BLOG ENTRY: Fisker and Tesla

BLOG ENTRY: Fisker and Tesla

Tesla and Fisker had both been electric-powered car pioneers, leading the industry in their drive to build cars that can take people further distances with a reduced environmental impact. In these electric engines, the motor acts as a generator. It does this by turning mechanical power into electricity in the vehicle. Tesla has flown, with profits steady and the company’s future bright. On the other hand, Fisker failed to maintain momentum from the green movement. Following support from the US government to promote production of luxury electric cars, the company has failed to repay such loans. Further, visionary executives have left the company at a standstill. From 2013 to 2014, production was halted at Fisker with constant concerns of bankruptcy.

The chart above highlights the success of Tesla motors. Revenues have increased significantly in recent years, according to The Street.

Focusing on the technical end of the products, the roadster motor by Tesla only has one moving piece, the rotor. This eliminates the need for a conversion of linear motion and doesn’t have mechanical timing issues that may be found in an internal combustion engine. Furthermore, in these engines, the rotational energy is available immediately when the accelerator is pressed. The wide torque band that is available right away eliminates the needs for multiple gears, with the engine only having one. On top of that, the phases can be switched into reverse electrically. It’s that simple for the driver.

 

In terms of the battery itself that needs to be charged, the roadster motor is so efficient that it can work to recharge the battery itself. When the car is slowing, without the accelerator being pressed, the energy can be captured to work to restore the battery life.

The Roadster motor has two components, the rotor (as discussed) and a stator. The rotor, which is an essential piece of the motor, is surrounded by the stator. This piece is stationary and works to create a magnetic field around the rotor, which induces a current. This current creates a second magnetic field that “chases” the rotating stator field. These two pieces create torque.

 

The stator is put together with winding copper wire coils which go through thin steel plates. The copper wire conducts electricity, which goes to the motor. Three sets of wires conduct one phase of electricity each. These waves of energy supply a smooth current, which creates a magnetic field. The placement of the copper coils relative to the stator allows the magnetic field to move in a circular motion.

Copper bar conductors move through the magnetic field, which creates induction. Because the magnetic field keeps moving, the rotor is always trying to catch up. This interaction creates torque, which is used to power the vehicle.

The benefits of these vehicles are wide-ranging. They’re special because they emit 15 tons of CO2, compared to 160 tons of CO2 of conventional engines. In addition, they offer a major cost saving in terms of “re-fueling” the vehicles. Recharging a battery costs about $1.41 per gallon, compared to $3.50 for a conventional vehicle. Due to increased support from the government, there are now over 8,500 electric power stations in the country. In addition, there are over 20,000 charging outlets. As these numbers continue to grow, it will allow for more consumers to take advantage of cost savings.

PHEV’s and EV’s can reduce costs significantly because the cost of the electricity needed is relatively smaller than the cost of conventional fuel. Efficiency on these vehicles is often measured by MPGe, which can run upwards to 100 MPGe (equievalent).

 

 

Because of these wide ranging gains from switching over to electric vehicles, Tesla is projecting over 500,000 vehicles in production annually by 2020. This is huge for a company, which as of 2013, had a $17.5 billion dollar market value. Fisker is also looking to regain its footing after years of decline. In 2013, the company had $21 million dollars seized by the American government to begin repaying loans it received as part of an economic stimulus package in 2009. This shows that despite room for growth in the electric car industry, it still takes stealth marketing and production capabilities to allow for continued success.

References:

http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster/technology/motor

http://visual.ly/how-electric-cars-and-tesla-model-s-work

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/business/fisker-broke-down-on-the-road-to-electric-cars.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.autonews.com/article/20140219/OEM04/140219834/fiskers-new-owner-teams-up-with-lutz-on-v-8-karma

BLOG ENTRY: Pulley Lab Reflection

Blog Entry: Weight, Work Lab

What was our mission?

This lab allowed us to utilize the robots, along with varying masses and velocity measurements, to explore Newton’s 2^nd law.

