Sunday, June 04, 2006


Welcome to Charge: the future of energy
BY Daniel Sweeney, Ph.D


Last post we expatiated on what we feel is wrong with the usual calls to arms in respecting to changing our energy regime--bully the auto makers into increasing mileage, fund a lot of fuel cell research in the National Labs, undertake a lot of pilots involving zero emissions vehicles and government fleets, and so on. Such well meaning initiatives haven't worked in the past and there's little reason to believe they'll work in the future. One instigates major changes by building new markets notchivyingying incumbent oligopolists. Does anyone seriously believe, for example, that the Bell Empire would have launched the Internet or even mobile phone service for that matter? Building new markets simply wasn't in their DNA, as they say.

So what's needed here in the way of an industrial policy that might have some chance of succeeding?

Let's try some thought exercises.

Suppose government on some level, preferably local, bought a transportation system that could really exert major competitive pressures on the existing regime and compel them to change to meet changing market conditions and not because of top down regulation.

So what might this entail?

Ever since the nineteen sixties a number of transportation mavens, some in academia, some in the automobile industry, and some in private companies have talked about what is known as personal rapid transit. Personal rapid transit is a form of public transportation but it is the very antitheses of bus lines, light rail, traditional railroads, and all of the slow, crowded, noisy, and expensive mass transit systems most of us have grown to hate.

Personal rapid transit is only possible with the latest technology. What it consists of is cars that carry one or at most a few persons, in other words, a single party, and take that party directly to the designated destination via instructions punched at a terminal or possibly through voice commands. The car is summoned by the rider at a terminal and appears in no more than three minutes and then proceeds directly to the destination at speeds in excess of fifty miles per hour and perhaps in excess of 100mph. There are no stops, no remembering schedules or where to get off, no set routes, and there is no congestion because the entire system is computer controlled and access of vehicles is metered to maintain proper spacing. Cars onload and offload on sidetracks to avoid delays and are monitored at all times to prevent vandalism or attacks on occupants. Offenders within the cars are immediately transported to the nearest police stations. Rush hour delays are eliminated, and riders can go anywhere within a large metropolitan area within minutes. Furthermore, because the individual cars are extremely light compared to so-called light rails, project costs are fraction of those of existing systems.

Personal rapid transit is radically different from any existing metropolitan public transit system. The vehicles are faster by far than any competing system and provide the rider with complete privacy.

So where do they operate, and when is one coming here?

While many companies have developed prototype PRT vehicles, no one has succeeded in selling a system yet. No city has been willing to commit to a system because no system has proven itself. Simply put, itÂ’s much easier for urban transit authorities to vote for conventional light rail systems even if no one rides them and they lose money. No one ever gets penalized for upholding the status quo.

Regardless of the lack of working examples, we are absolutely convinced that PRTs could work with existing technology. They couldnÂ’t have worked in the late sixties when they were conceived because the cost of the required computing power was prohibitive and because computer modeling of complex systems was in its infancy. But today we see no fundamentally intractable engineering problems.

A PRT would have vastly greater energy efficiency than today's automotive transport and would almost certainly reduce automobile usage in urban areas once the systems were built out. And mandates for clean electrical sources in powering such systems could take a big, big bite out of particulate emissions and carbon dioxide emissions.

True, there are many skeptics concerning PRTs, and any Web search on the subject will reveal truly venomous opposition full of the usual Web incivility to the effect that anyone who disagrees with the writer is both a sack of shit and an idiot (what motivates such vicious personal attacks in what is after all a technical discussion?). But we have yet to see any arguments that convince us that such a system would be impossible to build with existing technology or presents engineering problems of the magnitude of say a suborbital airliner. Financing such a system would assuredly be difficult, but the existing automotive transportation is simply not going to function better in the future. Streets will grow more and more congested, the air will grow more and more polluted, and gasoline will grow dearer and dearer. Somewhere someone will build such a system and make it work. And when that happens the opposition will have no where to go but back to its own online discussion groups.

So do an end run around the auto makers. Build one system and make it work in one big city and soon everyone will want one. The auto makers could try to lobby them out of existence, but I doubt they could pull it off, especially if gas prices keep going up. No one but the most committed right wing ideologue would willingly endure hours in transit to and from the job site while paying twenty dollars per day for gasoline when he could climb into an automated jitney and get to his destination in minutes for a couple of bucks. Even Americans aren't that crazy.

Second Thought Exercise

A lot of people believe that the mid term future of the private automobile is the so-called plug-in hybrid where advanced batteries do a lot of the work and an internal combustion engine functions as balance of plant as it were. Several companies are already in the business of performing aftermarket modifications on Toyota Priuses to permit plug-in recharging and one major automotive parts manufacturer has formed a partnership with AFS Trinity, a California battery and flywheel manufacturer, to launch a vehicle.

We think that such cars are almost inevitable if gas prices stay elevated, and they probably represent a correct response on the part of the public in terms of promoting the long term economic health of the nation. They will, however, be resisted by American auto makers who bet the farm on SUVs and bet wrong and now need to improvise some kind of survival strategy for themselves.

So how to speed the adoption process along? How about temporary government sponsorship of free or almost free DC charging stations. DC charging, battery to battery, only requires a few minutes as opposed to hours for AC recharging, and so the purchaser of the plug-in hybrid is doubly encouraged. One needn't really publicize such charging stations people will find out, and the energy oligopolists will be caught flat footed. Maybe they will get them closed down by crying foul, although one could argue that no foul is being committed when the U.S. auto makers are perfectly free to make their own plug ins. But even if they succeed, the plug-ins themselves would not go away and would have received the initial impetus to grow in the marketplace.

Of course, the other attractive feature of plug-ins, is that they don't require public infrastructure. One can charge the vehicle at home with off-peak hour electricity which is a far more energy efficient process than running off gasoline even when fossil fuel is used to generate the electricity.

Just ThinkingÂ….

So what's the chance of either thought exercise being realized? We think PRTs are a very long shot, and that plug-ins won't happen quickly but are fairly likely in the long term. We also doubt that anything approaching an effective new industrial policy for transportation will be implemented. It's easier to make political hay with hot button social issues and it requires a lot less hard analytical work.


george said...

Regarding the PRT thought experiment, I am a bit confused. Do these cars run on rails? If so, they would be very infrastructure-heavy. If not, the technological requirements of fully automated vehicles running on regular roads is, as they say, non-trivial...

But what about Smart Roads? In my imaginary scenario, each car would have a small, short-range wireless transceiver and a small computer. Major roads would have an antenna / vehicle sensor embedded in the road surface, or possibly near the road on existing poles. Each car would broadcast its position, velocity, and possibly destination info into the road network, and that info would be routed within a modest radius. It would not take much compute power to optimise the function of traffic signals, route traffic around trouble spots, and improve the flow of traffic. Individual cars could be sent simple commands such as "speed up", "slow down", or "change lanes". The commands could be sent to the driver or possibly to the car's cruise control system. The vehicles would not be autonomous, but sufficiently intelligent to dramatically improve the flow of traffic. The hardware requirements are modest. The control software could even be open sourced. I could easily see a doubling of carrying capacities on some roads, and improved fuel efficiency from much less stopping at dumb traffic lights. A system like this could even work for cars with no on-board hardware, mostly by making traffic lights smarter.

Avidor said...

PRT is an infeasible transportation "system" that has a 30-year record of controversy and failure. PRT has its zealous, cult-like supporters... much like "Intelligent Design".

Minnesota Rep. Mark Olson (R 16b) has been a big proponent of PRT:

Dump Representative Mark Olson (16b)

Minneapolis Councilman Dean Zimmermann worked closely with Mark Olson promoting PRT. They both gave presentations together at the Capitol and at Minneapolis City Hall

Now, Zimmermann is facing a federal indictment on bribery charges.

Learn more about the PRT scam at the PRT is a Joke web site.

Anonymous said...

"DC charging, battery to battery, only requires a few minutes as opposed to hours for AC recharging"

What do you mean by that? How is this possible?

A Transportation Enthusiast said...

Like clockwork, Ken Avidor arrives on a PRT discussion to spew his venom (see comment above). For the uninitiated, Mr. Avidor is the leader of the anti-PRT cult, and whenever someone dares to suggest PRT as a solution, he whips out his entire propaganda spiel in a desperate attempt to discredit the technology.

