getting to this point will be not so much a technical challenge, but a logistical one.

gary

[Jeffbx]

So basially something like this:
www.pptproject.com (http://www.pptproject.com)


Nice idea, but very impractical for the US - we simply have too much ground to cover. I could see this working in a very densely popluated area (assuming everyone can give up the roadways during construction, which I doubt, and assuming EVERYONE in the community trades in their cars in favor of a mini-train, which I also doubt).

[1boogie]

So basially something like this:
www.pptproject.com (http://www.pptproject.com)



This seems like it will work, but what would be the wait time to summon on to your house during high traffic times. Like 7am when everyone is going to work or 5pm when everyone is trying to get home. And this says it is going to be government owned and maintained. That would me higher taxes.

Well there are pros and cons to everything

[gdstark]

Jeffbx,

> we simply have too much ground to cover.

It is indeed a lot of road to cover. But imagine the amount of money it takes just to maintain these roads. Then compare that to the cost of maintaining steel rails. In the long term it would be a savings. It's clearly an idea that works best in urban areas, but that's true with ANY mass transit concepts. And you're right...it would be an inconceivably large logistic effort, but at some point we will have no choice but to make such hard decisions. The current system is not unsustainable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1boogie,

> what would be the wait time to summon on to your house during high traffic times

The wait time is purely a function of how many vehicles you put into the system. Clearly the required maximum is still significantly less than the total number of automobiles owned since most autos are still parked at any given time. And clearly a computer can manage and route vehicles MUCH more efficiently than humans...no tailgaiting, rubbernecking, needless lane changes, etc. That means an equal number of PPT vehicles would use get you from A to B in a much more efficient way than automobiles. And yes, of necessity it would be government owned and maintained.

Excellent observations.

gary
http://www.pptproject.com

[zippyjuan]

When they were talking about extending a trolley line in San Diego, I heard that it would cost about $100 million a mile. How far did you want to run your lines? THen you need rights to the land you want to build it on. Here is a report on estimated costs of running a line from San Diego to a proposed airport site in the desert:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/03/18/news/top_stories/21_08_433_17_06.txt

If leaders were to build an international airport in the desert, it would cost anywhere from $15 billion to $25 billion to construct a high-speed train to transport San Diego County residents to the remote site, a new study says.

The $400,000 study released Friday was funded in large part by a federal grant and tackled by the San Diego Association of Governments, a regional transportation agency. It concluded that a rail line to Imperial County would be technically feasible and overwhelmingly costly.

Some board members for the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority said the price tag was even higher than they had expected.

"SANDAG is basically confirming what our experts have been telling us, that it is a nonstarter," said board member Bill Lynch of Rancho Santa Fe. "The number is just staggering."

The study concluded that, by using Qualcomm Stadium, the Miramar area or the Santa Fe Depot as a starting point, the rail line could move area residents to an Imperial County airport in about 35 minutes, assuming an average of 175 mph, at a cost of $20 per passenger.


Houston estimated their costs to build a light rail syatem at about $50 million a mile- and you know how often estimates for such things tend to be understated.
http://www.ctchouston.org/information/factsheets/lightrailfaq/lightrailfaq.shtml

How much will the Universities line cost to build?

The Main Street light rail line cost about $50 million a mile, including tracks, strete rebuilding, stations, and trains. The entire length of the Universities line is less than 9 miles, so it would probably cost $400-$500 million. METRO will consider costs in its study.


Baltimore paid close to that fifteen years ago- $400 million for 22 miles. http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Balt_Light_Rail.html

[gdstark]

zippyjuan,

If the PPT tracks were to cost as much as lightrail tracks, the project would be dead on arrival. But I don't see that as the case. I watched them install lightrail near my house and was stunned at how large, complex, and SLOW the process was. HUGE overpasses were constructed, including elaborate stations with glass elevators and such. The PPT system is simply not comparable to lightrail.

For starters, no land acquisitions. The public already owns the roadways. And as I'm sure you realize, lightrail is anything but light. These vehicles are massive...more like trains. The PPT vehicles are much more modest. Lightrails also use extensive overhead electrical systems. The PPT electrical system would be built into the tracks instead. The vehicle power needs are such that the "3rd rail" would be non-lethal. And the PPT rails would be mounted atop the EXISTING road surfaces, a HUGE savings.

