In the face of economic catastrophe, yesterday's controversial assertion has become today's conventional economic wisdom. That lack of regulation is one root of the current depression is not only the view of liberals and moderates, but also of sensible conservatives. And the need for public investment to fight the depression is no longer in doubt either. There are really only two tools in the conventional economic toolbox to fight a depression: lower interest rates, and public investment. Given that real interest rates are close to zero, that doesn't leave a whole lot of alternatives.
Most of the economists who predicted the crash, Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Solow, and George Akerlof, not to mention Roubini, now support [PDF] really large scale public investment -- $300 to 400 billion annually. Dean Baker and Paul Krugman suggest the right number may be more like $500 to 600 billion.
At same time, Joe Romm wrote an open letter to Jim Hansen indicating how much technology we have to deploy very quickly to meet the 350 ppm target Hansen has set. Below the fold I describe in detail how we could deploy existing technology to meet these goals, how much we'd have to spend on grants, and how much we'd have to spend on loans. All figures are taken from the spreadsheet Jon Rynn and I have put together on green scenarios.
The bottom line is that we have about $275 billion a year we could productively invest in a green transformation, rising over the course of 20 years to $475 billion, and then dropping down to $265 billion for a decade after the transformation was complete, to pay off the last of the "green debt." Those subsidies would make up for any difference in cost between green energy and dirty energy.
Social benefits from such a transformation (aside from global warming reduction) would result in net economic growth compared to the scenario in which we continue to use dirty energy.
This scenario (unrealistically) assumes zero technical breakthroughs that lower costs. In practice, we might never need to exceed the $265 billion base investment.
In the spreadsheet mentioned, Jon and I outline various scenarios, with varying degrees of aggressiveness in efficiency investment and varying degrees of technical improvements (zero, modest, and significant).
We have technology now to reduce emissions by 95 percent or more. Properly designed public investment and regulation could drive deployment of most of this technology.
Improvements in buildings
Improvements in buildings could be driven by regulation, along with an "efficiency" utility structured somewhat along the lines of British "rates" to make compliance painless.
For residential buildings, the regulations would specify emissions per square foot and per resident. For commercial buildings, the regulations would specify emissions per square foot and per full-time employee equivalent; retail and industrial emissions would be dealt with differently (including buildings).
What needs to be taken from the idea of "rates" is that they are paid by building occupants, not building owners -- unlike property taxes, and unlike conventional loans. Thus a local efficiency utility could, for example, finance installing insulation in a home or office -- with an agreement from both the current owner and the current occupant (who might or might not be the same person) -- that whoever occupied the building would make payments for that insulation. Such payments would be suspended when not occupied.
It removes tenant disincentives for agreeing to such arrangements because tenants only have liability as long they occupy the building. When they move, it is the next tenant's problem. Similarly landlords would know the liability is their tenant's, not their own. Even an owner-occupier would know that, unlike an addition to their mortgage, they don't have to worry about covering this payment in the sale price if they sell their home or office. For various reasons, it is much easier for tenants or owner-occupiers alike to incur a new utility bill that replaces part of an old utility bill and results in a net savings rather than to borrow money to achieve the same savings. Jon Rynn has written about an arrangement not unlike this used to finance solar energy in Berkeley, Calif.
Lastly these utilities could be subsidized in two ways. One would be for the federal government to use its ability to borrow to secure capital for them and then lend them out on a cost basis (lending the money for slightly higher rate than it paid in borrowing to cover transaction costs and defaults). Where necessary we could further subsidize such utilities by requiring partial rather than full repayments.
There is no physical reason we can't upgrade every existing residence with appropriate weather and duct sealing, roof, floor, window, duct, and pipe insulation. Added to this would be leak repairs, faucet aerators, kick-pedal sink controls, and water-saving shower heads. Lighting, and large-scale water and electrical appliances could be replaced with more efficient ones over the course of 15 or 20 years as they wear out (or sooner if savings justified doing so). As a final step along the way, we could replace existing space heaters and air conditioners with either solar equipment or ground source heat pumps. The total cost of would be about $2 trillion. Repaying this at 5 percent interest would be approx.$131 billion a year for 30 years or approx. $161 billion a year for 20 years. About two-thirds of this cost could be paid back by residents at a savings on their current utility bills. That would leave about $44 billion annually over 30 years or $54 billion over 20 years, which would not be paid back.
New buildings would not require subsidies, since they would be required to meet standards from the beginning, and the costs of making a new building efficient are trivial compared to the costs of retrofitting an existing one.
Like residential buildings, office buildings would have to meet standards per square foot and per full-time employee equivalent. Greening an office building pays back its costs in a number of ways. Unlike residential improvements, no subsidy other than the use of government borrowing power would be needed.
Greening small office buildings is similar to greening residences. In large office buildings, office spaces can be greened with window tints that let in light, but exclude glare, and cut down heat in the summer and then let in light, but exclude glare, and keep in heat in the winter. Lighting tubes can bring sunlight into interior offices without windows. Various types of lighting improvements, including better lights and the use of reflectors, as well as putting lighting intensity directly under the control of workers who have to live with its consequences. Like homes, offices can use more efficient appliances. These include computers, printers, and copiers. More and more document management systems are reducing the amount of printing done in offices, and the paper and energy use associated with printing. (Years after the myth of the paperless office was exploded, thanks to the "less paper" office, paper use in offices in the U.S. is actually dropping.) In addition, modern computerized control systems can spot waste in climate control systems, which are literally too complex for humans to keep adequate track of. Greening office buildings will cost $1.3 trillion over the course of 20 years, essentially all private. However increased [PDF] productivity [PDF] alone will pay back that cost to private industry, even before energy and maintenance savings are considered.
Transportation
Often overlooked for fast energy-reduction potential, freight can be shipped less expensively per ton-mile now by rail than by truck. Consider an 80 percent, or better, energy savings, which factors the need to still use trucks to get freight to and from freight yards and the less direct routes by which freight travels over rail compared to highways. But there are three major limitations which keep us from shifting large amounts of freight from truck to rail. First, our current rail infrastructure is being used at close to its limit. Without major improvements in our rail system, we cannot even double what we currently carry let alone increase use by many times. Second, shipping freight by rail is slower than shipping it by truck. Third, our current rail system is less reliable than our trucking system -- even with all the reliability problems trucking companies have.
All of this could be solved in by investing about $450 billion to upgrade our freight infrastructure. This would include double-tracking heavily used routes, installing a certain amount of new lines, or reviving closed lines. Most importantly it would involve electrifying the most heavily used routes. Although electrification doubles -- at the very least -- the energy efficiency of rail compared to electric diesel, that is actually the least important reason to electrify freight rail. Most importantly an electric freight car can travel faster than a diesel one. Electrification is the key to allowing rail to greatly increase ton-miles moved while maintaining both speed and reliability comparable to that of the trucking industry. Because this could be done comparatively quickly, I would say this should be done as straight grant over the course of six to 10 years. A lot of the cost of such electrification would be running to grid to places it currently does not exist. It has been suggested that since we will ultimately need more long-distance transmission, this could be combined with running a national grid over rail rights-of-way.
There are about $500 billion worth of local unfunded transit projects -- rail, bike paths, sidewalks, bus systems -- in the U.S. These won't replace cars, but they will nibble around the edges of and perhaps at least slow the rate of growth of automobile use. Again this should be done as a straight grant over the course of 10 to 20 years.
Although various means may reduce automobile use, I doubt we will see the automobile disappear for a long time, if ever. Given how unsustainable biofuels for automobiles have proven to date, and how expensive hydrogen and hydrogen cars still are, that leaves battery electric cars and plug-in electric vehicles as the only alternatives available today. Highway-speed electric cars run from $20,000 two-seaters to $120,000 roadsters and are still produced in small craft-car quantities that cannot take full advantage of the economies of scale in mass production. It would be reasonable to guess that mass production would let us make five-passenger electric cars at the same price we produce two-person cars for in craft quantities.
Assuming we still have any major U.S. owned car companies a few months from now, one way to produce such vehicles would be a public/private partnership similar to the one that created the Volkswagen. We could follow Amory Lovins' suggestion and have the government purchase the initial output both for federal fleets and for leases. Purchasing large numbers of electric vehicles would not only help lower their costs in general, but it also could help break the chicken-egg deadlock that keeps electric-car-quality battery prices high. I'm suggesting $500 billion total in investments and purchases, about half of which would be recovered in fleet gasoline savings, and lease payments, for a net cost of $250 billion.
For transport regulation, I'd suggest that as we invest in electric cars that we also require that all new automobiles meet efficiency standards both in terms of fuel and electricity consumption per vehicle mile. At least one-quarter of vehicles sold should be required to be all-electric, and all vehicles should initially be required to be able to plug in to a wall and travel at least the first 20 miles on electricity. This standard should have escalator clauses so that within a short period of time all new vehicles have a 50 mile pure electric range and then a 70 mile pure electric range.
For freight I'd suggest rules on overall consumption allowed per ton (not ton-mile shipped) so standards could be met either by shipping freight efficiently, or by manufacturing goods closer to use point and shipping them shorter distances. I would also require that all the broadband suppliers, who have received valuable public rights-of-way in return for not much, extend net-neutral, 5 gigabit or better service to all Americans, with a basic rate of $25 monthly or less. If they can't make a profit offering this, we should use the federal government's powers of eminent domain to buy their assets at a fair price and supply such broadband ourselves. Universal broadband could, among other things, encourage much more telecommuting, and allow more office workers to work at home at least some days a week.
In the long run, smart development would lead to more transit-friendly cities and towns and goods manufactured closer to where they were build. But this would be mainly an area-by-area local initiative. Though many of the policies outlined would contribute to this, especially the transit funding, ultimately it is something that could be carried out by cities, towns, counties, municipalities, and states.
Industry
There are some areas where rule-based regulation of the type I described can lead to improvements in industrial efficiency. For example since the majority of industrial energy consumption is used to power industrial boilers, we could set rules mandating a minimum ratio of heat delivered to heat input. We could also mandate efficiency standards for pumps and motors which consume most industrial electricity. Also, standards that mandated reductions in paper use, packaging, water, and soil erosion could produce indirect energy savings. And in the short run, given the immediate recession, these probably are where we should concentrate our efforts.
In the long run, and specifically once the current depression is over, the only way I know outside of these and perhaps a few other very specific regulations to cut industrial energy use is via energy pricing. Efficiency or emissions-reduction regulations for something as broadly produced as greenhouse gases, cannot simply specify a reduction. They have to specify emissions per what. And in industry that "what" is very hard to define, varying per industry, per sub-sector of that industry, and per process. Ultimately the answer is emissions per unit of economic output, but then it is very hard to tell what the indirect inputs are for many industries such as banking which appears to have very low emissions until you consider the projects banks finance. While there is a role for regulations in areas, ultimately the only thing we can do is put a price on emissions and let the businesses sort out where to cut.
Electric power
A low-carbon economy will be, to the greatest extent practical, an electric economy. We can't avoid using some fossil fuels and biofuels as a basis for industrial and chemical processes, for small amounts of transport, and for backups when renewable sources fail. But we need to use electricity from direct solar or ground source geothermal whenever possible. We can save the small amounts of fossil fuels and biofuels for uses for which they are necessary and reduce their use to the minimum that really is sustainable. In the U.S. that would be about five quads of natural gas, and three to perhaps 11 quads of biofuels. (Though I suspect seven quads is the most U.S. biofuel we can produce sustainably.)
If we really are going to power most remaining transport, heating, and industry needs electrically, than we need to implement the most aggressive efficiency improvements that appear to be possible, an 80 percent reduction in energy input per unit of GDP, and, after looking at non-electrical potential usable renewable inputs, we need to double our electrical production.
We have to replace all existing U.S. coal-powered plants with renewable electricity production -- along with most use of natural gas for electricity. The bottom line: With plausible major breakthroughs in storage and renewable production, this could cost as little $4 trillion over the course of 20 years. With more moderate improvements, this could cost $7 trillion over 20 years. With zero technical improvements, (unlikely, but a limiting case) this could cost $14 trillion over 20 years. (Figures for renewables would be even higher if we don't make really aggressive improvements in efficiency.) If the full cost was paid for by taxpayers, that would run $200 billion to $700 billion annually for renewables, depending on degree of technical improvement. (The high end, representing zero improvement is highly unlikely.) But of course taxpayers don't pay our electric bills now. There is no reason they should pay 100 percent of them in the future. And one point of all the investments in efficiency in the previous section is that they allow us to pay more per unit of electricity and still end up with a lower electricity bill.
