If you haven't already heard, yesterday saw the release of an important new report:
In the most comprehensive environmental assessment of electric transportation to date, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are examining the greenhouse gas emissions and air quality impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). The purpose of the program is to evaluate the nationwide environmental impacts of potentially large numbers of PHEVs over a time period of 2000 to 2050. The year 2000 is assumed to be the first year PHEVs would become available in the U.S. market, while 2050 would allow the technology sufficient time to fully penetrate the U.S. vehicle fleet.
Briefly, the study found that no matter what electricity generation profile you assume -- i.e., no matter how much coal is involved -- a large-scale shift to PHEVs would drastically reduce oil imports and GHG emissions.
The results are written up in, among other places, the L.A. Times and the San Fran Chronicle. Here's a capsule summary:
Scientists ... used computer models to simulate what would happen to emissions. They tested different scenarios based on how quickly Americans embraced the new hybrids and what type of energy -- clean or dirty -- was used by utilities.
The study found that if 60 percent of Americans shifted to plug-in hybrids by 2050, it would lead to an increase in electricity usage of 7 to 8 percent -- a relatively small increase, indicating that hybrids would not necessarily require a surge of new power plant construction. Plug-in hybrids are charged mostly at night, when demand for electricity is low.
At the same time, the report estimates that electric hybrids would displace the need for 3 million to 4 million barrels of oil per day by 2050, more than twice what the United States imports each day from Saudi Arabia.
Researchers also found that plug-in hybrids reduced greenhouse gases no matter what energy source was used to produce the electricity, whether coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, wind or solar. Electric hybrids generated 40 to 65 percent less greenhouse gas than gas-fueled vehicles and 7 to 46 percent less than conventional hybrids.
Plug-in hybrids also would slightly lower air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and smog-forming ozone in most regions, the study found. But emissions of particulate matter could rise because of the increased burning of coal.
Good to see momentum building behind one of the few climate change solutions that's an unambiguous positive.
Make the kids pay: The economic effects of climate change on future generations
Comments
View as Flat
JMG Posted 5:36 am
20 Jul 2007
Every dollar spent on private autos and highways is a dollar not spent on rail, transit, making bicycling work, and on redesigning urban centers to replace mobility with accessibility.
Electric vehicles are just another way to use the enemy of the human race -- coal -- to power cars. Making those cars requires a ginormous amount of energy before they've even moved a mile, and they ride on petroleum-based tires (about a barrel in every tire, if I recall correctly). The roads are made of concrete (7% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions) and asphalt (more petroleum).
By 2050 we need to be making about 15% of the greenhouse gases we make today, not increasing them. So a "7 or 8" percent increase represents about 600% too much emissions.
The reduction from reduced transportation emissions is nice -- but it's only about half of the needed reduction, and it means that we're still committed to dangerous climate destabilization.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
TomCasten Posted 5:37 am
20 Jul 2007
First, there are other unambiguously positive solutions that are not being deployed in a remotely optimal fashion, and they do not require any new technology.
Second, all of us should expend more brain cells demanding "unambiguously positive solutions" to climate mitigation. The "lazy" environmentalist that pushes for all possible renewable energy deployment with no regard for cost needs to think harder to find sources of clean power that are also cost effective, and not assume the world optimally produces energy services, beacuse it does not. The "lazy" business person or economist that objects to all government programs to reduce GHG emissions because "these actions will damage the economy", needs to think harder to learn about clean energy sources that benefit the economy, and learn why those sources are not being optimally deployed. All citizens should join in non-partisan efforts to deploy double bottom line solutions to climate change.
Finally, the largest opportunity for "unambiguously positive solutions" is to recycle currently wasted energy. US industry vents energy streams that could generate nearly 10% of US power with no fuel and no incremental pollution. Contrast this with the 2.6% of US power generated in 2005 from renewables, exclusing hydroelectricity. Why not chase industrial waste energy recycling with the same vigor we are chasing renewable energy. Bill McKibben wonders if the problem is that there aren't any folk songs about heat recovery.
The energy waste in U.S. electricity generation and delivery is even greater. The US monopoly-dominated grid delivers only 33% of input energy as electricity and wastes the other 2/3's. This dismal efficiency has not improved in nearly 50 years. Ouch! By building all new power plants next to thermal users and recycling this presently wasted heat, the US could eliminate burning 13 quads of fuel per year -- 13% of the current 100 quads used by the entire economy.
