Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them The price of oil and gasoline is now out of the hands of US consumers and OPEC suppliers. Indeed, when Saudi Arabia announced over the past two months that it would add 500,000 barrels of oil a day in new capacity by the end of the year, the oil markets shrugged.
A recent CIBC report says we could see $7 gasoline by 2010, along with 1970s style stagflation. Who knows what we face in the coming decades as the number of cars in the world double?
Cellulosic ethanol is an important low-carbon alternative fuel for sure. But given future constraints on arable land and water from population growth and climate change, it seems unlikely to be available in sufficient quantity to lower the price of oil in the face of steadily rising demand from countries like India and China. That means it is likely to be sold at whatever price gasoline is. The same is, of course, true of whatever small amounts of oil we might find from offshore drilling or in Alaska, assuming politicians pursue that pointless polluting policy.
Only one alternative fuel can significantly lower the annual fuel bill of U.S. consumers while at the same time significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- electricity. It has a per-mile fuel cost about one fifth that of gasoline at current prices even when made from carbon-free sources.
Toyota, General Motors, and Volkswagen have already said they will introduce plug-in hybrid electric-gasoline vehicles to the U.S. market in 2010. These vehicles are likely to have a 20 to 40 mile range running on electricity before they revert to being a fuel-efficient hybrid running on gasoline or a biofuel blend. That would allow most people to do most of their driving on electricity.
In the beginning, the cars may cost several thousand dollars more to build then regular cars, but the extra cost to consumers will probably be far less for several reasons. First, the next president is certain to institute a large tax credit for plug ins. Second, I have already talked to two major energy-sector companies that would like to own the battery and lease it to consumers. Third, plug-ins will ultimately be charged at off-peak times and provide power and voltage to the grid when needed; vehicle owners may be able to get a rebate or revenue stream from electric utilities for this service. Finally, with more than $1 billion a year of private sector money going into better battery technology, and then economies of scale kicking in as more and more vehicles are produced, the incremental cost of plug in technology will decline over time.
I expect that over the next decade, we will see dozens of models of affordable plug ins that pay for their extra cost in under five years. The price of gasoline is likely to be over $7 a gallon by that point, but at least consumers will have a low-cost, clean alternative fuel that will shield them from the whims of unstabler suppliers and insatiable global demand.
The other good news on the technology front is that we have more than enough affordable sources of zero-carbon electricity to power the plug ins. Indeed, when we have millions of plug ins hooked up to the electric grid, they will act as a giant low-cost nighttime storage system for variable wind, which tends to blow more at night.
Over the next two decades, energy efficiency, wind power, concentrated solar thermal electric, and solar photovoltaic can provide all the added demand we require while allowing us to steadily reduce total greenhouse gas emissions from the electric and transportation sectors. But that will have to be the subject of a later post.
[Note: Some have criticized the Shell sponsorship of this blog. But Shell exerts no editorial control, so I'll let others lose sleep over this. Personally, while I once admired Shell, especially their strategic planning about global warming and renewable energy, their pursuit of tar sands and, even worse, oil shale, makes clear they are simply another short-term-profit-maximizing long-term-climate-destroying oil company.]
Environment
Technology
Comments
Bottom line is that, environmental and oil scarcity issues aside, electric drive trains are fundamentally a better technology.
You cannot really separate the ethanol / biofuels issue from moving to electric based cars. Ethanol would make little sense if everyone continued to drive 12 MPG SUVs. But an 70 mpg plug in hybrid could potentially get 500 miles per gallon of gasoline and 88 miles per gallon of ethanol.
Posted by: bwv | July 10, 2008 10:32 AM
I respectfully suggest to my colleagues blogging here to consider statements of the form:
"Oh, what could possibly go wrong ... how can their possibly be a bias because of Shell Sponsorship" to be inappropriate and worthless. Instead, consider:
"Yes, sponsorship absolutely means that there is the possibility of bias, intentional or not. There is not intentional bias. But subconscious bias, which we DO NOT WANT TO HAPPEN, cannot be ruled out unless everyone is vigilant. We will be vigilant. Our fellow Sblings will be vigilant. So please, dear reader and commenter, also be vigilant and help us make sure that this is a productive discussion about alternative energy and saving the planet ... etc. etc."
The former is ingenuous and insulting and I guarantee you it will not allay concerns at all. The latter is realistic and appropriate. IMHO.
Posted by: Greg Laden | July 10, 2008 10:41 AM
I see two basic advantages to the electric car. First, the infrastructure for plug in is already in place, unlike whatever infrastructure would be needed for hydrogen, say. Secondly the major pollution would be concentreated at wherever the electricity is produced, rather than spread out up and down the road as it is now. However, electric cars would increase the demand for electricity, which is running near capacity at the moment. One cannot necessarily assume a magic transformation to various solar sources (wind, hydro, bio, direct). The idea that the cars would mostly be charged at night, during off peak hours, simply means an increase in the necessary base load capacity. There is no solution without cost, so we can oly minimize cost, not eleminate it.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | July 10, 2008 10:45 AM
@Greg: "The former is ingenuous and insulting "
I completely agree. What seriously disturbs me is that SciBlings like Sheril are going as far as to delete and censor comments on this issue.
