Design and Simulation:These are some books which are recommended as a reading list.
1- Aerodynamics of Road Vehicles from Fluid Mechanics to Vehicle Engineering. Edited by Wolf-Heinrich Hucho
2- Hucho-Aerodynamik des Automobils Stromungsmechanik.Warmetechnik. Fahrdynamiik.Komfort
Wind Turbine DesignPrimary objective in wind turbine design is to maximize the aerodynamic efficiency, or power extracted from the wind. But this objective should be met by well satisfying mechanical strength criteria and economical aspects. In this video we will see impact of number of blades, blade shape, blade length and tower height on wind turbine design.
Modelling Complex Mechanical Structures with SimMechanicsModeling physical components or systems in Simulink® typically involves a tradeoff between simulation speed and model fidelity or complexity: the higher the fidelity of the model, the greater the effort needed to create it..
Biomass Energy Vs. Natural GasIn 2009, natural gas prices plunged to below $4 per MMBtu where many "Experts" are saying that prices will remain low for decades as a result of technology break-throughs allowing for sizable increases in natural gas supply for North America. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) just released data projections reflecting this potential increased supply in natural gas.
In a remarkable piece of double-think Caroline Flint, Labour's energy spokesperson, has declared that nuclear power in the shape of Hinkley C is 'cheaper than other forms of renewable energy'. This assertion flies in the face of the numbers. She rules out the possibility of a Labour Government renegotiating the Hinkley C contract.
See http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/23/labour-edf-nuclear-power-deal-hinkley?CMP=twt_fd
For the moment, let us leave a critique of the extremely tendentious re-designation of nuclear power as a 'renewable' source of energy for another time. Let us look at the numbers. The simple mathematics of government incentives for nuclear and other renewables demonstrates that Caroline Flint's logic flies in the face of reality.
Hinkley C has a contract for 35 years, with loan guarantees for the bulk of the investment, at a strike price of �92.50. This price will be increased in line with the the CPI measure of inflation so that by the time Hinkley C starts generating (they say in 2023) the strike price will be well over �100 per MWh. Meanwhile onshore wind is actually being given a lower strike price than this from 2016 (�90 per MWh) with only a 15 year year contract and no loan guarantees. If Hinkley C didn't receive the loan guarantees, the required strike price for nuclear would be guargantuan, and if wind power got the loan guarantees and a longer contract during which the strike price is payable for units of electricity generated then the amount of money required for the wind power would be a lot less than �90 per MWh. And in reality the cost of offshore wind would be competitive with nuclear as well if these other support measures are taken into account.
Then there is solar power, which will receive �100 per MWh from 2018, and this will be less than Hinkley C, especially when the longer contract and loan guarantee support for Hinkley C (which solar doesn't get) are taken into account. Indeed the Solar Trade Association asked for �91 per MWh from 2018 for large solar arrays on account of continued falling prices. Continued falling prices, note, not continued upward prices as in the case of nuclear power!
See See http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2317001/renewable-energy-strike-prices-to-deliver-gbp40bn-of-new-investment
With the Keystone pipeline, Republican Strategists are using conflict over environmental issues to divert public attention from their real policy objective -- exporting U.S. oil.
In today's toxic political landscape of Red versus Blue States, almost any policy issue pinned with a label of "environmental" not only automatically invokes extreme partisanship. This division also closes people's minds, eliminating the need to question whether a proposed policy is in the best interests for all average Americans - regardless of environmental issues.
In trying to shape public opinion, it's always much easier to demonize an environmental label like Global Warming in a 30 second soundbite, rather than to explain and justify something complicated like trade policy.
Extreme Partisanship Over the Environment: For years, negative ideological "values" messaging from Conservative Think Tanks, Media Sources, and Religious Groups have associated and demonized environmental policy initiatives as big-government, socialism, anti-free markets, job loss, and even with Faith (worshiping the Green Dragon).
The effectiveness of this negative messaging is absolutely evident in national polling, where partisan divides on environmental issues are greater than on major issues like the budget deficit, health care, and Social Security.
Widest Partisan Differences Over Issues (% rating each a top priority)
Issue:
Rep
Dem
Ind
Diff
Protecting the Environment:
28%
65%
48%
-37%
Problems of Poor & Needy:
32%
64%
48%
-32%
Reducing U.S. Budget Deficit:
80%
49%
66%
-31%
Dealing with Global Warming:
14%
42%
27%
-28%
The Keystone XL pipeline project illustrates this strategy of diversion at work, where current Republican actions are now revealing what Keystone was really always about:
"With record growth in U.S. oil production, Republican and Oil State politicians, big business leaders, and oil lobbyists are all calling to end a nearly 40 year ban on U.S. crude oil exports. The ban was put into place after the 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo." (The Hill)
With a Keystone debate defined by the highly partisan environmental issue of Global Warming, there has been little discussion how Keystone is
intrinsically linked to the policy issue of exporting oil -- as the TransCanda and other north to south pipeline projects provide the critical infrastructure to move U.S. (and Canadian) oil to potential foreign markets.
