Tuesday, 2 December 2014
REALITY CHECK of REALITY CHECKS?
Monday, Dec 01 2014
Written by Lewis Page, The Register on 28 Nov 2014
Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that renewables will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists. Whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible (full article here).
Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company. The duo were employed at Google on the RE
REafter four years. Now, Koningstein and Fork have explained the conclusions they came to after a lengthy period of applying their considerable technological expertise to renewables, in an article posted at IEEE Spectrum.
closed it down
The two men write:
At the start of RE
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
One should note that RE
Koningstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible.
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms - and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive - which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably). This in turn means that everyone would become miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly). That, however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc would all have to go - none of those things are sustainable without economic growth.
So nobody's up for that. And yet, stalwart environmentalists like Koningstein and Fork - and many others - remain convinced that the dangers of carbon-driven warming are real and massive. Indeed the pair reference the famous NASA boffin Dr James Hansen, who is more or less the daddy of modern global warming fears, and say like him that we must move rapidly not just to lessened but to zero carbon emissions (and on top of that, suck a whole lot of CO2 out of the air by such means as planting forests).
So, how is this to be done?
Read more at www.theregister.co.uk
Saturday, 15 November 2014
TYGER TYGER IN THE SUN
no longer in the night need hide:
“Climate models – there aren’t any”, I lamented in http://tinyurl.com/n7kvbff , asking “Where are the Real-Climate-Modellers? Certainly not here: http://tinyurl.com/q4rtmvf “.
no longer in the night need hide:
“Climate models – there aren’t any”, I lamented in http://tinyurl.com/n7kvbff , asking “Where are the Real-Climate-Modellers? Certainly not here: http://tinyurl.com/q4rtmvf “.
But then, I read this:
© 2011 SPACE AND SCIENCE RESEARCH CORPORATION
Printed by Amazon.co.uk Ltd, Marston Gate, UK [no date given]
I let the back cover speak for itself:
To quote the author with a few excerpts:
“First and foremost, what you are about to read in this book regarding climate change is unvarnished, with no punches pulled…. This book will, however, be what every American and citizen of the world needs to know most about our climate. It will be something you have not been allowed to hear for almost twenty years. It will be – the truth.”
“Within a few weeks after this most important Bi-Centennial Cycle discovery, I had formulated the Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity, or the RC theory, to account for its effects and those of other similar cycles. Here then is that theory and its seven main elements that came from my independent research. It is my fondest hope that with the growing support the theory is receiving from top researchers and scientists from around the world, the next global climate change, which will be a return to a deep and prolonged cold period, will nonetheless be met by a people well prepared to endure it.
The Theory of Relational Cycles of Solar Activity
(The RC Theory)
- There exists a family of solar activity cycles that has a profound and direct influence on Earth’s climate.
- These cycles are called “relational cycles,” since their effects can be experienced or related to during one or two human lifetimes.
- There is a “Centennial Cycle” of ninety to one hundred years’ duration, which manifests itself with solar activity minimums and associated low temperatures, with episodes lasting a few years to one to two decades.
- There is a “Bi-Centennial Cycle” of about 206 years that is the most powerful of the relational cycles and has significant effects on the climate of the Earth, lasting several decades and resulting in the most extreme variations in solar activity and in Earth’s temperatures.
- These cycles are correlated strongly to all past major temperature lows.
- There is remarkable regularity within and hence predictability from these oscillations, such that the theory may be a powerful tool in forecasting major temperature and climate cycles on Earth, many decades in advance.
- There may be other relational cycles of shorter duration accounting for lesser solar and climate events, which may be revealed in subsequent research.”
A Real-Climate-Modeller at last!
Thursday, 2 October 2014
1. I only know what I read, hoping to find answers to doubts and questions arising – all to do with my chosen subject of Energy and Sustainability, and in particular with Clean Energy. Much as to account to myself what I found and learnt from my enquiries, as well as to enlist helpful corrections from comments, I created a blogsite five years ago, reaching my fiftieth posting. From preceding reading and searches I decided to define my idea of what constitutes Clean Energy, in the broadest sense.
2. This definition is at the head of all my blog entries, better readable in my Blog Log at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/blog-post.html
In the following, all references to blog entries are shown as #n, where n is the numbered blog entry as listed.
