Some time ago, we introduce this discussion by stating, "This is an mature adult conversation about things done that relate to things to be done. If you have a sincere desire to move the Picken's Plan forward, check in here!" Somewhere along the way, the question of integrity became an issue with reference to the the web sites founder and benefactor, T. Boone Pickens.
From this point forward, we want to be clear about certain points;
Transition is still a lively but insightful discussion of the political ramifications and requirements to employ NG as a bridge fuel to future energy independence; AND a equally informative forum for the side issues that naturally arise in the associated ideas that form the components of action. Participants engaged in this discussion lend their keen minds to unifying a common strategic objective by commenting on the various alternatives with respect to the political agenda necessary to generate a National Energy Policy.
Transition is many voices in addition to the founders. They speak of changes in the American community with regards to energy consumption and production. These voices may come from liberal, progressive, right-wing and conservative thinking, but more importantly they are collaborative. We are looking for the people with knowledge who are willing to share their expertise and intuitions with their neighbors to find a consensus necessary to unity.
Please, add your voice to this discussion by considering what you have to offer in the way of your personal expertise, experience and understanding of alternative fuels such as natural gas, solar or wind energy, hydro or thermal power, and chemical or biological process. If politics are not your forte, keep the following in mind:
Yes, it was high time that this discussion got pulled out of the email thread that has been circulating amongst 200 PP members since it was first launched on 22 Oct 2010 and transplanted here in the forum. It was really beginning to get unweildy! I just hope it survies the transition. :>)
Now, I believe I will begin here in the forum by transferring the last comment that I added to the thread, which was I did earlier today. It's been so long since I've been active in the forum that I don't recall if there is character limitations or not. Guess I'll find out. On the email thread this comment had to be done in two parts.
All, much earlier today, I added and FYI pretaining to an Alex Jones radio show where his guest was a fellow by the name of, Porter Stansberry. On AJ's show, Porter was speaking from and to the economic point of The Three Es (Energy, Economics and Energy) and he was talking about a currency crisis of magnitude that has already begun and is accelerating faster than expected. In my comment I also included a link to Porter's 1hr video presentation and if you haven't yet checked this out, I encourage you to do. Not only did I find Porter's presentation to be most informative, I was also suprisingly motivated by what he said. Speaking of his presentation, just a short while ago I found the transcript if any of you might be interested.
In his presentation, Porter brings up a pshchology term, normalcy bias. This was a new term for me and learning about it explained much that I had been wondering about. Following is the excerpt of the normalcy bias segment from Porter's presentation (note: it's only a small fraction of the total presentation). Doing this will require two parts.
Part I normalcy bias:
The normalcy bias causes smart people to underestimate the possibility of a disaster and its effects. In short: People believe that since something has never happened before... it never will. We are all guilty of it... it's just human nature.
The normalcy bias also makes people unable to deal with a disaster, once it has occurred. Basically... people have a really hard time preparing for and dealing with something they have never experienced.
The normalcy bias often results in unnecessary deaths in disaster situations. For example, think about the Jewish populations of World War II.
As Barton Biggs reports in his book, Wealth, War, and Wisdom:
"By the end of 1935, 100,000 Jews had left Germany, but 450,000 still [remained]. Wealthy Jewish families... kept thinking and hoping that the worst was over...
Many of the German Jews, brilliant, cultured, and cosmopolitan as they were, were too complacent. They had been in Germany so long and were so well established, they simply couldn't believe there was going to be a crisis that would endanger them. They were too comfortable. They believed the Nazi's anti-Semitism was an episodic event and that Hitler's bark was worse than his bite. [They] reacted sluggishly to the rise of Hitler for completely understandable but tragically erroneous reasons. Events moved much faster than they could imagine."
This is one of the most tragic examples of the devastating effects of the "normalcy bias" the world has ever seen.
Just think about what was going on at the time. Jews were arrested, beaten, taxed, robbed, and jailed for no reason other than the fact that they practiced a particular religion. As a result, they were shipped off to concentration camps. Their houses and businesses were seized.
Yet most Jews STILL didn't leave Nazi Germany, because they simply couldn't believe that things would get as bad as they did. That's the normalcy bias... with devastating results.
We saw the same thing happen during Hurricane Katrina...
Even as it became clear that the levee system was not going to work, tens of thousands of people stayed in their homes, directly in the line of the oncoming waves of water.
People had never seen things get this bad before... so they simply didn't believe it could happen. As a result, nearly 2,000 residents died.
Again... it's the "normalcy bias."
We simply refuse to see the evidence that's right in front of our face, because it is unlike anything we have experienced before.
The normalcy bias kicks in... and we continue to go about our lives as if nothing is unusual or out of the ordinary.
Well, we're seeing the same thing happen in the United States right now.
We have been the world's most powerful country for nearly 100 years. The U.S. dollar has reigned supreme as the world's reserve currency for more than 50 years.
Most of us in America simply cannot fathom these things changing. But I promise you this: Things are changing... and faster than most people realize.
For a moment, just look at a tiny fraction of the evidence around us....
Note: at this point he goes on to cite numerous examples.
(end of normalcy bias excerpts)
Energy, Economics and Environment, The Three Es, do appear to be the inseparable core triangle of existence, at least on an earthly plane, around which all else revolves. It seems impossible that any one point of this triangle can have, or be advanced to any enduring viability, unless the other two points are equally advanced. In other words, in order for this core triangular relationship to achieve a viability that will endure, the three points must be kept in a state of optimum balance. And the more out of balance these three points are, the more chaos there is on the planet. I wonder, has there ever been a time when all three points of this core triangle have been in balance?
Cool! It didn't require two parts.
I have provided some tools for getting a better understanding of the situation from a personal / residential perspective. Please, take the time to investigate the practical realities of our national energy situation. Energy is a misnomer for empowerment. The real power comes from understanding applied to ambition.
Please, understand the purpose of TRANSITIONS is to spark positive action.
Here is a link to a timely and accurate article on the state of the electric car and battery industries in the US, complete with video.. One thing to note here is that the Pacific rim has the majority of resources necessary to make batteries for these vehicles, whether hybrid or full plug-in electric. Watch the video. Another thing to note in the body of the article is once again, how the EPA is pathetically behind the curve in understanding available and proven technology, and currently has no certification procedure for a system widely adopted in Europe, capable of saving on the order of 20% of fuel in a CONVENTIONAL CAR, cheaply. William Engwer
I'm just curious. Do people actually care about the net energy impact of Plugins? Did you see the fourth piece on American Energy Policy that does the calculation on the Chevy Volt, and compares it to the Tesla and the Leaf?
When is the EPA going to wake up?
How about the body politic?
I honestly don't think anyone much THINKS about the energy impact of plugins. Electric vehicles have been loudly touted by the idiot media as the solution to all our worries, and that's as far as most people go. It's a nice little feel-good to think it's all okay, electrics will save the day. Now back to sports and who in Hollywood is boffing who.
You know, there are 300 million people in the US, and over a million Pickens members, (or is it 2 million?) and there are what, less that 10 of us contributing to this discussion? Where's everyone else?
While we're on the topic of public apathy and ignorance, I'd think one of the DOE's primary mandates ( what was the 2010 budget? How many billions?) would be to educate the American public on the virtues of conservation of energy resources, and a oublic awareness campaign to help people understand the alternatives. Nope.
I'm pretty sure that with a multi-billion $$ budget and about 100 or so motivated scientists, engineers and tinkerers, I could fix everything in a pretty short time. But the government and its agencies exist solely to provide for their own continued short-term existence. THEY PRODUCE NOTHING of value. The body politic specializes primarily in cover-your-ass meetings to generate paperwork and continued funding, while doing little else but whine about things. As long as they have bread and circuses, where's the incentive to actually understand anything? Wm. Engwer.
We need to stop the world for about 10 seconds then get 400,000,000 pairs of eyeballs looking for the answer, with some kind of prize for the ones who can figure it out. The winners will be walking around with a smile on their faces and the losers will be all stressed out and confused as heck. We will then probably have to spell it out for them many times before they accept the new reality and understand the joke.
We had this conversation before, but I always liked the simple approach to use a mechanical flywheel instead of batteries to perform regenerative braking and startup in stop-and-go situations. It would only weigh about a hundred pounds per kWh stored, never have hysteresis or wear problems, and save the same amount of energy in gas mileage. It must be at least 75% cheaper than the 450 lb. battery pack for a Prius and never need replacement. What gives?
And I would really like to see the mechanism you use to convert braking torque to flywheel rotational speed. Wm.Engwer
Thanks Richard. I couldn't find it either.
This unit can be mass-produced once people begin to get past the absurd designs offered by Detroit and Tokyo. This Formula One system only weighs 53 pounds and can jack a racer that goes 240 MPH from 100 to 240 MPH in less than five seconds. You wouldn't need that on the street, but can you imagine getting 100+ MPG at the same time at 75 MPH?
That's what modern engineering can do WITHOUT DOE!
Flybrid, the designer, is British. I wouldn't hold that against them. GM, Ford, and Chrysler had flywheel regenerators under design back in the 50s and 60s. They never came to market because gas was less than 25 cents a gallon!
This is a CAD rendering, and it doesn't really give me a clue as to how the thing works. Anybody want to jump in and explain it to an old fool like me? I looked at the linked website and it didn't help. I remember a couple of years back Formula One was running a KERS ( kinetic energy recovery system) but I didn't have time to research it then. If it's Formula One tech, it's by definition pretty not-cheap. Yes, it's a flywheel...I got that. How is braking torque repackaged as flywheel rotational speed? The thing in the CAD drawing obviously comes off the gearbox (transmission) ( aha! a clue! ) so I assume depressing the brake pedal also dis-engages the engine from the geartrain, and shifts the flywheel into play, the resulting rapid acceleration of said flywheel putting a drag on the axles / tires through the geartrain and thus providing braking while storing energy as rotational speed. Then, when one steps on the gas, the process is reversed and the spinning flywheel dumps it's energy back into the geaebox and on through the axles to the wheels. Am I close? Pretty hard on the gearbox. Wm. Engwer
Dr. Curto - I am sorry I deleted your information on the flywheel so I am posting it again.
William - my flywheel was primarily used for transfer of energy for storage not the drive for the vehicle. I discussed torque etc. I won’t ask anyone to view the concept. The above is just another method of use.