Electronics News and Comment

More of 'Best Engineering Colleges 2009'

More from the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges’ ranking of engineering schools: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) dominated specialty areas of the magazine’s survey, taking the top spots in mechanical, electrical, aerospace and computer engineering among schools whose highest degree is a Ph.D.

            Among schools whose highest degree is a B.S. or M.S., Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology grabbed the top spots in mechanical, electrical, civil and computer engineering.

All of the engineering college rankings were based on surveys of engineering school deans and senior faculty, the magazine says. Respondents rated the colleges on a one-through-five basis, with a “one” being marginal school and a “five” being distinguished.

            Mechanical engineering had the following top ten doctoral schools (in order): MIT; University of Michigan; University of California-Berkeley; Georgia Tech; Stanford; University of Illinois; Purdue; Cornell; Cal Tech; and the University of Texas-Austin.

            Non-doctoral mechanical engineering programs ranked as follows: Rose-Hulman; Cal-Poly; Cooper Union; Harvey Mudd; Kettering (formerly GM Institute);  U.S. Military Academy; Bucknell; U.S. Naval Academy; Milwaukee School of Engineering and a four-way tie for tenth.

            Best electrical/electronic (doctoral): MIT; Stanford; University of Illinois; University of California-Berkeley; Georgia Tech; University of Michigan; Cal Tech; Cornell; Purdue; Carnegie-Mellon.

            Best electrical/electronic (non-doctoral schools): Rose-Hulman; Cal-Poly; Cooper Union; Harvey Mudd; U.S. Naval Academy; Bucknell; U.S. Military Academy; Franklin Olin College of Engineering; U.S. Air Force Academy; and a tenth-place tie between Rowan University and San Jose State.  

A Bone To Pick With T. Boone Pickens

It’s hard to argue with the many logical points that businessman T. Boone Pickens has made as he has toured the country to sell Americans on the benefits of his Pickens Plan.

            If you’ve looked at Pickens’ website or have been lucky enough to see him in person, then you know that Pickens is brilliant and charismatic when it comes to outlining this country’s energy problems. He says that American use of imported oil has been rising steadily for four decades; he blames multiple presidential administrations for failing to turn it around; and he predicts that if we do nothing to combat the problem “we will be importing 75% of our oil and it will be $300 a barrel.”

            Pickens does have a remedy for all this, and for that I tip my cap to him. No one else has offered anything that comes remotely close to the scale of the Pickens Plan, and a grand scale is truly what’s needed to solve this problem.

            I do, however, have a big issue with the Pickens Plan, and when I had a chance to ask him about it two weeks ago, he had no answer for it.

            To understand my issue, though, let’s first look at his plan. The Pickens Plan calls for the natural gas that now provides 22% of the country’s electrical energy to be re-directed to the auto industry. That way, the auto industry could wean itself off oil. Then the plan calls for the electrical grid to draw on massive wind and solar farms to replace the 22% of electricity that’s been lost.

            The problem is, virtually every expert we’ve talked to has said that if more than 10% or so of the country’s electricity comes from renewables, then we will need massive electrical storage systems to capture the power. That way, power will still be available when the wind stops blowing and the sun’s not shining. Otherwise, we as a country are going to be experiencing a lot of blackouts.

           So let’s use Pickens’ numbers to do a little math: He says the country uses roughly 987,000 MW of electrical power. If we assume we need storage for about 12% of that (that’s 22% - 10%), then we’ll need enough to handle 118,000 MW of power.

            That’s a lot of storage. It’s the equivalent of storing the electricity from about 70 nuclear power plants.

            And how are we going to do this? Pumped hydro? Compressed air? Huge battery farms?

            When I asked Pickens in
Chicago recently, he said this: “I’m not an expert on the storage of electricity. It’s not easy. But those things are coming fast. I know that.” Unfortunately, I didn’t have a chance for a follow-up question, since Pickens’ people whisked him from the press conference minutes later.

            I do, however, agree with one point that he made: It’s not easy. We’ve talked to a number of people who have energy storage schemes, and they’re proud to prove they can store 10 MW of electricity. Still, that leaves us a little short, since we need roughly 118,000 MW to fulfill the needs of the Pickens Plan.

            I know that Pickens deserves credit for having a plan. But to respond as he did is all too familiar in the world of technology. It’s like saying, “The engineers will do it. Now go away and don’t bother us with the details because we’re big picture guys.” Most engineers have heard that too many times in their careers.

            Look, I want to believe in the Pickens Plan. But Mr. Pickens, can you please grace us with a few minor details? Right now, this isn’t so much a plan as it is a drawing on the back of a cocktail napkin.  

GM Says 80-Mile Chevy Volt Battery Doesn't Exist

A GM spokesman said last week that a report about an 80-mile next-generation battery for the Chevy Volt was erroneous. Rob Peterson of GM told us that such reports needed to be “toned down” and assured us that the Volt still has a 40-mile range for the foreseeable future.

            “I’m familiar with the two companies involved and they completely overstated their involvement in the Volt,” Peterson said. “They’ve worked with our advanced materials group in a true R&D sense. But while they are connected to General Motors and are big fans of the Volt, they are not part of the Volt program.”

            The misunderstanding started after an independent website reported in a headline “Next-Generation Chevy Volt Might Have 80-Mile Electric Range With Same
Battery.” The site’s story said that two companies – Applied Sciences, Inc. and Pyrograf Products Inc. – are already on GM’s payroll and are partnering “on the fabrication of carbon nanofibers that will be used in place of the current graphite material” on the Volt. The site added that the new design would “double” the Volt’s electric-only range.

            The latest situation is hardly the first time that battery vendors have been accused of overstatement. In the 1990s, several battery manufacturers said they were on the verge of creating batteries with 400-mile ranges and 15-minute recharge times. By the end of the ‘90s, however, the best EV batteries were pushing to reach 100 miles with six-hour recharge times.

            Peterson said, however, that GM’s work with the two companies “does demonstrate that we see battery technology as so important that we continue to monitor it, and work with different companies to advance our battery solutions.”