There are also many ways in which a company like Shell influences bloggers, other than simply the posts themselves. By putting this energy debate into one place on ScienceBlogs, it makes it very easy for them to simply add lots of comments to try and skew the discussion. Yes, this sounds a bit like a paranoid conspiracy, but the fact is that "paid commenters" are a surprisingly commonly used lobbying tactic.
Aside from all this, I still don't really understand at what point Seed though that Shell sponsorship would be a good idea. Are they that desperate for the money? Surely they would have expected this sort of problem?
Posted by: Martin | July 10, 2008 11:39 AM
I take back my comment about Sheril, my comment seems to have been approved, just rather late.
Posted by: Martin | July 10, 2008 11:42 AM
Something that I find interesting about the whole plug-in hybrids debate: it is universally assumed that people will go home to a house to plug their car in. What are people who live in smaller apartment buildings (e.g., those without parking structures) to do? We cannot practically run an extension cord out of the kitchen socket all the way to where are cars may be parked. And if we're going to have plug-in hybrids, why shouldn't they include a turbocharger-like wind turbine to help generate power as they move through air?
Posted by: Toaster | July 10, 2008 11:52 AM
why shouldn't they include a turbocharger-like wind turbine to help generate power as they move through air?
Because that wouldn't work. Given that the efficiency of any turbine is less than 100%, you would lose more energy to increased wind resistance than you would gain. Even if the turbine were 100% efficient, you'd only break even (except that you're still hauling extra unnecessary weight).
It's kinda like how you can't cool your apartment down by leaving the fridge door open.
Posted by: Dunc | July 10, 2008 12:10 PM
1) Re: Shell
This looks like a promising blog. Why don't we watch it and see if we think Shell's sponsorship is having any effect. People should know that huge companies are often be schizophrenic, and policies change with executive management.
If one takes {all oil, gas, and coal companies}, where does Shell rank in overall environmental approach? Compared to Exxon? to Peabody?
2) Plug-in hybrids and houses.
I don't think anyone is assuming that.
Google: charging stations phev
People are already testing charging stations for general use on streets and parking areas; there's no reason they couldn't be used in apartment parking areas.
Around here, some stores, like Fry's Electronics, provide charging stations already.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 10, 2008 12:19 PM
If you want to find a blog that restricts opposing viewpoints, they're all over the place. renewableenergyaccess.com is one of the worst offenders. They receive advertisement money from windmill manufacturers - and guess what, say anything negative about those useless,uncontrollable , expensive contraptions, and they remove the entry and exclude the blogger.
As for toaster's fantasy that a moving car can mount a windmill on the roof and get "free energy," better go ask your science teacher why this idea is really dumb.
As for plug-in and places to plug -in, I predicted over a year ago that outlets will be springing up EVERYWHERE,
and they already are, even though plug-ins haven't hit the street yet. Japan's largest retailer and owner of grocery stores and shopping malls will begin constructing electrical outlets at his many businesses - two towns in California have already installed out;lets at parking spaces in their downtown reatil area, in the prime locations and only for use by electric cars. London just ordered hundreds more free outlets to be installed thruout the city, etc. etc. My condo will be installing outlets at every parking space beginning next year. It's no big deal to run a wire underground from a townhouse out to your reserved parking space, etc. Outlets will appear at grocery stores, shopping malls, office building, wherer you can do a complete recharge while at work - you wouldn't even need a home outlet for recharging.
Posted by: kent beuchert | July 10, 2008 12:20 PM
Martin,
Chris and I have chosen to approve comments before they show up at The Intersection, so there is a delay. We publish everything on topic, as long as it's not a personal attack on others participating in the thread or profane.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 10, 2008 12:21 PM
What sort of cost accompanies these recharge stations, are they funded by local municipalities or is there a "re-charge" fee for individuals who use these parking spots? How about with fueling stations that provide the same service? They are definitely springing up more and more. It makes a lot of sense to throw a bunch of photovoltaic panels up on top of a parking structure or on top of parking lot fixtures (that could also offer shade cover to the vehicles below). At present I doubt this would provide an adequate electricity supply if there are more than a few vehicles needing to re-charge, and the payback from the solar investment would be tough as it would largely be a public good, but it seems to be an interesting urban project with significant potential.
Posted by: Scott MacKenzie | July 10, 2008 12:58 PM
Joe,
Thanks for the post, link, and comment. I also applaud you on a great post here. My concern with the first post by Sheril was that it seemed to be taken directly from Shell talking points. I agree 100% that cellulosic ethanol will not help reduce the price of oil, and that the solution is likely to be electricity.
Again, thanks for the good post. I'm glad to see that you're still talking about real solutions.