Avidor is like a religious fundamentalist in his zeal. He wields his anti-PRT literature like a creationist waving a bible. There is no room for debate in his world. Any form of transportation that is not a train or a bicycle is akin to heresy. Take everything he says with a grain of salt.

For a nice neutral article on PRT (criticism and all) see the Wikipedia article on the subject. PRT faces real challenges, but it is a very compelling technology that should not be ignored.

Avidor said...

Hmmmm.... it's A.T.E. again.

A.T.E. was banned and his posts erased from the Seattle PI web board for stuff like THIS.

As for the religious extremism, Minnesota's leading right-wing theocrats, Rep. Mark Olson and Senator Michele Bachmann are PRT promoters.

It figures that people like Olson and Bachmann who believe the Earth is only 5,000 years old would also believe that residential neighborhoods like mine would cut down half the trees on their streets for a monorail structure with a clear view into our bedroom windows.

Dump Representative Mark Olson!

A Transportation Enthusiast said...

It's the same old garbage from Avidor: personal attacks and political propaganda. No substance.

But don't believe me, research PRT for yourself. Wikipedia is a great place to start. It contains a nice technology summary as well as links to several books and web sites on PRT.

As for Avidor, learning about PRT from him is like learning about evolution from Pat Robertson. Here's a web site that debunks all of Avidor's half-truths and flat-out lies about PRT.

Avidor said...

Pod people wrote that Wikipedia page.

A while back some skeptics including myself stepped in and injected a little reality into the page.

ATE wants to revise it back to where it was.

This obsessive effort by the pod people to eliminate the skeptical point of view is an indicator that PRT is either a cult, a con job or both.

A Transportation Enthusiast said...

"Pod people wrote that Wikipedia page" - BUNK. The original author had nothing to do with PRT. You tried to vandalize the page with your own ridiculous political propaganda, but all your content was removed by neutral third parties because it has no basis in reality.

What remains is, for the most part, a very neutral article: a statement of the technology, some criticism from respected professionals... and barely a hint of your outrageous conspiracy theories.

Brenda Sue said...

My Love Of BicyclesI have owned many different bicycles in my life. I decided in my early twenties that I could live just fine with just a few bicycles and without a car. I have different bicycles for different uses.I live in Houston and use the Houston streets for my transportation. I regularly use one of my light duty mountain bicycles for grocery shopping. The light duty mountain bicycles are not as tough as my mountain bicycles. Light duty mountain bikes are also referred to as trail bikes.I would never take a trail bike off-road. I have a really tough mountain bike with a full suspension system for taking camping. I try to get out and really ride on my mountain bicycle at least once per month. I usually know at least one person that is going cycling every weekend. It is easy to hitch a ride with them.Some of the most expensive bicycles are recumbent. I bought one for myself and I love it. It allows me to sit in a reclined position and pedal with my feet forward. My recumbent bicycle seat feels like a lounge chair. My model is one of the faster ones and I love it.I had a boyfriend once that was also interested in bicycles. We rode together everywhere and he talked me into buying a tandem bicycle. That was a huge mistake. We just could not work together on that bicycle and it amplified the problems in our relationship that were just below the surface. We broke up about two months after the purchase of that tandem bike.I was on one of my bicycles just getting some exercise last week and I rode past a retirement community and saw something amazing. I thought I was up on all of the available bicycles, but I had never seen an adult tricycle before. They were amazing. I stopped and chatted with one of the women riders and she told me that she hadnt been able to ride bicycles in about twenty years. She needed the stability that the adult tricycle had to offer and felt like she had new freedom.My nephew has recently become interested in bicycles. He wants a BMX bicycle for his birthday. He asked me for it because, as the most enthusiastic bicycle rider he knows, I am most likely to indulge his desire. I think that I am going to try to talk him into a free style bike instead. If I cant talk him into a free style bike, I may end up buying both bicycles for him. I want him to love cycling as much as I do.To learn more about everything bicycles vist my site at: BrensMartUSA Bicycles Have a geat day and stay healthy!Brenda Sue