We wrote in a new book* that recycling the current industrial and electric energy waste would save 17 quads of fuel and would, "reduce energy costs by $70 billion per year and cut U.S. fossil fuel use from 85.7 quads (in 2004) to 68.7 quads, roughly a 20% drop in fossil fuel and in associated CO2 greenhouse gas emissions."
Recycling waste energy, by halving the net fossil fuel used to generate electrity, would double the emissions impact of plug-in electric hybrid automobiles, and would reduce the cost of electricity for recharging -- a double double win.
David, happily there are other "unambiguously positive solutions;" society will benefit from rapid deployment of all double bottom line sollutions.
*"Energy and American Society -- Thirteen Myths", Springer, ed Marilyn Brown and Benjamin Sovocool
Tom Casten
Chairman, Recycled Energy Development LLC
Tom Casten, Chair, Recycled Energy Development LLC
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:43 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
DrColes Posted 5:53 am
20 Jul 2007
http://www.inteliorg.com/archive/FireandIce.pdf
In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:59 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:00 am
20 Jul 2007
Remember solar power cheaper than grid? That was another one that would "rule" if only it would come true ...
This is really a key distinction, because while we can hope for "inventions to be named later," we should really base our fail-safe plan on things proven already.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:00 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:01 am
20 Jul 2007
Remember that real-world populations (Japan, California) have reduced net gasoline usage.
Theory is good, but when practice does better, I'll take it!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:08 am
20 Jul 2007
There is, in certain quarters, a tendency to reject unambiguous positives because they are not other, better unambiguous positives. I don't favor that approach.
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:08 am
20 Jul 2007
Well, actually, more like, the same page on the statistical abstract shows fuel consumption, and fuel consumption went from 70 billion gallons for cars in 1990 to 76 billion in 2004, but for SUVs/light trucks went from 36 billion to 63 billion! So the total went from 106 billion to 139 billion, a 24% increase. Perhaps you know better why California and Japan were different
Permalink
gmunger Posted 6:12 am
20 Jul 2007
Three Kunstlerisms come to mind:
-We cannot go on pretending we can perpetuate the "happy motoring utopia".
-We simply have to make other arrangements.
-It's time to put down your ipods and get busy.
Oh, and about the Red Queen? She is actually human population growth.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 6:54 am
20 Jul 2007
>Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles will rule in those fractions of possible futures where battery makers fulfill their promises.
http://www.nilar.com/
I talked to Nilar this afternoon. They can sell low impedance batteries that will take 2,000 deep cycles or 350,000 shallow discharge cycles, combinations scaling. Incidentally, real world cases with NiMH batteries in hybrid cars support the 2,000 deep cycle case. Of course there are all sort of batteries coming down the line that will offer comparable or better performance for best. But you could build a reasonably priced PHEV with $1,000 per kwh batteries. I expect Cobasys prices would be significantly higher, but they are in the East, and thus unreachable this late on a Friday afternoon. So maybe they are the same.
Note that this is current production, not true mass production prices. Also nickel hit a peak recently with speculators caught buying 80% of contracts to corner the market. Still I'm not neccesarily saying NiMH is the long term future of batteries. But there seems to be enough resources around for it to serve as a transitional technology until one of the many other promising techniques matures and drops below it in price.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:24 am
20 Jul 2007
BioFuels on the other hand, in their worst case scenario, they make coal and oil look benign.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:51 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:00 am
20 Jul 2007
I am just careful to distinguish between what I wish and what I have.
I have a Prius, at a $22-23K base versus the average new car price of $27-28K, it is already cheap and effective.
I worry that these articles about what "rules" might put people off the proven solutions we have today.
Gar, how many khw do you need for a 3000 pound PHEV? And what does that cost (per vehicle?) today?
Feel free to also list promised prices for tomorrow, they are fun, even though I can't count those eggs before they are hatched.
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:02 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:04 am
20 Jul 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 10:59 am
20 Jul 2007
In terms of what a plugin hybrid would run. You would want to make it a plugin hypercar -- ultralight construction with carbon fiber. You can make a carbon fiber body for around $7,000 -- more than a steel car body, but not that much more. This is because the material cost are higher, but you can use less carbon fiber than steel, and you can make the body in once piece, already colored, saving a LOT of labor. The Solectria sunrises demonstrated a 250 mile range with a 30 kWh battery. So a 65 mile range (which would cover about 90% of miles driven) would require about 8 kWh of storage. So manu cost would be about $15,000 for body and batteries. If this was a true serial hybrid (with engine used only to charge battery) that would be about 85% of the cost of building the car. No gears -- use axle motor, put more less power into them. Run the wheels in reverse for braking. (Add a capacitor for regenerative braking). Since the engine would only be used to drive an alternator to charge the battery, it could run at single speed -- so that engine could be really efficient as well. Make the body aerodynamic to cut wind resistance. (You have lots of choices of shape in aerodynamic bodies.) Basically this would be a plug in hybrid hypercar. When running off our current grid it would have emissions comparable to a 90 mpg gasoline powered car. (Obviously if the grid was renewable the emissions would be close to , but not at zero running off the grid.) Running on gasoline, tt would get about 75 mpg if it was designed as a small but comfortable 4 passenger vehicle, probably about 65 mpg for a midsize or sedan. Because of all the parts you are leaving out the cost would be similar to, perhaps a bit less than, a Prius or a Civic, depending upon size and features.