Posted by: Atmoz | July 10, 2008 1:27 PM
Again with the off-hand assurance that solar and wind can take up the slack. This is supposed to be "science blogs", but where's the evidence, where's the science?
Let me try some back-of-the-envelope calculations...
The US currently consumes 20 million bbl/day (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption), roughly 10^14 Btu/day. Using 10^5 Btu = 278 kWh, that's about 3*10^11 kWh/day in oil. If we want to replace a third of that, we'll need to generate 10^11 kWh/day from solar.
http://www.akeena.net/cm/Residential_Solar_Power/What_Size_System_Do_I_Need.html says that in San Fran, 18 "high output modules" (panels?) generate 4,000 kWh/yr, call it 10 kWh/day, or 0.5 kWh per panel per day. That means building 2*10^11 solar panels or 200 billion panels. Do we have the resources to do this? Several elements are already in short supply and this could wipe them out entirely. Where would we put them? What sort of power requirements are needed to build the panels?
There's a bigger question of infrastructure. In addition to questions of distribution (charging on the road, apartments, rental units, etc.) there's the question of whether our power grid can take this increase in demand. In 2006 during the heat wave on the East Coast, the increase in power to drive air conditioning caused power lines to melt or catch fire.
The US is currently using about 10^10 kWh/day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo#Electricity_Markets). If my calculations are right (and they could certainly be off), we're talking about increasing the daily power consumption 10-fold.
It's simply inadequate to propose something as radical as this and then not address these issues!
Did anyone notice that Romm casually dismisses cellulosic ethanol in a single sentence? Good for him. But the problems which let him wave away ethanol are very much present in his proposal. If these problems can be overcome then sketch out your ideas on how and give a ballpark estimate of time and cost. Right now, this is just more pie-in-the-sky dreaming.
Posted by: Adrian | July 10, 2008 2:08 PM
Calcars.org is probably 'the' site (and org) to refer to concerning plug-in hybrids. They have been doing some great work informing, promoting and enabling early adopters, and on the political front.
Google has gotten into the act too... converting some of their fleet of Priuses (Prii?) to plugins. They have a also instrumented them (and some unconverted cars too) and are posting all the data.
http://www.google.org/recharge/
Even better, Google is also on top of the political side and filing/presenting info and recommendations with the relevant political bodies (which have real power here in CA).
(Also a useful little blog post on MPG vs GPM... units are important)...
http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/05/importance-of-units.html
---
On the Shell sponsorship angle: Shell (and all the other big oil companies) are huge complicated organizations. It is entirely plausible (likely I'd say) that there are plenty of 'good guys' honestly pursuing alternative energies and concerned with minimizing environmental impacts... while at the same time there are groups/divisions who couldn't care less about anything other than where to get the next barrel of oil (or buck).
The "oil company promoting alternative energies" thing really did start as mere lip-service PR, but has moved well beyond that now. A good example is BP Solar... which is a major player and making enough cash and good PR to be pretty well insulated from whatever nefarious motives or amoral greed may be driving the 'oil men' in charge of other parts of the company.
Posted by: travc | July 10, 2008 2:19 PM
Hm. Where does the "per-mile cost of 1/5 that of gasoline" figure come from?
The real energy content of a gallon of gasoline is ~36 kWh. The actual amount of energy that gets to the drivetrain is on the order of 10-12 kWh; the remainder is lost as heat. However, batteries also have efficiency losses -- it probably takes 15+ kWh of electricity to deliver that same amount of energy to the wheels, and remember, this is grid electricity -- you have to figure grid costs, not costs at the power plant.
My price for electricity is well over $0.06/kWh.
Posted by: Anthony | July 10, 2008 2:20 PM
On the Shell "sponsorship" thing...
I'm reminded of BP's early claims to be a leader in solar power. They spent $45 million to buy a solar power company and if that's not pathetic enough, they spent far more money advertising how green they were than actually doing anything green.
It's entirely plausible that Shell is spending a pittance to green up its image and simply doesn't care about what goes on here. Having its name associated with alternative energy and with the Seed brand in general is enough. The name of the game is image and advertisement not on change and especially not on expensive change. It looks like Seed is going along with it, so let's make sure this deal wasn't in vain.
Posted by: Adrian | July 10, 2008 2:27 PM
I'd like to add a hearty 'amen' to the first comment.
It is really important that we separate 'fuel' from 'energy source'. Being able to use a true variety of methods to produce fuel from different energy sources is real 'flex fuel'. Economically, it enables substitution, which would be incredibly good stabilizing and controlling the price of fuel.
Plug-in hybrid vehicles (at least serial drivetrain ones) use electricity as their fuel the overwhelming majority of the time (short trips), and we can produce electricity in an ever growing variety of ways. (BTW: Parallel drivetrain hybrids like the Prius always use the IC engine, but can still get a gain from being 'plug-in'... it is just a bit more complicated and not quite as good.)