As I've mentioned, the key to sucess for the PPT system would be managing the transition. You simply cannot allow the streets to be torn up for years like what you see with lightrail. You would need a system where a block of track would literally take only a day or so. It would be much more like mounting prefabricated roller coaster track atop the existing road surfaces, no where near as complex as the process of installing lightrail.

So bottom line...I don't think it's fair to compare lightrail with the PPT. They are very different systems with respect to the rails & installation process.

gary
http://www.pptproject.com

[johnnymk]

Philadelphia already has elevated rails which eventually join into subways in the heart of the city.

But in the suburbs, massive parkng lots would be required at each pickup point for any kind of rail system.

I don't believe that rails will ever be feasible in suburbia or even rural areas. People would still rather spend their time in traffic than wasting their time going to/from a station, trying to find a parkng space, waiting for the train and so on.

[gdstark]

johnnymk,


elevated rails which eventually join into subways in the heart of the city.
There would be very few elevated platforms in the PPT system...they're too expensive and completely unnecessary if you're taking over the existing surface roads. It's important to note the the PPT replaces the automobile rather than supplementing it, rural areas being the only exception.


But in the suburbs, massive parkng lots would be required at each pickup point for any kind of rail system.
The really great thing about replacing the automobile is that all those urban/suburban parking lots, driveways and garages simply go away....converted to parks, etc. The only need for parking lots would be where the PPT system meets the rural roads where traditional transportation was still in use. But even city to city would be covered just fine with the PPT, possibly a piggyback system of some sort for the more distant destinations where additional speed is required.


wasting their time going to/from a station
As far as waiting, the house pickup might take a few minutes, depending on the time of day and what's available, but you would most likely have zero wait times at crowded public places like malls as there would most likely be a "taxi line"...some number of vehicles just waiting for passengers.

gary
http://www.pptproject.com

[johnnymk]

Philadelphia also had tracks embedded in the streets all over the city. There were electric lines above which powered large busses. I believe that they were abandonded years ago, and I don't know the reasons why.

It appears that the PPVs require at least one lane; two would require two lanes. They are small, but could be made larger.

Would congested freeways give up one lane to allow small vehicles like these, even if there were many of them running at the same time? And for safety, there would have to be a barrier between freeway traffic and these vehicles.

On top of this are high maintenance costs, salaries and benefits, insurance, etc.

However, there is still the problem of getting to the pickup point.

Obviously, the entire network would have to be accessible within a short walking distance if it were available city or suburbia-wide. Is this practical where many streets are just barely wide enough to accomodate street parkng plus two way traffic?

This may work in a brand new city starting from scratch. But I don't see any existing city or town able to incorporate something like this on such a grand scale.

[gdstark]

Hi johnnymk,


Philadelphia also had tracks embedded in the streets all over the city.Just for the record, PPT tracks are not embedded, other than where pedestrian or service vehicles cross over.


Would congested freeways give up one lane to allow small vehicles like these, even if there were many of them running at the same time? And for safety, there would have to be a barrier between freeway traffic and these vehicles.It's hard to communicate this, but it's not a matter of sharing the freeways and roads with automobile traffic....the PPT vehicles COMPLETELY REPLACE the automobile. So there is no sharing. And since an automated system would need less lanes (and narrower lanes) than the automobile, there would be space left over which could be used for expanded pedestrian and bicycle lanes where none currently exist.


On top of this are high maintenance costs, salaries and benefits, insurance, etc.Since there are less total vehicles (you only need enough to cover peak usage) and since they are of a uniform design, maintenance costs would be less. Electrical engines are also more reliable than combustion engines (regardless of the fuel). The current cost of maintaining our roadways due to wear by traffic is absolutely astronomical, while vehicles running on rails cause very modest wear in comparison, again saving enormous amounts of money.


However, there is still the problem of getting to the pickup point.The PPT system is door to door.


This may work in a brand new city starting from scratch.Yes, definitely easier if you have a clean slate, but this just isn't the case, regardless of how we ultimately resolve our energy / congestion problem.

gary
http://www.pptproject.com

[johnnymk]

It's hard to communicate this, but it's not a matter of sharing the freeways and roads with automobile traffic....the PPT vehicles COMPLETELY REPLACE the automobile. So there is no sharing.

OUCH!!!

