Giving up car-lessness for Rob Lowe’s plug-in hybrid 27

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreenEngineer Posted 6:42 am
   16 Nov 2007

   assumptionsThe chart is really interesting, but I would like to know the assumptions that went into it, specifically about length of trip.  Obviously, some assumption was made about "average" length of trip, because there is a bar segment for both electric and gasoline emissions.  Whereas in reality, for a short trip, you may not use any gasoline at all.
   I think that before we can conclude that plugin hybrids are really worse for the climate, we need to look at the assumptions behind the calculations, particularly as they relate to how the car is actually used.

   Permalink

2. 

   Gar Lipow Posted 8:10 am
   16 Nov 2007

   Plug in HybridsI'll post some numbers. Cause the idea that plug-in hybrids are worse for the environment than regular hybrids is wrong. It is based on the fact the coal has higher greenhouse emissions per BTU than oil but. But what it overlooks is that fossil fuels are converted to electricity in an electric power plant with much higher efficiency than they are converted to either electricity or mechanical motion in a car. (This is true for a number of reasons including the fact that a car engine has to be light.) So you produce electricity so much more efficiently in a power plant, even from coal, than you do in a gasoline engine that all the other losses in an electric car or plug-in hybrid  don't overwhelm the gain. Neither line losses or battery losses make up for the difference in generating efficiency.
   Now it is also true that plug-in hybrids or electric cars run on coal may cut emissions, but not as much as we need to.  But nobody thinks we can reduce greenhouse emissions without cutting emissions from electricity generation in any case. And a plug-in hybrid cuts overall emissions a little now, while our grid is mostly fossil fuel, and a lot more if we switch our grid to renewables.

   Permalink

3. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 8:57 am
   16 Nov 2007

   Where does that well-to-wheel chartWhere does that well-to-wheel chart come from?
   
   Where's the source data from?
   I'm not entirely sure NRDC would be honest when it comes to biofuels.
   
   http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/E85ResptoComm ...
   And I'm also not very fond of the US-DOE lifecycle analysis either because it admittedly delivers a gross underestimate of the total emissions.
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png

   Permalink

4. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 9:06 am
   16 Nov 2007

   Hold on now.In contrast, recharging your state-of-the-art lithium-ion battery with 20 miles' worth of electricity takes hours, maybe even all night.
   Thats just incorrect.
   Takes a Tesla Roadster 3.5 hours to charge up for ~250 miles.
   A Phoenix Motors SUV could get a 100 mile charge in 1 minute.  Given enough current.
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png
   Even the old EV1 could get a pretty quick 20%-80% charge in under a half hour.
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge2
   And unlike fuel tanks, the storage capacity of batteries shrinks over time, and may eventually require costly replacements.
   There's a silver lining to that though.
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/plugins5
   
   

   Permalink

5. 

   kayser Posted 10:01 am
   16 Nov 2007

   Thanks!Thanks for those awesome links about ride-hopping and high-tech hitchiking. I've had similar thoughts but I didn't know how far along people were in getting it to work. Very illuminating stuff.
   I also think that taxis can benefit from technology. Instead of renting a whole car, you rent a seat on a taxi shuttle. Airport, company, and mall shuttles already do this, but if you put sharable shuttles all over the city, and compute optimal routes in real-time (and you give people the option of having a "stop" along their route like with subways, for a cheaper price, so that routes are more sharable), you could cut down on car usage alot. These sorts of schemes work really well with congestion pricing or (why the heck not?) cap-and-drive (only 1000 cars are allowed to drive in the city center at one time, handled by computerized real-time auction pricing, etc.)

   Permalink

6. 

   akbeancounter Posted 10:24 am
   16 Nov 2007

   No guarantee, so just give up?[R]eplacing gasoline and diesel vehicles with electric ones will eventually be a climate plus -- assuming the electric power system gets cleaner over time. But that's a big assumption. The only guarantee of clean plug-ins ... would be a firm, descending legal limit on greenhouse-gas emissions.
   Just because it's not guaranteed, it's not worth pursuing?  The existence of "clean power" programs from local utilities shows clear consumer demand for renewable energy.  If customers ask for it, and agree to pay for it, it will be built.  Even coal power gets cleaner each decade, as better and cheaper scrubbing technology becomes available.  Even if it's not guaranteed, I think it's a pretty safe bet that the grid as a whole will get cleaner over time, just as it has been over the past few decades.
   I agree it's important to consider the negatives, and to consider the idea that this may just be a fad or a pipe dream like hydrogen cells, but you seem to be straining a little to find something, anything to criticize.
   -- A.
   
   Taking accounting to the extreme since 2004.