The law can be stated in formula form as F = ma.

Furthermore, the variables explored would heighten our understanding of the law of conservation of energy. This law states that energy is not created or destroyed, but is instead changed between different forms. To allow us to explore these rules, we measured velocity and acceleration using the computer program LabView. LabView also permitted the manipulation of power as a tool to further enhance our understanding of Newton’s 2^nd law.

How did these experiments heighten our understanding?

Our lab focused on the conservation of energy through Newton’s 2^nd law. To allow us to explore these laws, we did multiple test runs which manipulated one variable in each set of trials. By focusing on one variable at a time, we were able to highlight different relationships that would confirm the validity of these scientific rules.

Trial Set 1: Constant Mass

For our first four trials, we used the LabView program to alter the amount of power employed to carry the weights up the pulley. However, in these trials, we would maintain the same mass. By keeping mass the same, we are able to use the formula under Newton’s 2^nd law to create a hypothesis on what the results will be. If mass is remaining the same, but force is going to increase, it is very likely that acceleration must also increase.

The following table shows the data recorded for the first set of trial runs:

Speed (RPM)	Battery Discharge	Mass (kg)	Power	Time (sec)	Acceleration (RPM/sec.)
30.850514	111	0.09	50	4.511	6.838952
66.496526	139	0.09	75	2.351	28.284358
106.949352	110	0.09	100	1.415	75.582581
106.567093	70	0.09	125	1.406	75.794519

 

Furthermore, a graph below underscores the relationship between acceleration and power:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As expected, as we increased the force imposed onto the pulley from the robot, the acceleration also increased. This matches with Newton’s 2^nd law.

Trial Set 2: Constant Power

For our second set of trial runs, we did not adjust the power on LabView. Instead, we used the weights provided to us to alter the mass being carried up the pulley. This would allow us to focus on the other half of the Newton’s 2^nd law. If mass were to increase, we would hypothesize that acceleration would have to decrease. This is given that the power is remaining the same. Without the drop in acceleration, the formula F = ma would not balance.

The following table shows the data recorded for the second set of trial runs:

Speed (RPM)	Battery Discharge	Mass (kg)	Power	Time (sec)	Acceleration (RPM/sec.)
23.724792	153	0.08	50	5.058	4.690548
24.856242	139	0.1	50	5.391	4.610692
15.795495	139	0.12	50	7.576	2.084939
2.115704	194	0.16	50	9.847	0.214858

 

Furthermore, a graph below underscores the relationship between mass and acceleration:

 

Fitting with the formula/law, the acceleration decreased as mass increase. The two variables have an inverse relationship. This data means that the two will still equate to the power (force) that we input onto LabView, re-enforcing Newton’s 2^nd law.

How did this enhance understanding of the law of conservation of energy?

For the last portion of our lab, we measured the height of the pulley and analyzed the battery discharge information from LabView. What this allowed us to do what look at the relationship between the amount of battery utilized and the potential energy, which can be measured with the following formula:

PE = mgh

We divided this by the time on LabView, using Microsoft Excel, to get the needed data for our graph below. The information is also shown in table form:

 

Gravity(m/s2)	Mass(kg)	Height (km)	Time (sec)	PE	PE/T	Battery Dischage
9.8	0.08	0.04	5.058	0.158619	0.03136	153
9.8	0.1	0.04	5.391	0.211327	0.0392	139
9.8	0.12	0.04	7.576	0.356375	0.04704	139
9.8	0.16	0.04	9.847	0.617604	0.06272	194
9.8	0.09	0.04	4.511	0.159148	0.03528	111
9.8	0.09	0.04	2.351	0.082943	0.03528	139
9.8	0.09	0.04	1.415	0.049921	0.03528	110
9.8	0.09	0.04	1.406	0.049604	0.03528	70

 

We noticed that our graph, disregarding the two outside data points in the top right and lower center, was generally stable. While we would have expected more of an increase in battery discharge given a higher PE/T value, we attribute it to the fact this lab did not require heavy battery usage. However, we were able to conclude that this is an area we would see the conservation of energy between the potential energy and energy used on the pulley.