[gdstark]

Yep, ouch is exactly where we're at. The PPT concept may not be the future, but if it's not, I'm not sure what is. Existing mass transit is statistically a failure...nearly nobody uses it other than in the most dense cities. Alternative fuels are junk science, taking too much energy to produce and ultimately doing NOTHING to address congestion. So if not something like PPT, what is the answer?

gary

[johnnymk]

The tracks must be embedded into the surface. One of the main reasons is for snow removal.

Another reason that this concept will not work is that large trucks must be able to deliver their goods to various points. Where will they drive in order to get to their destinations?

Then there is the question of trash pickup, mail delivery, navigation of construction vehicles, specialized vehicles for maintenance of power, cable, telephone, etc, etc, etc.

The current state of technology is that a very light electric vehicle carrying two passengers can only go approx. 60-80 miles on a charge. Add numerous passengers and the mileage will probably reduced to 10-20 miles.

If there is a third rail for constant "ON" power, it will have to be safely embedded into the road surface or installed overhead above the tracks.

There would have to be row after row of tracks to offer the passengers the right to go where they want when they want.

This project has not really been thought out. It is a Pollyanna Point of View (PPV).

[gdstark]

Hi johnnymk,


The tracks must be embedded into the surface. One of the main reasons is for snow removal.There are numerous example of tracks that are not embedded AND kept clear of snow. That reason doesn't fly. What are the others?


Another reason that this concept will not work is that large trucks must be able to deliver their goods to various points. Where will they drive in order to get to their destinations?Yes, specialized vehicles will deliver all sorts of goods, some reasonably heavy, but rails are structurally very strong and that's not a problem. I have examples of these on the website.


Then there is the question of trash pickup, mail delivery, navigation of construction vehicles, specialized vehicles for maintenance of power, cable, telephone, etc, etc, etc.So what's the question? All of these will work just fine via rails. Electric vehicles are actually perfectly suited for vehicles that start-stop constantly as the energy of stopping is preserved.


The current state of technology is that a very light electric vehicle carrying two passengers can only go approx. 60-80 miles on a charge. Add numerous passengers and the mileage will probably reduced to 10-20 miles.An excellent argument for putting the vehicles on rails...you aren't required to carrying your energy around with you.


If there is a third rail for constant "ON" power, it will have to be safely embedded into the road surface or installed overhead above the tracks.48 volts is sufficient to power such a vehicle, yet still not lethal even if touched. This is used in amusement park 'dark rides'. There are several techniques for embedding the electrical into the track itself. It doesn't require the rails to be embedded. I prefer to avoid overhead wires as they're a blight on the skyline...like a spider has taken over the city.


There would have to be row after row of tracks to offer the passengers the right to go where they want when they want.Yes, lots of track, no doubt.


This project has not really been thought out. It is a Pollyanna Point of View (PPV).Let's look at it another way. Do you believe people will still be driving vehicles around in a thousand years? Five hundred? Are you willing to accept that at some point we WILL have an automated system? If you are, the only remaining question is when? And the answer is when the technology supports it. And fortunately, electric cars on rails do NOT require any sort of technological breakthrough...we can do it today. The harder issue is making such a drastic change to our society. But whether we like it or not, change is in our future. Due to energy, congestion, and environment issues, the current system is not sustainable. So I understand that you don't agree with this vision of our future. What is your vision?

gary
http://www.pptproject.com

[Markel]

Remember how the Segway was going to transform urban living? :rolleyes:

[gdstark]

Yup, some inventions succeed, many fail.

gary

[Houdini]

48 volts is sufficient to power such a vehicle, yet still not lethal even if touched.

Could be. Depends on the current. When you get out of your car and touch your door or grab a doorknob and get zapped, that's a minimum of 30,000 volts (the amount required to ionize air at whatever standard humidity and temp.) How much current are we talking? Seems like it would be a lot to move something very heavy. V=IR. Voltage is rather arbitrary. Just potential difference, not power.

H <----wonders why the Segway never caught on. Oh yeah...way too $$, asshats at places that sell them won't let you test drive them, and they make one look like an idiot, somewhat. Though I'd still like to try one out someday, especially that fast ATV one with the multiple keys.

[Jeffbx]

Hi Gary -

I can see you're very passionate about this rail system idea, but (for me, anyway), here are the reasons I don't think it's a feasible idea:

1. EVERYONE must buy into it 100% immediately. Since the rails replace the roads, one day you have cars, the next day you have rails only. How can you convince tens of thousands of people to not only switch their primary mode of transportation, but to give it up entirely? For many people, cars are not just a means to get from point A to point B.