Thus the main way to drive renewable energy is with regulations. We need to require all power to be 95 percent emission-free -- compared to today's grid -- by 2030, with incremental requirements every five years (25 percent by 2015, 50 percent by 2020 and so on). We also need to require utilities to pay feed-in tariffs and to buy emission-free power at a minimum rate. For this to be a reasonable thing to do, we would have assume some of the burden of grid management -- creating smart grids, building a true national grid with long-distance transmission, and financing storage.
According to Al Gore, the cost of a real national grid, including both long-distance transmission and smart-grid management, would run about $400 billion. If financed with 5 percent, 20-year bonds, that would cost around $32 billion per year.
Similarly, one of the more expensive aspects of renewables is storage, which also helps stabilize a grid. The cost of this would be $1.7 trillion. Financed over 30 years, this would cost around $111 billion per year.
In terms of a subsidy, we could pass a modified RTC that offers 1.9 cents per kWh for any source with emissions less than or equal to wind, that does not expire for 20 years, one that is a refundable tax credit, that is not limited to passive income, and that is available to all entities -- for-profit, non-profit, and individual -- that can produce power. If we ultimately reached 95 percent carbon-free energy, this could cost as much as $200 billion in the 20th year. This is another area where a price on emissions would encourage emissions-free development
Summary
Making the unrealistic assumption of zero technical breakthroughs in efficiency or renewable technology, the total cost of a complete transition to 95 percent (or better) emissions-free energy in the U.S. would be about $1.7 trillion annually, if financed at 5 percent over 30 years. (There is no reason a 20-year build-out could not be financed over 30 years. It would provide paybacks for at least that long, and many aspects such as transmission lines and railroads would last 40 years or longer.) From a social standpoint, total paybacks would be $600 billion a year more than this, meaning in the 20th year, the economy woul` grow $600 billion more per year net than without such investments (not counting global warming reductions, but only immediate and short-term social returns.) Energy costs only, not counting possible fossil-fuel price increases or any social costs, would be about 31 percent higher in this scenario than under a business-as usual-scenario. However the particular subsidies I projected start at around $275 billion annually, average to $365 billion a year for the first 20 years, and peak at $475 billion annually in the 20th year. They drop back to $275 billion a year in the 21st year, as the renewable industries mature and can get by without further subsidy. The other $275 billion continues for another 10 years to pay back the green debt. These not only overcome most of the bottlenecks to phasing out fossil fuels, but they also compensate for what would otherwise be increases in energy costs.
Last points
1) I'm considering population growth, but not economic growth per capita in this outline. That is because it does not pertain to the argument. Economic growth will require more energy, thus more investments in renewables and efficiency than in this scenario, but obviously will have more places to use this energy, and more social costs if this energy comes from fossil fuels. So total payback compared to investment is the same, both in saved fossil fuels and in paybacks in social costs. The ratio remains constant. You just get large numerators and denominators, if you recalculate
2) Because this post is about public investment and regulation, I concentrated mainly on this topic. But putting a price on emissions is not optional. To the extent public investment is more palatable than such pricing, it does allow it to be delayed. We can, if we have to completely eliminate emissions in the building and power generation sectors without such pricing, eliminate most emissions in transportation, and a significant percent even in industry. But there is no way, except via an emissions price, to capture most possible savings in industry. There are just too many efficiency means we don't know about in advance. Similarly, even in transport it is really hard to see how to reduce emissions in shipping and air travel without an auctioned permit system.
There are technologies that work at the margins. Airplanes can substitute sustainable biofuels (to the extent they really are sustainable) for kerosene, and they can also fly lower and slower. But at minimum, even given all technology available to day, or likely to be developed in the next 20 years, we are probably going to have to reduce total air miles. The best way to do this is to stop expanding and subsidizing airports, to auction permits for total emissions from aviation, and to let the air industry sort out to what extent they can cut emissions while maintaining flights and to what extent they have to reduce service.
Similarly, ships can add filters to existing engines to reduce black carbon, use flying sails to save an average of ten percent of their fuel use, and run their ships off electricity rather than fuel while in port. To the extent that truly sustainable biofuel is available, they use that. They can also buy very expensive new ships that used advanced engines, hulls, and propellers to reduce emissions more drastically. Since a cargo ship is not a fast means of transport in any case, they can also travel a little slower to reduce emissions per ton-mile. And of course it is possible that more goods will be made locally, reducing the total need for shipping. Again, the best means of driving all this is to auction permits to the shipping industry and to let them and their customers sort the various trade-offs. Making sure port electrical service is available -- on the scale cargo ships and passengers liners would need to turn off their engines in port -- would be a good additional and relatively low-cost public investment.
3) Mostly I've been talking about new regulations and new public investments. But there are also a great deal of existing subsidies and regulations that could be modified or eliminated. For example, one form of emission-free electricity is to take waste heat from industrial processes and use it to produce kWh with no additional emissions. One big barrier to this is that anytime you ship power over a public line you are considered a public utility and regulated as such. Allowing combined heat and power (and for that matter small scale generation of renewable electricity) to cross public rights of way under simpler regulations would remove a major barrier to such development. (You can't have zero regulation because you still want to make sure they don't block existing utility lines or roadways, For those obstacles would make future maintenance of more difficult. A regulatory and approval process that deals only with issues like these could be structured so as not to be a barrier to such development.)
We give huge subsidies to the fossil-fuel and nuclear industries that could be eliminated or redirected to efficiency and clean energy. And we have huge agricultural subsidies that should be redirected to benefit sustainable practices that build soil instead of erode it and produce near zero run-off, zero toxic run-off, and low nutrient run-off.
Conclusion
We can phase out greenhouse gas emissions over the course of 20 years (paying for it over the course of 30) at a profit. We can gain increased economic growth that far exceeds additional energy expenditures. We can also publicly invest money that will overcome most barriers to this transformation and recoup the price difference between clean and dirty energy so that overall energy prices don't rise as compared to a business-as usual-scenario. All of this can occur at a cost much less than the total measurable social gains from this green deal.
[Update] Dean Baker made a point to me that all this should only be considered a stimulus until the recession/depression ends, hopefully by 2011. So I guess after this is should just be considered a sound public investment rather than a stimulus.
Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets
Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price
Comments
View as Flat
Jon Rynn Posted 9:18 am
29 Nov 2008
Just to try a back-of-the-envelope calculation on how much an electric high-speed rail system would cost: We had discussions about some of this before, but it seems that the California High-speed rail system will cost about 40 billion dollars for 800 miles, so figure $50 million per mile. Now, according to Wikipedia, there are 46,000 miles in the Interstate Highway System. Let's figure we would have a 40,000 mile high-speed rail system, which I would be thrilled to hear would be complete overkill. So that's $2 trillion over, say, 20 years, and I'm bad with the interest rate math, but the California system will be profitable, allegedly, so an Interstate High-speed rail system could pay most of that money back.
Could you put some of the figures into "the" spreadsheet? What I mean are the figures for each of the major areas, for expenditure -- is that what adds up to 1.7 trillion per yeara? -- and then show the payback, and how that brings the figure down into the 200 to 400 billion dollar range.
The massive job of making buildings efficient is the green collar jobs program on steroids. In other words, I would highlight the job-creating aspect (although I'm not sure how you would have even a back-of-the-envelope figure on that one), but certainly during the life of that program, unemployment would not be a problem, and poverty might even by within reach of being wiped out
Basically, you're saying that solar/wind/geothermal would be a bit more expensive (assuming no tech breakthroughs, which I think is an important assumption), but the efficiency program would more than make up for it. So the efficiency program and the renewable electricity program shouldn't be considered separately, they're part of a systemic program.
Steel, aluminum and paper are much less energy intensive if recycled, and steel is almost completely recycled, so maybe that could be encouraged -- aluminum might be used quite a bit for solar thermal and wind turbines, although I've been told wind turbines are mostly steel, only the blades are aluminum.
If you're going for "tech-here-now", then electric vehicles means 30-40 mile range, 30-40 mph. Which leads me to:
It is a measure of the daunting nature of this task that all of this effort doesn't even address what I would call the "land use" problem -- in particular, how agriculture and deforestation add emissions, and how denser towns/suburbs/cities would lead to lower emissions. I don't even know how to address the agriculture problem, except that I guess you could say that by a certain date all agriculture would have to be soil-building instead of soil-destroying, and that all CAFO livestock raising would have to disappear. I suppose there could be subsidies to ease the transition. The density problem is even larger, although I've seen suggestions that the cost of transit could be paid for by levying a windfall tax on buildings near new transit stops, since buildings always increase in value near transit. Plus a massive government-led housing program, I suppose.
it's good to emphasize that the government would do well to insert itself into the financial system of the country by financing most of this activity, considering what a horrible mess the private financial system made of it.
Anyway, great work!
Permalink
miggsathon Posted 12:14 pm
29 Nov 2008
I'm associated with Recycled Energy Development, whose president, Sean Casten, blogs here. But I thought I'd say thanks for the good post.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:56 pm
29 Nov 2008
In general I find myself thinking that while the severe economic downturn that we are now in is a terrible thing and the high price of petroleum (soon to return to the scene) is an awful thing, these two events could not have hit us at a better time.
We've got the really big, bad thing looming in our future. Global climate change stands to be this centuries Black Plague. Times ten.
People are paying attention and ready to head in a new direction. Making major changes should be a lot easier than it would have been a year or two back....
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 1:09 pm
29 Nov 2008
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 1:10 pm
29 Nov 2008
I also see people going from blog to blog, making the same comments and causing it to look like there are a lot more of us that there really is.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:52 pm
29 Nov 2008
Most of the expenditures on rail are upgrading existing lines, not installing new ones. Also we are not talking about super high speeds. 100 mph is plenty for freight. If you follow the link you will see that there are some new lines, but not a whole lot. You still use highways for the first and last miles, which means rail does not have to go everywhere. That is why 85% of long haul trucking ends up being shifted to rail, you still end up with 15% of long distance freight being by truck and all or most short haul trucking.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:54 pm
29 Nov 2008
The costs tab shows the costs. The payback tab shows the paybacks. The Scenarios tab combines costs and payback to show payback with various assumptions on efficiency investment, sucesss of that investment, and degree of technical improvement.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:46 pm
29 Nov 2008
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27298/Americans-Assess-What-Th ...
Home in on "60% of Americans believe that global warming has already begun", "58% believe that drastic measures, something more than driving less and recycling, will be required".
And remember that another Gallup poll stated that only 11% believe that global warming will never happen. I would expect that number to be down a bit since they gathered their data.
We've passed the tipping point for awareness. As more bad data turns up (like the melting of Arctic ice) people will increase their willingness to move faster.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:07 pm
29 Nov 2008
No. You can buy today a two-passenger electric car with a 100 mile range that can reach speeds up to 80 mph for under $20,000. Here is the link, http://www.greenvehicles.com/. It is a truly awful site. (Why do so many tech start-ups insist on really bad flash web-sites?) These are for sale. (Or were they may have sold out already.)
> all of this effort doesn't even address what I would call the "land use" problem -- in particular, how agriculture and deforestation add emissions, and how denser towns/suburbs/cities would lead to lower emissions. I
Actually it does address it, albeit very briefly. As you say, rules that agriculture and forestry must build rather than destroy soil. Also major reductions in paper and lumber use. In terms of density - won't increase density enough to affect global warming in time to affect global warming. We have to lower emissions either with the density we have, or at any rate with modest shifts towards higher density. Which is why electric cars are critical, especially ones like the Trac which have speed and range sufficient for suburbs.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:09 pm
29 Nov 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:51 pm
29 Nov 2008
We could follow Amory Lovins' suggestion and have the government purchase the initial output both for federal fleets and for leases. Purchasing large numbers of electric vehicles would not only help lower their costs in general, but it also could help break the chicken-egg deadlock that keeps electric-car-quality battery prices high.
Great job Gar! Only one quibble, I think it would be wise to specify plugin hybrid hypercars, the Lovins carbon fiber body/frame streamlined SUV. Pure electric cars won't be ready until battery technology undergoes serious advances in research and mass production.
Even a 1 hour charge time every 150 miles, abot the best that can be acheived with 20k dolars worth of nano-tech lithium is dies not a practical vehicle make. And it's far too expensive.
A practical plugin hybrid could have as low as a 25 mile range with as long as a 6 hour charge. That's a cheap, immediately available, already mass produced battery, practical in a hypercar anyway, Since the lighter weight vehicle uses much less power, a third of the GM "Volt".
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 1:03 am
30 Nov 2008
and identify the states where the spending would occur, when
re-jigger your priorities to target votes
identify waves of programs (keeping need for votes firmly in mind)
identify constituencies to support first wave
the common good is not sufficient; you must target the common good of elected officials in a position to block the common good
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:33 am
30 Nov 2008
I'm not sure how to calculate what a full-scale transit system, that took advantage of what density exists now, would cost, and I don't know if anyone has calculated that, city-by-city, which is a shame.
As for electric cars, we shall see, and like so much else about this climate mess, I hope I'm wrong. It's just that, if you check out neighborhood electric vehicles, there are tens of thousands of GEMcars and REVAs around the world, they are here now (and strangely enough, Chrysler used to own GEM, maybe they still do).
As for density, that would actually have to go hand-in-hand with more transit (the sort of thing Ryan Avent has demonstrated so well), transit tends to increase density. But I would agree that it's possible we'll have to do most climate change mitigation without anything close to an ideal density (although Europe and Japan, among developed countries, are in much better shape than we are in this regard).
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:41 am
30 Nov 2008
>Great job Gar! Only one quibble, I think it would be wise to specify plugin hybrid hypercars, the Lovins carbon fiber body/frame streamlined SUV. Pure electric cars won't be ready until battery technology undergoes serious advances in research and mass production.
>Even a 1 hour charge time every 150 miles, abot the best that can be acheived with 20k dolars worth of nano-tech lithium is dies not a practical vehicle make. And it's far too expensive.
There is huge potential market for pure electrics with a 100+ range and a six (not one) hour charging time. And a large percentage of cars in government fleets are used in ways that such would be suitable. So why concentrate on pure electrics? Cause PHEVs are also expensive. A massive increase in the number of electric cars would put enough components into mass production that are now craft items to drive down the price of making PHEVs by private companies. A massive increase in the number of PHEVs would in turn drive bringing down the price of components for electric cars. It is a virtuous cycle that could best be jump stared by ordering HyperCar electrics, not PHEVs. One exception: retrofitting existing cars into PHEVS.
I suspect we could easily place 50,000 pure electric cars per year just in government fleets with a decent 20 year payback. That is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total auto fleet, but boy would that jump start the cycle, bring down costs, and advance the technology. And we need to have the smart grid in place before too much of the fleet is electrified in any case if all those car batteries are to stabilize rather than destabilize the grid. (Mind you given that most cars are charged at night, not that fast. But "charged at night" often equals "charged with coal", so the sooner we get a smart grid, and substantial renewable renewable electricity, the better.)
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:50 am
30 Nov 2008
Airplanes for people who really do need to get long distances in a reasonable amount of time. I wouldn't want to travel NY to SF on high speed rail if I was traveling for business or a short holiday. And there are oceans...
High speed (electric) rail for less long travel. Europe has generated some good data about how far people choose to ride the rail and past that point switch to a plane. SF/Sacramento to LA seems to be a good high speed max distance. Being able to board/exit city-center vs. driving to the airport makes up for slower transit time up to a point.
Local light rail systems. When I look at a US map I see that many cities, from Kansas City to Nashville, to ... have closely placed smaller cities/towns. These would seem to be excellent places to place our first light (electric) rail.
Expand the tracks outward over time and connect closer cities with ~100 mph light rail eventually. This way we could build a fast/light rail system of hubs and spokes with a few more expensive fast rail routes moving people longer distances.
At some point there needs to be standardization of track size, voltage, etc. so that manufacturers can reach an economy of scale by selling their product to any city that has light rail.
BEVs and PHEVs along with battery/hybrid buses for local transport. There is always going to be a desire for personal transportation. People just buy too many groceries, have too much "small children" stuff, have older family members, etc. to make public transportation a joy. The idea of everyone riding public transportation won't fly if people can afford an alternative.
And fleets of 'reserve by cell-phone/activate by card swipe' BEVs parked at rail terminals. Some people need/want to be independent once they reach their destination. I'd be more likely to take rapid rail to LA if I knew that I had a charged BEV waiting for my arrival. Otherwise I might choose to drive. And if all I'm going to do is drive around a city at moderate speeds then a very small vehicle would be an acceptable option.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:01 am
30 Nov 2008
CE1907:
>re-jigger your priorities to target votes
I'll give you some data, and you can produce the spreadsheet. About half the cost is deployment of technology. Efficiency technology has to be deployed where the energy is consumed. Freight rail has to be put where freight moves. Renewable energy has to be deployed where the sun shines and the wind blows. But about half is manufacturing - wind turbines and towers, solar panels and cells, steam engines, insulation and efficiency equipment for the home, electric cars, rail cars, locomotives, steel and aluminum, and glass and plastic. So you have 850 billion a year (mostly private, but steered by public investment) that you can deploy pretty much where you want it. Yeah there are still physical constraints, but you are also dealing with a variety of technologies, and money is fungible. With appropriate juggling you can spend that 850 billion annually where you want.
So you do the spreadsheet. We have 850 billion a year. So long as you don't get ridiculous like putting half of it in one state or something, you can deploy it where you want. Why don't you do the political calculations.
One other thing. In most areas we are increasing not only net but gross employment. That is we are for the most part not displacing workers. We are mostly converting job categories with no need to eliminate them. (Workers who made cars can make electric cars, PHEVS and trains, and so on.) But there is one important exception. Trucking. We are going to drastically decrease trucking and do so quickly. While we will increase freight rail, freight rail has much greater labor productivity per ton mile than trucking. Truck manufacturing can be converted to other other manufacturing, but long Haul Truck Drivers won't all be able to do new, similar jobs. Here the the choices I can think of:
There are new jobs that have some transfer of skills. We are going to need a lot more drivers for passenger rail and buses. Not exactly the same skill set, but a truck driver should be able to become a train or bus driver more easily than your average bear.
Jobs that have no relation to trucking - manufacturing, installation of efficiency technologies, work in wind and solar farms.
You are the one who claims to be a political realist. We have a large net increase in jobs, so it is economically solvable. The question is how to make it politically solvable? Again, with most of the economy we pay people do stuff, and to make stuff very similar to what they do and make now. But long haul truck drivers will mostly have to something other than drive trucks. So what are the politics of dealing with that? What do we offer to Teamsters? What do we offer independent long-haul owner operators?
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:36 am
30 Nov 2008
Seems to me that independent owner/drivers are doing all that well these days. Even before fuel prices went through the roof. I'm not sure that many people really would choose to be a long haul driver if they had a 'stay at home' job option.
The future we're discussing will have plenty of short haul driving jobs. Stuff will move in containers from origin to shuttle truck to train to shuttle truck to destination. Current drivers can move to the shuttle seats and sleep at home at night.
There will always be some places that need to be supplied by medium-long trucking. Here in Humboldt County we've lost our rail connections to the outside due to disuse and landslides. I'm not sure there would ever be adequate reason to restore them now that the days of 'big lumber' are gone.
Current trucking firms will be able to convert from long to short haul companies during the transition. Big tractors will likely be downsized to smaller, more economic, more maneuverable rigs over time.
Union shops can stay union shops. (I'm not sure that unions have much to do with independents.)
Watching what has happened in the US car manufacturing business, I think unions have realized that they have to be flexible to survive in these early days of globalization. I'm not sure unions will fight the changes to any real extent.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:43 am
30 Nov 2008
Is that government dollars only? If so, I think you should increase the amount or decrease the governmental amount to reflect the amount of private money that will flood in as new enterprises prove to be profitable.
Look at what is happening in wind and geothermal. Took government money to get them off the ground. Still needing some public money as they grow. But they will soon reach a stage where they self-support and attract adequate private money to continue.
Some few months ago the wind industry said that they needed support for "another two years" and after that the infrastructure would be built up to a level where support wouldn't really be needed.
(That said, I think we would be well served by continuing to sweeten the wind industry in order to keep new installation moving as rapidly as possible.)
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:43 am
30 Nov 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:19 am
30 Nov 2008
By the way, I was leafing through "suburban nation' and they said that highways now cost about $30 million per mile, so high-speed rail is not much more expensive.
ce1907, the question is to create an infrastructure-industrial complex that has the same support, or similar, to the military-industrial complex. If everyone thinks that they're going to get their districts big bucks, they won't car if it's defense or infrastructure, as long as they get it. The question is how to put an infrastructure-industrial complex together.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 11:06 am
30 Nov 2008
The F6DM is a Chinese PHEV that goes on sale week after next and should be coming to the US in the next 12-24 months. It has a 60 mile range on batteries alone. The Volt has a 40 (perhaps more) battery only range.
Based on research by GM and Toyota a 40 mile range would cover ~80% of American driving. Probably even a higher percentage in Europe or Asia.
We do about 50% of our driving in cars that are five years or less old. It wouldn't take many years to do the same amount of driving with far less oil.
(A great place to spend some public money. Underwrite prices or offer very low rate loans to get people into these cars fast. Start buying lots for governmental use. Build a market so that economies of scale bring down the price.)
That would mean a drastic cut in petroleum demand.
And you can see what happens when demand is cut below supply by comparing pump prices today to prices of a couple months ago.
Additionally, when oil goes above $100 per barrel it creates an economic entry point for biofuels.
Airlines (and the USAF) are already making test flights with biofuels and biofuel blends. There is some tipping point at which we will start to grow our flight fuel rather than buying it from other countries.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:36 pm
30 Nov 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:57 pm
30 Nov 2008
Back to the drawing board. As with the jeep design in the WW2 era, the government needs to specify, weight, range, mileage and so forth, then order a million units a year from the auto makers. It better be under 20k, maybe 18k for government vehicle fleet use.
A world beating plugin hybrid drivetrain/battery/backup generator power system inside and the usual decoration each auto maker prefers on the outside. This mass production would drop prices for consumers.
To stabilize oil prices, a year after year reduction in demand would do it best. Say a 3 to 5% reduction, through replacement of heating oil with ground source heating, freight rail replacing trucks, mass transit, then mass production of plugin hybrids in a few years.
Small steps, even tire inflation to start with or just driving less and carpooling more as is happening now can suffice for a tear or two of the target goal. We need a leader to encourage that reduction campaign, ask for collecvtive sacrifice.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:44 pm
30 Nov 2008
The Volt is a bit pricey. From what I understand some of that price is due to battery cost which would drop with larger scale manufacturing.
Economy of scale thing.
That's exactly why it would help if the government would buy a bunch for their fleet. It might be nice if someone were to design your ideal car for government service, but that vehicle would be years in the making. Some of us think that we need to get moving quickly away from fossil fuels, even if we "waste" a few dollars now.
Not sinking beneath the rising ocean would be a nice return on our dollars....
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:02 pm
30 Nov 2008
Of course, creating the "paradigm shift" as Thomas Kuhn would begin in the home, the store, and the car. I think some voluntarism would be excellent here, as it is starting today. But I hate to enforce draconian laws on the people until we get the major industries and commercial interests regulated FIRST.
I have a reason for saying this. Who opposes global warming strategies the most? Who does the "green-washing"? Sorry for the unnecessary rhetorical questions but such a targeted enforcement strategy is essential, and I don't see why bazillions of public money should be spent on those investments - although I know we will pay higher bills no matter what the pay-backs might be.
After going through the big stuff and working through things commercial, then I would focus on changing consumer habits. This is a big deal because you still have about 30 percent of the people who think global warming is a crock. But should that cost the government money, other than maybe some incentives, grants, or tax breaks? I don't think so.
So then Gar asks, "how much money should we spend on greening America?" My answer is: nothing and everything.
OK, humor aside, the US does run a highway system, has jurisdiction over interstate rail, and also runs the waterways (a major oversight Gar, since barging is 2-5 times more efficient than rail is).
But that's all the command side of the equation: making mandates or paying for public works that make our nation greener or hopefully more sustainable - I like the sustainable part myself too.
The response side of the equation is bound to he enormous and I'd just like to remind Grist readers of that. There could be extreme drought in the Southwest, massive wildfires, extreme coastal retreat and perhaps more hurricanes, and even horrendous cold and snowy conditions up north, simply due to the "freaky weather syndrome" caused by global warming. Sorry for the run-on sentence but that seems to be almost a given. Lord knows, we may have changes the climate so much that earthquakes could happen as well, especially as we draw down the water tables and start injecting more pooh into the ground.
Aye, perhaps we need a rainy day fund reserve just for global-warming related disasters (as opposed to military or political ones). This would be a major changing in thinking, something that would be fitting if you've ever read Thomas Kuhn about paradigm shifts.
One the whole, I liked the rather simple, "no new technology" approach but would simply ask for a mare targeted and comprehensive look at things. Thanks Gar you made me think ... I have a few OK ideas here maybe and sorry to write so long. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:20 pm
30 Nov 2008
Rail takes a long time to build. I doubt that we could build significant light rail in cities in the next ten years. High speed rail in California is projected for a 2035 completion.
In five years we could make a large dent in our petroleum consumption if we had affordable PHEVs.
We could make a major dent in ten. We might have 50% of our cars using only 20% of the fuel of the other 50%. And since newer cars are used for a higher percentage of driving overall fuel savings could be under 40%.
There's another seeming advantage to PHEVs. At the moment we're building a lot of wind generation and will continue to do so as wind is the least expensive non-fossil fuel method to harvest energy.
We will build generation to provide for peak hour consumption. That means that we will overbuild for nighttime demand. And winds tend to blow stronger at night.
Electric cars have the unique characteristic of running on stored energy. We can charge them up at night when power is in low demand.
Daytime trains are going to run on power generated during the day which means we have to create more sources to feed them. (Or come up with some good, affordable storage systems.)
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:38 pm
30 Nov 2008
A decent range, affordable BEV would be a game changer. Then we're talking about fossil fuel free driving.
BYD, the Chinese battery maker is planning on selling a BEV in the US possibly as early as 2010.
"... electric cars that have a range of almost 190 miles on a single charge, and can be 80 percent recharged in 15 minutes. BYD plans to start selling electric cars in China at the end of this year." December 10, if I remember accurately.
80% in 15 minutes means that I could drive from SF to LA with a couple of 15 minute stops as opposed to one ~15 minute stop for gas. I could live with that.
Warren Buffet thinks they are for real. He bought 9.89% of the company.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/worldbusiness/ ...
And Michelin just announced an in-hub motor/brake/suspension wheel. That makes for easy entry into BEVs for all car manufacturers. They basically have to build the box and bolt on the driving parts.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/11/active-wheel-affo ...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:01 pm
30 Nov 2008
Backup power that uses readily available motor fuel is more practical for the near future. Maybe fuel cells that use regular will be available soon, boosting mileage 4 times.
One third the batteries, weight, amd high cost, and an inexpensive backup generator, beats fullelectric for now. Only movie stars can afford a tow when they run out of battery power.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 4:28 pm
30 Nov 2008
We already have them in many warehouses where they are used to recharge forklifts.
These would be basically 'unload from the truck, bolt down, hook up the feed, and start service' units.
Fast food restaurants would be very glad to host them, I would imagine....
---
As for running out on the road - active GPS tracking, battery monitoring, station location waypoints. The only reason to run out would be if you ignored the message to "take exit 107 and turn left under the highway to Arby's".
And then ignored the message "Hey Dummy! Do not fail to take exit 108 coming up on your right in one minute and then return to exit 107. 45 seconds, 30 seconds, ...".
If you did run out then AAA can bring you a limpet battery pack that will take you to the next station. Just like they bring you gas when you dummy out.
Or they can drag you on to the back of their rescue truck....
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:03 am
01 Dec 2008
I doubt they have been developed yet, surely they have never been mass produced. With pure electric cars they would need to be as widely spread as gas pumps. That's a tall infrastructure order.
Sophisticated computerized GPS warning systems would still include the human element to respond appropriately. This whole new pure electric recharge system needs work, lots of resting and then lots of capital. It's a system that maybe 10 or more years away.
Plugin hybrid technology is ready right now, and fuels with the conventional gas pump, and with a cord to plug in at home and some slow charging plugs at work, school, or shopping centers that works with an internet account to meter the recharge power could be ready sooner to make the system practical over the next few years.
This is a step by step transition to a new energy economy. It won't happen overnight. Efficiency gains first, carpooling, mass transit, biking, tire inflation, tuneups, higher mileage conventional cars and hybrids could get the oil/GHG reduction in the first couple of years, giving time for plugin hybrids to go into mass production.
Pure electrics, battery exchange taxis, delivery trucks, and buses next. then maybe in 5 to 10 years pure electric, quick charge technolopgy will be ready for mass production. It depends mainly on battery/recharge system R&D.
If politicians and industry can be kept in line on this transition and not be allowed to falter back into excuses to continue gas guzzling, this should start to revive the economy. If a signifigant portion of the new energy economy devices can be manufactured here in the US that is.
So far that isn't happening because of foot dragging and diversion. Will we the people keep them on track? If we don't most of US can say goodbye to living wages and prosperity.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 12:18 am
01 Dec 2008
Perhaps it is time for the same ol' business-as-usual, pin-stripe-suited leaders, the ones who adamantly espouse and religiously exemplify an apostate's creed of greed, to be replaced by new, environmentally aware leadership.
Too many economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians in this patently unsustainable culture of avarice evidently define the culture's efficacy by the endless accumulation of material possessions; by the unbounded acquisition of more money, money, money, money; by recklessly overconsuming and relentlessly hoarding limited resources. They demonstrably declare to all the world that greed is good.
Are we not members of a culture that worships consumerism? Are the accumulated products of our unbridled greed nothing more or less than the objects of our idolatry?
Are the pin-striped suits, fleet of cars, chauffeur, private jets, McMansions, distant hideaways, secret handshakes and exclusive clubs "signatures" of success in a culture promoted by the `goodness' of greed?
Consider for a moment what perversity greed has wrought.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1 ...
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:28 am
01 Dec 2008
In terms of barges: yes they are more efficient than rail. But it will take a lot of dredging just to keep from losing capacity, especially as drought and flooding increases. I did put barges in my book. But I decided that shifting freight to barges does not have that great a potential. There is one exception, but it is positive unintended side effect of doing the rest. A lot of both freight train, and barge capacity is used to transport coal. As we phase out coal, that makes room for more freight of other kinds. Since barge is a very slow form of transport, getting rid of coal probably is all the increase in capacity we will need.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:36 am
01 Dec 2008
New leaders who wnat to revive corporations are the answer. Wanting your business to make a sustainable profit can actually include ethical eco-goals.
Is capitalism inherently evil? No, not when it is carefully regulated. But what we have in the mega-multinationals is not capitalism, it is corporatism. A system whereby corporate entities aim to use government to acheive and maintain monopoly control over the global economy. That's not innovative, risk/reward capitalism.
It's global corporate feudalsim, under which the corporate class operates like a monarchy. Thus bonnie prince duuhbya was appointed to power, reared for incompetence and prideful ignorance. We see how that is working out.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:55 am
01 Dec 2008
And in an attempt to stay on this thread, Bob Wallace it would be great if all that is required for cars is to change the innards and the stations. But we've had train technology for decades -- even the high-speed kind. Yes, it takes a while to build trains -- interestingly, an argument made by Republicans as to why building trains wouldn't help with the recession/Depression, not that I'm trying to tar you with that -- but the answer from economists is that long-term is OK, because the economy has a long (or at least medium) term problem, and certainly climate change and peak oil are also long-term problems.
I think the California system will be built in pieces, so that the whole thing might not be built until 2035. But certainly if there was a national committment that could be greatly speeded up.
If speed is an issue, in terms of climate change, then clearly replacing coal plants, or eliminating the need for them, which I think it's fair to say is at the heart of what Gar has presented here, is certainly the "easiest" and fastest way to decrease emissions. I suppose it's easier to defeat the coal/utility industries -- not necessarily even the utility industry, if they have something to replace coal with -- than to convince the 70% of the American public that wants to live in a suburb that they don't need fast, long-range cars. But we obviously need to move both on the phev/ev front and the train front, both for climate change and because if oil becomes very expensive for a long period of time, there will be great pressure to turn to coal-to-liquids, oil shale, and other climate-unfriendly sources of nergy.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:36 am
01 Dec 2008
http://www.markstechnologynews.com/2008/11/aerovironment- ...
American Airlines installing their units - 2001.
http://www.markstechnologynews.com/2008/11/aerovironment- ...
---
Idiots who don't listen to warnings, and don't pull into a charging station when their batteries are low.
The insurance companies will deal with them.
Something like one free rescue per six months. High co-pay/no coverage after that.
---
Rapid charge is going to be needed for long day trips. Look for a few stations along the I5 route between SF and LA for starters. And rapid charge might be needed for people who can't plug in at home or at work.
Over time there should be more and more curbside charge points for slow charging, but early in the game we might need a few rapid charge points in cities, one in places smaller towns.
---
Curbside charge points.
This is one place where the smart grid can really make an impact.
Need to charge? Hit a button on your cell phone/car dash and your GPS directs you to the closest available charge point and the point goes into "reserved" mode for then next x minutes.
Anyone parking in a charge space and not hooking up to the outlet in x minutes triggers a call to the tow truck. They go away.
Plug in and the charge point reads your battery information and account number. Your account gets automatically billed. No need to swipe/enter pin number.
Parking overnight/long term? Push a button on your cell phone/car dash and signal your willingness to "rent" your batteries to the utility company.
If you normally drive ten miles a day then you have storage to rent. That could be your default.
---
With a BEV that had a 100-150 mile range many of us could leave the ICE behind. Especially if we had some sort of convenient way to extend our range for the occasional long trip.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:46 am
01 Dec 2008
http://www.htdc.org/hevdp/image/maps/oahu_rp_sites.jpg
And here's a nice read on the topic...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/3/21383/28887/909/54 ...
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:57 am
01 Dec 2008
Here is how I can see electric car infrastructure evolving:
Initial market - People who can make good uses of two passenger with a 100 mile range, and who already have a place to charge their car or the ability to install one cheaply.
This justifies regs that make employers provide charging ports at work. (They can charge employees to use them.) The availability of these charging ports increases demand for electric cars.
That justifies putting coin or credit card opperated charging ports on the street like parking meters - not true charging stations, just 220 volt meters where people with who park cars overnight on the street can charge their cars - which let's people who don't have an assigned parking space use an electric car.
That does not rule out commericial charging stations and battery swapping stations. But it lets them come in at the point there are sufficient electric car drivers to let them make money.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:23 pm
01 Dec 2008
Milestone demonstration by AeroVironment saw the 35kWh (kilowatt-hour) battery pack developed for use with the Phoenix fully-charged in less than ten minutes - enough to power the five-seat utility for 100 miles.
Very encouraging. These kind of electric vehicles will come down in price with mass production and charging infrastructure will be built, someday. I couldn't find figures detailing kwh per minute for the island system. Only this test done by removing the battery pack from the vehicle.
Until these are available plugin hybrids can eliminate 90% of oil based car fuel. At an affordable price, with existing infrastructure. In fact all they will need is the better battery pack and charge system of the Pheonix, once it reaches mass production ptices, much much lower cost. To replace the original battery pack and backup generator.
Maybe a fuel cell backup generator will be an interim step.
Pretty simple conversion really.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:28 pm
01 Dec 2008
We're talking about how best to solve our energy/climate change/economic problems. Getting anything significant done most likely means getting millions and millions of people to go along with the plan. Short of forcing them (which tends to be unpopular) we have to try to get people liking the idea of the change.
Now, lots of people might do quite well with a car, or second car, that can't readily be driven more than 50 miles from home, but in the back of their mind they're likely to be thinking...
"But suppose I want to take a trip to Disney World/visit Aunt Martha/ride off into the sunset - and I can't get there in this BEV?".
A limited range BEV with no promise of being able to fill up quickly is likely to be a tougher sell than one in which there's a charger every 100 miles or so on the road to ....
It's a place where we might spend a few million government dollars (about $125k per rapid charger IIRC - price might drop with volume) and lower people's resistance.
(Obviously I'm just speculating here. This is the sort of thing that can be researched. But I think it likely enough that one shouldn't offhand dismiss the possibility. Remember, you and I may be very rational beings, but there are those other people....)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:38 pm
01 Dec 2008
Then a longer range as lighter batteries come down in price, at the next stage of improvement. The new battery would retrofit in the older models. These would still be slow charge at this stage.
At the next step the backup generator would be replaced with a fuel cell that runs on multi-fuels.
Finally quick charge batteries and quick charge stations everywhere there are gas pumps and battery improvements to get 200 mile range would make the vestigial backup generator, fuel cell or not, obsolete.
I assume shorter range pure electrics would be practical in cities and on islands first, as charging stations were installed there first. Rural travelers would continue to have backup generators just in case. The backup fuel cell generators would be available for lease from your dealer for long trips.
So I say, order a million plugin hybrid economy cars per year for government fleets. Retrofit them with better batteries every few years.
The used batteries could go to the building power backup market. A signifigant part of a distributed renewable grid. Emergency backup batteries used for peak shaving in buildings.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:24 pm
01 Dec 2008
Unless they become very affordable I'm not sure that I can see them penciling out vs. a small ICE in a PHEV. We're not likely to see hydrogen become available as fuel. Fuel cells are likely to run on the same fuel as we would use for the ICE.
--
Batteries that are degraded to the point where they impact driving range will have a significant second life for energy storage. They're great for wind farms and utility companies to help them smooth out abrupt power shifts.
Given enough they could start helping shift off-peak power to when it's needed. Good for the morning rush when the sun isn't ready for work.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:25 pm
01 Dec 2008
It runs on multifuels, without fouling. Boeing was building a small one, with a turbine to recover waste heat. It was 75% efficient in that configuration.
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2004/july/ts ...
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:32 pm
01 Dec 2008
From brewery waste.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink