[Biofuel] Requiring noisy electric cars vs. real problem of digital deadwalkers

[Darryl McMahon]

[Forwarding from another discussion list. Context:

Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:49:03 -0800 (PST)

Subject: [EVDL] Digital Deadwalkers : $52M/yr alert-sound adds noise
pollution& not-a-solution

[ref
http://electric-vehicle-discussion-list.413529.n4.nabble.com/52M-yr-Quiet-Electrified-cars-alert-sound-rules-by-2019-09-tp4684467p4684478.html 
]


TT sez >It is the pedestrian blinded by electronics technology that we 
need to concern ourselves with!<


AAOS calls these Digital Deadwalkers:

[video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLrcY7iSxFU ]

Digital Deadwalkers

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons  Jan 12, 2015

"Dude. Engage!"

The AAOS public service campaign "Digital Deadwalkers" encourages
pedestrians to engage in and with their surroundings.Distracted driving 
can cause crashes, injuries and death. It's a prevalent public issue 
that the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) continues to 
champion. But what about distracted walking? What are the consequences 
of pedestrians talking on the phone, texting, listening to music, 
engaging deeply in conversation with the person next to them, or

focusing on anything or anyone other than the task of getting where they
need to go?

Distracted "deadwalkers" are causing an epidemic of fractures and other
orthopaedic injuries. Danger lurks at every corner of our cities and 
towns, but what if pedestrians are the ones posing the threats to 
themselves and others? Today, more and more pedestrians fall down 
stairs, trip over curbs or other objects, and in many instances, step 
into traffic, causing serious injury, and even death, each year.


"We know that the number of injuries to pedestrians using their phones 
has nearly tripled since 2004, and surveys have shown that 60% of 
pedestrians are distracted by other activities while walking," said Alan 
Hilibrand, MD, chair of the AAOS Communications Cabinet. "Orthopaedic 
surgeons?the medical doctors who specialize in bones, muscles and 
joints?focus on keeping bones strong so that we can keep our nation in 
motion. In 2009, AAOS launched the "Decide to Drive" campaign to educate 
children, teens and adults about the dangers of distracted driving. For 
2015, the Academy is now expanding its

message to include the dangers of distracted walking."

http://www.orthoinfo.org/DistractedPedestrians


In my life and in my area (Silicon Valley, CA) there are far more
distracted people (that are not physically blind) that do incredibly 
dumb things as they have disconnected themselves from the real world 
(its like the mobile devices are a tech-drug of a distracted lifestyle)


To some, this is now common. For others, this seems unbelievable. And it
isn't just teens

https://www.google.com/search?q=teen+mobile=zbP=1024=642=lnms=isch

Children to Tweens (age 6 - 12) are also affected:

https://www.google.com/search?q=tween+mobile=zbP=1024=642=lnms=isch

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/children-teen-teenager-teen_culture-smartphone-cellphone-mbcn4046_low.jpg

http://lowres.jantoo.com/young-people-parenting-teens-gadget-distraction-parent-33235139_low.jpg


There is a whole new way to pacify your kid by throwing a cheap mobile 
tech device at them (see links below).


Children and tweens that (if they survive) will grow up to be distracted
adults:
http://image.cagle.com/71027/1155/71027.png?349a92


My point in posting this is that the Million$ being spent are not going 
to resolve what the advocates for the blind say is the issue (they are 
pushing hard on a door marked pull).

The quiet from electrified vehicles made noisy will not resolve the
tech-addicted brain-distracted children, tweens, teens and adults that 
will do dumb disconnected things (like walk without looking> right in 
front of a moving vehicle).


Loud or quiet, there are a whole lot more chances to hit the distracted
walking than a blind person carrying a white cane.

I am not saying something should not be done to help the blind. But 
throwing $52M at it in this way which does not totally resolve the 
problem is not a fix.
IMO I think there has to be other ways to alert the blind of coming 
moving vehicles. Possibly on an individual blind person point of 
approach. Perhaps their white cane would have beeping tech that would 
alert the blind of approaching vehicles, etc.