The Issue of Trust: During the coming year, there will be much debate over whether lifting the U.S. oil export ban is good policy. Maybe its a good idea, maybe not. But the point in today's blog is not really about policy issues. It's about the bedrock of "Trust" to the American Public in addressing issues that have nothing to do with Global Warming.
In the 2012 Presidential Campaign, Keystone was the "Poster Child" of conflict between Environmentalists and Republicans over energy issues -- where Global Warming/Climate Change was (and still is) the epicenter of debate. Less than a year ago in the debt ceiling debacle in Congress, Republicans threatened to shut the Federal Government down unless President Obama approved Keystone XL.
But in current messaging to end the +40 year U.S. Oil Export Ban, Republicans are now refuting the very "principles and values" they have made of why Keystone is critically needed.
Republican Messaging: Need for Keystone
Republican Messaging: Need to Export U.S. Oil
Actual Republican Objective All Along:
Today, we will look at the first of three key building blocks of past Republican messaging of why Keystone was needed -- and how ending the oil export ban is a 180� about-face to the original Keystone arguments made to the American Public. Let's try and be clear though -- it's not the Republican "ideological values" that are in question here,
such as the principle of free market trade.
The problem is the inconsistency in the Republican double-speak messaging and the lack of public dialogue/debate of what ideological arguments like free market trade actually mean (e.g., potential of higher gasoline prices to U.S. consumers).
Foreign Oil Dependence: Spin Doctors are in over-drive giving the American Public the impression that the U.S. has or is on the cusp of attaining Energy Independence -- and that most of the remaining oil we do import is from Canada.
But per U.S. Department of Energy information, the U.S. currently imports ~40% of its oil requirements -- where the single largest importer is from the OPEC Cartel. As we've previously shown, every time you fill up your tank, you are sending 36� per gallon to OPEC countries.
Oil Sources of Current U.S. Gasoline Supply1 (Compared by barrels of oil produced)
(1) While it is technically correct that Canada is the largest "single country" oil importer, in a context of "energy security" this is misleading. OPEC currently imports far more oil to the U.S.
Understanding Some Oil Basics 101: Even in long-term forecasts through 2040, the Department of Energy projects that U.S. dependency on imported oil will stubbornly be above +30%. So with this likelihood, why would policymakers even consider lifting the U.S. oil export ban? The answer is found in the fact that not all crude oil is created the same. It can be heavy or light, sour (high sulfur content) or sweet.
With the exceptional increase in U.S. oil production from tight shale formations/fracking (e.g., North Dakota, Texas, etc.) there is good and bad news. Most of this oil is high quality light crude, relatively easy to refine in refineries that are not terribly complex. The bad news is many U.S. refineries can not use this lighter oil. Prior to the shale boom, U.S. refiners spent billions of dollars to configure their plants for heavier and sour foreign oils (Canada, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia).
The below chart from the EIA illustrates this above point. While U.S. imports of light crudes have been reduced dramatically in recent years (displaced by new oil production from North Dakota, Texas, etc.), imports of heavy crudes have remained constant.
U.S. Oil Dependency & Security: The OPEC Oil Cartel (which largely influences international oil prices) is comprised of countries in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Currently, OPEC is the largest foreign oil supplier to the U.S. with imports primarily consisting of heavy oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (the 2nd and 3rd largest individual country oil importers to the U.S.).
OPEC Imports to U.S.
When the issue of U.S. foreign oil dependency and security are raised, it's important to understand several key points: (1) Where oil refineries are located; (2) Ports of entry for OPEC oil; (3) The oil pipeline infrastructure; (4) A Federal maritime law called the Jones Act.
While most Venezuelan oil goes to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, ports of entry for Saudi heavy crude are much more diverse -- not just to refineries on the Gulf (where Saudi Arabia owns three major refineries), but to U.S. East and West Coasts as well.
Location of U.S. Oil Refineries
The significance of Saudi and other Middle East OPEC countries oil imports to the U.S. can be illustrated by California -- where foreign imports (with Saudi Arabia being by far the largest importer) make up 50% of Refiners' oil sources (with very little Canadian imports).
There are two major reasons for this high OPEC and Middle East dependency on both the U.S. East and West Coasts: (1) The U.S. oil pipeline system; (2) The Jones Act.
Oil Sources for California Refineries
The U.S. oil pipeline infrastructure is primarily a North to South system, moving oil in America's heartland. While the Keystone XL pipeline project enhances this existing distribution System -- it really doesn't address major deficiencies in moving oil East or West to refineries on U.S. Coasts (e.g., Northeast and California).