Oh, and the military has been pursuing hybrids for a while. Turns out that getting gasoline on a battlefield may be a bit problematic. This is a very cool vehicle IMO:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/shadow/
Not exactly fuel efficient per se, but efficient given the rather high power specs it must meet to do the intended job.
Posted by: travc | July 10, 2008 2:30 PM
As far as the first comment goes: much of the efficiency advantage of hybrid cars is because they're built like efficient cars. Take the chassis of a 70 mpg hybrid car and plop in an efficient conventional engine and you can probably manage 60 mpg -- in fact, you might manage 70 mpg, because you can reduce the weight of the car. The big advantage of the hybrid in this scenario is that it will have better acceleration, because you probably only have around a 70 horsepower engine, and the hybrid electrical system can give you another 50 horsepower or so.
Posted by: Anthony | July 10, 2008 2:58 PM
Electric drive trains are inherently more efficient than conventional ones.
http://serieshybrid.com/FreedomFormula/images/Drivetrain_Comparison.pdf
Furthermore the hypothetical 60mpg conventional car (& who is selling one btw?) does not get this milage in stop & go traffic that characterizes most people's commutes
Posted by: bwv | July 10, 2008 3:39 PM
A few responses:
I would expect that utilities and other energy companies that might lease you a car battery would install charging outlets at parking garages, parking lots, etc. Ultimately, I would expect them to put in charging outlets on the street with some sort of recognition system that keeps track of who is charging. But yes, the early adopters without garages are probably going to have to use extension cords.
On to per mile cost. Let's take a plug-in Toyota Prius that gets about 45 mpg and 250 watt-hours/mile. To go 10,000 miles on gasoline requires 220 gallons or 2500 kw/hrs. At $4.10/gallon that is $900. At 7 cents/kwh, that is $175. Or about one fifth. Now you probably will be able to get a utility electric vehicle rate of five cents per kilowatt hour, so the ratio is even better. Let's jump to 2015. Gasoline is $8 a gallon, so 10,000 miles costs $1760. Let's say zero-carbon electricity is 10 cents/kwh (it is probably less if it's wind at night). So thats $250. Pretty darn good deal!!
Posted by: Joseph Romm (ClimateProgress) | July 10, 2008 4:55 PM
I don't think 60 mph conventional cars are really out there (low to mid 50s is more common), but 70 mpg hybrids are also not really out there.
As for serieshybrid.com, while it's true that the theoretical efficiency of a series hybrid is quite good (that's why we have diesel-electric trains), that pdf contains some outright falsehoods, because it's totally miscomputing efficiency. The efficiency of an IC engine is equal to (efficiency of production of rotary energy) * (transmission efficiency). The efficiency of a 'series' hybrid is equal to (efficiency of production of rotary engine) * (efficiency of generator) * (efficiency of wheel motors) * (battery efficiency, if power is not being used immediately). The pdf you reference is using (efficiency of generator) as the total efficiency, which is either ignorance or a deliberate lie, as the dominant factor is the first term (up to about 60% for an industrial power plant, probably 30-40% for a vehicular power plant), and battery efficiency can also take a substantial chunk out.
This is not to say that a series hybrid is not a sensible choice -- diesel-electric has been the drivetrain of choice for ships and trains for decades -- but there's a reason it isn't used much for cars, and the reason is not a giant conspiracy.
Posted by: Anthony | July 10, 2008 5:03 PM
As I see it, the largest drawback to electric cars is charging time. We currently own two cars: A Nissan Maxima, which gets 29mpg on long trips, and a Ford Escape, which gets 25mpg on long trips. So, driving to Orange County, we end up stopping once to "recharge", and that takes about 10 minutes. Were our cars electric, we'd be recharging for hours.
The plug-in hybrid is an excellent solution to that problem. Most of our trips would be under 40 miles, for sure. I have a 7 mile commute, my wife about 12. I used to commute by bikes, but now we have kids, and that makes it much more difficult. I can still manage a 5 mile drive/2 mile bus combined commute.
I wonder if anyone has considered a standard form factor for batteries. Most of the time, you just charge your own batteries overnight in the garage. I recognize that a Ford Escape is not the vehicle for everyone; some people really do need something larger, while others need something smaller.
If we introduced a standard form factor for batteries, I could get to, say, Kettleman City, and instead of waiting 4 hours to recharge (although that could still be an option), I could pull into the station and swap my "dead" batteries for charged batteries. I'd pay for that service, of course. And after 6 hours, the batteries that came out of my car would go into someone else's car.
The deal is, though, my car would have, say, 4 batteries; the one in the sports car might have 3; the one in that pickup might have 6... But they'd be interchangeable.
Is something like this even feasible?
(There's my long-winded question).
Of course, what I'd rather do is board the bullet train at the Sacramento South station, with stops in Stockton, Fresno, Bakersfield... and Orange County. I think that's even better.