3. Not long ago, I was asked to explain Why I do What I do – now at #39.
4. Beginning to switch from Architect to Pundit (for want of a better word in contra-distinction to ‘expert’ or ‘consultant, which I don’t claim to be), I was as much in awe of the impending man-made-global-warming-disaster as anyone else, not least when the seriousness of this impending doom was brought home especially to architects by the change in Building Regulations demanding to account for energy use in buildings no longer in kWh but in kg of CO2 .
5. Special reinforcement of this necessary change – and possible solution, was given by Hermann Scheer’s lecture at the Royal Institute of Architects (RIBA) in April 2008, cf #6. followed in July that year by personally enlisting in a 4-day residential course at the Salzburg Global Seminar, titled Combating Climate Change at Local and Regional Level: Sustainable Strategies, Renewable Energy. As an erstwhile alumnus from 1958 (when the same institution was still 'Salzburg Seminar in American Studies'), I had attended with my wife the Seminar’s six-day Summer Festival in 2007, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Seminar’s foundation. And there, on an excursion to the Grossglockner in the Austrian Alps I saw something we weren’t shown at the ‘climate change’ seminar, cf. #2 , second picture onwards. It took me some time to become aware of the significance of that visit, i.e. visual evidence that melting glaciers prove that CO2 cannot possibly be a main driver of any global warming; and evidence of widespread media Gleichschaltung on that subject to this day. cf. #2, #27, #29, #45.
6. All my blog entries, not least #1, are tentative explorative essays in trying to find FACTS [as in “Truth is a purely human construct, but facts are eternal”, Alexius Meinong] behind various energy, sustainability and related assertions. Because one aspect soon became evident: you cannot have ‘Clean Energy’ without honesty, clean science and clean politics (and clean money). cf.#7 #39
7. Let me end these Preambles with my summary view of all posts (still all work in progress) but especially of #12, #41 and #45: the UN/IPCC/EU/IMF concocted AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) fabrication appears to be the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever. As in “Global warming did serve a couple of useful purposes. The issue has been a litmus test for our political class. Any politician who has stated a belief in global warming is either a cynical opportunist or an easily deluded fool. In neither case should that politician ever be taken seriously again. No excuses can be accepted.” #45
8. Does that mean we should forget about pollution and carry on regardless? No, for we can all agree that pollution is not a ‘good thing’ – we all could not miss seeing it from pictures of those dirt laden grey and black smokestacks and smog laden Chinese and other cities (and I well remember the heavy London smogs in the early 60s when even the London Underground platforms had close to nil visibility, apart from deaths from breathing that stuff). Only one thing is sure in these circumstances: what you can see, is with 100% certainty not CO2 , which is invisible. What is visible is pollution consisting of NOX, SOX and OBNOX (nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, particulates and anything else obnox-ious) all of which are the province of Clean-Air-Acts (as so blatantly in London) and have nothing to do with global climate – they are simply the ‘dirt in the linen’ that has to be ‘washed out from’, or never put into these smokestacks of sorts, in the first place. CO2 per se appears far too trivial to consider as Global Climate driver #41.
9. Since starting the TYGER series of my readings at #30, and ending with my recapping of The Bottomless Well #50, I am now convinced that this is the actual TYGER now found following its ‘Spoors’ #42 into the ‘Lair’ #43 and now found. – alive and well, more relevant than ever, and best guideline for future conduct and comparative assessment of things energetic. cf #50 http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/eroei-or-iou-e-nergy-r-eturned-o-ver-e.html
…here is the TYGER MustRead FOUND:
PS collections of further reads are, courtesy of Twitter and Facebook, at
Also of interest could be:
LYSENKOISM + CLIMATE MODELS
Sunday, 28 September 2014
EROEI or IOU ?
Energy Returned Over Energy Invested – a concept introduced in a paper by Dr John Morgan, which I found in Principia Scientific under the heading The Catch-22 of Energy Storage. I was sure that it would not only make me sit up and consider its possible implication for all matters of energy provision, and republished it as Reality Check #6 on my blogsite.
This made me reach for what I still think is one of the most important books on energy:
Basic Books, New York, 2005
Having now recapped on Huber & Mills, together with some further looks at what is available online about EROEI, I could not help thinking that there ought to be a better way to come to understand this concept – like knowing that ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’ rather than words alone. So here goes with some thoughts in that direction.
EROEI expressed as a formula would look like this: ER / EI = U, where U denotes a measure of Usefulness (for humans). We can leave out the E, because shown thus it really applies not only to all human activities, but also to all events in the universe, come to think of it, leaving us with R/I=U. Simplifying further in simple IN and OUT concepts, we are left with O/I=U when following the EROEI acronym sequence.
