some Words about Physics, Python, Apple and everything else

Random Thoughts About The Future - Cars

TL;DR: I believe we overestimate the capabilities of battery driven cars and ignore other possibilities, such as fuel cells or grid connected vehicles.

Since my master thesis is now finished, I have some more time for other things. There are several things I plan to write about, including my thesis itself. One topic that gets a lot of coverage without really going in depth is the future of cars. In many ways Germany is the land of cars: We have the fastest roads. We not only build a lot of cars (Volkswagen is almost the biggest car manufacturer), but we also build the high end ones, which everyone desires (say BMW, Audi and Mercedes). Furthermore, a lot of jobs in Germany depend on the automobile industry, some say every seventh, but in reality it’s probably not that much.

In a recent discussion someone told me that it is impossible that the big German carmakers do not have a plan for the future – they must have because it is their job. I argued that it was not the big mainframe companies who prospered through the PC age and not the big phone manufacturers that build our smartphones to day – so why should the carmakers of today deliver the transportation of tomorrow?

What the transportation of the future will look like is the key question. In other words we have to ask: What job does the car for us and what job has a new the techology to do, when oil gets too expensive to burn. This question does not get asked enough. We only try to replace what we have with something similar; instead of making or at least dreaming about something that is better suited to do its job. Or as Henry Ford said: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." What most companies do at the moment is, take a car with a combustion engine and put a battery pack and an electric motor in it – seems like a “faster” horse to me. On the other hand, the first car, built by Gottlieb Daimler in Germany, was pretty much a horse wagon with a combustion engine.

The car enables us to get from A to B whenever we want, with almost all the luggage we desire and virtually no matter where A and B are. It does that, with a reasonable price per distance, a reasonable price per car and with adequate speed. Furthermore, a car is easy enough to drive, anyone can learn. You can go faster via a small plane, but you lose a lot of the flexibility and flying is much more expensive. Plus you will need years to learn how to fly. On the other end of the spectrum is public transport. To go by bus or train is usually cheaper, but you again lose a lot of flexibility, however, you do not have to learn anything. Well, except how to navigate the overly complex ticket vending machine. Carrying a lot of luggage is more exhausting because you not only have to get it to the next bus stop or train station, but you also usually have to move it several times between different lines.

One thing we tend to forget is, that we only can travel that easily by car because of the entire infrastructure that we build around it. First of all we have roads everywhere. Sometimes this seems so normal that we tend to take it as given. Imagine if we somehow came to the conclusion that we would use planes for every longer distance trip, so that there would be no road network between cities, no motorway and no interstate. The world would look very different then. Secondly there is a very dense network of gas stations, car dealerships and car workshops that support our cars. There are some places in the world where you do not have such infrastructure, like in parts of Siberia. In such places driving suddenly becomes a much harder undertaking, involves much more planning and gets a lot slower.

In reality there are two parts that make up the car experience if you will: the car itself and the infrastructure. We tend to see trains as very limited, because you need to build railway lines everywhere to use them – but that is exactly what we did for cars. You could argue that a road is much more versatile than a railway lines and that we as mankind used roads long before the car was invented. But how many cars modern cars can you drive for long distances on the roads of the middle ages?

But let‘s focus again on the vision of the electric car, its shortcomings and possible solutions, which I think are overlooked a lot of the time. The idea of the electric car is really old and simple: you combine chemical electricity storage with an electric motor, put that in the body of a standard car and you are ready to go. What you get is a car that drives silently, has a lot of torque and needs a lot less mechanical parts. It is even simpler to drive than a car with combustion engine because you don‘t need a clutch or gearbox. There is one severe problem though: energy density.

Energy density means: How much energy one can store (and then easily release) in proportion to the weight of a certain system. In a lithium ion battery you can store about 0.5 MJ per kg while one kilogram of gasoline can release about 43 MJ. It is much harder to put the energy back into the gasoline than into the lithium ion battery though. In other words you need about 80 kg of battery system to replace one kg of gasoline. This results in heavier cars, because the loss of mechanical components does not compensate the weight. In fact accumulators are so heavy that you cannot pack enough of them into one car to get the same mileage as in a gasoline car. The famous Tesla Model S weighs 2.1 tons and can drive up to 480 km. A comparable Audi A6 or Mercedes E class weighs between 1.6 and 2.0 tons and has a total mileage of up to 1000 km. Even though the whole system in the electric car is much more efficient – it can transform a higher percentage of the stored energy into movement (or kinetic energy) – does not help. This is the energy density problem. We will discuss it in the next few paragraphs.

There are some more problems coupled with it. Refilling a fuel tank is easy and reasonably fast, but charging a battery instead takes much more time and in the case of li-ion accumulators is rather complex. This becomes especially problematic when you want to drive a distance longer than it is possible with one charge. One solution is to replace the whole battery pack with a new charged one. Tesla Motors demonstrated that this is a technically feasible solution but it may have some economical problems because batteries age. But that is only a problem for the business model. Tesla could track the usage of every battery a driver uses and charge him accordingly. The Question might be if this would kill the price advantage of the electric car. If you look at the cost of "fuel" (a better term might be energy) per kilometre the electric car can easily win. You need about 20 kWh (Tesla Model S) per 100 km which will cost you about 5€, in comparison you will need at least 6 L fuel per 100 km for a price of about 9€. But if these costs suddenly include the compensation for the aging battery, it does not look so bright anymore. A new battery will set you back about 10.000 € and will last 200.000 km, again these numbers are from Tesla, for 100 km this means 5€ for the battery.

A minor problem is that eclectric motors work so much more efficiently than combustion engines that there is not enough heat for heating the passenger cabin and since the energy you carry in your battery is very limited you are unwilling to spend any of that for heating. Driving in the winter, time will be even worse than now.

A much bigger problem with electric cars seems to be that they are not only expensive, but in addition to that the process of making them does not appear to scale (get cheaper with mass production). This is because a lot of the minerals used to build the batteries are in short supply and will become more expensive if demand rises. The next problem might be where the energy to charge all the electric cars should come from if we abandon oil and coal, but we will ignore this one for now.

While electric cars still can transport us from A to B they limit the distance between A and B. Aside from that; they seems to be and to remain expensive.

One solution may be, to make private transportation public, via car sharing. Anytime you need a car, you just grab one from the next sharing point and drive where you want to drive. If your destination is further away than the reach of the car, you just stop by a sharing point along the way and grab another one. While this is a very good solution for big cities and a lot of everyday driving, it mostly ignores problems with large amounts of luggage. How many times do you want to repack your car on the family vacation trip? How many times a day would a traveling businessman or salesman want to change his car? Even though we are talking about cars, imagine the same system for trucks – almost impossible.

Let‘s not forget another fact: not all people live in big cities. Even with rising costs of transportation in the future this will probably not happen. Depending on the country, the urbanisation might be on different levels, but even in the highly developed countries you still have 9% (Japan) up to 40% (Portugal, Greece, Ireland) of the population living in rural areas. How well can car sharing work for them? What if a shared car becomes stranded in a small village? How do you share a car if you need it every day? The solution of the shared electrical car seams worse here than what we already have.

One way to solve the energy density problem is to make cars independent of energy transportation – you just connect them to the grid. Just like an electric train or a trolleybus. There are even ideas to transfer energy wirelessly via induction. Imagine you are driveing on a motorway; your car connects to the overhead wire and switches into autopilot, to charge its battery and take over driving for you while doing so. You can lean back and take a nap. The combination of connection to the power grid and the autopilot are actually separate things, but they fit very well together. You do not want to manually connect to the power line and whilst trying to overtake someone forget to unlock your connection first.

The ability to connect a car to the power grid for long trips would mean we could downsize the battery pack to last only for 100 km, with a small reserve for cold days. This would be sufficient for a shopping trip even if the next city is a bit further away. This would lower the cost of the car dramatically. We could even switch to other battery technologies (apart from lithium ion) that are much cheaper and widely available. The technology for pantographs (connection to the overhead wire) is also common and established. The obvious question is: what about the entire new infrastructure? We will need new infrastructure anyway; the question is what will be the best investment?

Let‘s not end the discussion of infrastructure here. If we consider building a network of filling stations either for hydrogen or for battery charging/exchanging versus some kind of system to connect cars to the grid on the highway, the big difference is who is going to finance it. A network of filling stations can be built by numerous companies as long as a standard connector for filling is established. The grid connection system instead will probably have to be founded by the state. My personal standpoint is that infrastructure should be provided by the state, like roads, water supply, electricity and telephone/internet connection, but your mileage may vary. Maybe a government-run project to build new infrastructure as a beginning of a new century and to overcome the current crisis is not such a bad idea.

The possibilities of cars that can drive on their own is another, not so distant, future prospect that I believe is overlooked a lot of the time. Some of us view driving as a fun activity, like as it would be a small adventure every time, or even a race – and for sure there are times when driving is fun. Most of the time however we do not feel any kind of fun when driving to the supermarket though the rush-hour, or when we drive home from work like we do every day, or when we drive several hundred kilometres with a fully loaded vehicle to arrive at the beach even more stressed and ready for a holiday than when the trip begun. For all those times a self-driving car would be marvelous – just get in, set the destination, and lean back. That would be much more joy than the cars we have today. A car that is able to navigate and drive on its own would even allow for a better shared car experience. Just tell your service provider when you need a car and it will be in front of your door.

Another solution for the energy density problem is to just not exit the era of liquid fuels. The usage of fuel cells in cars made a lot of noise in the early 2000s, but since then it seems that nothing has happened on the hydrogen front. The contrary is true. Toyota as well as Nissan, Honda and Mercedes-Benz have continued development of fuel cell cars and plan to release them to mass market in 2014/15. The cost of manufacturing is still higher than for a normal car (about 20%) but this is nothing unusual for a new technology. The Toyota fuel cell prototype FCHV was already available for leasing in Japan.

The good news is that liquid hydrogen can store even more energy than gasoline, which translates to fuel cell cars that have a total mileage of about 800 km, like we used to get from fuel. The problem with liquid hydrogen is that it will not stay liquid so easily - in fact hydrogen will not stay where you want it to be in any form easily. Hydrogen at normal pressure and room temperature is a gas. In contrast to a battery with a fixed energy density, you can compress or liquefy a gas to raise its energy density. You need either a very low temperature to make it liquid or high pressure to store hydrogen in a form that is dense enough to be competitive. Since it is not easy to keep things at low temperatures, the only feasible way to store hydrogen in a car is in a very high-pressure tank (700 bar). This is because hydrogen atoms are so small that they tend to leave a normal the tank very easily right through it‘s walls. With a combination of several synthetic materials it is possible to reduce these diffusions to an acceptable level, so we can mark this problem as solved. The fuel cell cars weigh only about 100 kg more than their combustion engine counterparts and use the same amount of platinum in there fuel cell than a normal car in its catalytic converter. Sounds perfect right? All we need is a network of hydrogen refill stations and we are set.

The production of the pressurised hydrogen though uses a lot of energy. To fill a tank with hydrogen at a pressure of 700 bar you need the energy of 12% of the hydrogen you fill in the tank. That means you not only need the energy to produce the hydrogen, you need 12% more to store it. But once again we come back to the question of energy later.

Another possibility is to produce synthetic oil. That may sound strange but the qualities of oil as energy storage are so good that a lot of people are working on projects to produce cheap oil without drilling for it in the ground. One way is to grow special algae that can be used as fuel. There are several different approaches, but until now it does not seem like they will be successful in the near future. Nevertheless it might be part of the solution to keep cars with combustion engines around and fuel them with synthetic oil produced from algae.

What about combustion engines anyway? They are probably not completely going away but with rising prices for fuel they will become more of a hobby. We do not use sailing ships for transport anymore but there are still a lot of people who use them just for fun. The same can be said for horse-drawn carriages and so on.

A more utopian version for the energy density problem could look like this: You have to travel to a bigger city, say it is 500 km away, you have a lot of luggage and the trip has to start tomorrow. You pull your smartphone out of your pocket and type in your destination and the time you plan to start. Your phone will suggest an appropriate route on a car train and book your car. The next morning the car is waiting in front of your door. When you have finished loading you, or your car, drives to the next train station several kilometers away. The car train leaves every hour, your smartphone knew that and suggestet a time early enough to catch it. Once your train has reached its destination town your car will drive you to the address you entered yesterday. That way your car will need a much smaller battery, same as in the grid connection example. We already have the technology to integrate different means of transportation like that. The question is if something like this will be fast enough compared to traveling by car and whether it can deliver enough throughput for the big routes. It will need even more new infrastructure.

Now you might expect some words about the question of where the energy to power electric cars might come from. When I started writing about this so many thoughts crossed my mind that I decided they should go in another article.

MATLAB is not for Science - follow up

I wrote in detail why I think MATLAB is a bad choice for scientific research here. Imagine my surprise when I saw a letter about the "new MATLAB licensing model" from my university in my inbox. Just some quotes translated into English:

Further notes for MATLAB users at the TU Ilmenau:

1. Close MATLAB if you do not use it for a longer period of time (longer than 30 minutes), to free the license for other users. Forgo to block a academic-license by doing pseudo calculations.

4. Examine the use of comparable commercial or free software in your department like Maple, Mathematica, R, Octave or Scilab.

Sadly they forget to mention Python/NumPy. Maybe I should offer an introduction course… 

The Return of Star Wars


My predictions/whishes for the new movies:

When the news that Disney was going to buy Lucas Arts, I thought this is interesting but not too exiting. But then the news broke through that there would be new movies. And my world started to crumble…

Well I am overplaying it a bit here but as a matter of fact I am a huge Star Wars fan. I read almost all the books that are available and buy every new one (or old one) I can get. Believe it or not I have a whole bookcase full of only Star Wars books. It may sound a bit strange to read books about a galaxy far, far away where lightsabers exist, people fly faster than light with a hyperdrive and some religious people believe in an energy field that connects all living beings considering that I study physics and strongly believe in science. But you know it is a galaxy far, far away and it was a long, long time ago…

It is not like I live in this universe, it is more that I love to sit down, grab my latest Star Wars novel and dive in into this other galaxy, I first made contact with when I was twelve. I can ignore all the science that is missing, pay no attention to some bad writing or strange story twists and enjoy the ride.

One of the most important things to a story arc that spans over decades of ongoing story telling and hundreds of book, comics, games and several movies is continuity. In the Star Wars universe almost all things that ever appeared as book, game or movie fit together. Which is awesome! It not only makes the story more believable but it gives you the chance to relate much more to the characters and move with them through this other universe. This is because our brain hates things that do not fit together.

I think we all know this from a scene in book or a movie when we think something happened that is unrealistic, we lean back and start to think about the whole story again, only to find all the other flaws. Even if we had not thought about the reasoning for the plot, our brain will find these things subconsciously. And 90% of the time this happened it made the book or movie worse than it was before you stumbled upon the bump in the road of the story.

It was the fear that "my" universe would loose this continuity with the new movies being made that made my head spin for a moment. The fear that most of the things, I have gone through with my most beloved characters from this other universe, would suddenly be invalid, like they never happened. Which was kind of amazing taken into account that they never did happen.

For all the books and comics there is a special department inside of Lucas Arts that is responsible for the continuity. But if you saw Clone Wars you know that Georg Lucas himself thought that in the end it is his universe so he can mess with it the way he wants. Similar to what he had done to his films, but not that bad. And in the end he is right it is his creation and he can mess with it.

With the creation of Episode I-III George Lucas invalidated some books that played in that time or rather before. Overall I am not sure if George Lucas regarded anything apart from the movies as a part of the real story. On the other hand he did alter things in the movies and was the headmaster of the all the stories in the universe - he gave his nod to each and every single story. That gives me at least some confidence that he knows how important it is for a fan that all the parts come together. Now the story is in the hands of Disney though.

For Disney buying Lucas Arts was a huge deal and they paid a lot of money for it. It was not the first deal like this Disney did and they showed that they can deal with the legacy of a creative company. What are the possibilities for the future of the universe:

  1. Disney ignores everything and concentrates on making three fabulous movies
  2. Disney picks an already written trilogy in form of three novels and bases its new movies on them
  3. Disney chooses to let the movies play in a time where no existing story takes place so it can write its own story

You could argue that the first option will produce the best movies and therefor will make the most money, which is probably one very important factor considering the huge investment. This would neglect they the fact that every movie that would play in the universe has to pay respect to the universe simply to fit in. The work that Lucas Arts put in to all the details in the movies is humongous. A new movie naturally has to consider the universe it lives in in great detail. Nevertheless could Disney decide that it is the best for the movies to play, let‘s say five years after Return of the Jedi (ROTJ) and ignore the entire books written past that time. This would lead to a split in the timeline. New books will be written for the new one and maybe there will also be new books for the old one.

I think it would hurt the sales of new novels dramatically, if there will be a split in the timeline. New fans will be confused about the old books and the old fans will be angry about the brake of the continuity. Compared to the money Disney could earn with the movies the value of the reduced book sales will probably diminish. I am not sure however how important the selling of books is regarding the long-term prospects of the investment in Lucas Arts. They sell Star Wars books now for more then twenty years. They regularly produce new ones, the record them as audio books, they even bring out new and better versions of old audio books. At least they are making some money with this – for 20 years.

Still I regard option one as highly likely. The books sales will probably come back after time when the fans made their freedom with the new timeline. Some fans never forgave George anything though.

Considering these reports and the burden it would bring to the making of the movies I strongly believe option two is highly unlikely. There are some books that maybe could be made into a movie but why limit the new films to an old story.

Option three could be the win-win situation for everyone. There would be no need to split the timeline and to mess with the hardcore fans like me and it would give the creative head of the movies a lot of freedom. But it sure is the way I hope they go and I am not really objective regarding the matter.

The news that ensured my wishful thinking was that Harrison Ford would play Han Solo again. Also Mark Hamill (Luke) and Carrie Fisher (Leia) where contacted from George Lucas himself that there will be new movies. What does this news have to do with option three1? They would have the right age now.

Think about the basic plot of the episodes. In Episode I-III we see the birth of Anakin and we see him growing up. We see the training of a young Jedi and his way to mastership. We see the death of Qui-Gon in the first one. In the last Episode we see the birth of Luke. A break of 20 Years. In Episode IV - VI we see Luke growing up. We see the training of a young Jedi and his way to mastership, the death of Obi-Wan in the first one and the death of Anakin in the last one.

I know this is not a clear pattern, but I see one. Extrapolating from this we see the Jedi growing up and watching his path struggling to becoming a Master. We will see the death of Luke like we saw the death of the other great teachers (Obi-Wan, Qui-Gon and Yoda).

At this point I think it is worth mentioning that George did refuse to let any of the main characters die in the novels except from Chewbacca. Maybe this was a sign that there will be more movies all along.

The other question might be who would be the Jedi in training we see. In the novels Luke already has a son that is a very young Jedi knight. There is also the daughter of Han and Leia, Jaina Solo, which is several years older and already an established Jedi knight/master.

After reading Apokalypse, the novel that is the most advanced regarding the time that passed after the events of A New Hope, I think the Jedi in training could be Allana Solo, the grandchild of Leia and Han Solo. She has the right age to begin her Jedi training so we could see her on her way to knight ship. More interesting is the fact that she has a prophecy of bringing balance to the galaxy, of unifying it. Sounds familiar?

I think the last series of novels developed all the important things for the Star Wars movies: A young Jedi knight with a prophecy that has seen to much trouble already. An old and very wise master, that is old enough to become one with the force. And it reestablishes the Sith as an evil, dooming over the whole galaxy. If you ask me this is a perfect setup.

Plus if you look at the timeline of novels and comics there is a big hole between 45 years after A New Hope (they call it ABY - After the Battle of Yavin) and the next comic that plays 130 years ABY.

With absolutely no insider knowledge these are my predictions for the new movies.

 page 1 / 5  older