When you hear someone is an engineer, what is your first thought? Are these poor souls cursed with “The Knack”?
Or, does something else come to mind? There is a lot of talk about technological solutions to energy and other sustainability problems, but who actually makes all of this happen? We need policy makers to create an environment conducive to investment, innovation, and implementation, but we also need creative people who have a grounded understanding of how to make things work (i.e., engineers).
When I was at the IESS Conference last month, I heard Chuck Vest, president of the National Academy of Engineering, speak of the concerning state of engineering education in the U.S. (you can download his slides here). He explained that the graduation rate for engineering in the U.S. is lagging substantially, which “does not bode well for our future”. He described the 14 Grand Challenges for Engineering (a topic for another article), which is a set of critical problems facing our world that require engineering solutions. We need more engineers to tackle these challenges, several of which involve sustainability and energy issues.
Chuck Vest spoke of studies that aimed at understanding why so few Americans pursue engineering as a profession. One question that was asked of college students in these studies was “why aren’t you studying engineering?”. A popular response was “because I want to make the world better”. Clearly this is a failure in communication; engineers can have a profound positive impact on the world and create lasting value. Why is there a disconnect? Why don’t our youth see engineering as a way to make our world better? What can we do to inspire more Americans to become part of the technological solution so that we can build a better future and reestablish America’s leadership role in science and engineering? Have a look at this video and this post for a few ideas.
Vest proclaimed that we must get the word Engineer back into the vernacular. Engineering needs to be a more common topic of conversation. We need to somehow remake the perception of engineers. I believe this requires action on two fronts. Obviously we need to get the public more interested and excited about engineering, not just absorbed with enjoying the fruits of engineering. In addition, perhaps we need to adjust what engineering is. For example, a common theme at IESS was to address problems holistically, not just from a narrow disciplinary view. We can’t just design technical solutions in a bubble, ignoring relationships with other aspects of the world. The problems we are facing are growing too complex to continue with that approach. We need renaissance engineers: people who are skilled in more than one discipline. We need engineers who can focus on solving important societal problems, and who are willing to learn about and engage with other disciplines outside engineering (e.g., economics, psychology, public policy, etc.). Taking a whole-systems approach to solving these socio-technical problems will lead to much better solutions, and perhaps will improve public perception of engineering and it’s role in improving the world.
My earlier post, What Cycling Can Teach us About Better Driving, addressed how spending some time biking can help us become safer and more fuel-efficient drivers. This article prompted some insightful feedback from readers via blog comments, email, and LinkedIn. Here is a summary of what I heard from you:
Interaction: Cyclists learn to establish communication with motorists around them to ensure drivers are aware of their intentions, and vice versa. Drivers with experience cycling tend to be more vigilant with things like using turn signals, since they appreciate the importance of informing other road users what they plan to do. A motorist failing to use a turn signal can in some cases be a severe hazard to cyclists. One reader suggests always driving with lights on to help cyclists who use mirrors, particularly in foggy conditions. Another reader observed that establishing eye contact is ‘an important mode of communication’ for both cyclists and motorists.
Awareness: Cyclists develop the habit of being very aware of what’s going on around them. The habit of checking to see who is around you and what they are doing carries over to driving, as well as being extra alert for cyclists. Experience cycling gives drivers some insight into where to look for cyclists and what to expect from them.
Interpretation: It’s possible to discern much of what a driver is planning to do by paying attention to ‘body’ language, whether the actual behavior or facial expressions of the driver, or vehicle positioning, movement, or even what direction a car’s wheels are pointing. Cyclists develop these skills by necessity; drivers with enhanced anticipation and interpretation skills can drive more defensively and safely.
Appreciation: Exprience cycling helps motorists understand just how much space cyclists need while being passed, and the wide variation in speeds cyclists can travel at. It’s important for motorists not to assume all cyclists are travelling slowly; underestimating speed can lead to trouble. In addition, minor road hazards that might not mean anything to a motorist (like some road grates) are significant obstacles for cyclists; if driver’s can recognize this they can anticipate cyclist actions better. One reader ‘would like to see laws requiring cycling skills as part of driver’s licensure’ to help drivers gain a deeper appreciation for the dangers and challenges faced by cyclists. Another reader pointed out that drivers in the Netherlands are ‘far more considerate of cyclists’ because so many drivers also cycle.
I spent the last several days at the Second International Engineering Systems Symposium, a conference involving people from a wide variety of disciplines who are working to solve difficult problems using a holistic approach. Many issues we face today are remarkably complex, and if we take a narrow view when addressing them we could run into problems. While we need experts with deep knowledge in very specific topics, we also need people who can think about systems as a whole, and how parts of a system interact with each other (sometimes producing surprising results). Some topics discussed this week include energy, climate change, health care, education, design, and the economy. I could probably write daily posts for months about this conference and still have plenty of material left. I will highlight some themes, projects, and ideas over the course of several posts that I found inspiring or important (in no particular order of importance). Today I want to point your attention to a phenomenal project taking place on a few small islands in the North Atlantic.
MIT Portugal is collaborating with numerous partners to develop and implement new energy systems for islands in the Azores, a Portuguese archipelago. What a challenging and amazing opportunity! These islands are becoming, in effect, a laboratory for researchers studying technology, public policy, economic, and other aspects of a next-generation energy system. Instead of putting a laboratory in a University, they are putting the University in the laboratory. While the needs and resources of these islands are certainly unique, they are serving as a testbed and example for the rest of the world regarding renewable energy, energy efficiency, and a holistic approach to redesigning how a society creates and uses energy. You can learn more about the Green Islands Project here, here or here.
So what is so exciting about focusing on a complete island? Think about trying to do the same thing with a city in the middle of the U.S. It is tightly interconnected with other cities through roads, power lines, rivers, etc. Numerous interactions with the world outside the city would make research results more difficult to interpret. An island has limited interactions, so in some ways it is close to being a closed system. This makes it easier for researchers to make conclusions about the changes to the energy system and the influence of these changes on the rest of the island. This research may lead to a better fundamental understanding of the next generation of energy systems, along with the socio-technical complexities that exist because of the interface between energy, social, political, economic, and environmental systems.
Yesterday, NPR’s On Point addressed benefits (and challenges) of attending college, or even high school, abroad:
Stay home studying for SATs and taking on college debt, and you’re guaranteed nothing in this topsy-turvy economy. Go abroad — as early as high school, especially for college, they say — and you’ll find low tuitions, big adventures, and the future.
You can listen to the full show, Global Students, here. On Point’s guests are not just talking about study abroad programs, but actually enrolling in universities outside the U.S. In some circles studying abroad may be a normal endeavor, but the show’s guests, who are parents with four children who studied outside the U.S., emphasized that the ‘vast majority’ of high school students could really benefit from an international study experience, and that there are scholarships and programs to help keep costs within reach of many.
What do you think of this proposal? How could it benefit the next generation? Imagine a new wave of graduates with real global experience. This show reminded me some of the post Renaissance Scientists, Renaissance Engineers, Renaissance People. These kinds of global experiences would help develop the kind of broad thinking we need to fuel innovation and competitiveness in a global economy.
A lot of people (including me) are talking about the need to innovate, the need to develop new technology and systems to help solve some pretty important problems right now. In addition to addressing energy and environmental issues, innovation is essential for economic growth and quality of life for society. There is actually recent evidence that a lull in innovation over the last ten years or so has contributed to the current economic crisis.
What can we do to help accelerate innovation? One obvious action is to boost R&D funding (both from government and private sources). We have had some recent boosts to U.S. research and education programs, and a recent Forbes article provided an interesting perspective on what needs to happen for that money to translate into innovation. Forbes pointed out that our current research and educational infrastructure is based on narrowly defined disciples of study, while innovation typically requires the synthesis of ideas from a variety of disciplines. Forbes suggests that we need scientists (and engineers I might add) who can think with both sides of the brain if we want to accelerate innovation (i.e., renaissance scientists and engineers). Forbes also points out that research grants often require very narrowly defined research results, and that we need to support more “flexibility and exploration” in research. We certainly need to endorse expanded curiosity-driven research (in addition to results-driven research) if we are to accelerate innovation, as well as move toward a more open research infrastructure where interdisciplinary collaboration is more commonplace. This would require a myriad of changes, including how research grants are awarded and managed, and improving the balance of funding sources (the share of results-focused industry grants has increased significantly over the years).
The Forbes article points out that some undergraduate programs allow the kind of curricular customization that aids both left and right brain development, but that we need graduate programs that also offer a ‘whole brain experience’. There are actually some vanguard graduate programs that cross disciplinary boundaries (and sides of the brain), recognizing that solving societies toughest problems requires integration of knowledge from many fields of study. Consider, for example, the interdisciplinary Design Science program at the University of Michigan. It breaks away from traditional disciplinary boundaries to address design as a standalone research topic, integrating diverse fields of study, such as engineering, business, and psychology. The Design Science website explains how this field of study differs from established science disciplines: “Traditional science studies the world as we found it; design science studies the world as we make it”.
One of the things I love most about design is getting to focus on an important problem, and integrating knowledge and resources from a variety of disciplines into a complete, creative solution. Design as a discipline really knows no boundaries. I’m glad to see that some are recognizing the importance of linking traditional science and engineering ‘left-brained’ expertise with other disciplines. We would not only benefit from scientists and engineers learning more about right-brained subjects, but by bringing people together from diverse disciplines to tackle tough design problems. Progress in innovation could achieve new heights by linking the skills of engineers with the complementary insights of others. We don’t just need renaissance scientists and engineers, but renaissance people. I hope interest in design expands, and a broader part of our society begins to contribute their ideas and expertise to creating the next generation of energy, transportation, and agricultural systems that will move us toward sustainability.
I read about a new movement recently that is bringing to light the effects of traditional (neoclassical) economics curriculum on sustainability (both economic and environmental). Toxic Textbooks points out that most introductory economics textbooks simplify market economics. One important aspect of market economies that is overlooked often is the cost of externalities, that is, the costs of an economic transaction that do not have a direct impact on the parties involved in the transaction.
What do externalities have to do with sustainability? A lot. Understanding externalities is phenomenally important. One of the main reasons we have pollution, disappearing forests, a warming planet, and rapidly depleting oil supplies is that consumers don’t have to pay for all the costs of what they consume. Some of these costs are subsidized (think tax breaks and security for oil companies), and other costs are imposed on others not involved directly in the transaction. What is the real cost of pollution, of using something that can’t be replaced, of climate change, or of importing oil from certain countries? The consumer is not paying for it; the price of their consumption is artificially low. This is an effect of The Tragedy of the Commons, the title of a seminal paper written by Garrett Hardin in 1968. Markets work well when the value of everything behind a product is considered. In many cases, products depend on resources that we do not pay for (non-marketed assets). The cost of products normally do not reflect the value of ‘ecological services‘ provided by the natural environment. These additional resources are the commons, and the tragedy occurs when the commons are exploited to fuel growth in an unsustainable way; the commons are degraded or destroyed as a consequence. Once we start paying the true cost of what we consume, then the market economy will move toward a sustainable state. (See this recent article by Robert Costanza for a great perspective on the role externalities are playing in our current economy).
The only way we are going to shift to new, sustainable ways of doing things on a large enough scale is to provide the right price signals. We don’t need higher taxes overall, just different taxes that help reflect the cost of using common resources, and encourage investment in the right technologies and businesses. Even if some folks don’t buy into global climate change, there are enough other solid reasons (economic, national security, etc.) to justify a change in price signals.
The concept of externalities may be lacking from today’s economic textbooks, which is a problem for sustainability. But would revising all our textbooks solve this issue completely? I believe it extends beyond the classroom. What about those who haven’t learned about economics from a textbook? Many Americans have a pretty good concept of supply and demand. They understand how economic forces push prices up during a shortage, or pull them down when there is a glut. But does conventional economic wisdom include the importance of externalities? I suspect that it doesn’t. If it did, then voters would more universally support gasoline tax hikes, carbon caps, and investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Many citizens do support these things, but fewer than we need. We need more people who understand and appreciate externalities. But how do we get there? Perhaps revised textbooks is a start. But what else can we do? What else is being done right now?
Last week I had the opportunity to visit the MIT Solar Electric Vehicle Team. Several years ago I worked on a solar car as an undergraduate student, so it was a treat to glimpse the world of solar vehicle racing once again. One thing I have been impressed with about the solar racing community is its camaraderie, which has been an important element since the beginnings of solar racing. Existing teams are excited to see new ones start, and are typically very willing to share some insights into how to be successful in solar racing. The MIT team is planning to take this to a new level of transparency by becoming an open-source solar vehicle team. That is, their documentation and knowledge will be made open to everyone (although the software they use is not necessarily open-source).
While MIT has a very competitive team, education is a top priority for the group and takes precedence over race results. The team is composed of about 25 students, and is based in the MIT Edgerton Center, which is dedicated to hands-on learning experiences for undergraduate students. It’s not just the students designing and building the car who learn something, but sponsors, parents, peers, and the broader community as well. It’s fantastic to see what is possible when bright, creative engineers focus their efforts on energy efficiency. Solar race cars showcase what is possible, and help get us thinking about what we can do to improve current production vehicles. The current MIT solar car can maintain 55 mph on between 600 and 700 Watts of power. That is less than one horsepower! 700 Watts is less than what a hair dryer consumes, and much less than the power of a typical lawnmower. Why the focus on energy efficiency with solar cars? If a solar car is to drive continuously on solar power alone without depleting its batteries, it must use less power to drive than the power it can harvest from the sun. Solar power production is limited by the size of the solar array (which is limited by the size of the car), and the efficiency of the array. Here is a peek at the array on the MIT solar car:
The MIT array is made of monocrystalline silicon solar cells. Common photovoltaic (PV) cells are made from polycrystalline silicon. In these cells you can see lots of little crystals that make up each cell (the photo below is a polycrystalline PV cell). In the array above on the MIT car you can’t see any edges between crystals, because each cell is a single crystal. This makes the cells more efficient. They are also a little bit flexible so they can conform to the curves on the car. The MIT cells are 21% efficient, which is pretty amazing for silicon cells. This means that 21% of the sunlight energy hitting each cell is converted into electrical energy. Satellite-grade PV cells are made from different materials (like gallium arsenide), and can reach efficiencies as high as 40%, but are much more expensive than terrestrial grade silicon PV cells. Click here to learn more about how PV cells work.
The MIT car uses a lithium ion battery pack that is about the size of four regular car batteries. It is made of a large number of laptop batteries wired together with a power management system to keep things under control. Some teams use lithium polymer batteries because of their better power density (i.e., for the same size battery, lithium polymer batteries can output a lot of power), but these batteries have lower energy density than lithium ion batteries. To summarize, if you are comparing a lithium ion battery and a lithum polymer battery that are the same size, lithium ion can hold more energy, but lithium polymer can release its energy faster. The MIT team examined this tradeoff, and learned that for their car and the races they were competing in, lithium ion was the best choice. Tradeoffs like this can be analyzed using the modeling and optimization techniques that I’m addressing in articles throughout this blog. Using quantitative tools like these can help engineers explore design options and make the best choices for their design problems.
In upcoming posts I will describe some of the ways solar car designers squeeze every last bit of energy efficiency out of their cars, and discuss how lessons learned from solar racing can aid advancements in vehicle design for the rest of us.
What do you think about the MIT team’s open development approach, or solar vehicle racing in general?
If we can use human power for transportation (e.g., bicycles), what about for electric power generation? Many people have wondered this. When you look at the numbers, it may not make economic sense, and would have very small direct impact on reducing fossil fuel use. For example, an elite cyclist might be able to output about 500 Watts of power continuously (enough to power five 100 W light bulbs). Most of the rest of us could manage only some fraction of that power output (maybe 10%-20% of that). Even at 500 W, and assuming 100% efficiency electricity generation, an elite cyclist could produce only a half kilowatt hour (kWh) of energy per hour, which is worth at most about 10 cents in the U.S.
While the economic incentive is negligible, there are other motivations for human-powered generators that go beyond financial and direct environmental considerations. At the University of Oregon, exercise equipment has been fitted with electric generators. Steve Mital, the University’s sustainability director, explained that while the costs of upgrading the equipment won’t be recouped for 28 years, it does have educational benefit. He goes on to say that “so much of this talk about renewables is fairly abstract. You jump on one of these machines and 30 minutes later you have a deep visceral understanding of what that means.” This effect is definitely valuable, and may have a larger indirect impact on energy consumption. If facilities like this become more universal we will have many more individuals with a deep appreciation for what a kWh really is and how much work is required to produce it. We may not even need to harvest the electricity to get the educational effect: just add sensors and displays to communicate how much energy has been produced. This would cost less than installing working generators (but may not be as satisfying).
What do you think of human-powered generators in gyms (or at rock concerts)? Should we invest in this as an educational campaign?
This interview from the Argonne National Lab Blog, Inside the Green Garage, describes how experienced engineers are giving undergraduate engineering students expert mentoring in designing and building energy efficient cars for the EcoCAR Challenge. This is a phenomenal opportunity for students to learn real-world vehicle design practice. It would take several years for an engineer in the auto industry to gain experience in all the areas these students are being exposed to. I hope we can develop more opportunities like this and make them available to many more students.