But that irks me, because
a) on a timeline, Input must always precede Output. Time Fact.
b) When then written I/O=U, we become immediately aware that the Input ‘I’ must always, and without exception, exceed the Output ‘O’ in order to achieve any Usefulness ‘U’. Thermodynamic Fact. In other words, the investment ‘I’ is always borrowed, resulting in an IOU to the environment – but will show as such only when we set the input boundary at this ‘Mother Nature’ level. [For practical purposes see the further discussion of FOWI and Output Tentacle A when I come to Octopus Diagrams]. Therefore, the description for the formula for calculating should always be known as I/O=IOU, and shown and used as
c) The formula IOU=I/O also provides not only a familiar acronym for this method of calculating ‘usefulness to humans’ as in ‘IOU’ [I owe you], but also provides an instant reminder that whatever energy we use, we also owe it to the environment which provides it for us – however closely or widely one chooses or is forced to consider the term ‘environment’. We can only transform whatever we find, and live with the inevitable entropy losses when extracting and converting energy sources for usefulness. No human, however sapiens, has yet ‘created’ any energy ab initio, or is ever likely to.
By Order of the Universe , as in Thomas Payne: THE AGE OF REASON
“The Creation speaketh an universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other.”
Staying with energy matters, we need to use measurements and dimensions for them. For purposes of measuring energy (and work and heat) the SI unit is the joule (which in turn is short for Nm). I prefer here to use kWh because everyone is used to these from their energy bills – and multiplied by the cost charged for their kWh on everyone’s respective utility bill in any location and situation, gives an instant feel for the amount of energy under discussion and their incurred costs.
So, from dimensional consistency requirements, we measure IOU as I/O=IOU
or kWh/kWh=kWh. So the value IOU always has a dimension which should be stated.
But kWh ǂ kWh, they come in vastly different forms and qualities; for example, a barrel of oil delivered to your door may well contain about 1650 kWh in thermal energy, but you can’t run your television with it. Unless the QUALITY of U is known, described or even specified for its actual or intended use, the whole concept of IOU, or EROEI for that matter, or indeed any other discussion about uses of energy, is just about meaningless.
So, what does IOU actually mean when calculated as in I/O=IOU?
· It is a measure of the INPUT COST for one unit of useful benefit when both are measured in energy terms.
· the kind of, and the dimension always needs to be quoted, both for input as well as for output.
o In the laser example shown below, the usefulness IOU is the cost of energy input when converted from oil (ex well head, say) in terms of kWh (thermal) to achieve a single unit in terms of kWh (power) in the form of laser photons. In the example illustrated, the IOU cost is IOU=I/O=330 kWhth.
o For the same amount of usefulness provided by 1 kWhp converted from the direct output of electrons ex solar PV panels on the roof would certainly be different for an IOU= ? kWhp.
Unit dimensions, kind and descriptions for all three terms in the formula IOU=I/O always need to be stated or remain useless. Back to your utility’s energy bill: both gas and electricity consumptions are measured in kWh, but you certainly would not like your gas kWhth to be charged at the same rate as your electricity kWhp.
For a hunter-gatherer, Usefulness would mean finding enough berries, vegetables, and killing enough deer or other animals to feed himself, plus fending for family, shelter, clothing, firewood, provided from the quality of flora and fauna, and area of roaming range etc. Here is the energy pyramid for this situation:
IOU=I/O= ~140 Btu/m2/year
A hunter-gatherer would be an omnivore, let’s say halfway between a herbivore and first-level carnivore, to find his physical strength and stamina for his only input, giving an IOU ratio of 150000/1100=136.4; here measured in Btu/m2/year; which when used on both sides of the equation still gives a valid ratio between input and output. But again, the QUALITY (kind) of input needs to be known or specified; here we start with Plants – not with, say electrons coming directly from a solar PV panel. And another measure appears: area of land required as ‘input’ for plant-life energy. So even our single hunter-gatherer level human is, in energy terms, permanently in hock to the environment to the tune of, say 140 times his own possible adult input valour. The term ‘environment’ can be any four-dimensional region (time always plays a role, even when kept tacit) between the tip of your nose and the furthest region of the universe; we are all just stardust on that ‘boundary’ assumption. A realistic boundary needs to be defined before making meaningful comparisons between different situations – to be discussed below.
At the other extreme of a situation to be assessed, providing 20 kWh of laser quality photons for, say eye surgery, requires app. 6,600 kWh thermal energy at start of the chain of conversion and refinement necessary from coal, oil or gas, that is I/O=U or 6600/20=330/1 or an IOU ratio of 330 kWh Input for every single kWh of laser output.
Again, this is most intuitively understandable when shown graphically:
One last example for comparison: the SUV version of the horseless carriage:
The author’s 2% stated usefulness from the original oil source, giving an IOU=I/O=132 kWhth
Where does all this Input energy disappear to with so little Output energy ending up as Useful for us humans? Best illustrated with Sankey diagrams [try http://www.e-sankey.com/en/].
Here is the first one I ever saw, created in 1949 showing the World’s Energy Flux in 1937:
When I first saw this, I was reminded of seeing an octopus and called it an Octopus Diagram, with the octopus’ head at the input end at left, and the tentacles on the right, in between digesting and distributing everything that the various mouths at the head can gobble up. cf. http://altenergymag.com/emagazine.php?art_id=1673
The next thing I liked was the distinction of input groupings as RECURRING energy sources versus IRREPLACABLE energy sources. Buckminster Fuller describes the same two groups as INCOME energies versus CAPITAL energies. ‘Renewable’ energy is plainly a Newspeak misnomer and should be disused: energy just isn’t renewable – by Order of the Universe as already noted above. The term RECURRING also has the immediate reminder of the element of time: if the recurrence happens at a slower rate than use, result: misery, if faster, result is happiness – ala Micawber. IRREPLACABLE similarly embodies the time element in the sense of being finite – at some time, sooner or later, there will be NIL food at one or more mouths of that kraken sized octopus.
The other advantage is the possibility to arrive at boundary definitions for arrival of energy sources at the various ‘mouths’, from where they enter the octopus’ digestive system.
Perhaps a simple convention for all entry boundaries could be the first entry level to wholesale points, Free at Top-level Onshore Wholesale Intake – FOWI perhaps – from where only direct distribution levels, routes and conduits to reach any end user depart, albeit via further intermediate refinement and conversion operators and processes [most notably for electricity generation, as identified in the US 2009 diagram below].
If on further scrutiny, FOWI would form a practicable boundary definition for the ‘food’ intake at the various mouths of any Octopus, it would also be the point of total energy expenditure needed to provide its different kinds of ‘food’, in order to arrive from whatever source found in the environment at a comparable level of entry into the Octopus’ metabolism.
One entry shown in the 1937 World Energy Octopus is the tentacle labelled A in the black CONSUMED box at the output end of the diagram, labelled ‘extraction of raw materials’.
I propose to retain a tentacle A as in this 1937 Octopus of energy use perhaps as label A1 because it is, after all an output used, and not just as ‘extraction of raw materials’ but including all energy expenditure for ‘food’ right up to the ‘mouths’ identified as FOWI gates. A1 uses need to be known when used for calculating energy embodiments in their respective primary energy headings by the time they arrive at FOWI input boundaries. Further tendrils at tentacle A, say as A2. A3… An might collectively be described as Culture uses, which would include headings like education from kindergarten to university and beyond, science, fundamental research (Iter, Cern, Fusion etc), all of the Arts, leisure activities, etc etc; in short anything using energy not suitably classifiable as belonging strictly under headings like Electricity Generation, Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Transportation as categorized in the 2009 US diagram.
One fundamental other resource is needed for our Octopuses just as for any other creature, including humans, with all their bodily internal and external transformation processes – and that is WATER. In discussions of IRREPLACABLE energy sources, often the use of Peak Oil, Peak Coal appears for any other irreplaceable source peaking and then beginning to become unavailable for ever. Yet Water is never explicitly mentioned in spite of being essential in the extraction, transformation and as processing ingredient in all primary energy sources and their uses. I have made a rough-and-ready assessment of the water requirements of electricity production and came to surprising results, peaking in PEAK WATER becoming apparent. While water is not strictly irreplaceable, – with oceans and polar ice caps being about as limitless as could be desired – but water will (where it not already is) become a very energy-hungry resource due to transportation, desalination and waste-water treatment and purification necessities..
After all, no one has described the essence of the design objective for all of us, better than Buckminster Fuller in his address to the 1963 Congress of the International Union of Architects in Paris:
".... to render the total chemical and energy resources* of the world, which are now exclusively preoccupied in serving only 44% of humanity, adequate to the service of 100% of humanity, at higher standards of living and total enjoyment than any man has yet experienced."
*I think we should include information resources
Back to the original Octopus version, figures for which are given in Millions of Millions of Kilowatt-hours/year (1937).
During that year, the world used – for other than food – (0.3 +0.2 +1.8 +0.9 +3.6 +0.1 +0.7 +10.9) =18.5^12 kWh/y , of which (0.3+1.8+0.8+0.8)=3.7^12 kWh/y were useful, giving an
IOU=5^12 kWh/y, or as plain ratio with identical I and O dimensions assumed, an
Overall, during that year the World Octopus gobbled up (7.0+16.2) = 23.2 trillion kWh and ‘excreted’ (23.2-3.7) =19,5 trillion of these, that is a seeming ‘waste’, but better called
entropy* = 84%
because that ‘waste’ is not wasted: without it there would be NIL output;
useful output = 16%
* Entropy is a thermodynamic property that is a measure of the energy not available for work in athermodynamic process. It is defined by the second law of thermodynamics
A more recent Sankey diagram for US energy in 2009:
IOU=94.62/39.97= IOU = 2.37
entropy is 54.64/94.62= entropy = 58%
useful output = 42%
These two diagrams are different in size, time and construction and are not strictly comparable in detail, kind or volume, but seen as a type comparison, they do show, that the US had about half the IOU ratio of energy drawn from the environment with an efficiency of conversion processes of ~40% useful output with ~60% incurred entropy losses, compared to the whole World conversion process (1937) showing an efficiency of ~20% useful output with ~80% incurred entropy losses from an IOU ratio of energy drawn from the environment
about twice that of the US 2009 situation.
about twice that of the US 2009 situation.
A notable difference between the two Sankey diagrams shown, is that US 2009 does not contain any mention of Octopus mouths for Food and Fuel for which, say artificial fertilizers amongst other needs for processes might be seen as a significant energy input requirement. In the discussion of water needs below, agriculture would be a major contributer to Peak Water.
There is one other enlightening use of octopuses. Using the 2009 US diagram, the annual Residential consumption is shown as 11.26 Quads/y, derived from (0.01 +8.35 +2.68 +0.7 +0.37 +23.37 +19.76 +3.88) = 59.12 Quads/y applicable national primary inputs. Some assumptions here: Residential is taken to include everything from construction, use and maintenance and demolition during that year. The pure lighting use is probably no more than 1% of that total, but is pure electricity. It is therefore arriving from the inputs to Electricity Generation of 38.19 Quads/y. Saving 1% (assumption, here purely for illustration purposes) of residential energy use from changing ‘lightbulbs’ would save 1.126 Quads/y [that is equal to 329,998,039,833 kWh/y, or 330 billion kWh/y] out of 38.19 Quads/y, or 0.3% of national electricity production costs in energy terms. Out of total national primary energy, those 330 billion kWh/y saved would represent a national saving in primary energy of 1.126/59.12 = 0.2%. This is just to illustrate one other useful aspect of making use of Sankey diagrams by following any end (or inter-process stage) use upstream to see what effect any change will have on primary input.
I would like to quote from the inside cover blurb of this ‘Basic Book’ that triggered me to think of octopuses and IOUs:
“For all the talk about energy prices, and energy policy on both sides of the political aisle we actually know very little about what’s really at stake. In their explosive new book The Bottomless Well, Peter W Huber and Mark R Mills shatter the prevailing myths and show that across the board, energy isn’t the problem – energy is the solution.
Writing in take-no-prisoners, urgently compelling prose, Huber & Mills explain:
-- why demand for energy will never go down
-- why most of what we think of as “energy waste” actually benefits us
-- why more efficient cars, engines, and bulbs will never lower demand
-- why energy supply is infinite
-- why gasoline prices matter less and less
-- and why hybrid engines will most likely lead us to cars propelled by the
coal-fired and uranium-fired grid.
As for the much-maligned power grid itself, it’s the Worst system we could have except for all the pro-posed alternatives. Expanding energy supplies mean higher productivity, more jobs, and a growing GDP. The Bottomless Well shows how a better understanding of energy should radically change our views and policies on a number of highly controversial issues.
I hope this trailer sounds intriguing enough to make you reach for this book, from which all illustrations but the US 2009 diagram, have been borrowed.
WIRED magazine [UK Edition OCT 14] provides, as always, fascinating reading; making inter alia no less of an announcement on the front cover than:
SOLVED! THE GLOBAL FOOD CRISIS
Enticing no doubt, but would be digressing here because on page 139 surfaces an article by Jeremy White [WIRED’s Product Editor] from which I would like to quote an excerpt relevant to the IOU discussion here:
When BMW began making electric and hybrid cars, it also rethought what its Leipzig factory should be.
you might call it post-fordist…
“From Henry Ford’s industrial production model to the introduction of robots in the late 20th century, there has been significant change in the way mass-market cars are made….
Take BMW. The German company was aware that the assembly of its i Series of electric and hybrid vehicles (the i3 was launched in November 2013, the i8 in June this year) required a new approach to manufacturing. So, between 2009 and 2012, it spent €400 million (£310 million) building a new factory near Leipzig in east central Germany.
The company claims that the facility, which covers an area of 2.1 million m2, is one of the most sustainable automobile plants in the world. The differences with the older plants are striking. On the new line, there is no need for a paint shop as the thermoplastic outer body panels can be sprayed in small, shed-like rooms. A traditional press shop is absent because the construction of the passenger section of the vehicles doesn’t require steel or aluminium. In the body shop, there is no more welding, just robots silently applying glue.
The result is that making the i models requires 50 per cent less power and 70 per cent less water per car compared to the BMW production average which, in 2011, was 2.43 MWh per vehicle. All of the electricity needed for the i models is generated on-site using wind power from four 2.5 MW turbines. Generating around 26 GWh per year, these turbines produce 2GWh more electricity than is required for the i Series. The surplus is channelled into other areas of the plant….”
WOW, I thought what a topical real-life example for exploring with IOU analyses: an on-site windmill powered industrial plant, usually thought of necessarily being hooked to that ‘baseload grid’, producing surplus energy for export, perhaps on a 24hour production basis (?) using what (?) for wind power variability bridging, comparing its installed IOU with the same 26 GWh/y output derived from Baltic or North Sea offshore wind, or from a possible grid connection, or what-if from solar PV perhaps on factory roofs – using the IOU calculation method here described together with the graphical views like the Pyramids and Octopus diagrams to compare and understand the various options?
Have some fun with that :-)
I can see a liberal necessity for ‘midnight oil’ coming up…
Added on 16 March 2015:
On 17 January 2015 The Economist published a Special Report on Energy and Technology. The first article in this report, headed Let there be light included this Sankey diagram
Source: The Economist 17 JAN 2015, Special Report: Let there be light
IOU = I/O = 97.14/38.4 = IOU = 2.63
entropy is 59.0/97.14 = entropy = 61%
useful output = 39%
Converting all energy units to TWh as in the first Octopus for the World Energy use in 1937, we can make the following comparison:
Total IN: 23.2 TWh = 100% IOU = 5.49
Useful OUT: 3.7 TWh = 16% entropy = 84%
Total IN: 94.62 Quads = 27 730 TWh = 100% IOU = 2.37
Useful OUT: 39.97 Quads = 11 714 TWh = 42% entropy = 58%
Total IN: 97.14 Quads = 28 469 TWh = 100% IOU = 2.53
Useful OUT: 38.40 Quads = 11 254 TWh = 39% entropy = 61%
Which together show these useful order-of-magnitude comparisons:
-- in 2013, the USA alone consumed 1227 times as much energy as the whole World did in 1937, with a 231% improved conversion efficiency (measured by the IOU ratio, after the 2.9 TWh used for ‘food’ in the 1937 world total – not used in the USA diagrams – has been allowed for)
-- USA consumption had increased by 2.66% since 2009, with a 7% entropy increase over 2009 (= loss in conversion efficiency = IOU ratio).
Oxford University Press Inc, New York, 2007
Addendum 07 July 2016:
Since writing this essay about three years ago, the IOU concept has led to further insights from a fuller understanding of Peter Atkins' FOUR LAWS when combined with the BIRTH OF THERMODYNAMICS at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/thefour-laws-withoutwhich-nothing.html ,
which in turn led to an expanded edition of SUSTAINABILITY – THE FULL MONTY,
published by Lulu Press at http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/CleanEnergyPundit
All of which finally allowed me to arrive at a definition of SUSTAINABILITY, now added to the earlier definition of CLEAN ENERGY
And not to forget: 'sustaining itself in future' is, of course, the ultimate definition of