2. How to cover long distances? Now that my car is gone, how do I drive 200 miles to my summer place in rural Michigan? How do I take the kids cross country to Disneyworld? I don't want to unload & reload a weeks worth of personal items every time I stop at a hotel.

3. JMKs comment about service vehicles was a good one. With only one rail through a neighborhood, does everyone just line up behind the garbage hauler as it stops at every house? What about service vehicles that need to stop for extended periods at one location? How about emergency vehicles, like ambulance or firetrucks - how can they take priority?

4. Politically there are huge impacts - SOME of the people who will be negatively affected by this are auto manufacturers, auto dealers, parts suppliers, gas station owners, car washes, auto insurance, etc etc. I certainly support looking at alternatives, but the political impact of putting all of these people out of business at the same time would be staggering. A LONG phased approach would be the only way to offset this.

5. I like my car. I like to keep my CDs & sunglasses in it, and I know where my spare change is. I sometimes like to drive it too fast. I know how much stuff I can cram into it when I go to Home Depot, and how hot it gets when I leave it in the sun. I would have to be forced to give it up - I would not do it voluntarily.

6. It's the 21st century for crying out loud - why in the heck am I not flying or teleporting to work?? (OK, off topic, but I like to throw that in from time to time.)

[VTGreg]

Since electric power is so much more efficient, why can't everyone have their own car that utilizes the rail system? How about magnets? You still have the huge issue of updating all of the existing roads, but I agree the major hurdle in all of the discussion would be getting people to buy into mass transit and give up their own cars.

[Markel]

I can see the real estate closings:

Selling agent: Everything looks in order. The purchase price for your home is $295,000 (plus association fees). With your down payment, that comes to a monthly P&I payment of $2200 (plus association fees). Sign here.

Buyer: That's what I expected...let me take a look at the numbers.

...

Buyer: Wait a minute! It says here my monthly payment will be $4200! What's this monthly fee of $2000 for?

Selling agent: That's the standard "transportation surcharge" associated with the community....

[johnnymk]

I really don't see what problem this solution solves.

It just adds tons of new problems.

And BTW, when it comes to this concept being privately owned, forget it. This would have to be government owned and operated.

[gdstark]

Houdini,

The exact details of voltage, current and such are not really knowable without considerably more research than I can do just creating a website, but here's my guestimate. Say the vehicles are 36 HP, which equates to about 27k watts, which at 48 volts equates to 600 amps. Other variables would be how many vehicles can reside on any given powered segment, etc. Some of this info is a result of discussions with experts on amusement park rides, where non-lethal power is a design requirement. But as I said, the details of the PPT power system would require more research than I could do, given I haven't quit my day job.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Jeffbx,


1. EVERYONE must buy into it 100% immediately.A phased transition is the key. I have an entire page describing the process here (http://www.pptproject.com/transition.html). I actually see this transition as the most difficult aspect of the concept, not the design itself.


2. How to cover long distances?Longer distances between cities would probably require a faster transport, either via transfer or maybe even a piggy-back mechanism. TBD. And there would always be rural areas not covered, so some "traditional" vehicles would still be needed.


3. JMKs comment about service vehicles was a good one. With only one rail through a neighborhood,Whoa...who said there was only one rail through a neighborhood? Not I.


How about emergency vehicles, like ambulance or firetrucks - how can they take priority?Now THIS is where a centrally managed system REALLY shines. It's very easy for a computer to give priority routing to emergency vehicles. And, non-emergency vehicles would automatically be routed OUT of the way. Every vehicle on the grid could essentially respond accordingly, instantaneously. No sirens necessary...


4. Politically there are huge impacts - SOME of the people who will be negatively affected by this are auto manufacturers, auto dealers, parts suppliers, gas station owners, car washes, auto insurance, etc etc. Without a doubt. But of course the PPT system would also CREATE jobs. This is the nature of progress...I'm sure there are less people producing horse-drawn buggies today than there were 100 years ago.


5. I like my car.Very true. I do too. It's a strong argument against an automated system. The only counter is that there are many advantages we would gain in return. The elderly would retain their mobility. No more smog. More parklands, less parking lots. More coffee to drink while riding to work. No road rage. No drunk driving. No auto fatalities (or very few). No speed bumps. If you think about it yourself, you will find the advantages are practically endless. But it is definitely a tradeoff.


6. It's the 21st century for crying out loud - why in the heck am I not flying or teleporting to work??My daughter bought me a shirt with this very saying on it...

---------------------------------------------------------------

VTGreg,

why can't everyone have their own car that utilizes the rail system?You could, but there's a serious downside. Too many total vehicles in operation. And you couldn't allow people to tinker with the operation anyway.


How about magnets?Do you mean maglev?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Markel,

Governments waste is certainly legendary, no doubt. But from a pure engineering perspective the cost & maintenance of 100 automobiles of nearly as many designs, should cost more than the 50 automated electrical vehicles that replace them. The tracks would be a large initial cost, but more economical to maintain.

---------------------------------------------------------------

johnnymk


I really don't see what problem this solution solves.I listed a bunch above in my reply to jeffbx. You haven't answered my question yet...when, if ever, do you expect transportation will be fully automated?

gary

[johnnymk]

johnnymk

I listed a bunch above in my reply to jeffbx. You haven't answered my question yet...when, if ever, do you expect transportation will be fully automated?

gary


Why should it be? Do you want your life to be robotic?

[gdstark]

johnnymk, so your answer is that it will not happen? And you believe that in the year 3000 we will still be manually driving ourselves around town? And that elderly will still reach a point where they can no longer drive?

Robotic? Do you feel like your life is robotic in an escalator? Or when you take a taxi? I've never experienced that myself.

gary

[Napoleon54]

Well stated. CH3OH has one carbon bond. C8H18 has 8. Breaking the bonds releases the energy, and both have pretty low density. So, not even counting the cost of making EtOH however you want to, you'll have to build bigger gas tanks, and you'll still make CO2 and water, just like gasoline. Almost a zero-sum solution.

Hmm, kinda but not quite. Ethanol is CH3CH2OH, one carbon bond. Octane, C8H18, has seven. True, less chemical energy available per EtOH molecule versus gasoline, but you must consider that the molecules are smaller and thus there are more of them in a given volume. When both of those factors are considered, a gallon of ethanol has roughly 75% of the energy that's available in a gallon of gasoline. (That figure is quoted ubiquitously around the intarnets. I'm still looking for a reputable source, but it seems reasonable to me.) So a bigger fuel tank isn't THAT serious of an issue if you're only losing 25%.

But yeah, EtOH as a fuel is still burning stuff and adding CO2 to the atmosphere. And the source of the EtOH is a major problem... when you consider the amount of energy that it takes to produce corn and then EtOH from it, then you've looking at a nearly zero-sum (or even negative-sum!) process.

[Napoleon54]

Hello Gary, welcome to the forums. Interesting idea you have here with the PPT system. I personally don't think transportation will be that great of an issue a few hundred years from now. I don't think it will be nearly that long before the majority of people work from home and that will almost completely negate the whole issue of commuting. Shopping will be done primarily via internet. These factors will enormously reduce congestion. The major need for personal transporation will be for leisure and recreation... go to the beach, travel to visit relatives, etc, and these types of travel will be greatly simplified from a logistical standpoint simply because of the reduced number of vehicles in the system.

Also, getting back to the topic of energy sources- I think that within the next hundred years or so nuclear fusion will become a reality. That technology has the potential to provide energy on a scale orders of magnitude above and beyond anything we currently have. Concerns about energy will become a thing of the past as energy will be relatively limitless. That will pave the way for an explosion in technological developement. One can easily envision personal vehicles that travel in three dimensions (fly through the air), rather than ground-based vehicles that are bound to two dimensions. Along with fuel efficiency, congestion also will become an obsolete concern in a rather short period of time.

I agree the PPT system you describe is entirely possible using existing technology. But considering the infrastructure changes, as well as lifestyle changes, that would need to occur in order to put such a system in place, chances are that we're not going to see anything like that for quite a long time. In the meantime there will be enormous innovations such as I've forecasted above that will make our existing technology obsolete. So why not envision a system based on those developments instead? Essentially, why design a 22nd century transport system based on 21st century technology? I think it is an interesting exercise in how to plan for the future, but I don't think it actually being put into place is very plausable.

[johnnymk]

johnnymk, so your answer is that it will not happen? And you believe that in the year 3000 we will still be manually driving ourselves around town? And that elderly will still reach a point where they can no longer drive?

Robotic? Do you feel like your life is robotic in an escalator? Or when you take a taxi? I've never experienced that myself.

gary

I am more concerned how we are going to have enough cheap fuel by the year 2050. Personally, I have no answers.

[Markel]

I agree the PPT system you describe is entirely possible using existing technology. But considering the infrastructure changes, as well as lifestyle changes, that would need to occur in order to put such a system in place, chances are that we're not going to see anything like that for quite a long time.
I don't see this as being a practical solution for the future. It's still stuck on the ground. Too much of trying to update an old paradigm. I think the personal transportation of the future will not depend on roads/rails at all.

[Houdini]

Hmm, kinda but not quite. Ethanol is CH3CH2OH, one carbon bond. Octane, C8H18, has seven. True, less chemical energy available per EtOH molecule versus gasoline, but you must consider that the molecules are smaller and thus there are more of them in a given volume. When both of those factors are considered, a gallon of ethanol has roughly 75% of the energy that's available in a gallon of gasoline. (That figure is quoted ubiquitously around the intarnets. I'm still looking for a reputable source, but it seems reasonable to me.) So a bigger fuel tank isn't THAT serious of an issue if you're only losing 25%.

But yeah, EtOH as a fuel is still burning stuff and adding CO2 to the atmosphere. And the source of the EtOH is a major problem... when you consider the amount of energy that it takes to produce corn and then EtOH from it, then you've looking at a nearly zero-sum (or even negative-sum!) process.

Agreed. Sorry for my bad chemistry...I have a degree in that lying around here somewhere. I just need to stop posting late. But for the record, I never said they had the same density, only that both were low. I was just too lazy too look up the specs. Still inefficient (25% or so?,) expensive, maybe negative sum, pumps evil CO2 into the atmosphere, etc. But on some occasions it's just what you need to wind down.

[gdstark]

Napoleon54,

I agree with much of your analysis. But if the future is about quality of life, people may simply not choose be be tied down at home for work. Or if we're REALLY advanced and have actually minimized the time we spend working, we may prefer to get out and about in all our new leasure time. And for many people activities like shopping in person are actually enjoyable. Personally I love visiting my local farmers market every Sunday.

Another aspect that we haven't discussed is population growth. Even if people only travel half as much, statistical predictions for population growth suggest that any reduction in personal travel might be cancelled out by the sheer number of people in the system. The truth is that population is THE issue on the planet, even though it's rarely discussed, and if we don't get a handle on it, serious ramifications are in store.

I completely agree with your prediction for a breakthrough in energy production. And this energy will ultimately be electricity, which is exactly what powers the PPT system. Any process that converts this power into a form that feeds combustion engines is a serious waste....very inneficient and more costly to build & maintain. Forget hydrogen, forget ethanol. But regardless of our future energy situation, the PPT is "energy neutral". Even if we kept burning oil & coal, it would STILL be more efficient to burn them centrally than in millions upon millions of poorly tuned combustion engines.

As for vehicle that fly, that will take more than just an energy breakthrough. You'd probably need a way of countering gravity itself. If it happens, great. But I wouldn't hold your breath on that one. If we're just relying on everybody owning their own jet vehicle or helecoptor, the control consequences would be unimaginable. And you couldn't use electricity off a grid since you're not connected. Bottom line with flying is that it's just not necessary. All your destination are essential on a plain. It would be an unnecessary dimension.

gary

[zippyjuan]

We have already achieved many technological advances that were supposed to free us and give us more free time- instead we are working more than ever. Things like the computer. Technology, while it can simplify some things, ultimately makes life more complicated. Life without a cell phone is simpler and less stressful than one with. You don't have to worry about it going off when you don't want it to or worry about losing it. My phone is still connected to the wall but it is cordless.

The cost of land within our cities has led to construction further and further from the city centers and most job locations meaning longer and longer commutes for people and more need for transportation. Alternatives like bussing or trains cannot keep up so people do not consider using them. Plus they do not go all the places people want to go in a direct manner. If I want to go to the airport, ten miles from where I live, I have to take three busses and one trolley. I have had that take two and a half hours. On my bicycle, I can do it in about 45 minites. Faster in a car. I am lucky enough to be able to have an affordable place to live within walking distance of my job- but many can spend an hour in their car each way.

Electric trams that take us easily and cleanly to where we want to go is a nice dream- I just don't see it becoming a reality unless we run out of oil (which could happen in the next 50 years) and people are forced to give them up. They won't do it voluntarily.

And as for flying- given that people have trouble driving on well marked roads, I shudder to think what would happen if they did not have to stick to the ground.