Conclusion

This lab was a fun, interactive way to enhance our understanding of Newtons’ 2^nd law and the law of conservation of energy. Furthermore, my relationship with Rebecca continued to strengthen as we went through each trial. We communicate clearly and divide up the tasks without any issue! I can’t wait to continue enhancing my understanding of the class material in the lab!

BLOG ENTRY: Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Solar Power

Coal, natural gas, and nuclear power have all been discussed widely in the larger attempt to have an “all of the above” energy policy in the United States. The three are a large portion of American energy generation and consumption, and have long been part of the overall energy independence conversation. As seen in the graph below, in addition to petroleum, the three make up a vast majority of US energy consumption. (The graph is dated back to 2007, however renewable fuels have yet to capture a large portion of American energy usage).

 

A key element to this conversation has centered around the environmental impact of each of the different energy sources. First and foremost, coal and natural gas are both criticized by environmental groups for having a negative impact on the overall battle against climate change. While natural gas emits less carbon than coal, both continue to be contributors to the American carbon footprint.

Specifically, the graph below underscores the carbon output from each area.

As argued in the class text, it’s imperative for both energy sources that the country invest in updating power plant technologies. While increased efficiency is possible to technological advancements, we have been slow to adopt such upgrades. CO2 emissions from gas combustion is 16% of our GHG emissions, and 29% comes from coal. We have the potential to dramatically reduce our coal emissions through the modernization of coal plants. Coal plants have an average 33% efficiency in the US according to Richter, and that number could be increased above 40% if newer technologies were employed.

Furthermore, all three are similar in the sense that they often bring about safety concerns. Nuclear power specifically, while emitting no carbon emissions, has been slammed due to radiation concerns and other safety issues. Furthermore, attempts to allow for storage of nuclear waste (such as in Nevada) have fallen flat due to environmental concerns. It has been argued that many of these criticisms are misguided and unfounded, as the plant in Chernobyl had none of the safety protections you would find in an American power plant (according to Richter).

 

Furthermore, due to concerns over radiation and safety, nuclear power has been the subject of many layers of red tape. The accident at Three Mile Island led to a large increase in orders from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Regulatory costs and public backlash have not allowed for a construction if a new nuclear power plant in decades, with approval of the energy source below 50% for many years. The graph below, from the US Department of Energy, underscores that some of the concerns over radiation may be groundless.

While the overall reason for the lack of construction is subject to debate, Forbes Magazine reports that harsh competition from natural gas and coal production is also a piece of nuclear power’s struggle to keep up in the U.S. It should be noted that coal is also facing a decline in comparison to natural gas growth. Despite hopes for a turnaround due to the drop in coal costs, natural gas continues to expand rapidly due to the usage of fracking. Coal and nuclear power have leveled out, while natural gas has continued to thrive in the new economy.

A concern I have about the overall image of the three energy sources is that there seems to be a perception that they are all villains in the fight for environmental protection. While it is ideal that renewable fuels take the lead, it’s unlikely that such fuels could truly power the American economy in the near future. With increased research in carbon capture (as suggested by the class text), a modernization of natural gas plants, and increased oversight of nuclear power, the American public could reap the benefits of increased energy independence while concurrently driving down carbon emissions.

On the political end, the President has spoken out in support of increased nuclear power production. Furthermore, Obama spoke positively of natural gas production as a pathway to lowering emissions in recent energy speeches. On the other hand, the administration has been cool towards increased coal production and has proposed carbon standards that would likely raise costs for coal-based power plants. With these policies in place, I would expect continued decline in coal for America’s energy future.

I want to briefly discuss solar power, in addition to the big three highlighted prior. Solar energy is divided between solar photovoltaic and solar thermal electrical generating systems. In the heat and hot water system, water is pumped to the rooftop where it is heated by the sun. The hot fluid goes to a storage tank, where domestic water is pumped through a coil inside the tank. The hot water can then be used for a variety of reasons. Photovoltaic installations have been increasing, with the first cell being developed in the 1950’s. The concern is the lack of efficient storage of the energy produced.

Solar thermal electric systems can store energy, but they cannot produce much energy on an overcast day and the added cost of steam systems make it unlikely to be a viable alternative. Solar power is extremely environmentally friendly in a carbon sense, despite concerns that it takes too much space. I wanted to demonstrate that while it is a good alternative, it lacks a lot of the technologies needed to fully replace fossil fuels. The big three discussed prior can be modernized and made more efficient.

Investments should continue into carbon-free renewable fuels. With that said, it cannot and should not be the sole focus of carbon reduction activists. Whatever the mix may be, carbon emissions are continuing to be a greater concern for the overall public and will likely play a big role in future energy generation decisions.

Sources:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-13/coal-burns-brighter-as-utilities-switch-from-natural-gas.html

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/14/276782467/report-burning-natural-gas-is-better-than-using-coal

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/04/23/4-reasons-coal-declines-even-as-natural-gas-prices-rise-eia/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/02/20/why-the-economics-dont-favor-nuclear-power-in-america/

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2014/02/12/obama-energy-official-nuclear-plants-essential-to-our-carbon-reduction-goals/

Class Text: Beyond Smoke and Mirrors by Burton Richter

BLOG POST: Robotics Activity Reflection

Building Our Robot

The beginning of this assignment was a bit hectic because we couldn’t find all of the parts we needed, but it was also a lot of fun! It’s not often that classes offer this kind of hands-on learning experience, so it was something different. Coming from the business school, I don’t usually work with my hands to actually put things together.

This was also a good time for Rebecca and I to become more acquainted with each other, and build a working relationship that was definitely useful as we moved forward into the data collection process. We both come from degrees that are completely unrelated to science, and were a bit intimidated by the assignment. Being able to laugh about that together broke the ice!

 

Data Collection

Data collection seemed to go very well for us. The computer data was used to calculate velocity, which was distance/time. This was compared to the recorded data, where distance was measured using a ruler and a piece of tape. Following that measurement, we calculated our velocity.

The two distance measurements (computer v. ruler) allowed us to analyze our margin of error. Our margin of errors, which are depicted in a bar graph below, all remained very low. Furthermore, the margin of errors were fairly consistent for each of the different powers and speeds.

Computer Data

Power level/time	# of wheel turns	Distance measured (m)	Velocity (m/s)
25 PWR, 2 Seconds	0.941667	0.160083	0.0800417
25 PWR, 2 Seconds	0.963889	0.163861	0.0819306
25 PWR, 2 Seconds	0.969444	0.164806	0.0824028
50 PWR, 4 Seconds	4.322222	0.734778	0.184757
50 PWR, 4 Seconds	4.34722	0.739028	0.184757
50 PWR, 4 Seconds	4.38333	0.745167	0.186292
60 PWR, 6 Seconds	8.11389	1.37936	0.229894
60 PWR, 6 Seconds	8.10833	1.37842	0.229736
60 PWR, 6 Seconds	8.14167	1.38408	0.230681

 

Our Data

Power level/Time	Distance measured (m)	Velocity (m/s)
25 PWR, 2 Seconds	0.17	0.085
25 PWR, 2 Seconds	0.171	0.0855
25 PWR, 2 Seconds	0.171	0.0855
50 PWR, 4 Seconds	0.741	0.185
50 PWR, 4 Seconds	0.742	0.186
50 PWR, 4 Seconds	0.751	0.188
60 PWR, 6 Seconds	1.40	0.233
60 PWR, 6 Seconds	1.39	0.2317
60 PWR, 6 Seconds	1.42	0.2367

 

The first three trials had considerably higher error percentages, but this is because the time (2 seconds) and power (25) were much lower when compared to the second and third sets of trials. For the second trial, we used a power of 50 with 4 seconds, and for the third trial we used a power of 60 and 6 seconds. After the first trial, where the distance traveled was much lower, the margin of error declined.

To calculate margin of error, we used the class formula of the difference between the computer and measured data divided by the average of the two. Following that, we multiplied the value by 100 to get the percentage error.

Overall Experience

This was a really interesting way to learn about speed/velocity and acceleration. While it’s less formula intensive than a typical class exercise would be, it was also more memorable. The robot and the data collection were a good combination to re-enforce the class material.

BLOG POST: Fracking

Bryan Vermes

BLOG ENTRY: Fracking

Fracking is easily one of the most hotly debated energy topics of the 21^st century. Following years of turmoil in the Mideast, many see fracking as the way out of international crises. On the other hand, the environmental community is up in arms over what is seen as an attack on landscapes across the central U.S. Seeing as exploration is continuing to expand, with technologies and studies on safety still being studied, the one sure bet is that the debate will continue in the coming years.

Below is a simplified diagram of fracking, also known as hydraulic fracking. Currently in the U.S., there are about 35,000 wells that process using this method. In these jobs, pumping fluids (mainly sand and water) are injected at a high pressure. The water (and small amount of chemical) create fissures that allow the fuels to be more easily extracted from underground, while the sand helps maintain the passageway. Most often, the resources would be unattainable without the fracking technologies. The latest development in the technology has centered around horizontal drilling, which allows for a substantial amount of liquid to be pumped underground. A steel pipe is often cemented in towards the top of the well to prevent groundwater contamination, although the effectiveness of this method is contested by environmental groups.

Being able to get to the point of production is far along in the fracking process. Planning and surveying often takes years, especially in places where regulations against oil and natural gas exploration are more restrictive. Furthermore, leasing and permitting processes vary across different states (with EPA regulations now being rolled out from the Obama administration).

As stated prior, the debate around fracking is hardly over. The opposition is generally focused on the environmental impact of fracking. The injected liquid often contains chemicals and acids that are not regulated by the federal government, but are speculated to pose a danger to public drinking water. As contaminated water returns to the surface, it usually tests positive for a small amount of radioactive material.

At a larger scale, fracking causes methane to be released from the wells (which is a greenhouse gas). This is only a piece of the global environmental impact, as many claim fracking prevents politicians from taking climate change initiatives seriously. Climate change activists state the oil companies are downplaying the environmental impact at the local level, while ignoring the fact these new reserves are going to pave the way for decades of increased carbon emissions.

Putting environmental considerations aside, fracking also has its share of supporters. The prospect of a surplus in oil and natural gas supplies leading to North America being an exporter of energy products promises to be an economic boon for the US and Canada, while concurrently decreasing security concerns from the Mideast. Proponents discount environmental concerns, stating that the impact on drinking water is exaggerated by environmental groups. Lastly, many actually use climate change as a reason to promote fracking. They point out the fact that natural gas fracking is better in terms of carbon emissions when compared to coal, which is used heavily in the US for electricity.

The discussion on fracking is still evolving, as the technology is changing and new studies are still being published. This is likely why the Obama administration has had a muddled policy towards fracking, with the President refusing the outright endorse the exploration but stating that it can be a “bridge” to a clean energy future. This has left both sides of the debate upset, which will likely be the case for the foreseeable future.

References

http://online.wsj.com/articles/oil-from-u-s-fracking-is-more-volatile-than-expected-1403653344

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/29/obama-says-fracking-offers-a-bridge-to-a-clean-energy-future-its-not-that-simple/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/opinion/global/the-facts-on-fracking.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.energyfromshale.org/hydraulic-fracturing/logistics-shale-production

http://www.mlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/05/fracking_a_divisive_practices.html

Hello world!

Welcome to Blogs.cas.suffolk.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Manage>Posts or make a new one under Write>Posts then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Design tab to choose a new look for your blog as well.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.