I must apologize for posting on this subject yet again, but an article was recently brought to my attention that reflects my viewpoints so exactly that I feel compelled to tell you about it, so I can bask in the warm glow of smug self-righteousness. From Technology Review (an MIT enterprise):
Because the advanced lithium-ion batteries put a lot of power into a small, light package, a much smaller battery is needed to power the car, which could reduce hybrid prices. As a result, a variety of cars in a fleet could come with a hybrid option that costs about as much as the option for an automatic transmission...
In the short term, however, [this] seemingly logical assumption about lower-cost hybrid cars might not be right. ...a major reason consumers buy hybrids today is to have a "badge of honor" that shows their commitment to the environment or to curbing gasoline use. ... Part of this distinction... comes from having to pay a price premium for the vehicle. Hence, in the short term... it might actually be wise for carmakers to leave hybrid prices higher.
It's true. The main reason most people don't run out and buy small cars with great gas mileage is that those cars have low status. Nothing advertises your status more than the car you drive. The answer is to make plug-in packages an option on all cars. Less affluent consumers will opt for it on their economy cars for the gas savings, as well as to enhance the status of their car; well-off consumers will opt for it on their luxury cars purely for the bragging rights. If Toyota does that first, it will be the kiss of death for American cars makers. Are you reading this, Ford?
Of course, there are critics of plug-in hybrids, just as there are critics of all of our energy options -- tradeoffs exist. Biofuel enthusiasts should have no qualms about plug-ins because they will be able to burn biofuels just like any other car. The fact that they will burn a lot less biofuel (and therefore consume a lot less of the planet) is what I like about them. Admittedly, if I owned a gas station and had devoted some of my pumps and storage tanks to ethanol and biodiesel, I would not be pleased to see my biofuel customers showing up every other month instead of every week.
As with all of our other energy options, the picture is much more complicated than you suspect. For example, if you live in Seattle, your car (when driven in all-electric mode) will be entirely carbon neutral -- the electricity to charge your batteries comes from hydropower, which has its own environmental drawbacks, as we are all aware.
If you live in California, where they have a mix of electrical power generation, you will be just as carbon neutral as a car using soy-based biodiesel (without having to plow one carbon sink or usurp 11.5 acres of the planet annually). If you live in the Sun Belt and have solar panels, you may be able to charge your car during the day between trips.
If you live in Ohio, where they get 80% of their electricity from coal, your electric mode is no better than a gasoline car, from a health pollutant perspective -- although probably better than a soy-based biodiesel car. From a CO2 perspective, your car will be no better than a gasoline car and worse than a soy-based biodiesel car. One advantage that would remain in Ohio is that the plug-in will still use a lot less liquid fuel and cost a lot less to run, because you will still be getting about a hundred miles to the gallon equivalent mileage (purchase price will be main factor in break-even miles).
Cleaning up electricity generation is the key to our CO2 concerns. (Thanks again to DRx)
Comments
View as Flat
Clark Williams-Derry Posted 9:47 am
24 May 2006
Also - the fact that Seattle's electricity mostly comes from hydro doesn't mean that electric cars in Seattle are a great idea for the climate. I mean, if Seattle residents conserve electricity, Seattle City Light can sell some of its hydro electricity on the open market; and that electricity will generally offset power from coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. So -- every extra kWh for Seattle's electric cars could be an extra kWh of coal-fired electricity produced in Wyoming and bound for California.
Of course, I'm no expert on the west coast electricity system, so the actual result could be be different. Still, the important thing seems to me to be the source of the marginal kWh of electricty in the entire west coast electric market, not the particular source of my own utility's power.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:32 am
25 May 2006
but not quite that easily. I believe they were talking about profit, not sales. Lowering the price to sell more cars would not necessarily result in more profit. Also note that they twice prefaced the discussion with the phrase "in the short term," because they know the price of hybrids will eventually come down. Lowering the price of a Prius now while it is still a novel higher status car would just throw money away, or so the analyst and Toyota seem to think, and I tend to concur.