Road and Track magazine had an excellent, very technical article on why you can't convert your Prius/Civic/Escape hybrid to a "plug-in hybrid"; unfortunately, they have not put this article on the web. For all you DIYers out there, who think they can convert their own Prius/Civic/Escape, please do not attempt this. It's an entirely different battery technology. You could wind up with a very dangerous car if you do this. If it was that easy, Toyota, Honda and Ford would have already introduced these cars.
Posted by: MikeM | July 10, 2008 5:04 PM
I agree that electric cars are likely to be the future of automobile transportation, especially considering the increasing awareness of the deleterious environmental impacts of biofuel production. McCain attempted to capitalize on this with his prize for a "better battery." Kind of a hoax really, when you consider the many advancements in battery technologies the free market is making on its own:
http://www.brightfuture.us/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=27
One kind of frustrating thing though: didn't we already have pretty decent electric cars -- back in the 1990s?! See "Who Killed the Electric Car" for that story. It's kind of heartbreaking.
Posted by: Tim | July 10, 2008 5:46 PM
I haven't seen a word on here so far about slowing down, not wasting trips, conserving, building lighter cars with smaller engines of any of a dozen more things that will make a difference NOW. It all about what to sell next.
"First, the next president is certain to institute a large tax credit for plug ins." Because they don't make sense unless we can make the taxpayer pay for them.
"Second, I have already talked to two major energy-sector companies that would like to own the battery and lease it to consumers." Ya think!
"Third, plug-ins will ultimately be charged at off-peak times and provide power and voltage to the grid when needed; vehicle owners may be able to get a rebate or revenue stream from electric utilities for this service" Huh? Now plug in cars are have become even better than perpetual motion scams and are producing more power than they use so that they will be ADDING power to the grid. Yeah right!
"Finally, with more than $1 billion a year of private sector money going into better battery technology, and then economies of scale kicking in as more and more vehicles are produced, the incremental cost of plug in technology will decline over time." If we don't count battery disposal and if we ignore the need for all of the millions of filling stations in the country to install 10,000 plus amp electrical service from a grid that cannot possibly provide it and then suck millions of kilowatt hours per minute just to keep folks going who are on the road away from home.
If you like blackouts you are going to love electric cars.
I'll be driving me pickup around towing run down cars for a living and filling up with 25 cent a gallon gas that no body wants.
Naw, Shell has no editorial power here and didn't write a word of this. Guess who owns large battery patents.
Posted by: Robert Huckabee | July 10, 2008 6:18 PM
Sound article and great comments. Congratulations on your new blog.
Posted by: Phoebe Bright | July 10, 2008 6:43 PM
Thats for sure, you should visit this site..AccuWeather. The sheer volume of inane blog comments on posts like this certainly supports this.
Posted by: paulm | July 10, 2008 8:42 PM
A question, the per gallon price equivalent of gasoline in Europe has been above $7/gallon for a long time. Why haven't there been market forces at work in Europe to drive plug-ins?
Is it because mass transit is better so people don't need cars?
Posted by: daedalus2u | July 10, 2008 9:27 PM
Probably a very complex answer to daedalus2u question. The reason why $7/gallon wont fly in North America is easy though...I want my SUV..HUMV...everyone drives a gas guzzler and now they cant afford to drive them.
Posted by: paulm | July 10, 2008 9:36 PM
Is there anyone who is going to make a purely electric car?
There are disadvantages, of course; but also many benefits. For certain applications, it would be ideal. A small light car used for commuting or short trips within the urban area doesn't need the long range advantages of a hybrid.
On the plus side... it would be much simpler. There's an enormous amount of additional complexity involved in having two separate engines, and managing them both. I would expect a pure-electric car to be much cheaper to make, and much cheaper to maintain. I expect it would also be rather lighter, and certainly simpler.
It would not be everyone, and so it is not a replacement for hybrids... but I think there is an enormous potential for a small lightweight runabout. Is there any company considering this option?
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | July 10, 2008 10:13 PM
@MikeM
Interchangeable battery packs are a good idea, but a bit difficult on a few fronts.
The most problematic is that the value of a battery changes over its lifetime... so swapping out your battery for a random charged battery isn't necessarily a fair trade. This is actually where the 'lease the batteries' idea which got so much conspiratorial derision actually makes a lot of sense.
There is also the factor of batteries being a big *proprietary* technological advantage makers are trying to differentiate themselves by. And automotive designers seem fixated on integrating the batteries, with some good (but no compelling IMO) reasons such as having more flexibly with styling and weight distribution.
PS: Prius (and I think Civic Hybrids) can be converted to 'plug ins'. You really need to do some Googling... since Google itself (rechargeit.org) among many others has converted them. You are somewhat correct that it isn't the exactly what most people think of as a 'plug in' in that it does still use the IC even on short trips... More like being re-tuned to draw more on the batteries. Serial hybrid drivetrains are simpler and a more clear cut case, but plug in conversions of commercially available parallel hybrids does improve their fuel efficiency (again, look at rechargeit.org and see the raw data for yourself!)