Major U.S. Oil Pipelines & High OPEC Imports
There are three transportation ways to move oil, via: (1) Pipeline (least costly), (2) Maritime shipping; and (3) Rail (the most expensive and as recently seen, the most dangerous).
Shipping between U.S. ports costs significantly more than international voyages. This is largely because of a 94-year-old federal law (Jones Act) which requires domestic cargoes to travel on U.S.built, owned and crewed vessels. A qualifying U.S. tanker currently commands rates about 10 times more than a non U.S. tanker of the same size.(2)
The Jones Act explains how importing oil from half way around the world (Middle East OPEC countries of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, etc.) can be cheaper than transporting oil via tanker from the U.S. Gulf Coast area to East and West Coast markets. Also, the Jones Act combined with the lack of East/West U.S. oil pipeline capacity can explain why the Department of Energy's long-range forecast (through 2040) expects U.S. foreign oil dependency to remain stubbornly above +30%.
A Needed Change in Approach: When Environmentalists allow (and embrace) any policy issue to be solely defined by an environmental label, they are taking a "bait" that Republicans want. In achieving this "Framing", Republicans are given a free pass (or certainly less public questioning) on whether proposed policies are in the best interests of all average Americans regardless of environmental issues and even if these policies truly "walk the talk" on conservative or libertarian values.
To be more effective, Environmentalists must improve in engaging Republicans on two fronts: (1) Questioning the validity of their message; and perhaps even more importantly, (2) Questioning whether their Messengers can be trusted on any policy issue that could have environmental consequences.
Keystone XL was never about U.S. oil security. At best, the heavy oils from the Canadian tar sands would displace Venezuelan and Mexican heavy oil imports to Gulf refineries. Republican bravado that Keystone XL would achieve U.S. oil security from Mid-Eastern oil if not a "pants on fire" statement, is pretty darn close to it.
(Note: Our next Blog will discuss the Republican double-speak on two other key claims of Keystone XL -- (1) Reduction in gasoline prices; (2) Net Job Creation.)
Note: Today's blog uses the term "Greens" as those who believe human actions (anthropogenic) of burning fossil fuels is the primary driver in Climate Change.
In messaging to shape public opinion, Greens constantly agonize over the lack of understanding and denial of science by Conservatives -- and target this "knowledge problem" as the major obstacle in achieving Green policies. But in reality, its Greens who are not very "street smart" in their approach to both opposition and connecting with most Americans.
Conservatives Are Much Smarter Than Greens Think.
The Big Question: In the Greens' World, there is a yes/no big question that everyone must answer, "Is Global Warming caused by humans?" It defines who you are -- as either a carbon tax loving Warmist, or a science ignorant Denier. But as public opinion polls are reflecting, Greens need to ask themselves a Big Question: Don't they need to do a better job in their message and messaging?
Latest Pew Research Poll Results: While over two-thirds of Americans believe the Earth is warming, only 44% are buying into the Greens' Argument that it's mostly caused by human activity (anthropogenic). Even among the strongest group of Greens supporters, about one-third of Democrats are unconvinced. Clearly public acceptance problems exist with the Greens' science message and their "people skills" in connecting -- as the majority of Americans share uncertainty, doubt, or skepticism as voiced by Conservatives.
Greens need to abandon their Ivory Towers and messaging that's far too often patronizing, apocalyptic, and plays the "guilt card". Better resonating science and economic messages must be developed with messengers who are good teachers and bridge builders. Greens also need to be much more adept in responding to both ideological opposition by Conservatives and the hidden agendas of Republican policies when driven by big-business.
A Good Starting Place for Greens -- Stop Stereotyping: Greens' characterization of Conservatives as comic dimwits is both incorrect and counterproductive. As numerous social science studies and poll research show, Conservatives have general science knowledge equal to, or exceeding other politically affiliated groups. In fact, one recent research study found that with increasing levels of scientific literacy, even more partisan polarization occurs over Global Warming.
Take the Pew Research Quiz on Science and Technology to see where your general knowledge ranks compared to the U.S. Public.
But stopping stereotyping is more than just about about fair play -- its about "people skills" with the Greens' Target Market. Negative labeling hurts efforts to connect with Independents, Moderates, and even one-third of Democrats by sending a wrong message: If you disagree or have doubts with the Greens' Argument, you must be ignorant. Patronizing name-calling only alienates and does not win people over, as the Pew Poll is reflecting.
Greens must understand the difference between ideological opposition versus fair questions over science uncertainty, especially the perceived urgency to act (e.g., predictive ability of climate models).
A Major Obstacle & Need For Bridge Building: Contrary to the ubiquitous negative messaging by Greens, science knowledge really isn't the key problem in achieving greater public acceptance. A major problem is the current and growing polarization in "cultural values ideology" between Red State (Conservatives) versus Blue State (Liberals). When issues are strictly defined or framed in terms of ideological values such as Good versus Evil, the results are toxic. There can be no real public dialogue, people of differing views are demonized, and finding common ground is impossible.
When differences are defined in terms of moral values, compromise is impossible.
The key in solving any problem is to find common ground between differing views.
After decades of negative ideological "values" messaging on environmental issues from Conservative Think Tanks, Media Sources, and Religious Groups, it's now just a reflex knee-jerk reaction for Conservatives (with spillover to Moderates and Independents) to associate and demonize almost any environmental policy initiative as big-government, socialism, anti-free markets, job loss, and sadly even with Faith (worshiping the Green Dragon).
When Exxon/Mobil is a major cash contributor to conservative religious groups to fight Global Warming as satanic -- you know some serious "culture wars" are going on.
The result of this negative messaging is clearly evident in national polling, where partisan divides on environmental issues are greater than on major issues like the budget deficit, health care, Social Security, etc.
Widest Partisan Differences Over Issues (% rating each a top priority)
Issue:
Rep
Dem
Ind
Diff
Protecting the Environment:
28%
65%
48%
-37%
Problems of Poor & Needy:
32%
64%
48%
-32%
Reducing U.S. Budget Deficit:
80%
49%
66%
-31%
Dealing with Global Warming:
14%
42%
27%
-28%
This extremely negative mindset on environmental issues can explain why over 40% of Tea Party Republicans and 25% of all Republicans (per Pew Polling) believe Global Warming is not even happening.
The consequences of this cultural divide results in very different perspectives in how Global Warming is presented and viewed in the public arena. Where science is the driver for the Greens' messengers, ideological values (effecting policy outcomes) are the drivers for Conservatives.
As Viewed by Greens
As Viewed by Conservatives
This difference in perspective creates a serious dilemma for Greens -- as it's virtually impossible to discuss Climate Change as a stand-alone science issue. Any argument that human actions are primarily causing Climate Change is intrinsically linked to specific policy outcomes. The most prevalent example is a carbon tax, which will have opposition across partisan, cultural, and socioeconomic lines (e.g., with lower income groups as a regressive tax).
Playing by the Conservatives' Rules: Greens need to fully grasp the importance of ideological motivation in forming public opinion -- emphasizing their own positive set of values that can cross partisan divides and achieve key objectives. By messaging positive ideological values better, they may even find some surprising new friends.
Bridge Building to Find & Develop Common Ground
A recent New York Times article illustrates the incredible potential of connecting on ideological values -- where Greens and Conservative Libertarians (the most negative partisan faction opposing Climate Change policies) have found common ground in support of solar energy.
Recognizing Hidden Agendas: In addition to addressing climate science uncertainty and ideological conflicts better, Greens also need to improve their messaging to a third type of opposition. For decades, Republican Strategists have used environmental issues to divert public attention from hidden objectives of big-business special interests. When issues can be framed in a context of "The Environment versus Job Loss/Higher Costs", Republican policy-makers can avoid public opinion scrutiny and answering hard questions that can have nothing to do with the environment.
By achieving this "Framing", Republicans are given a free pass (or certainly less public questioning) on whether their proposed policies are in the best interests of average Americans (regardless of environmental issues) and if these policies truly "walk the talk" on conservative or libertarian values.
The Keystone pipeline project is a perfect illustration of this Republican strategy, where we now (or should) know what Keystone was originally always about -- exporting U.S. oil to foreign markets (like energy hungry China):
With record growth in U.S. oil production, Republican and Oil State politicians, big business leaders, and oil lobbyists are all calling to end a nearly 40 year ban on U.S. crude oil exports. The ban was put into place in the wake of the 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo.
The Issue of Republican Trust: During the coming year, there will be much debate over whether lifting the oil export ban is good policy. But in this public debate there is something even more important to Greens than Global Warming. It about the bedrock of public opinion -- the issue of Trust and if Republican messengers can be trusted:
Where on the cusp of likely Keystone approval, the Republican narrative to the American Public on why Keystone was important has now completely changed.
In the 2012 Presidential Campaign, Keystone was the "Poster Child" of conflict between Environmentalists and Republicans over energy issues. Less than a year ago in the debt ceiling debacle in Congress, Republicans threatened to shut the Federal Government down unless President Obama approved Keystone.
Republican Messaging to the U.S. Public:
Hidden Agenda Policy Objective:
In our next follow-up Blog, we will look at the three key building blocks of past Republican messaging of why Keystone was needed -- and how ending the oil export ban is a 180� about-face to Keystone's original arguments.
