OK, so assuming it takes zero energy to build 180M plug-ins, it might be possible to show a 5% CO2 drop -- COMPARED TO BUSINESS AS USUAL if those cars stay all-petroleum, where BAU is defined as ever more miles driven by ever more people.

Moreover, this just perpetuates the problem of shifting outputs from visible criteria (regulated) pollutants to invisible nonregulated ones--the kind of thing that led Gregg Easterbrook down the garden path to believing that the environment was getting better and better even as it was coming closer to the abyss.

We have to stop having these discussions refer to unspecified comparisons (which are really to BAU).  Everything needs to be referenced to what the best science can tell us must happen to avoid the worst calamities:  75% reduction in absolute CO2e.

To get this measly 5% reduction (against BAU-- which means probably no net reduction in reality) would, nevertheless, soak up immense pools of capital that we need to be putting into mass transit and relocalization efforts to ELIMINATE TRAVEL AS AN ESSENTIAL FEATURE OF DAILY LIFE.  That's the only way we're going to get there.

The point is not that PHEV's are the answer to our prayers, but that PHEVs, wind, solar, and (maybe) biofuels work together much better than any one element by itself.  PHEVs can provide the vital service (storage) that renewables need, in a product that people will actually want - PHEVs will, generally speaking, already be far more fuel-efficient even on liquid fuels, and will save further by running mostly on electricity.

And you definitely don't need to sell me on efforts to reduce the role of cars in the North American lifestyle.  But there are 200 million cars already.  Even if we halve that amount -- which is unrealistically draconian, especially considering future population growth -- we've still got 100 million cars, and something useful for them to do.

The distributed storage that PHEV's represent could actually help relocalization, couldn't it?

Big batteries and ultra capacitors will not make solar and wind power cheaper... dispatchable and useful -- yes, cheaper -- no.  Solar (and maybe wind) are already cheaper than fossil fuels w/o subsidies.  

The transition will not happen until the existing coal and oil machines are broken beyond repair, or not until the existing fuels become extraordinarily expensive.

Not an economist, but I suspect sunflower's right about costs.  One general question:  The cost (in terms of $/kwh) of solar and wind currently needs to take in to account intermittency, and the reality that some electrons will never make it to the grid.  Some watts will be produced at times when the grid can't handle it.

Assuming the storage exists, wouldn't that lower the price marginally, as renewables would be able to operate until the storage was full?

Obviously, not a huge price decline.  But wind is already profitable vs coal and natural gas in Texas and other states.

Solar and wind power will not have the impact that air conditioners have until after some $50 billion.  The load on the grid changes all the time.  Changing loads change fuel burn rates at power plants, and spinning carbon plants come on & off line.  Solar and wind power are not "all or nothing" propositions.  The target is carbon reduction.

Solar energy is cheaper than fossil fuels for much more diverse markets than just electricity, such as displacing carbon fuels for heat, hot water, cooling, industrial process heat (huge), and something weirdly called "repowering" where solar collectors displace fuels at power plants with boiler preheat systems.

The public head-in-hand manner of replacing infrastructure with look-a-like alternatives is nuts.   I see it in Cassandra's soy meals that are made to look and taste like meat, in my Prius gear shift knob (just a computer switch) that looks and feels like a mechanical gear shift lever, in ethanol that looks and burns like gasoline, in solar energy that looks and acts like power from coal, in electric motorcycles that have sound generators to sound like internal combustion engines, in Christmas trees that look like Pagan trees...

You mean, the Christian custom of cutting down an evergreen tree in December and putting it in one's house has a pagan origin?  OK, sure enough.  But what symbolism did those old Germanic types assign to those trees, I wonder?

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

From my dim memory, the Pagans left the decorated trees living in the forests.  

The Christians adopted the solstice celebration so that the new religion had a look-a-like flavor of a very old and established tradition.

Perhaps someone can eliminate two concerns I have or direct me to a suitable source of information.

I'm very skeptical about the advantages of electric cars drawing power from the grid.

(1) How do transmission and distribution losses of electricity, which are about 7%, fit into the equation? If a power plant depended on natural gas, for example, would it not be better to power cars directly with natural gas or some derivative of natural gas? What about coal? Would it not be more efficient to convert coal to a fuel that can be used for cars? It seems there is too much faith in the notion that the bulk of our electricity will be coming from wind and photovoltaics and that we will produce enough to offset transmission losses.

(2) Depending on a few power grids is a serious threat to national security. I view distributed power generation as one of the major advantages of wind and photovoltaics, especially if the energy can be stored in some way. We would be in a better position to withstand and recover from a terrorist attack, natural disaster, manipulation of the market, or simple ineptitude. Gee... what are the odds of 3 or 4 of these occuring under a single U.S. Presidential?

Already dependent on a few power grids that might be brought down by a determined individual or natural event, do we really want our tranportation system also dependent on those grids?

Right now I'm trying to imagine evacuation of an area severely damaged by a large storm... not only is the power out, not only are radio stations off line, not only are there delays in getting help to the people, but FEMA forgets to make sure the vehicles necessary for evacuation are fully charged and tries to save money by not have extra energy storage capacity available.

We all talk about what we (or they) should do, like what we think or blog will make any difference.  In reality people will do whatever it takes to get the job done, and to hell with the externalities.

I do not believe the real threat is a natural disaster, terrorism, or grid collapse.  

Why do we travel?  Mostly for social interaction, entertainment, jobs, and because we can.  All those reasons may change long before the oil runs dry and the climate tips over.  We are facing a dollar collapse (the China delegation), a war with Iran (oil surplus dollars have tripled since 2002), and emerging problems still in the dark.  The self destruction of the global consumer economy is certainly one possible delay for the global warming problem.

The more likely threat comes from old age, leaving the young with a real mess.  Survival will dominate what the young people do.  I have a few more years to leave some pearls of experiences.  In the end, it is up to the young to organize for survival.  In your cash-short world, there will be many carpools in old clunkers, more passengers using mass transit, and much less travel.

In a stable unchanging world wiscidea is correct to question the thermal dynamics of power plants used for transportation.  It runs contrary to shutting these monsters down. Natural gas will be replaced by coal and coal is burned more efficiently at power plants than oil made from coal burned in cars.

Solving this problem of fueling cars is another example of solving a problem with something that looks like what we have become accustomed to.

1) Does an electric vehicle save emissions? Yes - even with our current grid. For every 100 units of fossil fuel burned on our grid you get back 36 units of electricity - even after transmission losses. (And this is strictly for fossil fuel output, and does not include hydro and nuclear).  Now part of that generations is coal that puts out 20% more carbon that oil. But part is natural gas that puts out about 20% less than oil. And part of course is nuclear that has much lower carbon emissions (though with lots of other problems), and hydro which is in dispute. After you put that electricity into a battery and take in out again you transform about 70% to 75% into mechanical energy. So between 25 and 27 units of mechanical power for each 100 units of fossil fuel you burn in a power plant, probably a bit more because of the low carbon sources in the mix.

With a gasoline IC engine you only get about 15 units of mechanical energy  for each 100 units of fuel. A hyrid can boost this to 20% at most. So running directly off the battery gives you almost double the efficiency of a normal gasoline engine, and about 25%+ more than a hybrid.  A non-hybrid diesel can match this. But of course as we lower the carbon cotent of the grid you get much bigger improvements. For example, if natural gas and wind were substituted for all of the coal, running off battery would halve the emissions compared to a hybrid.

>also, cars would last longer since so many mechanical parts wouldn't be required and once we get large scale wind & solar we could get even bigger emissions reduction.

Especially if we did a Hypercars - either aggressive or true EV. In either case we can reduce moving parts in the car to around twenty. Also add ultralight carbon-fiber/kevlar composite bodies and reduce emission further. Even if solar or wind electricity costs much more than gasoline or diesel does today, Hypercars will use that electricity so efficiently they will still cost no more to run that conventional cars do today, probably less.

I forgot about the feedback loop that makes automobiles even more efficient once you get rid of the gasoline powered engine.

Paul Hawkins describes this quite well in one of his books. Lighter motor... lighter car... reduced material for steering and braking mechanisms... further lighter car... requires less power... further smaller engine... more interior space... reduces overall size of automobile... room for better safety devices...  improved performance... less maintanence... reduced cost... et cetera.

Thanks for the morale boost.

>Paul Hawkins describes this quite well in one of his books. Lighter motor... lighter car... reduced material for steering and braking mechanisms... further lighter car... requires less power... further smaller engine... more interior space... reduces overall size of automobile... room for better safety devices...  improved performance... less maintanence... reduced cost... et cetera.

Natural Capitalism perhaps? And it even works for hybrid gasoline powered Hypercars. The original idea behind the hybrid Hypercar was that 100% of the power was electrical. It is just that most of the electricity came from a small gasoline engine. Because he gasoline engine is used only to drive the electric motor (never for direct drive), you would use a very small engine and a very small gas tank. So you still had the reduction in parts, light weight, all the feedback cycles you mentioned.

On the other hand, you still have the bottleneck of that IC gasoline engine. While you have huge gains from reducing weight and wind resistance,you still are not going to get more than 20% of the heat value of gasoline as mechanical energy from a gas IC engine. (And even that 20% is an improvement over the 15% limit you have with direct drive.)