I, for one, would definitely be willing to consider a Prius if the price gap between, say, that and a Yaris were narrower. As it is, though, I'd tend towards the Yaris + some carbon credits if I had to buy a new car.
Would you opt for the plug-in package on the Yaris if it were available for say, $2000?
I bought a 92 Toyota Tercel (same color as this one in fact) several years back for my aging mom to drive. The standard transmission version gets the same mileage as the Yaris (about 40 MPG) and is, in my opinion, one of the finest economy cars ever produced-- when combined with power steering and automatic transmission it is the perfect car for a little old lady. No CEO would be caught dead in one.
Also - the fact that Seattle's electricity mostly comes from hydro doesn't mean that electric cars in Seattle are a great idea for the climate.
Actually it does and here is why. Power plants have reserve capacity. That capacity varies with time. For example, if Northern California is having a heat wave, and if the Northwest had a dry winter, there may actually be a shortage of power in Northern California forcing blackouts as happened a few years back. However, as I sit here typing, there is extra capacity. If ten thousand electric cars were charging on Seattle's grid tonight it would have little to no effect on other states. But, you would have ten thousand cars running around the next morning getting about 100 MPG equivalent gas mileage, producing no CO2 and using no imported or home grown liquid fuel (when in all electric mode).
Your line of reasoning suggests that unless all power plants are emissions free, there is no point in anyone driving a plug-in car because electricity taken from a clean source must be replaced with one from a dirty source. As I have shown, it isn't that quite that simple. From calcars:
As for numbers keyed to the national grid, two government studies found plug-in HEVs would result in large reductions even with the national grid (50-60% coal). The GREET 1.6 model in 2001 by the US Department of Energy's Argonne National Lab estimates hybrids reduces greenhouse gases by 22%, and a plug-in hybrid by 36% -- see table 2. An Argonne researcher reached consensus with researchers from other national labs, universities, the Air Resources Board, automakers, utilities and AD Little to estimate in July 2002 that plug-in HEVs using nighttime power reduce greenhouse gases by 46 to 61 percent.
There are two main points to keep in mind on the subject of plug-in cars.
They are simply far more efficient than internal combustion engines. You are wasting far less total energy driving in electric mode, regardless of how the electricity was generated.
Even in Ohio, which is the worst case scenario where most electricity comes from coal, they would be no dirtier than a regular car but still use far less liquid fuel.
Electrification has been the trend for the past decades and will continue into the future. With the advent of the Prius, the internal combustion engine will continue to play a smaller role just as the coal and wood fired steam engine did.
The two big-ticket items to global warming are electricity generation and deforestation. 70% of the CO2 released in the US comes from our power plants. Half of worldwide global warming is the result of deforestation. Electric cars create a multiplier effect. We have to clean up our power generation to get a handle on global warming. Cleaning up a point source for electric power (a power plant) will be easier than cleaning up millions of point sources (today's internal combustion engines).
Hell, just burning bales of switch grass in a power plant to charge electric cars is many times more efficient than converting it to a liquid first and then burning that liquid in internal combustion engines. It would also be more carbon neutral and far less expensive--just one of many ideas on the table for cleaning up our point sources.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:08 am
25 May 2006
Oh but how great decider? The wondrous hydrogen economy?
No duuhbya it will have to be electric cars. With more infernal combustion forget it.
That leaves these kinds of batteries d. Will our fearless leader get those production lines humming. Not holding my breath.
Actually the new batteries cost much more, so prices will not come down, retrieving their premium price status? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
greenstork Posted 4:25 am
25 May 2006
The point is that electricity is highly fungible and if it's not used in Seattle, it will be sold and used eleswhere. There's never a situation where hydro power goes unused.