-----
@Robert Huckabee
So much FUD... and all of it factually challenged to put it nicely.
I just mentioned one of the major benefits (there are downsides too) of a leased battery model. Another is that battery life FUD has been spread for years, and many consumers may be more comfortable with a lease model for that reason.
As for cars providing power during peak demand. No, it isn't a perpetual motion machine. It is a battery, and collectively a really big battery.
The current generation of battery tech (by and large) are far more environmentally friendly and easy to dispose. Lithium batteries for example are based on organic salts which require no special disposal at all. The tiny little charge controller boards do... for now at least. Though RHOS complaint parts are now the standard thanks to Europe and are easier to deal with.) A great deal of 'cutting edge' battery work is even better life-cycle cost and environmental impact wise.
As for electric cars taxing the power grid. This could happen, but not 'all of a sudden' by any stretch of the imagination. If the incremental improvements in the power grid necessary are not made, then someone should be shot. Hell, even without electric cars, those improvements will need to be made.
---
This last bit about the power grid brings up an interesting point. IMO, one of the most effective steps we can take to reduce carbon emissions and improve efficiency in the mid-term is to update the power grid.
The current grid is designed around large scale centralized electricity generation, aka big power plants. Having lots of small power generation facilities, from gas turbines in basesments of office buildings, rooftop solar panels on homes, or windmills wherever (so long as they aren't in a bird migratory channel), is a challenge to the current system... not just billing/credit wise.
Revamping (incrementally of course, which we need to do anyway) the power grid to be intrinsically more decentralized would facility all sorts of small scale power production options. The real gain, again IMO, is the 'market' reaction to this. Small companies (and big ones) could 'try out' new and different technology without having to make a huge investment. If you wonder why we are using decades (or more) old technology in new power plants, just think about the designers and project managers who are responsible for spending $100s of millions building a facility... it better work *exactly as expected*.
Posted by: travc | July 11, 2008 12:43 AM
travc covered Robert Huckabee's comments fairly well, but a few additional points:
Of course the cars would not be adding "new" power to the grid. This isn't power generation, it's load balancing.
The car sits there plugged in, charging up overnight; if there is a spike in power demand (or a drop in supply), it can temporarily feed back into the grid to smooth out the load. It would have some sort of power management policy to make sure you keep a useful charge.
(eg. 5% max feedback, no feedback below 70% charge)
You wouldn't make money with the feedback rebate, but you'd recover the cost of charging up the battery by that amount. (Excluding possible bonuses or subsidies, for assisting the power companies with load balancing...)
Modern batteries are highly recyclable, and shouldn't really be going into landfill at all. NiMH batteries cover recycling costs in recovery of the nickel alone; lithium ion batteries are also recyclable, but the materials are so cheap it's not currently economical to go to the effort.
Chevron?
Posted by: Kagato | July 11, 2008 4:08 AM
Given that the means for distributing electricity already exists, electric cars make a lot more sense than hydrogen. However, I think we need to be concentrating on the endgame rather than partway solutions. With the backlog of road and bridge work that needs to be done all over the country and not enough money to do it, and with the steadily rising cost of fossil fuels, maybe we need to re-think our entire transportation system philosophy. Yeah, it's a shame that we constructed our society around an inefficient idea (personal transportation instead of mass transit), but we need to come to our senses and realize that we've got to move on and come up with a strategy that minimizes the use of energy. Even if that means that personal transportation is de-emphasized.
Posted by: colluvial | July 11, 2008 7:11 AM
(I tried to post this yesterday but because I included URLs for my sources, it got held up for moderation and now, over a day later, it still hasn't appeared. It's frustrating that we are effectively prevented from including sources and citations!)
Again with the off-hand assurance that solar and wind can take up the slack. This is supposed to be "science blogs", but where's the evidence, where's the science?
Let me try some back-of-the-envelope calculations...
The US currently consumes 20 million bbl/day, roughly 10^14 Btu/day. Using 10^5 Btu = 278 kWh, that's about 3*10^11 kWh/day in oil. If we want to replace a third of that, we'll need to generate 10^11 kWh/day from solar.
A solar power comparison says that in San Fran, 18 "high output modules" (panels?) generate 4,000 kWh/yr, call it 10 kWh/day, or 0.5 kWh per panel per day. That means building 2*10^11 solar panels or 200 billion panels. Do we have the resources to do this? Several elements are already in short supply and this could wipe them out entirely. Where would we put them? What sort of power requirements are needed to build the panels?
There's a bigger question of infrastructure. In addition to questions of distribution (charging on the road, apartments, rental units, etc.) there's the question of whether our power grid can take this increase in demand. In 2006 during the heat wave on the East Coast, the increase in power to drive air conditioning caused power lines to melt or catch fire.
The US is currently using about 10^10 kWh/day. If my calculations are right (and they could certainly be off), we're talking about increasing the daily power consumption 10-fold.