One caveat here. I'm assuming $10 a pound for carbon fiber, which was the price until recently. It has shot up to $20 per pound due to demand by aerospace industry. But this is pretty universally agreed to be a blip. There is no shortage of the raw materials for carbon fiber. It is a supply and demand issue, and we can expect supply to grow to catch up with the market not being served that was perfectly profitable at $10 per pound.
As I said I don't think NiMH is the future of the PHEV. But it is the only battery you can buy today with the right number cycles and appropriate cost for this price range. If I were designing a PHEV in that price range, I'd make sure my battery management system had programmable paremeters so I could slip in any battery. That way I could use NimH as long as that was the best choice, then switch to LiON or whatever proved to be the breakthrough as soon as it was tested.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:02 am
20 Jul 2007
If Nickel prices drop, if NiMH are truly mass produced, and if carbon fiber improvements lead to prices in $3.00-$5.00 per pound range many expect, then you would end up with a plug-in hyper-vehicle that was comparable or lower in cost than a conventional car to make.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:58 pm
20 Jul 2007
All: when I say "unambiguous positive," I mean, "makes some (not all) things better; doesn't make anything worse." I do not mean, "leaps directly to the world we greens envision."
There is, in certain quarters, a tendency to reject unambiguous positives because they are not other, better unambiguous positives. I don't favor that approach.
Fair enough, except for one thing -- your "makes some things better while making none worse" ignores the time element. Half steps that consume a lot of time and only invite MORE resources to be committed to maintenance of the status quo do, in fact, make things worse, because they consume time.
Time is the one irreplaceable resource.
Time spent fooling with faith healers instead of in chemo is lost--you don't get to say "Oh, ok, that didn't work, let's rewind and get back to the initial diagnosis and try a better approach."
Time spent dithering with placebos means that the disease goes unchecked and makes later, successful interventions less likely.
The tobacco industry sold low tar cigarettes in exactly the same way. It's simply human nature to prefer alternatives that look as much like the present as possible (at least for those of us who enjoy affluent lives in the present).
But awareness of our natural human desire for "unambiguously positive" steps must not blind us to the twin pincers of limited time and limited other resources.
We need to aggressively pursue solutions that plausibly might BE solutions, not those that even proponents admit cannot be. Because there's no getting the lost years back that we waste fooling around with biofuel powered plug-in hybrids and other shiny wondertoys.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 4:19 pm
20 Jul 2007
Do you have any thoughts on the cost of converting body-making and assembly plants from working with steel bodies to carbon fiber? Although the actual production may end up being much simpler, the logistics would presumably be very different. Given the industry's high level of automation, I'd imagine that there would be considerable costs in reconfiguring assembly lines, putting in place new robots, etc.
I'm not all that familiar with carbon fiber production so was also wondering how the material lends itself to high levels of mass production vis a vis steel bodies. In the past automakers have shied away from fiberglass bodies because, while they can be cheaper for low-volume cars (think Corvette), they haven't been as well suited to high-volume production. Any thoughts?
Permalink
odograph Posted 10:37 pm
20 Jul 2007
And I'll be quick to say that I'm making a political observation, not an engineering one. We have a "value network" built up around heavy cars passing very specific sort of crash tests. To get your safety stars, you've got to take a side impact from an SUV.
I wish it was different, but it is not.
And while we're on ultra-lights, remember that 1950's technology ultra-lights can be fun and get 100 mpg at the same time. The just can't do it while being California legal. Maybe some of you in other states can get them.
Now back to price ... and what would be legal in today's market (US or California) ... did anyone touch that with a 10 foot pole?
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:07 am
21 Jul 2007
Also the all Electric Selecria Sunrise was expected to meet safety requirements and sell for other 20K to 30K back in 1997. (Of course at the time nickel was cheap; the 30 kWh battery could have been mass produced much more cheaply than you could today.) One third or one fourth the batteries, even with a four gallon gas tank and charging engine ought to come it at a comparable or lower price today. I don't think there is any doubt you could produce a safe, street legal, PHEV hypercar for around the cost of a Prius today.
Permalink
Steven T Posted 4:08 pm
21 Jul 2007
I'm not suggesting that your proposed vehicle can't be done, particularly by a low-volume niche automaker like Tesla. But if you expect this technology to go mass market there will need to be a realistic roadmap toward achieving it.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:00 am
22 Jul 2007
I'm sure there will be innovations to make cars lighter. We will have to wait and see what the market finds for us. As Odo wisely pointed out, declaring a given technology a winner before it actually wins anything is a mistake, one that Lovins has been guilty of more than once.
On the subject of batteries. NIMH batteries now cost more than Lithium Ion batteries. This quote is from a site that sells battery packs:
These packs were getting increasingly affordable in 2005 and early 2006, and seemed to offer a good compromise between weight, dependability, and price. However, towards the end of 2006 and early 2007, the price of Nickel, Cadmium, and other raw materials skyrocketed and NiMH based packs became even more expensive than lithium batteries.
Lithium production from brine is expanding rapidly and known reserves are huge. This is an example of what happens when one tries to predict the future of technology and why one should be ready to let go of a favorite idea when it does not pan out.
Still I'm not neccesarily saying NiMH is the long term future of batteries. But there seems to be enough resources around for it to serve as a transitional technology until one of the many other promising techniques matures and drops below it in price.
It is becoming increasingly unlikely that NIMH batteries are going to be used to make the next generation of electric assisted vehicles.
Also keep in mind that the Tesla takes four or five hours to charge and has a range of about 250 miles, depending on speed and other factors. It can't compete in price, range, or cargo capacity with a $13,000 Scion. The Tesla is a high status toy for the very rich the way the Delorian was (stainless steel body panels). The Corvette, another fancy sports car, also used non metallic panels, but so did the Saturn cars. It is not breaking new ground, it is just connecting half a ton of lithium batteries to an electric motor.
An engineer recently spent half a million dollars putting ten giant hydrogen storage tanks in his backyard to prove the feasibility of a solar hydrogen powered home. However, in the end, his project disproved his hypothesis that solar to hydrogen is feasible now, or in the near future. Likewise, the Tesla actually disproves the hypothesis that an all electric car is feasible now, or will be in the near future.
The Tesla is essentially another (very expensive) around town electric vehicle. It has a very short leash and taking it on a 125 mile trip out of town would be asking for trouble.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:58 am
22 Jul 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:15 am
22 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 9:14 am
22 Jul 2007
My Prius cost $22.4K.
You are proposing a $10K increase.
FWIW, I think the $10K delta tallies with what the add-on folks are doing ... but I think we are seeing why (combined with battery availability issues) the manufacturers are not leaping for it.
;-), this is on the verge of turning into a "if you're smart why aren't you rich" situation. If YOU think $33K will have the market appeal ... go for it. Others are trying, as we speak.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:42 am
22 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:47 pm
22 Jul 2007
A similar argument can made on converting a Prius to PHEV. You are taking a car that already has a battery, either replacing that battery or adding a second -- bought at retail. You are modifying an existing car in an autoshop instead of designing it and making a PHEV at the factory. Buy an existing gasoline car and modify it to run on diesel and I'll bet it will cost you a lot more than buying a mass produced car designed as a diesel. For that matter make diesel cars in limited runs of 100, with your own body design, and I'll bet that will cost you more than a mass produced diesel.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:52 pm
22 Jul 2007
Part of the problem is huge price increases for the raw materials that plants are made from, including copper and nickel, which is what makes steel stainless. But the cost of finishing those commodities into components is also rising.
''There's a lack of production and manufacturing facilities in this country, and that may be partly to blame,'' said Jason Makansi, a consultant with Pearl Street, a consulting firm in St. Louis that specializes in electric utilities. But, he said, ''the bigger culprit is the incredible demand in China and the rest of Asia.''
''Basically everything is being sent over that way.''
A result of demand in China and India, he said, is that ''Duke and others want to build a new power plant based on inexpensive coal, but the capital cost to build that plant is doubling before they even put a shovel in the ground.''
And other kinds of projects that use similar materials, everything from oil refineries to natural gas terminals, are competing for the same materials and labor, experts said
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:28 am
23 Jul 2007
greencarcongress.com/2007/02/sdchemie_to_inv.html#c60221820
From the selling price of the Dewalt pack ($169) we can estimate that 1kWh of the A123 battery cost about $2400. This is competitive for powertools and e-bikes but it needs to drop to about $1200 to be competitive for use in HEVs (the current NiMh cost about $1200 /kWh but they are heavier and more space demanding than lithium). [...] For the battery price to be competitive for a mass market for PHEVs I believe that the price must hit about $600 /kWh or lower so that a 8 kWh pack would cost about $5000 per vehicle.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 12:37 am
23 Jul 2007
Which tests were those, Gar?
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:52 am
23 Jul 2007
There is nothing "limited" about this, and that is the crux of the problem. The plug-in folks are applying mass-produced batteries, in a quick installation. Where are the costs, in their "custom" work or the mass-produced batteries themselves?
I get that you are meaning to reassure us Gar, that the market "could" just make an inexpensive Plug-In Hybrid ... but I don't think that is where we as environmentalists (or what's Friedman's old word .. geo-greens?) should be looking.
We have a handful of choices in the 40+ mpg range.
We can choose them today. Did you hear that the Prius is the best selling car in Silicon Valley right now? I guess I'm part of that same demographic ... a little bit techie, a little bit green ..
And aware that (1) we have what we need now, and (2) we can always move to even better solutions later.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:50 am
23 Jul 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:07 am
23 Jul 2007
And why not? That's the way the electric/electronic industry works.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:02 am
23 Jul 2007
I just witnessed the video of our own car passing the FMVSS-305 50-mph rear crash test. (Gasoline cars must pass FMVSS-302. Plug-in hybrids probably have to pass both.) This is a brutal crash. A giant "truck" slams into the back of the car at 50 mph, crawls all over it, and basically destroys everything in the back of the car. After the crash, the car is not allowed to leak any flammables (even when inverted), and no hazardous electrical shorts are allowed. Has anybody done this test for a Prius (and every other conversion) where a high-power battery pack has been installed in the trunk? I can guarantee that the spare tire well of a Prius (where A123 installs its supplemental battery pack) is going to be squashed by this test. Who takes on the liability for these cars? http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/index.php?p=49&
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:08 pm
23 Jul 2007
Next, you clipped out this part:
A123 have said that they can compete with the price of NiMh for use in HEV. At this time A123 should have enough volume production of their batteries to know that they can sell it for $1200/kWh and still be profitable.
and then there was this part:
So it is indeed wonderful news that the production of nanotech coated LiFePO4 is increasing at this speed. Recall that production was practically zero when Dewalt introduced these cells in its powertools back in November, 2005. What an achievement.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:50 pm
23 Jul 2007
That is a special electrolyte-spillage test that does not measure acceleration-forces on crash dummies. This is the comment that Gar was responding-to:
I think it's an open question if carbon fiber (or other ultra-light) cars are ever going to pass our US safety laws.
This is crash-testing:
iihs.org/ratings
safercar.gov/pages/ResourcesLinksBSC.htm
Apparently, the Tesla Roadster has undergone no such crash-testing.
Permalink
sje333 Posted 3:18 am
24 Jul 2007
Has anyone else read the full report? Another major flaw I see is that the worst-case coal scenario assumes CO2 emissions per kWh will be reduced by 30% by 2050! Their WORST-CASE scenario assumes widescale implementation of CO2 sequestration!
Permalink
sje333 Posted 3:20 am
24 Jul 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:54 am
24 Jul 2007
... Not long ago, four hand-built Roadsters were taken to Germany and systematically destroyed. The crash tests were done by Siemens, the company that made the air bags for the Lotus Elise. Siemens had such liability concerns about Tesla's using its air bags, Elon Musk admits, that the only way to allay them was to have Siemens do the crash tests itself. So far, the results are encouraging. "We've already passed the tests we were most afraid of," Musk says. Now his engineers will take what they learned from those crash tests, plus the torture-track tests, tweak the Roadster a bit more, call that design final, and build a few more of those cars to crash.
OK not the U.S. crash test, but a crash test nonetheless. And I really have not heard anyone doubting the Tesla will be able to pass the U.S. crash test. Carbon fiber body, titantium cage -- why wouldn't it?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:57 am
24 Jul 2007
"Will"? What makes you think the Tesla Roadster will ever be crash tested?
Gar Lipow wrote: titantium cage
Tesla Motors does not seem to know anything about a titanium cage.
google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.teslamotors.com+titanium
Zero hits.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:21 am
24 Jul 2007
It's been crash tested in Germany. What makes you think it won't be crashed tested in the U.S.?
As to the titantium -- I could swear I saw something about some titantium reinforcement, but I must have misremembered.
Permalink