   Permalink

7. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 10:25 am
   16 Nov 2007

   hybrid fans, a debate on oildrum......about hybrids, here

   Permalink

8. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 10:28 am
   16 Nov 2007

   Gar,did you see the response to your wind proposal by bill hanahan?  He posted it here at at the end of your generate-all-electricy-with-wind post

   Permalink

9. 

   mrLee Posted 8:49 pm
   16 Nov 2007

   I disagreeAccording to my understanding, overnight charging during off-peak hours contributes a negligible amount to emissions.  In other words, power plants aren't shut down at night, they simply "spin down" to a lower output than peak.  Your theory that when you plug in your car someone at the coal plant says "Hey Vinnie, start stokin' her up, we got a big one!" is incorrect.  You wouldn't even be a blip on the electric grid radar, more on par with your neighbor turning on their electric dryer or firing up the hotplate for some late night griddle cakes.

   Permalink

10. 

    Nucbuddy Posted 11:09 pm
    16 Nov 2007

    Powerplants really do produce powerMrLee wrote: Your theory that when you plug in your car someone at the coal plant says "Hey Vinnie, start stokin' her up, we got a big one!" is incorrect.
    It is not incorrect and is in fact what occurs.
    
    

    Permalink

11. 

    Pangolin Posted 5:09 am
    17 Nov 2007

    Oh, Bulls#!tFirst, as much as the bicycle fanatics among us would like to see it there isn't going to be some mass conversion from cars, trucks and SUV's to bicycles and transit anytime soon. At least not voluntarily.
    II. Claiming that any increase in power generation needed will come from burning new coal is also bs. Power plants have to burn coal and dams release water overnight. Generators and turbines at coal plants are not allowed to significantly slow down at night as it takes quite a bit of time to synchronize them and bring them online. That's why they call it "spinning reserve." Even if 100% of plug-in power comes from coal it is still more CO2 efficient than burning gasoline in individual cars. The numbers are fairly clear on this from multiple sources. Of course batteries are the ideal partner for wind power.
    Thirdly, the current engine in the Prius is oversized compared to a properly designed plug-in hybrid. At most any PHEV should have a maximum range of 6 hours driving at freeway speed (60 mph) using a micro diesel to supplement the grid charge. Just for the safety of the rest of us a driver should stop about then. That drops your ICE parasitic weight by half as a small engine burning less fuel from a smaller tank etc, etc. Stop the car, take a walk, get some lunch, plug the car in or let the genset spin. Even with the batteries completely drained a smaller genset could provide a 25 mph "limp home" speed.
    D. Even existing diesel engines can burn petroleum/hydrogen/natural gas/propane/veggie oil blends with minor modifications A duel-fuel diesel (gas/liquid) emits a lot less CO2 and soot than a standard unit for power output. It also can be smaller still than a reduced size gasoline generator. I would also point out that a mixture of hydrogen, methane and liquid hydrocarbons is exactly what you get out of a biomass pyrolisis rig that you would use to create char for Terra Preta. That would be carbon negative fuel for a vehicle.
    Combined, production of diesel-electric, plug-in hybrids would give a vehicle base that could operate on almost any combination of fuels like solar and sorghum or wind and woodchips. Should there be an accelerated climate change or peak oil crisis we will still need some vehicles to serve as taxis and service vehicles. Even having one percent of the total fleet could be crucial in an actual fuel emergency.  
    
    Put the Carbon Back

    Permalink

12. 

    Delay And Deny Posted 4:48 pm
    17 Nov 2007

    Hybrids Are 8-Track Players
    
    Wake me up when the streaming audio arrives: hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles.
    Note to the author: while you may be "car free" you're not "house free" as I am (I live in a one bedroom apartment).   You need an entire infrastructure of a home and all it's energy needs (including a garage just so you can charge your plug-in).
    Me, I have a car that I use when needed, but mostly I ride my bike.
    
    My Log

    Permalink

13. 

    odograph Posted 11:28 pm
    17 Nov 2007

    why stop there?Make me up when they perfect magic, jabailo.
    (Until then, we only have engineering ... the science of the possible.)

    Permalink

14. 

    GRLCowan Posted 2:04 am
    18 Nov 2007

    I did, retroactively ...Make me up when they perfect magic ...
    (Until then, we only have engineering ... the science of the possible.)
    You're welcome.
    --- G. R. L. Cowan, boron internal combustion fan
    
    How shall cars gain nuclear cachet?
    
    http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

    Permalink

15. 

    odograph Posted 2:56 am
    18 Nov 2007

    the science of the possibleSo what's actually possible right now G., given our  infrastructure and social constraints?
    (Some people don't like to think of "designing for acceptance" as engineering, but I do.  Books like Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, and The Innovator's Dilemma reinforce my view.)

    Permalink

16. 

    Ron Steenblik Posted 4:50 am
    18 Nov 2007

    Interesting report from RANDWhile not addressing plug-in hybrids, a new working paper from the RAND Corporation finds that hybrids are certainly better than flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs):
    Among the key findings from the consumer perspective:
    For all three vehicle types, the advanced diesel offers the highest savings over the life of the vehicle among the options considered. These savings increase with the size and fuel use of the vehicle: $460 for the car, $1,249 for the SUV and $2,289 for the large pick-up truck.
    The hybrid option has smaller but still considerable savings for SUV applications ($1,066), moderate savings for pick-up applications ($505) but minimal savings over the life of the vehicle for car owners ($198).
    The vehicles operating on E85 cost all three owners more over the vehicle life, with a greater net cost burden for larger vehicles and increased fuel consumption: (-$1,034 for cars, -$1,332 for SUVs, -$1,632 for pick-ups).
    Both the hybrid and diesel vehicles are more fuel efficient than their gasoline-powered counterparts: 25 to 40 percent better for hybrid and 20 to 30 percent for diesel, depending on the vehicle.

    Permalink

17. 

    odograph Posted 7:07 am
    18 Nov 2007

    Rand ReportI've had a big knock-down, drag-out, with Randall at FuturePundit about that report.  I started Friday morning, when I was known to be grumpy, but still I think I have a valid complaint.
    The Rand Report, like some others, relies on "equivalent conventional vehicles" for its modeling.  It does not compare across vendor, model, and technology ... instead it looks for matches in everything but technology.  If vendor X makes model Y in gas and diesel, they dive in.  Same if a vendor A makes model B in gas and hybrid.
    The thing is, you depend a lot on those vendors doing the best possible design for their market segment, and putting equal talent and innovation into gas-or-diesel or gas-or-hybrid.
    I say Phooey (even though I am not really grumpy at the moment).
    What you really want to do is define a segment (like "small sedans" or "midsize suvs") and then scan across all makes, models, and technologies, to see who is the best of the best.
    I think in midsize cars, judging for emissions first, cost second, the Prius is a clear winner.
    In small cars it might be a shoot-out between the Honda Civic Hybrid and the Honda Civic GX (natural gas vehicle).

    Permalink

18. 

    Biodiversivist Posted 8:02 am
    18 Nov 2007

    Most of Alan's conclusions are counter to theEPRI/NRDC report he cites. The report clearly shows that if we build plug-in hybrids they will reduce greenhouse gases over both conventional cars and hybrid cars, today and on into the future. Go read the report. It is enlightening and heartening.
    Researchers drew the following conclusions from the modeling exercises: Annual and cumulative GHG emissions "are" reduced significantly across each of the nine scenario combinations [my emphasis].
    The only scenario where plug-in cars would be slightly worse than hybrids (but still much much better than coventional cars) is a fictional world where all power is generated by coal. The bar chart above is one Alan built to support his argument from data he found in the report (he left out a lot of information). That particular chart does not exist in the report.
    
    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

19. 

    redboat Posted 8:12 am
    18 Nov 2007

    The more I learn...the more I realize there really is no such thing as a "good" car.
    
    eddy out, redboat

    Permalink

20. 

    odograph Posted 6:46 pm
    18 Nov 2007

    The ChartHeh, I just looked at the chart, saw that the Plug-In Hybrid would be a net win on C02 for my power mix, and called it a day.  I skipped the text because that seemed to be the bottom line.
    (I get 'power mix' tags from my electric company: 16% renewables, 11% large hydro, 17% nuke, 41% natural gas, 15% coal.)

    Permalink

21. 

    Biodiversivist Posted 12:29 am
    19 Nov 2007

    What is a power mix tag?Too lazy to google.
    Plug-ins might put pressure on utilities to use lower carbon sources. People who drive them will want to be able to say they produce less CO2 than their competitors. Of course, that could only happen if utilities were market driven and beholding to the wants of consumers.
    
    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

22. 

    odograph Posted 12:50 am
    19 Nov 2007

    power mixI think I've linked to it before.  It's a little slip SCE puts in with our power bill to tell us projected and actual sources for our electric power.
    The internets being what they are, you can see it as a pdf.  Page 2 is the interesting part, projected and actual for 2006.
    SCE is funny.  They always "project" 7% coal, even though it can go (in bad years like 2005) as high as  38%.  Our 2006 "actual" of 15% is a little nicer.

    Permalink

23. 

    amazingdrx Posted 12:28 am
    20 Nov 2007

    Carbon taxing and tradingWell that's a relief, all we need is a carbon tax (so politicians can waste the money with more study of and subsidies for  nuclear, clean coal, fuel farming, oil war, and so forth.
    And a "free" market in carbon emissions so that hedge funds have another trading game to scam with insider trading.
    Forget about new technology, like plugin hybrids, it will take care of itself.  Once tax policy and carbon traders eliminate GHG.  
    Meanwhile we can all be carfree by renting an (6% efficient according to Amory Lovins)infernal combustion vehicle from flexcar.  Thanks Alan.
    You have shown the way to eliminating the 26% of GHG emission that comes from transportation.  
    Really there was no need to actually drive the plugin hybrid on batteries (how many times did you drive it before the computer needed a reboot?) or have someone test drive it who understood technology well enough to reboot it.
    You knew all along that plugin hybrids are just another fad and they emit more GHG than a regular hybrid.  Good for you.  Thanks for helping Cheney and friends witrh their energy policy agenda!
    When will you and your kids be signing up to go to iraq, iran, syria or whatever oil war is next?  
    Thanks Alan.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

24. 

    marchummel Posted 5:29 pm
    24 Nov 2007

    Car SharingI think you missed a big plus point with the carsharing model.
    It reverses the thinking of the car driver. When you own a car, you have already made an investment into lots of things (insurance, car, parking permit) to name a few. It makes sense to drive it, you need to get that value our of it.
    With carsharing, you drive less because it costs real money when you drive, not the other way around. You get creative.
    Even better, the service I use, PhillyCarShare, uses the Prius for 1/2 of their fleet.

    Permalink

25. 

    drocto Posted 12:11 pm
    02 Dec 2007

    be careful with cost claimsFirst, IMO an excellent article.  But it repeats a common misunderstanding about costs.  
    Maintaining transportation infrastructure requires funds.  Currently, most of those funds come from gasoline(1) taxes.  Electricity is lightly taxed and the taxes that do exist fund government activities related to electricity or general purposes.
    A meaningful shift to electricity away from gasoline would result in a shortfall in transportation funds.  Taxes would then need to be levied on electricity consumed for transportation purposes.
    As an example of the required magnitude, take California.  Current pump prices of around $3.35 per gallon include about $0.62 in taxes (federal and state excise of $0.36 and state sales of about $0.26) (2).  This represents 18% of the pump price (or a 23% increase on the pre-tax price).  Very roughly, we would expect that electricity used for transportation purposes would be taxed similarly, percentagewise.  (Oddly, the internal efficiency of the electric vehicle could result in an even higher percentage tax on the electricity!)
    Of course, a real economic analysis would include this.  But it would also include the reduction in health care expenses and other benefits of lower ground level pollution.
    (1) or diesel
    (2) See http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolineprices ...
    
    or
    
    http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/gasoline_q-and-a.html
    
    

    Permalink

26. 

    drocto Posted 4:01 am
    02 Jan 2008

    tesla presentation misleadingRelated to this, please see my inquiry to Tesla Motors a month ago.  As of today they still have not updated their seriously but simply flawed analysis regarding biodiesel:
    ...I refer to the Flash preso slide 11 of "bconverted.swf" that is accessed from page http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=25
     This slide uses a value of "18.21 kWh per gal" and footnotes the reference as "Anguilla Electric Company, 2001 average".
    There are two problems with this value, a minor one and a larger one.  First the minor one:  If anyone checks the most recent annual report from Anguilla at http://www.anglec.com/Anglec__Report_2005.pdf
    
     they'll note that 2001 was an anomaly with respect to performance.  The performance in the four years from 2002 through 2005 ranged from 17.02 to 17.46.  This is 4% to 7% below the value Tesla uses.
    Second, and more importantly, Anguilla Electric Company presents their figures in imperial gallons (IG).  An IG is about 20% larger than our usual U.S. gallon (gal) - per Google 1 gal = 1.20095042 IG.  Thus, the kWh/gal is 16.7% lower than the kWh/IG.
    Note: If you use the average kWh/gal for Anguilla for several years and make the IG/gal correction you'll find that the diesel generator efficiency is about 3.8kWh/L, which is "normal" based on the research I've done.  My research includes data from several companies, including Anguilla.
    I should also mention that one should use delivered kWh rather than generated kWh for this analysis.  Some honest estimate for transformer and line losses is necessary.
    I think the right thing to do is to correct this error ASAP and notify any parties that may have quoted or relied on the figures impacted.  I'm sure you'll agree.
    It doesn't change your story, but it's a meaningful difference.
    Electric cars have great potential.  I assume Tesla wants to do the right thing and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  The conservative principle should guide us in this along with our humility in trying to distill such complex issues as full life cycle GHG emissions for various transportation fuels.
    Please let me know by the end of the week that Tesla has corrected the error and communicated the change.  

    Permalink

27. 

    bOlogOs Posted 3:24 pm
    04 Apr 2008

    I wanna have that cool carThe car is cool but doesn't like the looks of its bumper. And if I'm going to have that car, I'm sure I'll change its bumper.

    Permalink