It's simply inadequate to propose something as radical as this and then not address these issues!
Did anyone notice that Romm casually dismisses cellulosic ethanol in a single sentence? Good for him. But the problems which let him wave away ethanol are very much present in his proposal. If these problems can be overcome then sketch out your ideas on how and give a ballpark estimate of time and cost. Right now, this is just more pie-in-the-sky dreaming.
Posted by: Adrian | July 11, 2008 9:38 AM
Agreed -- wherever possible, public transport should be promoted over personal transport. But the public transport should all be electric too! And where personal vehicles are necessary, use electric cars.
However, we can't just focus on the endgame. There's somewhere around 600 million cars on the road now, and they can't be decommissioned overnight.
It's going to take a long time to phase out the existing motor pool. While some of those drivers can be redirected to public transport, or switch to a new electric vehicle, most of them will keep using their existing car for many years to come.
The interim solution really needs to involve changing to a fuel that can be used in cars already on the road (perhaps with minor retrofitting), such as the cellulosic ethanol from the previous blog.
But the future... the future is electric.
Posted by: Kagato | July 11, 2008 9:57 AM
Battery cost is the big drawback. Especially the preferred LiIon batteries are currently a very expensive way to obtain capacity (KWhrs of storage). For this reason I expect the all-electric range of early plugins to be low. Few consumers can afford to buy a battery with capacity they don't useup nearly every day.
Our biggest problem here is timing. I'm convinced that plugins represent our best next step. The problem is that it will be several years before they are available in significant enough numbers to make a significant difference in national (or world) oil demand. It looks like the oil scarcity/price crisis is already breaking out, and could get really severe years before this solution is ready.
Posted by: bigTom | July 11, 2008 7:02 PM
Adrian, your calculations are off, you made a slight errror in your calculations. 1 kwhr = 3,413 BTU. That makes 10^5 BTU = 29.3 kwhr. There is thermodynamic efficiency in conversion (~1/3), so 10^5 BTU as fuel = ~ 9 kwhr as electricity. That reduces the power requirements by a factor of ~30.
In my opinion, hydrogen will never be suitable as a transportation fuel (except for liquid fueled rockets, and then the LOX is even more dangerous). It is simply too dangerous. It is easly more than an order of magnitude more dangerous than gasoline or even compressed methane or propane.
High pressure hydrogen is extremely difficult to contain. The ignition energy of H2 is an order of magnitude lower than gasoline. The explosive limits are broader than anything else, the flame speed is higher than anything else, except maybe acetylene which will detonate all by itself. H2 fueled vehicles will never be allowed inside buildings, tunnels or garages.
Forget about hydrogen as a transportation fuel. It is too dangerous. Metal hydride batteries (suchs as NiMH) are the closest hydrogen is going to get to being a transportation fuel.
Gasoline engines are cheap. They are mostly made of iron and aluminum, the major cost is the raw materials. A gasoline engine is a lot cheaper than an electric motor of equivalent power because copper is more expensive than iron, and it takes more copper.
Fuel cells that run on hydrocarbons might be a good adjunct to a plug-in. For a long trip, augmenting the battery with a fuel cell could extend trip length.
For long trips, taking the plug-in on a train might be the better option. It would be faster and would take less energy. If enough people did it, the economies of scale would make it cheaper. Taking the train and renting at the destination would be cheaper still.
Posted by: daedalus2u | July 11, 2008 9:40 PM
Joe,
A wonderful blog. A couple questions:
1. I think I read a while back that if the entire US auto/light truck fleet were to become PEV overnight, we'd need only to increase electric generation by 20% to supply all the juice. Again, because central power plants are lot more efficient than our 'personal' ICE. Can you confirm that number?
2. Do the typical mileage estimates for PEV take into account that fact that in large parts of the country for large parts of the year people need to have heat in the car? Will that significantly reduce the range for a PEV? How about headlights? A/C?
Posted by: DaveM | July 11, 2008 10:40 PM
Are we just squeezing a balloon here?
I can see a future with electric cars -- but not very many of them. Far more electric buses and trains.
The usual figure for sustainability if everyone lives at the level of North Americans is five Earths. So where does the energy come from for all these individual cars? Remember we need to heat and cool buildings, run factories, leave room for biodiversity, etc.
I'd really like to see this blog address that issue and maybe take Lester Brown and others' work into account.
Posted by: Trinifar | July 11, 2008 11:33 PM
Actually, electric power plants are under-utilized at night because they have to maintain larger capacity to supply daytime needs. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) did a study which showed that if 30% of all our vehicles were EV, it would NOT be necessary to build anymore power plants (because they would just be able to utilize existing power plant capacity at night. If every vehicle in America were converted to electric drive then we would need to build more power plants but the near 4 to 1 efficiency of electric drive over ICE still "drives home" the need to accelerate this initiative!! Pun intended!!
And yes, we do have buildings to air condition etc. so the more efficient we are the better for our pocket books, the air etc.
Posted by: Susan Haines | July 12, 2008 6:29 PM
Plug Ins? Where do you find one at Wal Mart? There are no plug ins in the parking lots.
Windmills produce energy. Why can't they look at the tires as a source of energy? If the tires roll enough wouldn't they produce some kind of energy to sustain a quick start and then produce more to power an electric car?
I think the solution is right there in the car itself.
Thanks
Karla Jordan2012
Posted by: Karla Jordan | July 15, 2008 1:16 PM
@ Susan Haines
Susan,
You wrote
"And yes, we do have buildings to air condition etc. ... "
I can't see why you think of air conditioning as sacrosanct. Turn it off and make huge summer energy savings. Europe has far less aircon than North America and survives pretty well.
Admittedly the US has a few areas of extreme temperature that are probably only hospitable for most people with air con present. But if people are successful, as some wish, in reducing global population for the estimates current 6 billion (approx, the actual number is not important here) to a more comfortable 1 billion we would be back to the population of the days before aircon. If we assume a shared spread of population reduction the population of the US would be reduced form a current 300 million (round figures used for simplicity) to about 50 million. 50 million is about the current population of the UK which is quite a small land area with little aircon being in a temperate zone. There must be enough temperate climate land in the US to sustain 50 million people so aircon would not be a requirement. Indeed it's a luxury that humanity simply cannot afford.
Posted by: Grant | July 15, 2008 3:44 PM
"On to per mile cost. Let's take a plug-in Toyota Prius that gets about 45 mpg and 250 watt-hours/mile. To go 10,000 miles on gasoline requires 220 gallons or 2500 kw/hrs. At $4.10/gallon that is $900. At 7 cents/kwh, that is $175. Or about one fifth. Now you probably will be able to get a utility electric vehicle rate of five cents per kilowatt hour, so the ratio is even better. Let's jump to 2015. Gasoline is $8 a gallon, so 10,000 miles costs $1760. Let's say zero-carbon electricity is 10 cents/kwh (it is probably less if it's wind at night). So thats $250. Pretty darn good deal!!"
It's nice to see all the support for electric cars here. After paying $900 yesterday one more time to keep the old VW operable, and with gas at $4.25/gal around here, I'll be looking at a change pretty soon. Based on Joseph Romm's post, it looks like the electricity equivalent at 7 cents/KWH is the same as $0.79/gallon gas. That would justify a capital investment in a battery car for the short distances my ICE is driven.
Back to my mantra on the foolishness of making cellulosic ethanol for at least $8/gallon. Why even waste the money on developing the technology? The most sustainable way to use cellulosics for fuel is to burn them as a solid fuel, not to take a convoluted route into making them into a liquid fuel.
Last thought. How is the state going to tax electricity to replace what they lose in fuel taxes? A chicken in every pot and a meter in every garage?
Posted by: tom quick | July 16, 2008 12:49 PM
My problem with the per-mile cost given above is that $0.07/kWh is an unrealistic rate. Looking at DOE statistics the average retail cost of residential electricity is about $0.10.
Posted by: Anthony | July 16, 2008 2:06 PM
I went down to my local electric car dealership (http://www.ecarco.com/) a few weeks ago to look into buying one, but it didn't work out. For about $13,000 I can buy a Xebra which, (because it's technically a 3-wheel motorcycle) isn't subject to the stupid 25 mph Neighborhood Electric Vehicle limit. But it only has a 30 mile range and takes several hours to recharge, meaning I could only save one gallon of gas per day, max ($2555 in a year at $7 a gallon, even). Plus, it's made in China, which I'm boycotting.
Posted by: whomever1 | July 16, 2008 2:14 PM
This is very late in the thread, but I'd like to share a bit of the 'vision' thing.
Instead of imagining a country/world where don't have a car (or only have a small efficient car), I would rather see most people have more cars! SUVs (and trucks) are damn useful, so are 'city cars' and public transport. The ideal IMO would be that people have more options at their disposal so they can use the right tool for whatever job they have at hand.
Car-shares and other more pocketbook friendly 'rental' models are a nice option for some locations where the business makes sense. Trains are great, and 'car carrier' trains would be a very nice thing for many places in the US (where the destinations don't have high enough density to support public transport). I always get annoyed driving up and down I5, since there is no good reason I shouldn't be riding on a train instead... though insanely, a single passenger train ticket costs as much as driving between Sac and LA.
People want flexibility and convince... hell, laziness is more the mother of invention than necessity. This is perfectly fine and good, and there is no reason that it should be at odds with using energy resources more sensibly.
PHEV are really a an obvious good idea, sort of 'duh'... higher efficiency is just better. The tech available at this instant is sufficient, and will only get better. No, it doesn't solve every problem or work in every case, but it is a big improvement.
Posted by: travc | July 16, 2008 4:31 PM
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Sharon
http://www.autoloans101.info
Posted by: Sharon | December 5, 2008 9:46 PM