Energy guru Lovins to carmakers: Time for big bets
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--Amory Lovins, a renowned author and big thinker on energy, specializes in making the impossible real.
His 4,000-square-foot Colorado home has no furnace, uses a few dollars' worth of electricity a month, and features an indoor tropical garden with banana trees and papaya plants. In conversation, he's quick to pull out his iPhone to show a car prototype inspired by the Hypercar, which is three to five times more efficient than conventional cars.
He's the chief scientist and co-founder of nonprofit advisory firm Rocky Mountain Institute, which develops environmentally friendly solutions using business as a lever. Among the organizations it advises are Ford Motor, Wal-Mart, and the Pentagon.
On Tuesday, Lovins spoke to investors and entrepreneurs at a forum on clean tech organized by Xconomy, where he was interviewed by venture capitalist Paul Maeder about energy and the environment. (On Wednesday, he spoke at Harvard University.)
Rocky Mountain Institute chief scientist Amory Lovins.
(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET Networks)With the U.S. automakers' financial woes and an incoming president high on everyone's minds, Lovins offered his trademark unconventional thinking bolstered by a blizzard of data.
The biggest danger to cash-strapped U.S. auto companies is making incremental changes to their product lines, he argued. Instead, they need to make radically more efficient cars by adopting several technologies aimed at efficiency. (Lovins coined the term "negawatts," which refers to watts that are not used.)
"Right now they view accelerated transformation as a risk and a distraction. I think it's actually a low-risk strategy. When your competitors new and old all around the world are coming up with radically more efficient, safe, (and) durable cars, you can't afford incrementalism," Lovins said in an interview after his talk.
"It would be tragic to bail out the industry now and see it go under in another five years as competitors' faster innovation takes hold," he said.
Pinning incumbent automakers' turnaround on electric powertrains through plug-in electric cars is a myopic view of the available technologies.
Cars can be made half as heavy as they are today by using composite materials such as light but strong carbon fiber, a choice that gives manufacturers more flexibility and reduces costs in production. "Lightweighting" lowers the engineering bar for alternative powertrain technologies as well, he argues. With less weight to haul around, expensive batteries can be smaller and fuel cell vehicles become feasible.
The other technology changes required to set automakers on the right path are aerodynamics and software for remote diagnostics and other tasks.
"Whatever your advanced powertrain is, especially if it's all-electric, it will be a great deal smaller and cheaper and lighter if you first get the platform physics right--making the car light and slippery," he said. "If you don't do that and your competitors do, you're toast."
Many businesses fail to make high-performing products because they don't practice what he calls "integrative design," or making design choices to optimize the entire vehicle rather than individual components. In the case of U.S. auto companies, there's a cultural bias toward powertrain engineering.
Carbon pricing or negawatts?
In buildings, too, existing practices and delay-ridden business processes slow down adoption of efficient home energy systems.
In its projects, the Rocky Mountain Institute has found that building owners can get energy savings of 60 percent with a three-year payback for energy-efficiency retrofits. The group found that new green building constructions can be done for lower capital costs than traditional methods, contrary to the prevailing view.
When asked what words of advice he offers President-elect Barack Obama, Lovins said the new administration needs to coordinate efforts between the Department of Energy and any climate initiatives.
Many investors and consumers expect that putting a price on carbon emissions--through a cap-and-trade system or tax--will make many clean technologies more economical. Lovins thinks carbon pricing is a good idea but it's not essential.
"You could make lots of money off of efficiency with zero carbon price. We know how to save half the oil and gas and three quarters of the electricity in this country," he said. There are, however, "institutional barriers" that block adoption of energy efficiency practices, he said, apparently referring to incumbent fuel and energy companies.
Longer term, he said it's not clear that carbon prices will remain high enough to drive emissions reductions as intended.
Policy and geoengineering
On specific policy levers, he offered two ideas: "decoupling" in the electric utility industry and a "feebate" structure in transportation, even if they are both implemented first at the state level.
Regulations in about 40 states are structured so that utilities make more money by selling more electricity to consumers. With decoupling, utilities are incented to introduce more efficiency.
The per-capita electricity usage in the state of California, for example, has held steady since the 1970s, while its economy has grown, he noted.
The goal of a feebate--combining the words "fee" and "rebate"--is to incent consumers and automakers to value efficient vehicles.
When consumers purchase cars, there is a sliding scale where they receive a rebate for purchasing the most-efficient vehicles and a fee for the least-efficient.
"It widens the price spread between the most- and least-efficient models and...automakers can make more money because there is more technology content in the cars."
With his emphasis on energy efficiency and practical solutions, it's probably not surprising that he, like many other scientists, are wary of geoengineering ideas, such as putting sulfur particles in the air to cool the earth or seed the ocean with iron to stimulate carbon-sequestering algae blooms.
"Geoengineering is pretty scary. We really don't know what we are doing," Lovins said. "On climate science, there's a whole lot we don't know and most of the surprises are bad surprises...When you've got one planet and you've got to keep living there, you don't want to try anything irreversible."
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin. 
I'd hate to get be in a Ford Focus getting hit by a 1950 Mercury...
In a head-on collision, keep in mind that it works both ways. How many lives have NOT been lost at the "other end" of the collision?
More premature deaths are caused by vehicle exhaust than by collisions, according to an estimate I read a few years ago. To the extent that's true, the pollution savings should be considered.
BTW, the US is going down anyway so all this talk is moot.
Seen any leaded gas lately?
Things do change. And we can change from heavy to light. Not overnight. Why not?
"D" is the forgotten man...
In addition, the big three need to get out from under the union pay scale, work rules, benefits and retirement plan. Chapter 11 will do that. The argument that customers will lose confidence is silly. Airlines have al lbeen in Chapter 11, and still fill planes line a sardine tin daily.
What so difficult for these over-paid CEOs and Excecutive to know that?
They should just go bust and let startups like Aptera and Tesla lead the way.
Want to save money, fuel, lives and carbon output with the piece of rust already at the end of your keychain? Drive slower. Oh no, the TIME you'll waste. Yeah, right. Like time really matters to you speeders. Cut it from 70 to 60 saves nearly 15% on your fuel and cuts the likelihood of death in an accident by over 20%. Increases your transit time by 1/6th, yes. Unless you are Sammy Hager in a song, it means very little. F=M*V^2. The force of that headon you try to spook us with goes WAY down if both vehicles are doing 60 rather than 70 (do the math). If the vast majority of our imported oil is for transportation, then imagine the political leverage we get by suddenly not needing to buy from sketchy countries (say, the Middle East). Can you imagine the regimes we wouldn't have to support any more? And the shifts in terrorism focus if we stopped propping them up? What cost savings does that generate to the tax payer? All if we were mature enough to drive a bit slower. But we're Americans. It's our deity-given right to squander the future on our spoiled selves ... and we'll use sketchy psuedostats to back up our Hummer mindset. This country is going downhill only because of its spoiled citizens. We have the power to change that future. Do we have the guts?
Now that Detroit has come hat in hand to the taxpayer for a bailout it is time to impose draconian innovation policy on Detroit in exchange, at scale. The usual "free market" policy of allowing the industry to innovate at its own pace has failed at scale over so many years that the Congress should no longer countenance a "cooperative" technology solution with Detroit; it must be imposed as a quid pro quo, with the best efficient design brains in charge (e.g. Lovins, MIT, Art Center College of Design, and others).
In addition this must not be allowed to become an ideological football for energy efficiency fads; there are plenty of real, hard technology, economically efficient approaches available.
(The writer is the former Chief Economist of a major international oil company.)
I agree with an earlier comment, with regards to CNG and LNG fueled transportation.
Every car and truck on the road today, could be converted to natural-gas.
Energy Golden Rules should also be respected. #1.) No "Bio" Fuels Dependent On Fossil Fuels. There goes Barack Hussein Obama's Ethanol Plan!
In regard to cars, Lovins advocates using lighter materials, which (as the article says) reduce the cost of other components and simplify the manufacturing process.
CNG and LNG are of course fossil fuels that contribute to global warming.
We've published our own write up of Amory's talk. It's online here:
http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2008/12/08/finding-another-saudi-arabia-under-detroit-amory-lovins-on-the-economic-logic-of-energy-efficiency-and-the-overthrow-of-bad-engineering/
NUCLEAR POWER MAY NOT SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUES BECAUSE IT IS PRONE TO DISASTERS OWING TO UNFORESEEN ERRORS WHICH MIGHT REPEAT THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT, THE HARMFUL CONTAMINATION FROM WHICH MAY LAST CENTURIES.
USING FUEL CELLS AND BATTERIES TO RUN CARS ARE BAD STRATEGIES AS THE SOURCE OF POWER WHICH IS COMING FROM HYDROGEN AND ELECTRICITY WHICH IN TURN ARE PRODUCED THROUGH THE USE OF THE POWER GENERATED BY POWER STATIONS USING COAL AS FUEL THUS POLLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE ELSEWHERE WITH NO ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF CARBON FOOTPRINTS.
In order to save our World called the Planet Earth from further Global Warming and resultant adverse climatic changes causing all the unprecedented incremental Natural Disasters globally, we must go after the Best Technologies already available long ago despite the suppression of which by selfish vested interests of Fossil Oils' Companies.
Nikola Tesla the Greatest Inventor of the last century had invented the Technologies to run cars & power stations without fuel one Century ago and these technologies might still be classified top secret, immediately after his death. It is time to resurrect Nikola Tesla's life-works to produce electrical power without fuel and sharing them as it was intended by the Greatest Inventor himself.
Stanley Meyer had invented the Technology to turn Water into unlimited amount of fuel for making Unlimited Power Supply and to run cars and all internal combustion engines with HHO "on demand basis only" and so no storage of the HHO gases is required as it is safer & cheaper to store water instead, but unfortunately he was murdered. He had about more than 40 patents in this Technology. No one Car/Technology Company has pursued this technology further by buying up his technology and put them to good use to save our this planet Earth from Global Warming causing adverse climatic changes and disasters and hardship owing to unlimited and unrestrained use of Fossil Oils and Fuels, thus releasing & emitting enormous quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere. I think some company like Google should buy this Patented Technologies from Stanley Meyer's family and make this open source technology for the world to improve on and make good use of this Technology to save our world call Planet Earth.
On a two prongs approach, also those Zero Fuel Technologies invented by Nikola Tesla should be declassified and resurrected by the next President of USA to run cars and power-stations to save our Planet Earth from destruction and doom owing to unlimited and unrestrained use of Fossil Oils and Fuels for the whole of last Century. Our World the planet earth must be saved from the exploits of greed of the vested self interests of the fossil oil & fuels producers that pumped the unlimited amount of Greenhouse gases into our common atmosphere for the last century.
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm
http://keelynet.com/energy/teslafe1.htm
http://www.panaceauniversity.org/
History had proven that owing to selfish gains and big business interests and the many Government interventions the "Free Energy Inventions & Innovations" for the good of mankind were suppressed by vested interests such as the life works of Nikola Tesla and the strategic others were even kept classified by the US Government after his death until the present day. 100 years has been lost and that now our planet earth is placed under the stress of Global Warming owing to the unlimited use of Fossil Oils and Fossil Fuels which in the first place was not needed if the Inventions of the Greatest Inventor, Nikola Tesla were not suppressed 100 years ago. If the Governments of the Nations of World are not going to make and initiate the required changes to stop the continuing use of fossil oils and fuels with alternative fuel someone without vested interests in the Fossil Fuel Industries has got to take the great Initiative to bring out the best technology to save our planet from impending doom.
The best inventions of the Greatest Inventor like Nikola Tesla were suppressed 100 years ago, but under present day scenarios, the works of Great Inventors like Stan Meyers were suppressed as he had been murdered and many others like him were also murdered. Instead of getting support in the scientific community he was ostracized and so as others like him.
The next President of USA must come forward to lead in creating the best alternative energy sources for the good of mankind to follow the footsteps of Nikola Tesla to share his inventions for the good of all mankind. Be it free energy by Coils tapping free energy from the Magnetics Poles of the Earth, Cold Fusion or Magnetic Engines or splitting of Water through electrolysis process on demand basis to produce Brown Gas or HHO to run the present day Vehicles' Internal Combustion Engines without modifications then why not to cut the pollutions from the use of fossil oils and fuels.
K A Cheah
Not to say you shouldn't dust off those old Nicola Tesla patents and give it a swipe, they are free to use, the licenses ran out long ago! Tesla was way ahead of Edison!
We only need political will and funding to change the paradigm. Coming soon to a President near you!.
The world is not as it seems to be! For years the government and oil industry has made sure that no school will say that OU is possible, that to protect the huge world economics with is based on the polluting oil, with destroys the planet, but no one cares about that as long its money into the picture.
When a scientist say its not possible he says so due to the fakt that he is told so in school and fail to think logical and or fail to activate a open mind and say maybe it is possible, but no, they just say what they are told.
The key to Over Unity is RESONANCE with basically means that the device is in harmony with the nature, no 3Phase el-motor conected to the 3phase grid is in harmony with itself or anything else for that matter, but when u put on resonance controll to the motor it turns into a diffrent storry a diffrent storry with the science community do not want to realice due to the fakt that they are ignorant and to provd about theyr status that they wont emit anyting that will violate theyr degree of status.
A motor that is under resonance controll emits no heat so there is no heat loss and heat loss is an effect of a lost energy with has been believed to be impossible to harvest or use, that is totally wrong.
When a motor has resonance controll the following things happen:
1. The energy that is responsible for creating the heat or heat loss as it is named by public terms, do not brake the rotor in the motor as it would do normally.
2. Becos the brake effect is free'ed from the motors electro magnetic field, the motor now operates with a greater torq (NM).
3. The brake effect with is not there anymore is normally a load and that load with is normaly there equals grid needs, but becos its not there anymore you have free'ed some grid needs with means that the power consume factor has gone down equal to the now gone load (opositte megnetic field).
4. Ok so now u have increased torq, and reduced grid needs, but it does not end there, we have not yet used the "brake"/heat loss energy yet, we too now have only removed it and created less power needs and increased the torq, in reality only in one operation so we want to use that energy and that energy is then used as a energy to even more reduce grid needs and thats becos we replace that energy with some part of grid input.
The final result is a motor that have increased its torq with about 43% and at same time has reduced its grid needs with as much as 90% or more.
I have a 3phase 5.5KW motor with uses 720W when its on normal grid and without resonance controll, the same engine now on resonance controll use only 34.2W at Power Factor 100%.
OU=Fuel for Electric cars
(NF)Normal Fuel=HUGE Money
NF=BS!
This has to do with the suns gravity.
Also if there are full moon the power consume of the motor go down.
Even so it is wery little difference, however it is notable.
A difference for about 15 Watt from day to night and a extra power save when full moon shows clearly that energy from the vacum is doing someting interesting here.
Semjase (Billy Meier contact notes) stated early in 1950 that we in next sentury will find a way to extrakt energy from the suroundings and she was right about that.
-RS
www.notpetroleum.com
- by wboune January 11, 2009 5:47 PM PST
- Carbon Fiber is very strong and up to 1/10 the weight of steel, when integrated with a steel webbed monocoque, with an integrated roll cage, carbon carbon car's occupants would fair well with improved safety harnessing, air bags and air curtains against most vehicles on the road, it's light weight would make it slide away from the heavier vehicle as well. Now the body? It would be in pieces, strewn all over after absorbing incredible impact of crash energy, just as in a modern IndyCar.
- Reply to this comment
-
(34 Comments)IndyCars are not mass produced and many of the parts are built up into forms and then cured in vacuum bags, a very hands on custom operation, much like custom airplane building.
In Mr. Lovins technology example for automakers the carbon fiber body is made from low pressure pressed carbon fiber sheets, this would be cheaper to manufacture than a standard steel body. Mr. Lovins also suggests that the press factory could use 1/4th the area and the more versatile equipment would cost a fraction of that to retool in steel, so it is a cheaper plant upgrade as well.
The monocoque and roll cage construction would be most costly , but manageable against all of the other efficiency gains,made by: weight and parts reduction, no drive train and engine, less complexity, fewer moving parts, means less production and maintenance expense . Lighter bodies, chassis, and suspensions parts, less mass means less materials, less materials less expense. Energy, money, is saved in production by this tech and through weight reduction as well.
So the end result will be high tech, aerodynamic, futuristic, sporty, great handling, quiet, efficient, electric cars with backup generators, that provide high fuel mileage, 100-150mpg, and cost less than today's cars. I can't wait! This approach to tech will work with, cars, pickups, trucks, motor homes, trailers, buses, trains and high speed transport., plus motorcycles, off-road vehicles....
I want to hear more about that resonance control for electric motors, don't have a grasp on that yet!