I see your point that cars running off electricity more effeciently use power than internal combustion engines and I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, power sources will have to improve region and nationwide before we see an overall impact on CO2 emissions. You can't make the claim that within your closed system in Seattle that you're helping overall CO2 because the system isn't in fact, closed.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:08 am
25 May 2006
Hydroelectric plants have reserve capacity just like most other plants to meet peak demands. More water is released in the mornings from places like Grand Coulee to meet higher demands of daylight hours. Less is released when the power is not needed. More water could be released at night to charge electric cars. Most power plants have a measure of reserve capacity to meet peak power demands. Using that unused capacity to charge cars at night would be ideal.
However, power sources will have to improve region and nationwide before we see an overall impact on CO2 emissions.
Your opinion is at odds with these studies that estimate plug-in electric cars would reduce CO2 emissions on average 36% to 65% (depending on assumptions) with our existing nationwide mix of power plants (here, and here). That last source has data from an actual plug-in and shows the math.
Note: The grid average emissions factor for electricity in this country is around 1.3 pounds per kwh.
(source)
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
Rob Posted 4:58 pm
02 Jun 2006
I find most amusing the corner you've backed yourself into regarding hydropower to support your electric plug in car. Hydro, along with timber industry and urban sprawl, decimate biodiversity in the northwest. An informed biologist would argue that hydro indeed has killed the Columbia ecosystem. Under extreme public pressure to mitigate impacts, hydro power producers have leveled the flow (in some watersheds most notably the Baker and Skagit Rivers). The hydro producers level the flow for the sake of salmon habitat, at the expense of power generation. Yet here you are advocating increasing ecological destruction in order to drive your hypothetical plug-in car:
>> Hydroelectric plants have reserve capacity just like most other plants to meet peak demands. >>
The ultimate irony would be your hypothetical plug-in car running on hydro-electric dam power with a "I'm pro biodivesity" bumper sticker. Have you gone entirely mad?
"It's energy lifecycle, stupid."
>>That last source has data from an actual plug-in and shows the math. >>
The data does not account for the lifecycle inputs that you harp on for biofuels. Fair is fair, your bias isn't flattering you, Biodee.
>>There are two main points to keep in mind on the subject of plug-in cars.>>
They have very little range, and become very inefficient over distance vs diesel engine.
The electricity comes from somewhere, most often C02 emitting fossil resources.
>>The two big-ticket items to global warming are electricity generation and deforestation.>>
By far, the largest contributor to CO2 emissions is transportation/vehicles. How can you be so far off from the basic facts in this argument, Biodee?
>>so I can bask in the warm glow of smug self-righteousness.>>
Obviously. As deluded as your bathroom mirror reflects.
As you learn more about the complexities of energy generation Biodee, you'll find much more in common with the biofuels advocates you continue to attack. For the sake of Grist readers, I hope your education happens sooner rather than later.
In the end, it all comes down to eliminating fossil fuels. Help stop global warming by using alternative fuels: http://www.propelbiofuels.com
Permalink
Rob Posted 5:33 pm
02 Jun 2006
Other than killing tens of thousands of fish and the ecosystems they support.
>>But, you would have ten thousand cars running around the next morning getting about 100 MPG equivalent gas mileage, producing no CO2 and using no imported or home grown liquid fuel (when in all electric mode).>>
As long as the cars never exceed 30 mph, and seriously, if your car commute never takes you over 30mph, shouldn't you walk or ride a (non-electric) bike?
How many dead fish per mile does that car of yours get, Bioidee?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:46 pm
02 Jun 2006
By restoring wetlands with excess flood water. Gates are created in the side of the rivers rather than damming them up. When flooding occurs, gates are opened and water flows into the wetlands. Power is generated by underwater rotors that look like windmills.
Aquifers depleted by agribizz farming and desert city water use (waste)are restored. And much more hydropower could be generated since the environmental objections to dams would not be a factor. Wildlife could swim at will through the system.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:40 am
03 Jun 2006
I get the sense that car fuel is politically important to consumers on the eve of bombing Iran. The media message is all about nuclear weapons of mass destruction (and not about killing Arabs and Persians for oil). The political metric does not seem centered on global warming mass extinction. Media and money corrupt sensibilities. And the band plays on...
Permalink
Rob Posted 5:06 pm
03 Jun 2006
Living in the theoretical is fun, but it doesn't solve any of our shared concerns. Opposing profits as a way to change business impacts is equally as ingorant as blaming warming oceans vs dams for the destruction of salmon.
Are the millions we spend subsidizing the Grant Business helping solve anything at all?
Offer a real world alternative to the rants and you'll get your head shot off (can the grant business survive if real solutions take hold?)
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:30 am
04 Jun 2006
My father spent a lifetime trying to remove dams from NW rivers. Now the news comes from my commercial fishing friends and relates to wild salmon in Alaska dying from heat. We have massive bird kills on the Washington and Oregon coasts.
Business grants usually favor big business in legislative districts. However, some grant programs also further propaganda, such as "we do not need imported oil" (therefore Mideast wars are NOT about killing for oil). I do not believe grants for biofuels are motivated by global warming. It is the propaganda, not the grants, that concern me.
Grants for biofuels are good. Grants for killing machines and fossil fuels are bad. But good-bad moral persuasion will not protect us.
There is a quick solution, a silver bullet, leadership that says, "Stop wasting oil driving big American SUVs with single passengers.".
Tax all fossil CO2 ramping up to $0.10 per pound ($2.80/gallon gasoline).
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:23 am
04 Jun 2006
That is a very interesting sentence, and I have no doubt you are right. It just strikes me, though, that for most Americans, the idea of having to conserve regarding driving habits is for some reason more daunting than conserving in the household use of electricity. It may be initially hard to get us into the habit of always turning off unnecessary lights and unplugging unused appliances, but I think in time, with enough reminders, it can be done.
The easier energy efficiency and conservation are made for us, the more likely we are to go along. Is it not true that almost all new refrigerators are significantly more efficient than older models? -- so consumers start to conserve whether or not they realize it.
Or is that too cynical, to argue that it will usually be necessary to get down on the ground with people's ignorance and laziness, and forget about appealing to their more lofty enlightened global sympathies?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:47 pm
04 Jun 2006
I signed up for the conteast/email news, hehey. Maybe I'll win.
http://www.dewalt.com/36v/
I bet I won't even get the news. It's amazing what happens to a great mew invention once american industry gets it's oily hands on it.
The Subaru lithium ion nano-phospate powered vehicle maybe the first release, predicted for 2010.
Meanwhile an interesting perspective on the new lithium ion technology.
"We're getting closer and closer to the day--probably just beyond the end of this decade--when one or more battery companies hit the right formula and lithium batteries for cars are produced in the millions. Engineers in those companies are like modern day alchemists, trying to turn base materials into gold. If they succeed, they could indeed be very rich."
"But the historical alchemists had deeper aspirations. They sought personal spiritual transformation. And the modern day battery alchemists also aspire to loftier goals: a world of personal mobility without auto pollution, global warming, and oil wars."
http://www.hybridcars.com/lithium-ion-hybrid-batteries.html
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Rob Posted 8:24 pm
05 Jun 2006
Commercial fishermen, dying species, heat.
You must have set this on a tee intentionally?
Or does the entire context escape you?
Permalink
Rob Posted 8:28 pm
05 Jun 2006
Big Auto and Big Oil have been spinning this yarn with press releases re Hydrogen cars for 20 years.
I believe we're past the point of dream solutions, and into the reality of applied solutions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:11 pm
05 Jun 2006
And they will allow natural carbon sinks to do their job unmolested by corporate fuel farming.
Clean, CO 2 free, renewable electric transportation.
Unless propagandizing for more fuel farming for more gas guzzling overcomes the necessary capital allocation for mass production of these new technologies combined with the old technologies of wind, water, and solar power.
Wasting scarce capital and tax dollars for agribizz fuel farming corporate welfare is counterproductive. It will bring on storm after drought after oil war. Oily empire with a 10% component of fuel farming agribizz empire. Same neocorpoRATS. Same infernal combustion and soaring prices for energy, that hurts real families.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink