« First Vehicles Painted with Ford’s New Three-Wet Process on the Road | Main | Omnitek Joint Venture in Thailand to Accelerate Conversions of Diesel to Natural Gas »
Argonne Assesses a Variety of Total Energy Cycle and Emissions Pathways for Plug-in Hybrids; Focus on Charge Depleting Mode
26 December 2007
 |
| Total energy values for different pathways and powertrains, with a focus on PHEV Charge Depleting mode. Click to enlarge. |
Researchers at the US Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory, which has the lead role in DOE efforts to evaluate plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and PHEV technology, recently compared US near term (to ~ 2015) alternative pathways for converting energy to light-duty vehicle kilometers of travel (VKT) in plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), hybrids (HEVs), a simulated fuel cell HEV and PHEV, and conventional vehicles (CVs).
The study was focused on identifying the pathway that provided the most vehicle kilometers from each of the five main feedstocks—oil, natural gas, coal, farmed trees and wind/solar renewable energy—assessed. The study, presented in a paper at EVS-23, calculated values for total energy, energy by fuel type, total greenhouse gases (GHGs), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), fine particulate (PM2.5) and sulfur oxides (SOx).
 |
| Greenhouse gas values for different pathways and powertrains, with a focus on PHEV Charge Depleting mode. Click to enlarge. |
Since the focus of the study was to determine what could be accomplished by offering a PHEV option as an addition to an HEV, the team highlighted the effects of CD [charge depleting] operation in this study.
This allows us to think in terms of the potential per kilometer effects of choosing batteries for PHEVs, in lieu of continued use of conventional petrol or natural-gas-fueled powertrains, petrol HEVs, E85 FFVs, or future use of E85 FFV HEVs, emerging clean diesel (CIDI) engines or fuel cell (FC) powertrains.
The team assumed a US compact-sized car, and used the GREET 1.7 fuel cycle model and the new GREET 2.7 vehicle cycle model as the foundation for the study. It also isolated the PHEV emissions contribution from varying kWh storage capability of battery packs in HEVs and PHEVs from ~16 to 64 km of charge depleting distance.
Among the findings of the study were:
More kilometers of service from coal are obtained by the use of coal-generated power to support PHEV CD mode than by converting coal to synthetic diesel (CTL) for use in diesel engines.
More kilometers of service from farmed trees are obtained by the conversion of the biomass to power to support the PHEV CD mode than by converting trees to ethanol for use in HEVs or PHEVs in charge sustaining mode.
For wind and solar, PHEV CD mode provides far more kilometers of service than the use of the renewable electricity in electrolysis to create hydrogen.
Biofuels do not look significantly better than coal-based options on a total energy basis, but do for greenhouse has emissions. Renewable energy options reduce GHG emissions by a factor of three or more, compared to the fossil-based options.
Thus, regardless of which abundant domestic fuel one would wish to use, use of the fuel to serve a PHEV in CD mode would provide more kilometers of service than competing options evaluated.
While we have here highlighted and isolated the effects of CD operation of a PHEV, we recognize that evaluations of the aggregate annual impacts, including CS [charge sustaining] operation, should be considered. Future research will endeavor to explore CD, CS, and annual average operations separately and jointly, and in more detail than discussed here. Finally, we concede that this study is limited, in terms of HEV and PHEV powertrain types investigated, and in the time interval considered. It also largely ignores the potential implications of regulations or taxes on carbon emissions. Nevertheless, it verifies the promise of PHEVs in the near-term, helping assure that research and development dedicated to the introduction and implementation of this technology is well founded.
Resources
L. Gaines, A. Burnham, A. Rousseau, D. Santini (2007) Sorting Through the Many Total-Energy-Cycle Pathways Possible with Early Plug-In Hybrids
December 26, 2007 in Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/24528692
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Argonne Assesses a Variety of Total Energy Cycle and Emissions Pathways for Plug-in Hybrids; Focus on Charge Depleting Mode:
Comments
Another flawed study. In a virtual world, wind and solar generated electricity produce less ghg . In a virtual world, wind and solar generated electricity can be separated from fossil generated electricity to charge batteries while ignoring that wind and solar are (and most likely always will be) an insignificant source of electricity in the US . In a virtual world, cars with a few hundred pounds of batteries will use less energy. The result is a flawed conclusion:
“Nevertheless, it verifies the promise of PHEVs in the near-term, helping assure that research and development dedicated to the introduction and implementation of this technology is well founded.”
There are some good reasons to research PHEV, AGW is not one of them.
Posted by: Kit P | Dec 26, 2007 4:40:17 PM
In the real world, wind and solar generated electricity produce less ghg (Wind < Nuclear < Solar << Gas < Coal). In the real world, wind and solar generated electricity are often separated from fossil generated electricity for a number of applications. Bear in mind wind and solar (and nuclear) could be a significant of electricity in the US (as wind is in Denmark and Nuclear is in France). In the real world, cars with regenerative braking use less energy and cars not using 25% efficient ICEs use less energy.
Global warming is one reason to favour PHEVs, except perhaps where the grid supply is predominantly coal generated. Reduction in local pollution and reduced dependence on oil are other reasons. Avoiding fuel tax is a good individual reason for motorists in Europe.
Posted by: Alex | Dec 26, 2007 4:59:33 PM
The ideal is power generated by solar light and heat with heat energy stored for use when the Sun's energy is not available. The ideal mode of transportation is long-range, quick-charge light-weight BEVs. All other forms of power generation and propulsion are interim to these two models and are the result of economic and political self interest. We should be making an all out effort to transition to Solar as soon as possible for that is the our energy destiny.
Posted by: Lad | Dec 26, 2007 5:56:11 PM
I'm always rather skeptical about anything coming out of Argonne Labs.
In particular, initially what I find a bit bizarre is how it says running a PHEV on coal electricity is worse than driving a conventional car in Greenhouse emissions.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Dec 26, 2007 6:02:50 PM
More specifically, I'm rather skeptical about anything based off of Michael Wang's GREET model.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Dec 26, 2007 6:07:40 PM
The Argonne folks are far from the first to realize that PHEVs, even powered from today's mostly coal grid, are cleaner GHG-wise than conventional cars.
The reason: the engine efficiencies. A "good " conventional internal combustion engine is maybe 20% efficient at converting fuel to motion (and most of them aren't that good).
An average electric engine, of the type you'd put in a PHEV, is 97% efficient at the same task.
So even using a fuel that's twice as dirty, you use so much less of it that the overall result is a cleaner car.
Again, this is neither new, previously unreported in the scientific press, nor rocket science. Be as skeptical as you want of Argonne, but the horribly inefficient internal combustion engine does indeed make coal PHEV's better than today's cars.
What to do about this fact is up to us.
Posted by: gasteau | Dec 26, 2007 8:57:30 PM
Give Kit P a break. It's not nice to make fun of the insane; it's not their fault that their neuroses force their conclusions regardless of facts or reason.
Then again, someone who needs help that badly shouldn't be wasting time here. Get thee to an asylum, go!
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Dec 26, 2007 10:29:37 PM
Sadly, these data are completely biased toward BEV, by assuming less efficient method of generating H2, and giving less efficiency for SI-HEV than actually achieved in real life.
Both BEV (battery electricity vehicle) and H2-vehicle will be needed to maximally exploit renewable energy.
BEV will represent small-size and short-range vehicle used for daily commute. BEV's are simple to produce and to maintain, and the small size and short range will keep the overall costs down to minimum.
Larger vehicles will be powered by hydrogen, or synthetic methane or liquid hydrocarbon, since the weight and cost of a large battery pack will be prohibiting.
There is a large seasonal mismatch between the rate of renewable energy production and energy demand. Summer produces a lot of solar energy, while spring and fall produces a lot of wind energy with respect to demand, while winter requires a lot of energy for heating and lighting with very low solar energy production. As such, there will be a need to produce H2 from the surplus solar or wind energy in one season, and to store it for the next season. Battery electricity alone cannot store a massive amount of energy to use in the next season. When we will have a massive amount of stored H2, then H2-vehicle will be practical to take advantage of the stored H2.
The same argument goes for nuclear energy, which is produced at a constant rate, while the demand for energy will be highest in the winter. As such, there will still be a need to store nuclear energy production as H2( hydrogen).
The waste heat of a gas-turbine power plant can be used toward high-temperature electrolysis of water for H2 production, thereby giving the electrical energy efficiency of wind electricity of up to 140%, vs. the efficiency of room-temp electrolysis at 75-85%. When solar energy is used, both heat and electricity can come directly from the sun. When combining this high level and high efficiency of H2 production, in combination with the likes of the Honda FCX Clarity having 3x the efficiency of a comparable gasoline vehicle, you will see that H2-Vehicles can have comparable overall efficiency with BEV's.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Dec 27, 2007 12:01:59 AM
Roger
The efficiency of electrolysis at room temperature is certainly not what you claim. High efficiency electrolysis can only obtained at very high temperature where the waste heat of a gas_turbine is of no help.
Honnestly, between a hydrogen econmy where you need to developp an infrastructure of multi trillion $US and that would result in doubling the energy consumption per mile, and a PHEV economy where you can use an existing infrastructure, that give a much better efficiency (at least twice as better), is totally flexfuel, that can use renewable input (wind, solar, biofuel, fossil fuel) and the technology already exist (hybrid car with bigger battery), does the question bteween H2 qnd PHEV really makes sense, isn't the choice already made?
Storage of energy using H2 is one of the most inefficient one, compressed air is better in that regard.
We don't need an H2 economy or civilisation, we need a sustainable energy civilisation or economy.
Posted by: Treehugger | Dec 27, 2007 1:52:09 AM
KitP, you are right that solar and wind power have in practise led to an increased use of coal and are not clean in that sense (in Germany there's growing opposition against wind because of this fact).
But you can couple bioenergy to solar and wind to provide baseload power and create an almost entirely green electricity infrastructure.
Moreover, if you couple CCS to bioenergy (so-called 'bio-energy with carbon storage') and couple this to intermittent wind and solar, you can even obtain a negative emissions electricity system.
Just think of what that means: the more you drive a biomass+solar/wind powered vehicle, the more CO2 you take out of the atmosphere!
This is pretty feasible and highly efficient.
Posted by: Jonas | Dec 27, 2007 6:08:32 AM
I'm getting increasingly annoyed with Roger Pham. He uses claims like "140% electric efficiency" without considering that a great deal of energy would have to be supplied as heat from fossil sources. Maybe he's just ignorant, but he presents himself as knowledgable.
Get a clue, Roger.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Dec 27, 2007 6:26:46 AM
It is encouraging that the company, NanoSolar just started shipping their mass-produced thin film solar panels. The company expects to reduce the price of the product to 99 cents per watt after production reaches critical mass. A this price point, the other forms of generation, including coal-fired plants will be too expensive to use and will no longer make economic sense.
Posted by: Lad | Dec 27, 2007 6:28:49 AM
Lad
Not so fast, Nanosolar hasn't proven anything at an industrial scale yet. We are not supposed to believe everthing they claim at this point. Iogen also claim that their cellulosic ethanol process works, but so far their pilot line only produces a quarter of their initial target. Also even if nanosolar succeed (which I truly wish) I am not convinced that individual solar electricity production will ever reach more than a few percent of our needs. (Germany has already spend quite some money in solar electricity and only produces 0.3 % of their electricity this way) The problem of intermitency of solar energy as well as poor efficiency conversion are quite a limiting factors. I personaly believe that the bulk of solar electricity will come from giant plans in sunny places like nevada desert using simple thermal conversion that are easily scalable and have 30% conversion efficiency and can handle the problem of intermitency using heat storage in big water tanks rather than semiconductor thin films with poor efficiency and offering limiting durability.
Posted by: Treehugger | Dec 27, 2007 7:12:32 AM
This Argonne study incorrectly uses LCA methods. Comparing different methods of making electricity is a valid use of LCA to provide information for policy makers. Comparing different methods of powering POV is a valid use of LCA to provide information for policy makers to serve the will of the public.
Here is the scam. Valid LCA must consider all the the environmental impacts and all of the public. Renewable energy is not benign. Presently the part of the public that lives in ugly cities want to pave the country side with solar panels and windmills. I little bit is interesting. However, before solar and wind pass 1% of energy generation; the environmental impact will be too much to tolerate.
It is interesting that Argonne included data on insignificant sources of electricity such as wind and solar but took this position:
“A notable decision was to leave nuclear power for PHEVs out of the set of options evaluated, due in part to the anticipation that too many issues need to be resolved to anticipate an expansion of nuclear power to provide services to PHEVs in the 2015 time frame.”
Power up rates at nuke plants are very significant compared wind and solar.
Posted by: Kit P | Dec 27, 2007 7:18:17 AM
This is a flawed study. For some reason they have ignored the least cost solution that is actually the course being followed by the world. It also results in the least cost and lowest CO2 emissions answer,betering solar-PHEVs. It is nuclear-PHEV.
We can already disscern what the future of Ground Transport and its energy sources will be at least in the USA,but also across the world. We are committed to a mixture of electrical energy generation of about 40% fission nuclear, 13-15% falling water, 40% coal and maybe 1% other renewables (wind, solar thermal, solar PV, geo-thermal, yada, yada, yada.) This is certain from from actual committed and on-order purchases of electrical generation plants, over the next decade and a half, and not some dreamy projection. This is in contrast to today's mix of almost 55-60% coal, 19% nuclear, 16% hydroelectric, a few percent gas and oil and a smidgeon, (well under 1% other "renewables") Nuclear increases, coal drops, and the others become a smaller proportion of the larger electrical supply. So-called renewables grow from next to nothing to a little more of nothing.
The fossil portion of the energy need, for Ground Transport, down from 99.9% today, to about 25-30% of present demand, will still come from liquid hydrocarbons. That conversion is comitted by the investments of automakers world-wide in infrastructure and manufacturing plants on order. These factories will build the combined fossil and electrical vehicles finishing design in their laboratories.
As much as 50% of that reduced hydrocarbon supply might come from "biofuels" but only as long as the subsidies continue, unabated.
As soon as the subsidies dry up, as was the case with Mr. Carter's uneconomic synfuels, the biofuels industry will likely also wither and dry up,as will some other exotic fossil projects.
It is just not cost effective.
Liquid hydrocarbons at the present rate of use, requires that lower quality reserves be mined/pumped ranging from regular oils, heavy oils, to oil sands, to oil shales and even coal-to-liquid, and then the bio-fuels of various kinds. At the margin, biofuels with lots of subsidy, can exist.
However, the liquid hydrocarbon demand will decline to a quarter or so of today's demand, with conversion of Ground Transport to electricity serving as a primary "fuel". It will do so by the late teens or early twenties. Then many marginal high cost liquid hydrocarbon sources will become increasingly uneconomic. To keep many projects alive will require a greater and greater economic drain unless very heavily subsidized by government fiat. The dimensions of the subsidy cannot long endure.
Even if there is a continued concern for CO2; and it is proved to be a valid concern, the absolute reduction in anthropogenic CO2 by conversion to partial electro-motive operation, will likely render the concerns moot.
But the Science of the 21st century, as is acknowledged by the UN's IPCC itself, is increasingly proving that the fears of the relatively primitive Science of the 1970's and 1980's is overrated and unfounded.
If you want to know what the products of tomorrow will look like, it pays to look at what is on order and beimg built in the factories of tommorrow, but which are themselves being ordered and built today.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Dec 27, 2007 9:36:14 AM
I believe leaving nuclear out of the mix is intentional. I for one do not agree with government sources that say a plane cannot penitrate the four foot concrete thick nuclear containment structure after seeing damage done to Pentagon (penetrating four stone veneer wings ((8 sides)) plus the internal walls etc.). I don't want any Chernobels in the U.S.
Posted by: JIMR | Dec 27, 2007 9:55:11 AM
The year is 2025 and your standing in a typical us city at night.
Everything is bathed in a green glow... comming from a towering set of windmills each covered in 1 million green leds and s mass of other colors to mark out a company logo.
The nearest behemoth sports a shell symbol 200 feet wide and at its base.. a tiny dot of light... a hydrogen fueling station with glowing green solar array on its roof... only required 50000 leds to light that... and a bunch of 20 foot tall glowing green obalisks with huge green H's glowing out so bright you can read by it 2 miles away. And no one argues no one complains because after all isnt it utterly completely green?
The city is happy as they no longer need streetlights. Shell is happy what h2 they do sell is the equice of selling the energy at 7 cents per kw.. and even when no sold as h2 its still sold.
Ah a bright green world.... cant you see it?
Posted by: wintermane | Dec 27, 2007 10:14:15 AM
Chernobyl wasn't caused by a plane...it was caused by faulty reactor design.
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 27, 2007 10:40:21 AM
Stan, for once you may have a point. Some estimates of remaining coal and oil reserves suggest that GHG emissions this century will be less than any published IPCC future scenario. However other reserves estimates suggest coal could push GHG levels ever higher leading to runaway warming. You may not believe it but the vast majority of climate scientists do. We could leave everything to the market and cross our fingers that we run out of coal before we completely stuff the climate or we could be prudent and take a little more control over our future. Given that undesirable changes are already happening I think its kind of obvious which way to go.
As for KitP's 1% renewable being "too much to tolerate" - only for the tiny minority with vested interests in keeping the status quo. Who do you work for again Kit??
Posted by: marcus | Dec 27, 2007 11:17:33 AM
Many more Up-to-date nuclear power plants are almost unavoidable in the future power mix.
France has done it for many years and there are no economical, ecological or technical reasons why USA, China, India, EU etc could not do the same and get 80% to 85% of their electrical power from nuclear.
Burning fossil fuels and biomass to produce electricity should be limited to contain GHG.
Of course, PHEVs and specially BEVs will become the most favoured vehicles much faster that we think.
We will all see the day when most NA homes will have one (1) PHEV + one (1) or two (2) BEVs and NO ICE vehicles. Small BEVs will be better and much cheaper than current ICE monsters.
London (England) will soon have many thousands e-charging stations installed across the city. Most will be on the same support structure as the parking meters. Two in One service, on your debit or credit card. Clean, simple and efficient. Just punch in the KWh required or push the 'fill it up' button; the machine will do the rest. It may or may not thnak you for using clean electricity to power your vehicle.
Posted by: Harvey D | Dec 27, 2007 12:23:12 PM
Patrick
Damaging the inside of a containment building, not being able to lower damaged control rods, pumping system damaged ,etc ,would have the same affect as Chernobyl.
Posted by: JIMR | Dec 27, 2007 12:51:15 PM
@ StanP: Isn't coal still quite a bit cheaper than nuclear, which, more than anything else was the reason nuclear wasn't popular for the last 3 decades in the US?
@ KitP: While nuclear will be part of the mix, the real question you raise is this: How do we store solar/wind/tidal/wave power for times when it is not shining/blowing/flowing, and what on-demand power generation is best for making up any shortfalls? Neither nuclear or coal can be turned on and off quickly if clouds blow over Nevada. I think natural gas is pretty favorable here. It is much cleaner than coal and utilities use natural gas cogeneration rigs to meet peak demand today. These are very modular as well. Yes, we probably need more LNG offshore terminals in the long run.
Another means of storing electricity being explored is vehicle-to-grid, which I find very suspicious, and believe would require a lot of intelligence in the system to make it worth the vehicle owner's while. I think it works best if an eestor ultra-superduper capacitor technology works for millions of discharge cycles, but we can not yet count on that (though it would be cool). The system for that might be charge your car during the day while you work, and live off of some of that charge at night. You probably only drive 30 miles a day anyway.
Posted by: | Dec 27, 2007 12:55:26 PM
DoE buttheads routinely exclude nuclear power from their insightful researches for a reason.
Current price of electricity generation on US nuclear power stations is about 1.8 cents per Kwh (from coal - around 3.5 cents and from NG around 8 cents). Off-peak nuclear electricity to power no less than 20% of all US car/light truck fleet (if it magically goes all-electric overnight) is available immediately, without upgrade of transmission system, with a generation price of 0.5 cents per Kwh. It is about 10 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent, delivered and taxed, with ample profit margin. And yes, carbon footprint 20 times less than from coal electricity.
Posted by: Andrey | Dec 27, 2007 1:04:45 PM
JIMR if it is so easy why do the terrorists blow up France's trains and not their nuclear plants?
Why didn't the terrorists attack a nuclear plant on 9/11 with one of their planes?
...and just how are you going to accomplish the damaging of the internals of a nuclear reactor? What numbers are you using (and software) to determine a plane could bring down a nuclear reactor?
Brazen, unsubstantiated fear is a large part of why there have been few nuclear power plants put into service in the US lately...high initial capitol investment is the other part.
Tell me, how many people died from 3 mile island? How many people have died mining uranium, storing waste material from a reactor or during operation of a reactor? The numbers for coal mines & power and other industries are astronomical in comparison to nuclear.
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 27, 2007 2:12:21 PM
Eng-Poet posted: "I'm getting increasingly annoyed with Roger Pham. He uses claims like "140% electric efficiency" without considering that a great deal of energy would have to be supplied as heat from fossil sources. Maybe he's just ignorant, but he presents himself as knowledgable."
Here's a clue for you, Eng-Poet: The gas turbine power plant of the future will be powered by HYDROGEN stored from excess summer solar or wind energy, and NOT necessarily from fossil fuel. Now, who is more knowledgeable?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Dec 27, 2007 2:35:24 PM
correcting Italic problem Testing...testing
Posted by: Roger Pham | Dec 27, 2007 2:36:44 PM
second try
Posted by: Roger Pham | Dec 27, 2007 2:38:02 PM
I am for nuclear power and think we should follow the lead of the French. We should not burn coal for any of our electric power.
Unfortunately there are risks. A 4' thick containment structure like on current power plants could be damaged or opened by a plane. It would be very hard to aim at the proper structure to hit especially at 400mph. A 757 would probably not do it but a 747 would. The wingbox is just too heavy and strong. But a 747 can do damage almost anywhere like a stadium, LNG facility or so many other places.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Dec 27, 2007 7:39:19 PM
Um the reason a plane can do damage to the pentagon is some idjit put 4 zillion windows in its gtrealomh outer wall... They have tested vs planes aloy since 9/11 and as long as ge doesnt go home and garden on us the plants are safe.
As for h2 electrolysis eff... it already passed 75% years ago and yes 85% WORKING units have been reported on this very site. As for heat assisyed versions... they might b e able to commercialize the lower temp versions they feveloped vut the plan so far is still to build some type 4 reactores and use thier high temp heat to belt out huge cheap h2 in BULK.
This is the simple inevitable way h2 will ramp..
Phase 1
Vost per mile 30-100 cents. Yatgeted customers.. extreme sports cars to suv.big trucks.
Codt of h2 at pump...around 15 bucks a kilo.. less per gallon equive.. Effective cost per mile...30-90 cents per mile.
Phase 2
target 15 cents per mile
Target group// cjeaer sports cars and subs and motr trucks.
cost of fuel...7.5 bucks a kilo.
Phase 3
Target 10 cents a mile.
Target group everyone.
Target fuel cost..5-6 bucks a kilo depending on fc milage...
Current stated goal of h2 cost at pump? 3.5 buks a kilo.
Current tech h2 ... 70 cents per for coal.. 270 per for ng and depending on energy cost... 180-420 a kilo for electrolysis via 3-7 cents per kqh electric.
Main current cost is equipment cost not energy cost and alot of progress in that area has been made so far.
See all that is needed for an economy to pop up is a resource cheaper then the product it makes.. and enough people willing to pay enough for that prodict. In this case.. we have a few billion car owners ahuge number of ways to make the product.. h2 cheap enough soon.
And rgus alot of money flows. Meanwhile ev.. deals is low low margin fuel source and in the end bargin bin cars... matve 1/10000 th the amount of money as h2 and thus 1/10000th the force behind it.
Posted by: wintermane | Dec 28, 2007 1:27:36 AM
Roger Pham: Please don't mind E-P's sarcastic and often caustic comments. It is his way to treat people who are not on the exact same wavelenght.
Luckily, most posters and humans are not like him. It would be a sad world with half a dozen E-P's and six billions slaves.
Back to the subject at hand...it seems more and more obvious that PHEVs + BEVs will be mass produced at an increasing rate between 2010 and 2020.
With over 40 worldwide battery packs manufacturers, there will be no shortages. Competition will bring battery price down very quickly.
Smaller, common sense, e-cars will eventually be much simpler, much more efficient and cheaper than current oversized ICE vehicles.
Lower cost BEVs will come from China, India, Brazil, Eastern Europe, Japan, Malaysia, etc. USA and Canada cannot compete in that area and are condemned to produce 3+ tonnes monsters for our oversized brain washed drivers. Since the latter compose almost 30% of our population, and is growing fast, that niche market wil be very important for GM, Ford and Chrysler's future.
Ten to fifteen years from now, the yearly local market may be for 3 to 5 million locally built monsters + 10 to 15 million imported PHEVs and BEVs.
Will the 1:3 ratio change with time (as the local drivers get bigger) or will PHEVs and BEVs accomodate them with larger e-vehicles?
I wouldn't worry too much about the extra clean electricity required. PHEVs and BEVs introduction will be progressive (over two+ decades) giving ample time to build 100+ new up-to-date nuclear power plants + wind farms + solar etc.
Interesting times ahead.
Posted by: Harvey D | Dec 28, 2007 9:01:42 AM
==The gas turbine power plant of the future will be powered by HYDROGEN stored from excess summer solar or wind energy==
If thats so.
Care to show us the system efficiency your hydrogen storag?
If you put in 100 MWh of electricity,
How many MWh of electricity would you get back out?
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Dec 28, 2007 9:06:21 AM
Hey, I've got an idea. Instead of electrolyzing hydrogen, why not use that excess summer sunlight-generated electricity to pump water up hill, then let it flow back down hill during the cloudy winter months and spin a hydro plant? I bet it would be more efficient.
Posted by: Roy | Dec 28, 2007 11:23:41 AM
GreyFlcn,
For higher efficiency, try Solid Oxide Fuel Cell/Electrolyzer (SOFC/E) for power generation AND H2 production when there will be an excess of electricity from wind or solar PV, for efficiency around 60-80% from H2 to electricity.
The SOFC/E works like a battery with nearly unlimited energy supply: H2 plus O2 in and electricity out, or electricity in plus H2O and H2 and O2 will be the products, depending on whether there will be a surplus of wind electricity or shortage of electricity.
Posted by: | Dec 28, 2007 1:50:17 PM
"For wind and solar, PHEV CD mode provides far more kilometers of service than the use of the renewable electricity in electrolysis to create hydrogen."
Maybe some people see solar electric hydrogen as part of the hydrogen highway and economy, this shows that it is not as efficient.
We seem to be trying to find practical ways to work with the vehicles that we have on the roads now, instead of hoping for a complete conversion in a short time.
I think that the situation may work out, if we stay on the path towards the solution instead of going forward and backward, depending on who is in office.
Posted by: sjc | Dec 28, 2007 2:04:44 PM
Continued from above,
so, assuming 70% SOFC efficiency in term of electricity generation of the SOFC/E, plus high-temp waste heat that can be used toward electrolysis , and for high-temp electrolysis with 140% electrical efficiency plus input waste heat from the SOFC, then you would be getting close to 90-100% efficiency from hydrogen to electricity and heat, and then electricity and heat to hydrogen again, with good insulation.
The question is then, why not just use the wind electricity directly, without going the circuitous route of SOFC/E. The issue here is that wind energy is highly unconstant, such that immediate back up source will be needed when the wind quickly abates, and that source to absorb the excess wind electricity will need to be at hand when the wind gusts to high speed. Also, there will be days in which there will be no wind at all. So, it is important to keep the SOFC/E hot and ready to go in respond the wind status, whether to produce more electricity, or absorb more electricity. Gas turbines takes a lot time to spool up and cannot respond quickly to the wind's fluctuation in output, so it must be running constantly to provide base load.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Dec 28, 2007 2:11:58 PM
"High temp waste heat"
And where does this heat come from? You have to heat the SOFC to produce the electricity or to produce the H2...so you are looking at the efficiency of the H2 conversion process without including the electricity used to heat the SOFC itself.
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 28, 2007 2:32:25 PM
140% electrical efficiency...okay, but what is the total system efficiency including heat input? Remember we are talking about a totally PV/Solar system here not a natural gas co-generation unit that has "waste heat".
If you use the solar radiation to heat the water for the electrolysis process, how much energy goes into heating the water that could have instead been used for direct electricity generation?
Posted by: Patrick | Dec 28, 2007 2:34:42 PM
Roy,
Pumped hydro has been proven more than 70% efficient for many decades. If you have the land and the vertical drop, it remains a very cost effective method of energy storage and one that I favor for practical nighttime renewable energy.
Posted by: sjc | Dec 28, 2007 4:19:30 PM
Roger: You greatly exaggerate the variability of wind power. As the installed base grows you will find the power produced averages out. If you put your windmills up into the jet stream the flow becomes much more reliable. There are solar systems that can generate power even at night (from stored heat). Wave systems are reliable. Short of a reasonable way to store hydrogen, it's only good for niche applications.
Posted by: Neil | Dec 28, 2007 11:03:55 PM
Patrick,
Concentrated solar thermal itself, per unit kwh of heat energy, is much cheaper than solar thermal electricity or solar PV electricity, per unit kwh. Solar thermal electricity requires a heat transfer fluid and a heat engine like a Sterling or steam turbine and a generator, all adding up to many times over the investment of a simple parabolic disk for concentrated solar heat.
Thus, surplus solar electricity from roof-top PV's can be routed thru the grid to be fed to the SOE (solid oxide electrolyzer) heated by concentrated solar heat to produce hydrogen at near the site of H2 storage or dispensing.
140% electrical energy efficiency is very good for the high-temp electrolysis process, since the electrical energy is expensive to obtain. The extra solar heat or waste heat from a gas turbine power plant is dirt-cheap in comparison, and thus will bring the total energy cost of H2 production down.
Remember, since solar energy and wind energy are free, total system efficiency would be irrelevant! The cost of solar collector and wind turbines are getting cheaper and cheaper as more wide-spread implementation will take place.
The total cost of H2 production from renewable energy vs. the total cost of Battery Electricity, taking into account the amortization cost of the battery itself, would be more relevant!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Dec 29, 2007 1:00:12 AM
Um the reason h2 is moving along so fast is....
1 the power company wants to replace its massively expensive jet turbines with something far cheaper. These are the spot load kings and cost bloody tons to operate so ya h2 is CHEAPER.
The power company also wants to get ready to replace nat gas as it ALSO hits peak soon and will rocket up in price... Finalyqindfarms and solar stations and such want h2 because belive it or not they dont actualy sell thier variable capacity.. they sell thier base cap and then maybe manage to sell some of the rest in the spot market... Thus h2 means more money. Finaly the coal power side of things has a lovely new trick... its new super super plant makes h2. Thats how it works... and that h2 is CHEAP. Obh abd then there is nuke power.. under 2 cent per kwh operating cost now.. and new plants are even cheaper to run.. and amazingly amazing.. the type 4 reactor will make even cheaper power AND a metric oodle of h2.. very very cheap h2.
Its dirt simple folks h2 is getting cheaper and more abundant every month and even without cars in the loop its gona be BIG snf vheap.. and with those 2 features cars are sure to follow. How cheap? We dont know... cheaper then today is good enough. How abundant? we cant say.. but the trend is VERY ABUNDANT.
I mean realy look at the current trend... DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Posted by: wintermane | Dec 29, 2007 4:49:21 AM
Roger: I don't know how often you've tried to fly the "cost of hydrogen vs the cost of batteries" canard. That duck doesn't fly for anyone that has an IQ over 50 and thinks about it for more than two seconds. How about the cost of hydrogen vs. the cost of electricity and the cost of batteries vs. the cost of fuel cells? That's the true comparison.
Posted by: Neil | Dec 29, 2007 11:49:42 AM
I still haven't gotten an answer on Hydrogen Storage.
If you put 100 MWh of electricity in, how many MWh of electricity do you get out.
(Also 140% efficiency wtf? Second law of thermodynamics please?)
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Dec 29, 2007 12:33:42 PM
Oj grey ill explain..
In thermi assisted electrolysis a good part of the energy needed comes not from electric power but from heat. Thus rvrn tho h2 packs 36 kwh of energy per kilo you instead get 1/4 kilos of h2 for that much electricity.
As for the heat... they use the heat from a typr 4 reactor or from anything how enough.. and STILL manage to generate as much electric power as before.. thus h2 production AND more electric power ALL doe the same amount of nuke fuel as used to make alot less electric power and NO h2. win win win.
NOW the cool thing isyou can then take that 1.4 kilos of h2 and cram it into an 80 eff stationary fuel cell abd get 112 % of the electricity you put in comming back out.
But thats not why the power company loves it... see jet turbines are used for spot power needs and gas turbines for peak needs... many of the spot power sources cost MORE then a buck a kilowatt.. but you cram cheap excess nuke power and all the excess variable wind solar wave power into that sucker and you generate cheap h2 you can sell for a solid profit AND still have tons left to fire both gas turbines and jet turbines thus saving HUGE amounts of loot. And they MIGHT be avle to even replace that jet turbine with a set of fuel cells wich would require far far far FAAAAAAR less maintenance then the jet turbines and do a better job AND not cost the company MILLIONS in pollution fines abd dont make noise and dont explode if yiu dont tear em apart and onspect/ repair em after nearly every use...
Posted by: wintermane | Dec 30, 2007 2:54:58 AM
Wintermane, peaking power isn't expensive because of turbine cost. Jet turbines are dirt cheap. The problem is you have to amortize the cost over very few hours of operation.
Fuel cells make this problem much, much worse because the upfront cost is very high. Amortizing that high upfront cost over minimal operating hours is a recipe for financial disaster.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Dec 30, 2007 8:26:19 AM
However, before solar and wind pass 1% of energy generation; the environmental impact will be too much to tolerate.
As a side note, my numbers say wind is very near 1% of US electricity mix today. Doesn't sound like much, but a continuation of 30% growth rates put it at 10% by 2016 and 100% by 2025. The latter obviously won't happen, but people who dismiss wind simply aren't doing the math.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Dec 30, 2007 8:39:57 AM
Well I didnt realy listen carefully as I was bussy eating mint chocolate fudge oreo icecream at the time and the people talking were bloody boring.. but the power company guy stated clearly that h2 and fuel cells was a garanteed done deal as soon as enough h2 was around to handle it. And that they were making sure that would be soon.
My gwnweal view is ill let the boring people fight it out and enjoy whatever the heck pops out the other side.. tho personaly I want a h2 car simply so I can scream oh the humanity if one blows up on the news or youtube . That and a fuell cell is just cooler then a battery and for once I want something cool to pop out of those boring behemoths factories.
Posted by: wintermane | Dec 30, 2007 9:37:29 AM
About new car fuel, check this out.
- Solid biofuel vehicle solutions.
www.precer.com
I have been looking for alternative hybrid car
solutions for a while and while searching I found
this company in Europe who has developed a new
solid biofuel powered vehicle technology that sounds
like what we all have been waiting for.
They have a new vehicle called BioRacer and are
developing their technolgy for other vehicles also.
Have a look at www.precer.com
There are alot of writing about the company in different
newspapers and also on television in Sweden.
They have alot of different links to the articles and
what 2 different Swedish televison companies has made
about this company, you can see the vehicle drive in
these links.
I really like what they are doing, so please check it
out. I will try to get more information.
John
Posted by: John Holland | Dec 31, 2007 10:57:59 AM
Reading this has been a real hoot. About the only things I know for sure are:
1: that the electric utility industry is, generally speaking, semi-orgamistic over the growth potential of PHEV's/BEV's.
and
2: that DoE really (in economic reality terms) stands for the Department of Electricity.
What I don't know for certain is what will dominate electric generation plants in the future and/or how much distributed generation there will be. At present, natural gas dominates new centralized power plants and distributed generation is shrinking at least in CHP.
As for the merits of GREET, I believe it is on the right track in that the model is relatively transparent, as opposed to EIA's "NEMS" used for DoE's appliance efficiency programs. However, more should be done with GREET. For one, sensitivity/risk analyses.
What if carbon capture & sequestering doesn't pan out?
I'd also like to see a breakout of where the reductions comne from. For example, what are the savings relative to smaller, lighter and more aerodynamic vehicles as opposed to the efficiency of the fuels themselves?
Posted by: Mark | Jan 2, 2008 9:28:03 AM
