dagblog - Comments for "Tainter: Collapse of Complex Societies"

Once you factor in potential

Verified Atheist — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 01:05:57 +0000

In reply to Camry

Once you factor in potential resale price (i.e., Kelley Blue Book), my '05 Civic Hybrid paid off quite some time back. And, it keeps on paying off.

Unfortunately I can't get

Donal — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:51:14 +0000

In reply to Donal. Imagine a new building

Unfortunately I can't get cars wholesale, so the price is the price is the price.

Donal. Imagine a new building

quinn esq — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:31:56 +0000

In reply to Camry

Donal. Imagine a new building material called... Wood. That enabled you to build more cheaply than using the old material known as... Marble. But imagine developers decided to PRICE Wood at Marble +20%. imagine they also then made their Wooden houses more luxurious. Would you feel this proved that Wood, as a material, was less economic than Marble? This is what I'm saying about hybrids. Their real economic cost is far less than the retail premium being placed on them. Similarly, but less widely known, many automakers are using a large % of the benefit being offered to amp up acceleration, not efficiency. A good hybridization should boost your fuel economy by more like 50% than 15%. I am sad when I see particular automakers do this. But the innovation itself - which is what Tainter is on about - stands. And sooner or later, an automaker with an open mind will meet a population presses by high gas prices, and we'll see the full gains. In fact, we're seeing some of that already in North America, as hybridization spreads across models, and big premiums become impossible. Same with plug-ins. GM could sell all its Volts for the next 3 years at $40k. But they'd lose the mass market. Sooo.... Their engineers have been told to make Gen 2 a full $10k cheaper. Just as Toyota has told its engineers to make the Plug-In Prius the SAME price as the Prius by 2015. So, forgetting the market dynamics of the moment... I'm simply arguing that this is a very big innovation. Bigger than anything to happen to the automobile since it got hooked on cheap West Texas crude.

Camry

Donal — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:12:44 +0000

In reply to 1. Rare earths. Certainly not

Camry Hybrid $22,144 $1,623/yr vs Camry $17,448 $2,062/yr

$4,696/$429 =10.94 years

Escape Hybrid 4WD $37,875 $1,847/yr vs Escape 4WD $28,465 $2,437/yr

$9,410/$590 =15.9 years

I compared all these years ago. If they actually paid off, I'd have bought one. The only hybrid that even came close was the Prius, but everyone I know that owned one said they didn't handle well in the snow. Instead I bought a used car with decent mileage (19/29) and drive it as little as possible.

I think the serial hybrid, and the plug-in, will ultimately be a better, simpler solution than the parallels, but even with the Fed credit, it is too expensive right now. If I had money to play with, I'd buy a Twike.

1. Rare earths. Certainly not

quinn esq — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 02:33:03 +0000

In reply to China controls something like

1. Rare earths. Certainly not something that looks like it'll cause the death of innovation or amount to a massive environmental limit.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/929979--rare-earth-metals-not-so...

2. I'll say it again. To compare the price of a hybrid, it's not useful to compare a moel that is ONLY available in hybrid form like the Prius to another model entirely, like the Camry. More useful to compare Ford Escape hybrid and non, Civic hybrid and non, etc. - which is what most studies do. And while it's nice to know what your dealer lists at, since we're talking about the future of the human race and the declining long-term trend toward innovation, it's probably better to understand the real economic cost differences between the technologies.

And once that's grasped, the fact that a few thousand bucks can cut our gasoline imports by a massive %, slash CO2 emissions, smog emissions, all those things... well, you know. I thought maybe we could get excited about it, and help formulate policy and push for change. But I guess it's better to just repeat shit put out years ago by the antio-hybrid carmakers, and say they're more expensive, lose money, etc.

3. The Volt. The Volt is a plug-in hybrid. Whether it's serial or parallel architecture actually means almost nothing in real-world terms. What's important is that dozens of plug-in models are coming, they'll cut gas use by 60%-80%, their electronics will work, people will actually buy so little gas it'll go stale in the tank, and we can all get off this fossil fuel train. Except you don't want to hear that. So, whatever.

4. The EIA said the important stuff - usage down 31% per house, and housing/population up 45%. What you said was just... you. If you think that household gadget use, hot water use and AC was responsible for reversing all the reductions, and that 45% household growth was irrelevant, I'll leave you to it.

I was just trying to make sure people didn't get sucked down into this video's sea of unfounded hopelessness, but hey... carry on.

China controls something like

Donal — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 00:44:38 +0000

In reply to 1. "Rare earths" are not,

China controls something like 97% of rare earth production, which has been such a source of concern that hybrid mfrs have invested R&D into other solutions, announced but not delivered, and countries have invested in formerly unprofitable mines. Kaching. I forget where I saw it, but smaller and lighter batteries cost more than the heavier ones in first gen Prius.

At this dealer, Priuses list from $23K to $33K. Camrys list from $17K to $26K. Looks like a difference of $6K to $7K to me.

The Volt is a serial hybrid, like diesel-electric trains. Most hybrids are parallel, and require much more complicated electronics to work. That's progress, and it keeps customers at the pumps.

EIA supports what I said.

1. "Rare earths" are not,

quinn esq — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:21:15 +0000

In reply to Hybrid engines need rare

1. "Rare earths" are not, actually, "rare." At all. The Chinese outcompeted everyone else in production, and after the other nations had closed their mines, China decided to give its own manufacturers a boost, by keeping rare earth supplies at home. Now, the world is reopening old mines, accessing other sources, and getting out of their use altogether. Even in rare earth world, China only has 37% of global supplies.

2. The cost of NiMH batteries that hybrids use has gone up by 400%? If you've got a source for that, I'd love to see it. The cost of NICKEL may rise, but the cost of batteries? Source?

3. I've gone through a dozen studies on the costs of hybridizing a vehicle. Here's one from EPRI and the Big 3 and some major researchers, who started doing this kind of thing years ago, breaking down all the component parts, looking at mark-up, checking out what scale costs would be, that sort of thing. The appendices in particular have lots on the individual components and the costs. They said it would work out to $2,000-$3,500 --- pretty much bang on.

http://www.spinnovation.com/sn/Batteries/Advanced_Batteries_for_Electric...

To compare properly, I repeat, compare a model which has like-to-like hybrid versus conventional, same package of options, and try to get a nationwide price. It's not even half of that $6,000-$8,000. I think it's important to work out what is automaker sales strategy (pitching high-end families?), or the effect of early stages of market entry (demand > supply in the early years), and what is hardware cost, that will actually linger.

4. As for the Volt, we want to compare HYBRIDS, right, the ones with 1.6 kwh batteries, NOT 16 kwh batteries - those are "plug-in hybrids," and the math is different because the battery cost outweighs everything else. I'm happy to argue plug-ins and why their economics will be just fine, but first let's try hybrids. Oh yeah, Toyota says they want their plug-in hybrid to have NO price premium over their hybrid. The way battery prices are plummetting (yeah, plummetting - waaay ahead of predictions), they should be fine.

5. Hybrids. Yeah sure, I guess a cow and a coal cart count as hybrids then as well. But the modern hybridization of vehicles is made possible - and useful - by advanced electronics. Which wasn't, oddly, in existence in 1897 or 1960. It's the electronics which allows a smooth shifting back and forth, during driving. And it's that which allows the battery's energy to be tapped when the ICE would be at its least efficient. Thus, it's the modern electronics which allows all the efficiency savings. Simply having more than one energy source on-board is not actually the key to the modern hybrid and its gains - its the ability to shift smoothly back and forth, drawing on each when it can make the most useful contribution.

So, um, yes, that is actually a new idea. And no, cheap West Texas oil wouldn't really have mattered a whit. The key to the electrification of the vehicle turned out to be the growth of... consumer electronics. All those gadgets gave us the chips, the software and the low-cost small/light batteries we needed.

6. On household energy use, you took the chart from this press release, and posted it up on its own, and announced, "BTW, we have more efficient home heating, but the energy we saved now goes to more cooling, heating water and running gizmos."

Which is not so much the actual case, is it? Because the press release says, right upfront, "dramatic reduction in the energy needed to heat homes, along with other efficiency improvements, led to a 31 percent reduction in energy use per household. As a result, total residential energy consumption remained virtually the same. In 1978, there were 76.6 million occupied housing units in the United States, which used a total of 6.96 quads for space heating. Although the number of homes increased 45 percent to 111.1 million by 2005, they used significantly less energy for heating — just 4.30 quads."

So, the press release mentions a 31% reduction per household. Plus a growth of 45% in the number of households. But that didn't fit your storyline. Might have been more accurate though, if you had said, "Wow. We did great on efficiency, because we had some astonishing innovations. Like fridges that use 80% less energy, lighting that uses a fraction of what it used to, plus amazing home heating improvements. Sure, we ate up a small fraction of these savings by adding air conditioning and some gizmos, but even with a 45% increase in population growth and new household formation, we basically use no more energy today in our homes than we did in 1978. Who would've guessed that our innovation would have done that well?"

7. What didn't impress me about Tainter is his easy way with the facts. Sorry if that sounds impolite, but seems to me that's a bigger failing than bluntly pointing out the horseshit.

Hybrid engines need rare

Donal — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:23:00 +0000

In reply to Nope. Wrong. And wrong and

Hybrid engines need rare earths that are getting ... rare. The cost of their nickel batteries have gone up about 400% since the first model. They include batteries and two electric motors and a lot of electronics that gas-only cars don't have. Toyota doesn't publish their numbers, of course.

Around here a Prius lists for about $6,000 more than a larger Camry and $8,000 more than a smaller Corolla. Fueleconomy.gov says that Prius costs $1,071 per year, Corolla $1,847 and Camry $2,062. So it would take just over six years to make up the difference with a Camry, and just over ten years to make up the difference with a Corolla. And you're financing the extra purchase price.

A Volt lists for $20,000 or more than its cousin the Cruze. Fueleconomy.gov says that the Volt costs between $594 and $1543, while the Cruze costs $1912 per year. Even using the low Volt number, it would take 15 years to justify buying the Volt for better mileage.

In 1897, "the London Electric Cab Company began to provide service in the city, using cabs powered by a 40 cell battery and a three horsepower electric motor. Dubbed the “Bersey Cab” after its inventor, Walter Bersey, the cab could go up to fifty miles before the battery had to be recharged. Ferdinand Porsche developed the first electric and internal combustion engine in 1898." Victor Wouk worked on hybrids in the 1960s. It isn't a new idea. If we hadn't had cheap West Texas oil, we might have been driving hybrids a long time ago.

Yes population increased, but Share of energy used by appliances and consumer electronics increases in U.S. homes, too.

I do tend to be Americentric because I kind of live here. I'm not very impressed with education today and I'm not the only one with doubts:

India Graduates Millions, But Too Few Are Fit to Hire

More Pupils Are Learning Online, Fueling Debate on Quality

What probably impressed me the most about Tainter is that he was unfailingly polite.

I haven't watched the videos,

we are stardust — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:48:05 +0000

In reply to Tainter: Collapse of Complex Societies

I haven't watched the videos, but read the comments. I wanted to say that Dylan Ratigan is almost all about energy any more, and is traveling all over the country to learn what works, what doesn't. Been a bear on recreating the manufacturing sector with green technology. I ignore him on nuclear and have sincere doubts about B. Pickens and natural gas given the industry's penchant for fracking so far, but...

He often quotes that we lose 60-some per cent of all energy created to inefficiency. Googled to find something written; found this at Huffpo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/free-america-energy-town_b_8...

Nope. Wrong. And wrong and

quinn esq — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 16:35:24 +0000

In reply to Today's hybrids are certainly

Nope. Wrong. And wrong and wrong and wrong. Let's start there.

1. While the first versions may have, hybrids today do not cost a lot more to build. The all-in price - when the automakers are not adding in luxury items for upscale buyers - is down to $2-$4,000 for the fully-fledged hybrid (Camry, Fusion, Civic, Escape, Prius, etc.), a gap that is shrinking each year.

Alliance Bernstein put out a wonderful research study a few years back, in which they described the actual process whereby Toyota assembles hybrids and conventional cars. Thought you'd like this:

"A tour of the Toyota plant that assembles the Prius along with seven other models was telling: The Prius only requires 4 new parts and 11 additional procedures (out of 200), or 5% additional complexity; several assembly functions take only 120 seconds versus 60 seconds for a similar non-hybrid vehicle."

Now, ask yourself. As a nation, as a world, can we add 1 to 2 kwhs worth of batteries, and small electric motors to our vehicles, adding in 4 new parts packs and 11 procedures, adding 60 seconds to production time, if it will cut our total gasoline consumption by 30%-60%?

The difficulty is NOT the actual, practical change-over, and it's here I become so angry at these con-men selling grand charts on innovation and such, it's big money and big industry and big politics and the barriers they throw up.

4 new parts. 11 new procedures. 60 more seconds. Cut gasoline use by 30%-60%.

In fact, Ford has now started eliminating the premium for some models, while Toyota is looking at eliminating the premium even for its Plug-In Prius. As a buyer, just avoid the super high-end car models and idiot trucks that they hybridize and add $10,000 to the price.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/is-this-the-end-of-the-hybrid...

2. Toyota has paid its upfront costs and is no longer losing money on the Prius. Any technological innovation has to pay for the cost of its development, Toyota has borne it - pretty much effectively on behalf of ALL the automakers - and now... it's a moneymaker. In fact, Toyota is in the process of changing ALL its vehicles over to hybrids, adding 11 new models this year alone - which I can assure you, they wouldn't do if they were losing money on hybrids.

So how's about we drop that myth too?

3. They will also, in fact, save you money, today. A lot of the US automotive press, based out of Detroit and tight with the Big 3 and the autoparts makers, has been churning out the articles for years, saying hybrids will never pay. In Europe, the auto press pushes more for... diesel. Funny, that. Anyhoo. If you drive 15,000 miles per year, and your regular car would get a solid 30 mpg, while a similarly equipped hybrid would get 50, and today's price of gas is $3.70/gallon, then.... you save $740 annually. If the premium is $3-$4000, then your payback is 4-6 years? Adjust the numbers as you will, but best to try and pick similar cars with similar options.

4. Surely you can't be arguing that just because something was imagined 2000 years ago or sketched out 150 years ago, that this somehow constitutes the "innovation." As an argument, that's absurd, simply because I can say, "Hey great, people imagined flying 2000 years ago and somebody sketched it 400 years ago, and so, woe is us, we haven't a clue compared to those guys, the Earth is in inevitable decline, but oh yeah, in the meantime, I actually figured out HOW to do it, and then I BUILT it, and can now let you fly too for CHEAP."

Nobody I know in the field credits the first guy who thought of something as having done "the innovation" and after that, it's all just, as you say, people who have to "gear up and implement it."

5. On household energy use, no actually, the energy we saved didn't just go to more cooling, hot water and running gizmos. That idea just fits with the "woe is us" storyline. In fact, the EIA shows drops of 12%-28% in per person use, per household, per square foot and per building between 1980 and 2001 (which also happened in the 1970's and in the last decade, but I thought I'd stick to your time period.) So.... how to explain your chart, if it wasn't "more gizmos?" Population growth in the US. How about we factor that in? If we're going to talk innovation and productivity and efficiency and all that, let's at least get that most basic factor out there.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/historicaldata/historical_data80_02.html

6. The education and infrastructure comments are precisely what I was talking about, Amerocentric. The world has never been more educated, never had so many people reading and producing so much science. Never have so many had roads, cars and - beyond that - the Internet.

The fact that Americans have a political system which devotes more time to war than to roads, well... let me assure you, that's not always and everywhere the case. And come on, "poor transportation will probably discourage the sort of teamwork that leads to innovation??" what sort of garbage is this? The Internet! International students! Hundreds of millions of people learning English and entering college worldwide!