Category Archives: Energy

Efficiency of Police Cars – LA to Save $20mil

I see Ford pushing the efficiency card in some new marketing (also here).

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department – the largest sheriff’s department in the world – operates a fleet of 6,200 vehicles that patrol an area the size of Connecticut. In 2010, those vehicles drove more than 27 million miles. A fleet-wide 20 percent fuel economy gain would save the department at least $20 million a year at today’s fuel prices of nearly $4 per gallon.

Good overall point about saving money through efficiency.

I am curious, though, if I did not know how big Los Angeles County is why would I be familiar with or want to look up the size of Connecticut? Might as well just look up the size of Los Angeles County. It would have been much cooler if they had made a space reference like 27 million miles is a third of the way from the Earth to the Sun; or they could have said 27 million miles is longer than the circumference of the Earth at the equator. What’s the Connecticut connection?

I also am curious about the mention of a $4 per gallon fuel price. Consumers clearly demonstrate that pump price is not the only influence, but maybe Ford is emphasizing that particular price for a reason. Car companies seem to have the odd fixation on a belief that people only care about efficiency when pump prices rise above a certain point. Maybe $4 is Ford’s magic number.

The pump price is a red herring to me. It distracts from the massive amount of time saved by fewer stops for fuel. This could be an even more critical point for the police — not having to stop for gas during a chase. How many more hours can the police be on the beat now with fewer stops for fuel?

The British Navy famously innovated with anti-fouling chemistry (observing copper sheets left in the ocean attracted the fewest barnacles) in order to keep their warships at sea longer and running faster…in their defeat of Napoleon’s forces.

I usually try to explain the efficiency angle like this. You can’t decide what you will pay at the pump (the price is always fluctuating beyond your control) but you can decide how often you want to stand around holding a nozzle and inhaling fumes. Do you really want to spend all that time at the pump, let alone have to divert to refuel when you need to chase and intercept? Forget pump price, there are many other/better reasons why efficient engines are superior.

From that perspective I hope I am not alone in thinking it is exciting to hear Ford boast of efficiency gains. I am less excited to see that they settled on just a 20 percent fuel economy gain.

The new Ford Police Interceptors, both sedan and utility vehicle, can be ordered with a choice of three powerful V6 engines that deliver more horsepower and better fuel economy than the 250-horsepower, 4.6-liter V8 in today’s Crown Victoria police car.

The base 3.5-liter Duratec V6 engine in the new Police Interceptor sedan will deliver at least 280 horsepower. Also available in the sedan is Ford’s award-winning EcoBoost™ twin-turbo V6 that will have at least 365 horsepower. The EcoBoost-equipped Police Interceptor comes standard with all-wheel drive that enhances handling and safety during high-speed pursuits. The new Police Interceptor utility model will be powered by a 3.7-liter V6 and features all-wheel drive delivering at least 300 horsepower.

I refer you to my post on the 40mpg car designed by Ford and made by Tata for police in Europe.

The Jaguar XF Diesel S is powered by a 3.0-liter AJ-V6D Gen III diesel engine that delivers 275 hp. The Diesel S accelerates from 0-60mph in just 5.9 seconds, while top speed is limited to 155 mph.

That car has the same horsepower rating as the new Police Interceptor sedan in Los Angeles, yet double the mpg. Why are police in America getting shafted (pun not intended) by Ford on this technology? The County could be saving a whole lot more.

Here are some guestimates, based on the Ford press release. It says the current police car gets between 14 mpg and 21 mpg. A new engine will improve by 20 percent, which puts it at 17 mpg to 25 mpg.

Those are modest numbers, at best. Moving to a 40 mpg Jaguar XF Diesel S would achieve a 90 percent improvement ( (40-21) / 21 = .9 ).

The $20 million in savings from 20 percent better efficiency is nothing to sneeze at yet a 90 percent efficiency gain would save….

I have so far left this topic within the Ford family. Maybe we should run some numbers for a 125 mpg diesel-electric hybrid Volvo (285 hp). ( (125-21)/21 = 4.95 ) !

Just for the sake of argument lets use the 27 million miles and say they are driven at 21 mpg. That gives 1,286,000 gallons at $4 each for a total of $5,143,000.

The same 27 million miles driven at 125 mpg would be 216,000 gallons at $4 each for a total of $864,000, and a savings of $4,279,000. Hmmm, where did Ford find 20 million?

Imagine the Los Angeles County police fleet running with better performance and yet a 495 percent fuel economy gain. They might just want to get Volvo to change the marketing campaign.

Again, we are just talking pump price. When you factor in less time spent at the pump the savings and benefits to taxpayers are pushed even higher. And that’s before we even get started talking about police cruisers being able to sneak up on criminals with zero-emission zero-noise hybrid-diesels

Risks of (Wind) Power Overproduction

I should have called this post the risks of German power, but alas…here is an interesting look at the risks from harnessing the unlimited yet variable input of wind:

In 2006, when wind farms were few and far between, coal, gas and nuclear power plants produced just the amount of energy needed in eastern Germany at the time, but also created large amounts of nuclear waste and carbon dioxide emissions. The system was relatively stable. One average, engineers took action to stabilize the eastern German grid roughly 80 times a year.

Today, as the amount of electricity generated by the region’s 8,000 wind turbines rises and falls by the hour, engineers have to intervene every second day to maintain network stability.

Germans are now pushing so much power from wind through their system that it is in danger of overload. One new and different thing about wind (like solar) is that its variable rate of input means storage is important and a sensible way to convert it to a constant output. With petroleum it is stored and then converted into output, using storage to manage flow rates, but unfortunately a method of storing wind energy has not been engineered yet.

The article points out that petroleum power plants are instead supposed to be shutdown and give priority to wind during surges. That, of course, doesn’t happen because it puts the grid at a higher risk of variability and control issues (operational cost?) so they instead try to export their overproduction, which puts the grid at a higher risk of overload.

Although large high-energy long-life batteries are still considered so toxic that only the military is allowed to use them…what eastern Germany could do is create the equivalent of barrels of wind energy for consumers. That would give them the option to store or export energy just like with petroleum. Maybe it could take the form of hundreds of thousands stored energy blocks (batteries) hot-swappable into electric transportation, especially bikes.

Imagine riding across town and then pulling in to a grid/battery station and swapping out for a fresh charge. Storage problem solved, excess power problem solved, a more viable electric transportation market (longer range, faster recharge), with exports options still open and to an even wider market.

Enertia
Storing power has never before been so much fun.

Maybe it’s just me, but the Deutsche Welle graphic of German power seems a little historically insensitive:

Eastern German Power
“Aggh! Ze plan ist to go hier und hier und…”

EPA Withholds Nuclear Data on CA

Note: San Diego now has a line again like the other cities, although flatter, and the warning at the top of Greg’s lab page has been edited to say “Update: Apologies for the delay. Current data has been restored.”

Greg’s lab provides real-time “California radiation monitoring map”. I just noticed an update with a warning at the top of the main page:

Update: Data for some locations is currently being withheld by the EPA for review. Fresh data for the locations in question will begin to appear once the data is re-cleared for public release.

The access to raw data in some locations is currently unavailable for those who want to monitor time-critical information for radiation. San Jose monitoring stops on March 24th. Here is a graph for San Diego, which stops on March 23rd.

San Diego Radiation

The page has two notes, one of which gives the following prediction:

Please be aware that, while there is evidence that traces of fallout from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan are arriving on U.S. shores, the contribution of these substances at the levels detected to your daily radiation dose is practically nil. The Department of Energy and the EPA continue to monitor the situation carefully, and there is no expectation that harmful amounts of fallout will reach the United States.

That being said, the line only runs for a few days and then stops on the same day that Japan’s nuclear catastrophe was put in a different light by European scientists monitoring data in California.

Austrian scientists have released what appears to be the first clear, independent data concerning radiation levels in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima radiation leak.

By releasing data from two monitoring stations of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) from Japan and California, researchers from the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna have calculated backwards to estimate the true levels of radiation from Fukushima.

[…]

…Gerhard Wotawa, the lead Austrian researcher, noted that because of the high volume of particles released only during the first four days of the leak, he speculated that further data would reveal an even higher total amount.

“The releases of the volatile radionucleotides, like iodine and cesium, are very likely in the same order of magnitude as happened during the Chernobyl accident,” he told Deutsche Welle, adding that CTBTO member states, like Austria, only received data 72 hours after it was gathered via e-mail and private websites.

Other scientists disagree with this prediction but not definitively. They all say there is a need to review more data. Meanwhile, Japan is reporting more serious leaks detected.

Earlier, officials from the plant’s operator said there was possible damage at reactor number three at the complex, meaning more radioactive contamination may have leaked into the environment.

“It is possible that the pressure vessel containing the fuel rods in the reactor is damaged,” a spokesman from Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) told the AFP news agency.

So why has the EPA withheld data after the scientists announce a need for more transparency? Are they trying to tune out noise or hide a weak signal to avoid more speculation about the direction it might be headed? Some are starting to use the graphs as a reason to be concerned. Maybe the EPA has found the graphs are too low and should show an increase — a warning? I have a feeling it’s not the latter.

I have to say this reminds me of a 2009 story about how the EPA handled data on arsenic, lead, mercury and boron pollution from coal power.

People who live near sites used to store ash or sludge from coal-fired power plants have a one in 50 chance of developing cancer, according to a just released government report kept from the public for seven years by the Bush Administration.

The data on harm was released after the 2008 Tennessee coal ash spill ignited greater public concern. Will the public demand real-time radiation monitoring be restored, or at least that the EPA better explain the reasons for withholding data?

Updated to add: Humorous view of data analysis from the Daily Show

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
When Reporters Attack
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Yosemite Offline Due to Power Failure

Waves of heavy rains have been hitting the Sierra Mountains for weeks and recently caused a land slide in an area called Ferguson Slide (didn’t see that coming) on the Merced River near Yosemite National Park. The slide knocked down power lines, which gave authorities a reason to turn away visitors for most of this week. News10 from Sacramento has this report.

Interesting to see that the disaster plan for a National Park, of all places, is so frail that it is just an electrical pole (on a slide) away from shutdown. I can see why they might want to turn away 10,000 people a day who are there to consume energy rather than expend it, but what about the more independent and capable outdoor enthusiasts?

Seems to me a golden opportunity lost for the park to engage visitors who would really appreciate it without power and be willing to pitch in to keep it open. Some of those visitors might also help build a more resilient infrastructure including clean and local energy.

The LA Times points out an extremely high cost of line repairs.

“Mother Nature has flexed her strength with this series of storms,” said Nicole Liebelt, a spokeswoman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co. Crew members had to be brought in by helicopter to the remote area to work on the problem, she added. Company officials said they hope to have power restored by late Friday.

That has to have run past hundreds of thousands, added to the lost revenue from visitors turned away…what if it the same investment was put towards business continuity so the park was designed to operate without power for a week or even a month?