Links  [dated]
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/walking-while-texting-could-soon-result-in-jail-time/
Walking while texting could get you arrested, if a NJ law is passed
March 28, 2016
...
http://www.safebee.com/travel/distracted-walking-your-phone-and-intersections-dont-mix
Distracted Walking: Your Phone and Intersections Don't Mix
January 14, 2016  "Digital deadwalkers" are tripping and falling down stairs
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2344933/Pedestrian-mobile-phone-injuries-DOUBLE-years.html
The dangers of walking and talking: Pedestrian mobile phone injuries 
DOUBLE in five years 20 June 2013  Around 1,500 pedestrians 

Re: [Biofuel] Electric vehicle study suggests plug-in batteries better than hydrogen fuel cells | E Magazine

[Zeke Yewdall]

This is new?  Seems like the same stuff all of us in the Electric Vehicle
world knew about 20 years ago.  Round trip efficiency of hydrogen storage
is just not very good compared to batteries.  And fuel cells make lithium
batteries look cheap

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Darryl McMahon 
wrote:

> https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2016/11/electric-
> vehicle-study-suggests-plug-in-batteries-better-than-hydrogen-fuel-cells/
>
> {I beg to quibble with the statement that the Stanford / Munich study is
> the first to compare the 2 types of vehicles, and the required
> infrastructure.  See The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy published 2006.]
>
> Electric vehicle study suggests plug-in batteries better than hydrogen
> fuel cells
>
> By Tereza Pultarova
>
> Published Monday, November 14, 2016
>
> Plug-in electric vehicles with batteries present a better option for
> eliminating fossil fuel consumption than hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars, a
> study has revealed.
>
> The study by researchers from Stanford University, USA, and the Technical
> University of Munich, Germany, was the first to compare the two types of
> electric vehicles including to include analysis of required infrastructure
> as well hydrogen and electricity generation.
>
> The study envisioned a situation 20 or 30 years from now when the
> technology is widespread and more affordable than it is today.
>
> “We looked at how large-scale adoption of electric vehicles would affect
> total energy use in a community, for buildings as well as transportation,”
> said Markus Felgenhauer, a doctoral candidate at TUM and former visiting
> scholar at the Stanford Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP), who led
> the study published in the journal Energy.
>
> “We found that investing in all-electric battery vehicles is a more
> economical choice for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, primarily due to
> their lower cost and significantly higher energy efficiency.”
>
> While both plug-in electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars directly emit zero
> greenhouse gas emissions, the overall carbon footprint of their operations
> depends on the way the fuel, hydrogen or electricity, has been obtained.
>
> Currently, plug-in vehicles are frequently charged using electricity
> coming from fossil-fuels. Similarly, the most common way to obtain hydrogen
> is currently through processing natural gas.
>
> In future, however, as the cost of renewable power drops to the level of
> fossil-fuel based electricity, electric vehicles would become almost
> perfectly clean. The same goes for hydrogen fuel cell cars if the hydrogen
> is produced through the process of electrolysis using spare renewable
> electricity.
>
> The major factor differentiating between the two technologies will thus be
> the cost of the technology itself together with the cost of the required
> infrastructure.
>
> In the study, the researchers envisioned the town of Los Altos Hills in
> 2035. The affluent Californian community of 8,000 is already known for the
> popularity of solar power generation among local residents.
>
> The researchers envisioned that in 20 years, the community could be
> producing all its hydrogen through electrolysis using spare solar power.
> This hydrogen could then be used to warm up houses or produce electricity
> in return when the sun doesn’t shine.
>
> “We provided data on the amount of energy Los Altos Hills needs throughout
> the day, as well as financial data on the cost of building new energy
> infrastructures,” said study co-author Matthew Pellow, a former GCEP
> postdoctoral scholar now with the Electric Power Research Institute.
>
> “We included the cost of making solar panels, electrolysers, batteries and
> everything else. Then we told the model, given our scenario for 2035, tell
> us the most economical way to meet the total energy demand of the
> community.”
>
> To compare each scenario’s costs to its climate benefits, the researchers
> also calculated the carbon dioxide emissions produced in each case.
>
> The calculation revealed that betting on plug-in electric vehicles would
> be the most cost-effective way to achieve the required emission elimination.
>
> “The analysis showed that to be cost competitive, fuel cell vehicles would
> have to be priced much lower than battery vehicles,” said Felgenhauer.
> “However, fuel cell vehicles are likely to be significantly more expensive
> than battery vehicles for the foreseeable future. Another supposed benefit
> of hydrogen – storing surplus solar energy – didn’t pan out in our analysis
> either. We found that in 2035, only a small amount of solar hydrogen
> storage would be used for heating and lighting buildings.”
>
> They researchers hope to analyse larger networks of communities in future
> studies and examine other factors that could influence consumers’ choices
> when deciding whether to buy a battery or fuel cell car.
> ___
> 

[Biofuel] Electric vehicle study suggests plug-in batteries better than hydrogen fuel cells | E Magazine

[Darryl McMahon]

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2016/11/electric-vehicle-study-suggests-plug-in-batteries-better-than-hydrogen-fuel-cells/

{I beg to quibble with the statement that the Stanford / Munich study is 
the first to compare the 2 types of vehicles, and the required 
infrastructure.  See The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy published 2006.]


Electric vehicle study suggests plug-in batteries better than hydrogen 
fuel cells


By Tereza Pultarova

Published Monday, November 14, 2016

Plug-in electric vehicles with batteries present a better option for 
eliminating fossil fuel consumption than hydrogen fuel cell-powered 
cars, a study has revealed.


The study by researchers from Stanford University, USA, and the 
Technical University of Munich, Germany, was the first to compare the 
two types of electric vehicles including to include analysis of required 
infrastructure as well hydrogen and electricity generation.


The study envisioned a situation 20 or 30 years from now when the 
technology is widespread and more affordable than it is today.


“We looked at how large-scale adoption of electric vehicles would affect 
total energy use in a community, for buildings as well as 
transportation,” said Markus Felgenhauer, a doctoral candidate at TUM 
and former visiting scholar at the Stanford Global Climate and Energy 
Project (GCEP), who led the study published in the journal Energy.


“We found that investing in all-electric battery vehicles is a more 
economical choice for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, primarily due 
to their lower cost and significantly higher energy efficiency.”


While both plug-in electric and hydrogen fuel cell cars directly emit 
zero greenhouse gas emissions, the overall carbon footprint of their 
operations depends on the way the fuel, hydrogen or electricity, has 
been obtained.


Currently, plug-in vehicles are frequently charged using electricity 
coming from fossil-fuels. Similarly, the most common way to obtain 
hydrogen is currently through processing natural gas.


In future, however, as the cost of renewable power drops to the level of 
fossil-fuel based electricity, electric vehicles would become almost 
perfectly clean. The same goes for hydrogen fuel cell cars if the 
hydrogen is produced through the process of electrolysis using spare 
renewable electricity.


The major factor differentiating between the two technologies will thus 
be the cost of the technology itself together with the cost of the 
required infrastructure.


In the study, the researchers envisioned the town of Los Altos Hills in 
2035. The affluent Californian community of 8,000 is already known for 
the popularity of solar power generation among local residents.


The researchers envisioned that in 20 years, the community could be 
producing all its hydrogen through electrolysis using spare solar power. 
This hydrogen could then be used to warm up houses or produce 
electricity in return when the sun doesn’t shine.


“We provided data on the amount of energy Los Altos Hills needs 
throughout the day, as well as financial data on the cost of building 
new energy infrastructures,” said study co-author Matthew Pellow, a 
former GCEP postdoctoral scholar now with the Electric Power Research 
Institute.


“We included the cost of making solar panels, electrolysers, batteries 
and everything else. Then we told the model, given our scenario for 
2035, tell us the most economical way to meet the total energy demand of 
the community.”


To compare each scenario’s costs to its climate benefits, the 
researchers also calculated the carbon dioxide emissions produced in 
each case.


The calculation revealed that betting on plug-in electric vehicles would 
be the most cost-effective way to achieve the required emission elimination.


“The analysis showed that to be cost competitive, fuel cell vehicles 
would have to be priced much lower than battery vehicles,” said 
Felgenhauer. “However, fuel cell vehicles are likely to be significantly 
more expensive than battery vehicles for the foreseeable future. Another 
supposed benefit of hydrogen – storing surplus solar energy – didn’t pan 
out in our analysis either. We found that in 2035, only a small amount 
of solar hydrogen storage would be used for heating and lighting buildings.”


They researchers hope to analyse larger networks of communities in 
future studies and examine other factors that could influence consumers’ 
choices when deciding whether to buy a battery or fuel cell car.

___
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel