« Sanyo Introducing Li-Ion Bike with Regenerative Braking | Main | EPA: US Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2006 Decreased 1.5% from Prior Year; Transportation Accounts for 27% of Total GHG, 33% of CO2 »
CalCars Weighs In on GM Series/Toyota Parallel PHEV Debate
7 March 2008
Guest piece by Ron Gremban, CalCars
GM and Toyota have been taking public shots at each other, each claiming that their plug-in hybrid (PHEV) technology—not yet brought to market—is the best, and implying that the other's plans are poorly thought out, to say the least.
We at CalCars, if anything, are thrilled to see the two biggest automakers in the world touting their upcoming PHEV wares and paying significant attention to each other's. But what is the science behind the dispute? What follows is a discussion that is aimed at engineers, but we think will be quite informative also to non-technical audiences. Thanks to Dr. Andy Frank of UC Davis and Efficient Drivetrains Inc. for his helpful review and comments.
A preview of my conclusion: It turns out that different battery sizes have different optimum PHEV architectures, and each company’s claims are basically accurate, but only for its vehicle’s battery size. Since each type of PHEV has its own advantages, disadvantages, costs, and optimum driving regimes, our expectation is that during the first few years—maybe a decade—of PHEV production, all types of PHEVs will compete well in the marketplace.
Then, eventually—as batteries become a cheaper, longer-life, commodity item, liquid fuels become more dear, renewable electricity generation proliferates, and CO2 emissions are increasingly targeted—the PHEVs with the most EV power and range will come to dominate.
First, let’s establish what, in our opinion, are the most important characteristics of a PHEV. Though PHEV technology can improve overall powertrain efficiency, decrease criteria emissions, provide full zero-emissions capabilities part of the time, etc.—and other technologies can and ought to be used to significantly reduce vehicle mass and drag—the most profound capability of any PHEV is its ability to displace some of the vehicle’s consumption of liquid fuel (usually gasoline) with stored electricity from the grid, and to do so without introducing new overall vehicle limitations (e.g. the high cost, extra weight, and range limitations of pure EVs).
It is this fuel displacement from which all the most important advantages of PHEVs arise: dramatically reduced oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, low enough liquid fuel consumption that biofuels may someday fully substitute for fossil fuels, and energy storage that can eventually enable increased deployment of intermittent renewable electric generation from sources such as wind. Therefore, the very most important measure of a PHEV is the extent of its ability to displace liquid fuels, to do so during normal US driving cycles, and to do so cost effectively. All else is frosting on the cake.
When we look at “normal US driving cycles”, there are several areas of general agreement. The average mileage driven per day is around 30 miles. There is a curve available showing percentage of daily driving vs. distance. Though there is a continuum, driving is broken down into city and highway driving; standard drive cycles, UDDS (a city driving cycle) and HWY, have been designed to emulate each. These standard cycles are obsolete and grossly underestimate required vehicle energy and capabilities, but are used as the basis of all EPA and CARB testing anyway. The US06 combined drive cycle is a much more realistic standard cycle.
Since the first standards for testing and measurement of PHEV performance are still being written, general references to these three standard cycles that the upcoming SAE J1711 standards will reference are our best bet for measuring and comparing PHEV performance. Dr. Andy Frank suggests that a new “Annual Driving Cycle” be designed to model annual electricity and gasoline usage, but for now that doesn’t exist.
There are series hybrids, where the internal combustion engine (ICE) drives only a generator; parallel hybrids, where both the ICE and electric motor are always connected to the wheels; and power-split or series/parallel hybrids, where either the motor or the ICE or both drive the wheels at various times.
Though the Chevy Volt is presented as a series PHEV, and the Toyota Prius (as well as the 2-mode Saturn Vue, too!) is power-split, the specific architecture is actually fairly irrelevant to the main issue that GM and Toyota are addressing. Incidentally, my calculations lead me to believe that the inherent efficiencies of each of the architectures are close enough to each other that the quality of engineering that goes into each vehicle is more likely than the architecture chosen to determine overall vehicle efficiency.
Though the details can vary and/or the mode distinctions blur, all plug-in hybrids basically have a charge-depletion mode and a charge-sustaining mode. After a grid charge, the charge-depletion mode is activated first, during which time as much of the vehicle’s propulsion energy as possible is pulled from the battery, while as little liquid fuel as possible is used. If this charge-depletion mode is 100% electric, the vehicle is considered a “pure-EV PHEV”, otherwise, it is a “blended-mode PHEV”. Once the battery is discharged to its target depth-of-discharge (DOD), the battery’s state-of-charge (SOC) is maintained at this level and the vehicle functions in charge-sustaining mode, just as an ordinary hybrid.
A PHEV can either have some pure EV range, be “blended mode”, or, of course, employ some combination of the two. For example, a PHEV may start out with some pure EV range. Near the end of that range, the ICE may be started more and more often, providing some blended-mode driving before full DOD, at which time the vehicle shifts to charge-sustaining mode. Or charge-sustaining mode may consist of alternating periods of pure EV driving and significant ICE power, causing the SOC to vary rather than stay steady at maximum DOD.
Also, there are various kinds and degrees of power blending. A PHEV may be able to drive purely electrically only up to a specific speed, such as the 34 mph/55 kph limit imposed by the hybrid system on converted Prii. Also, only limited electric propulsion power may be available, like the 21 kW limit also imposed on converted Prii by the hybrid system.
The extent of a blended-mode PHEV’s blending is expressed as a “Utility Factor” that is a percentage of the wheel energy that is not supplied by the ICE. A vehicle’s Utility Factor can be quantified over each of the standard drive cycles talked about above. Its “Effective EV Range” is its depletion-mode range multiplied by its Utility Factor, which is conceptually the EV range it would have if its depletion mode were pure EV.
A PHEV with pure EV range has a Utility Factor of 100% and an Effective EV Range equal to its real EV range. Of course, this is also complicated by the fact that Utility Factor and Effective EV Range can each be very different when measured using each of the three standard driving cycles. In general, both parameters will be highest on the UDDS cycle and lowest on US06.
Another measure of a PHEV’s capability&madsh;in some ways even more useful than Effective EV Range—is the usable capacity of its battery pack in kilowatt-hours or kWh, as this indicates how much energy is available after each charge to displace liquid fuel. A 12.5 kWh battery pack, allowed to charge fully but discharge only to 80% DOD, will have 10 kWh usable capacity.
Since a gallon of gasoline holds about 33 kWh of heat energy and the most efficient hybrid drivetrains approach 30% efficiency, 10 kWh of usable battery capacity can potentially displace a gallon of gasoline after each (often <$1.00) grid charge, or up to 365 gallons/year when the vehicle is charged every night and driven to the end of depletion mode every day. However, a PHEV whose battery is regularly not fully depleted between charges is leaving money on the table (the battery could have been smaller and less expensive), and a PHEV that is regularly driven significantly beyond charge depletion mode into charge sustaining mode could potentially gain from having a larger battery.
What we want, of course, is, on the average, the most displacement of liquid fuels for the least incremental cost over that of a standard ICE propulsion system. Motor, power electronics, and ICE costs are all fairly proportional to maximum power output. Battery cost, which for now dominates PHEV costs, is set by energy storage capacity, maximum input/output power, and cycle life, which is itself dependent on maximum DOD and other factors.
As everyone else does (but without acknowledging it), we will ignore the fact that until PHEVs become ubiquitous, people who buy and drive PHEVs will in general be those whose driving regimes are most suited to them, meaning that generalizations based on average US driving patterns will, possibly greatly, underestimate the amounts of liquid fuels likely to actually be displaced by a particular model of PHEV.
Now we can finally get to the meat of the matter. GM’s Volt is reportedly capable of driving all three standard cycles, including the US06, purely electrically. GM states, accurately no doubt, that a PHEV that cannot do that is really a blended-mode PHEV, with one or more engine starts during most people’s normal driving. The company goes on to say that only a PHEV with 40 miles of pure EV range (which it calls an Extended Range EV or ER-EV) can obtain maximum PHEV benefits. Toyota, who admits that its prototype Prius PHEVs are blended-mode, does not disagree but says that pure EV PHEVs are too expensive and not cost-effective.
Let’s look at two PHEVs, as much like a Volt and a possible Prius PHEV as I can estimate based on public data (but both, for ease of calculation, with a 250 Wh/mile US06 power requirement at the wheels) and estimate US06 performance. Note, as we explain below, that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, since the battery capacity is different:
| Parameter | Volt-like | Prius-like | (%Volt) | 4 kWh Volt | (%Prius) | 8 kWh Prius | (%Volt) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum EV speed (mph) | 100 | 62 | (62%) | 100 | (161%) | 62 | (62%) |
| Maximum EV/battery power (kW) | 100 | 50 | (50%) | 100 | (200%) | 50 | 50% |
| Battery size (kWh) | 16 | 5.2 A | 5.2 | 16 | |||
| Max. DOD (%) | 50 | 77 | 77 | 50 | |||
| Usable capacity (kWh) | 8 | 4 | (50%) | 4 | (100%) | 8 | (100%) |
| Max power/Usable capacity (C) | 6.25 | 6.25 | (100%) | 12.5 | (200%) | 3.13 | (50%) |
| Effective EV range (mi) | 32 B | 16 | (50%) | 16 | (100%) | 32 | (100%) |
| Utility factor (%) | 100 | 67 | (67%) | 100 | (149%) | 67 | (67%) |
| Est. cold start/warmup fuel (gal) | 0.05 C | 0.05 C | 0.05 C | 0.05 C | |||
| Max. liq. fuel saved/charge (gal) | 0.80 | 0.35 D | (44%) | 0.4 | (114%) | 0.75 D | (94%) |
| 12 mi: liq. fuel displaced (kWh/gal) | 3/0.3 | 2/0.15 | (50%) | 2/0.2 | (133%) | 2/0.15 | (50%) |
| 12 mi: displaced/useful-kWh | 0.038 | 0.38 | (100%) | 0.05 | (133%) | 0.019 | (50%) |
| 12 mi: % power from ICE (%) | 0 | 33 D | 0 | (0%) | 33 D | ||
| 24 mi: liq. fuel displaced (kWh/gal) | 6/0.6 | 4/0.35 | (58%) | 4/0.35 | (100%) | 4/0.35 | (58%) |
| 24 mi: displaced/useful-kWh | 0.075 | 0.088 | (117%) | 0.088 | (100%) | 0.044 | (58%) |
| 24 mi: % power from ICE (%) | 0 | 33 E | 33 E | (100%) | 33 D | ||
| 32 mi: liq. fuel displaced (kWh/gal) | 8/0.8 | 4/0.35 | (44%) | 4/0.35 | (100%) | 5.4/0.49 | (61%) |
| 32 mi: displaced/useful-kWh | 0.1 | 0.088 | (88%) | 0.088 | (100%) | 0.062 | (61%) |
| 32 mi: % power from ICE (%) | 0 E | 47 D | 47 D | (100%) | 33 | ||
| 48 mi: liq. fuel displaced (kWh/gal) | 8/0.75 | 4/0.35 | (47%) | 4/0.35 | (100%) | 8/0.75 | (100%) |
| 48 mi: displaced/useful-kWh | 0.094 | 0.088 | (94%) | 0.088 | (100%) | 0.094 | (100%) |
| 48 mi: % power from ICE (%) | 33 D | 67 D | 67 D | (100%) | 33 E | ||
| A 2x Toyota’s NiMH PHEV prototypes B The Volt’s advertised 40 mi range is on the UDDS, not the US06, cycle! C Much more in cold weather, though not indicated in rest of chart D Always a cold start E Max depletion-mode range | |||||||
Note that, just as GM claims, the Volt-like PHEV’s ICE remains unused for average daily driving, making the PHEV’s benefits very often perfect: no cold ICE starts, no liquid fuel use, and no ICE emissions when daily use does not exceed 32 mi. On the other hand, though it never displaces liquid fuel 100%, the Prius-like PHEV provides approximately as much fuel displacement per usable battery capacity (88-117%) as the Volt-like PHEV.
A Volt-like PHEV with a Prius-sized battery could do a better on daily driving distances up to 16 miles, but at a high cost of double the relative battery power requirements: 12.5C vs. 6.25C. And Prius-like PHEV with a Volt-sized battery would make poor use of the battery capacity below a daily driving range of 48 miles, 160% of the 30 mile US average. This means that different battery sizes have different optimum PHEV architectures, and each company’s claims are basically accurate, but only for its vehicle’s battery size.
Toyota claims that blended PHEVs like its 2.5 kWh-capacity prototype Prius PHEVs provide more liquid fuel displacement per battery capacity and power than those like the Volt that have pure EV range, that a blended-mode PHEV’s motor and electronics can cost less, and that the battery pack may see an easier and therefore a longer life. What the chart above shows is that Toyota’s claim of more displacement per battery capacity is true only for PHEVs with EV range less than the US daily average driving distance of 30 miles. What a blended-mode system can do, with only proportional disadvantage, is allow the proportional scaling down of battery and electronics power requirements for vehicles, like Toyota’s Prius PHEV prototypes, with Effective EV Range of less than 30 miles.
Dr. Andy Frank states that the GM and Toyota cost arguments are not very meaningful at this stage because of unsteady costs due to low volume production of all parts, especially the batteries.
In conclusion, it is clear that PHEVs with pure EV range of at least the average US daily driving range of 30 miles can displace the most liquid fuel, as well as have other advantages like zero tailpipe emissions in normal daily driving. However, these examples do bear out Toyota’s claims that the relative power requirements of blended-mode PHEV batteries can be much less than for pure EV PHEVs—but only for PHEVs with very short Effective EV Range. On the other hand, Toyota’s claim of better utilization of expensive battery resources can be true, too.
What neither company has stated is that it is following its quickest and least expensive way to build its first PHEVs by taking advantage of its own existing hybrid and/or EV technologies and tooling. For each to do this is highly desirable for all of us. Since each type of PHEV has its own advantages, disadvantages, costs, and optimum driving regimes, our expectation is that during the first few years—maybe a decade—of PHEV production, all types of PHEVs will compete well in the marketplace. Then, eventually—as batteries become a cheaper, longer-life, commodity item, liquid fuels become more dear, renewable electricity generation proliferates, and CO2 emissions are increasingly targeted—the PHEVs with the most EV power and range will come to dominate.
There is no doubt that it will be completely dominated by the cost of oil. Remember that the cost of oil doubled in the last five years and it will double again in less than five years and double again in even less time! So we can reach $20/gallon in the time frame that these guys are arguing over. At that time (6 to 8 years from now) it means an SUV 30 gallon tank will cost $600! This costs will make all this nit-picking costs argument seem insignificant! I agree that at this time, let the big guys argue about who is better or more cost effective, we need to focus on what is good for the people on earth as the cost of fossil fuel rises.
That is the main reason for the PHEV! To displace fossil fuel with electricity that can be generated from a plethora of sources including renewables at a very high efficiency with low to zero emissions!
The Oil companies will eventually throw their wishes into the pot as well soon. And I think they will be much more vocal because they have the money! This may be where we should be bracing ourselves! The [recent] USA today article [inaccurately claiming PHEVs cause higher emissions] is an example!
—Dr. Andy Frank
March 7, 2008 in Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (69) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/26896112
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CalCars Weighs In on GM Series/Toyota Parallel PHEV Debate:
Comments
During "live green day" at my school (SUNY geneseo), there was an engineer from GM that was talking mostly about fuel cells, but also provided incredible insight on other subjects, including the two-mode hybrid and the volt. It wasn't until I talked to him that I really understood the genious of the volt.
One of the reasons why ICEs are so innefficent is because they rarely run at their peak efficency. With the volt, because the wheels are completely run by electricty through the batteries, the engine is free to run at whatever efficency is optimal for it. Not only that, but what kind of engine you put on it doesn't matter, so you can for example put a gasoline engine for the US, a diesel for europe, an ethanol engine for Brazil, or even a fuel cell without needing to change anything with the drive train, which makes it an enormously flexible platform.
Posted by: Dan A | Mar 7, 2008 4:50:28 PM
Go with the BYD EV/series/parallel design and do not worry about it.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 7, 2008 4:50:36 PM
This is all a waste of time and $. There is NO definitive proof behind global warming - no pure science. The climate change "science" is based on taking a slice of data, extrapolating it, analyzing it with statistics and drawing conclusions - the scientific method can't be used as it can for instance, to prove the freezing point of water. And, people who know statistics know that anyone can lie with statistics - which casts even more of a doubt on global warming. We don't need spin, we don't need guilt or a feel good populist movement that slanders the opposition - we need 100% energy independence for our national security.
Posted by: ejj | Mar 7, 2008 5:20:24 PM
You may not believe that GW is real, but tight oil markets are real. If you do not think so, just go down to your local gas station and look at the prices.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 7, 2008 5:33:59 PM
I first thought of a series hybrid 36 years ago. I'm sure others conceived of various forms of them before then.
5 or 6 years ago I started publishing on the web a concept of a PHEV with a constant speed auxiliary generator. It amazes me that no auto builder has produced such a vehicle. Mitsubishi showed a concept a few years back but didn't market it.
Posted by: Lucas | Mar 7, 2008 5:40:06 PM
I wonder if Ron Gremban has a spreadsheet or model that would help evaluate the pro/cons of each approach while varying the cost of petroleum, batteries, electricity, and distribution of miles driven per re-charge.
Posted by: Mike Z. | Mar 7, 2008 5:53:56 PM
ejj
Clearly, you did not understand a word of this article. You don't get energy independence by continuing to depend on oil.
Posted by: Tom Street | Mar 7, 2008 7:19:26 PM
technical superiority is a fairly unimportant aspect of either of these cars.
99% of buyers will just want to feel good about what they drive. for this reason alone, the Volt is the superior concept:
it is easier to explain to Hollywood stars and retiring hippies. it runs on batteries until the batteries are low, then the generator turns on and you can drive as far as you want.
try explaining how the Prius works in one sentence.
Posted by: vboring | Mar 7, 2008 7:22:44 PM
While it's true that oil prices have doubled recently, a fair amount of that is due to the slide in the dollar. This slide has significant impact on other aspects of economic activity, foreign trade in particular. US consumers are increasingly less able to afford imports, especially from Europe. At the same time, the US is now considered a low-wage location for manufacturing. Increased productivity in the real economy will strengthen the US dollar again, though it will take years for the effect to show.
Add to that efforts to replace dependence on expensive imported oil with domestic energy sources - both fossil and renewable - and you end up with a rather complex dynamic. And if all else fails, there's always the option of replacing recalcitrant governments in oil-producing countries with pliable dictators in the name of "global security", neocon fantasies of "bringing democracy" be damned. Been there, done that.
Extrapolating the recent rise in oil prices such that gasoline in the US will cost $20/gallon in 8 years' time strikes my as overly simplistic. Building a business case for PHEVs and E-REVs based on such an extrapolation may be downright reckeless.
Dr. Frank's engineering analysis sounds very plausible, but perhaps he should steer clear of the dismal science.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Mar 7, 2008 7:45:23 PM
The US does not manufacture much battery making ingredients. So is it better to import battery materials or fuel?
Auto emissions are not the major problem. The February issue of Diesel Progress has an article about the Port of Los Angles and Port of Long Beach. “The POLA and the POLB are considered the busiest cargo seaports in the US., handling 40% of the country’s container cargo.” It also states the 25% of the basins air pollution in from the port drayage trucks.
Posted by: Ed Danzer | Mar 7, 2008 8:14:38 PM
A bit off topic, but does anyone know what AC Propulsion is up to with their EBox? I can't help but think that if they can sell them at a profit for $70K, with their low volumes, then if they paired with a big manufacturer they could produce them much more cheaply.
The debate seems to be around GM's and Toyota's PHEV's but one of these other companies could produce a comparably priced BEV and surprise them all.
Posted by: MarkMC | Mar 7, 2008 10:04:35 PM
Hi Ed...Agree with you about the pollution from ships. What diseases we allowed to take place inside the lungs & hearts of citizens near port facilities, while the money makers put away lots of cash gained from plying the seas on bunker oil is despicable.
However, that fact does not decrease our vile disregard for lung & heart disease rates of children who play, live & school near freeways. Surely, we decreased muchly pollution from autos. The less known recent health statistics show auto pollution hasn't been decreased enough.
Posted by: litesong | Mar 7, 2008 10:14:15 PM
I think the smog in Long Beach just settles there overnight from all over LA, when the winds die down after dark. I remember often seeing it just hanging there in the low areas after dawn. And everything near Long Beach gets covered in a layer of black dust that other areas of LA don't get - I presumed coal dust.
Posted by: MarkMC | Mar 7, 2008 11:08:01 PM
It's unfortunate that this excellent analysis was spoiled at the end by such an extreme and unsupportable projection on oil/gas prices. Is it heading up; sure. But I refuse to believe that his projections are sustainable; demand will be too dented to support that price level so soon.
Posted by: pauln | Mar 7, 2008 11:26:58 PM
It seems to me that PHEV manufacturers should be targeting Europe where gasoline is already $10 per gallon, and where average daily driving distances are less than in the USA.
Also, why are GM and Toyota both going for a completely new car. Wouldn't it make sense to offer a Series Hybrid drive option on existing models.
If GM / Opel / Vauxhall offered the Corsa say, with 4 x 20 KW hub motors, a 6KWhr battery pack, and a 500cc range extender, this would make a great second car for town drives.
Posted by: Alex | Mar 8, 2008 4:22:09 AM
Excellent article and comparison table. Of course, the table could have been extended for many more pages but would the results have changed.
Displacing maximum liquid fuel at minimum cost is the real objective but a tall order. It may require much more than the selection of the best suited PHEV architecture.
Vehicle size, weight, aerodynamic, tire rolling resitance, accessories efficiency, ESSU type and size, hood and rooftop solar cells, driver's ability, road condition, traffic load etc should also be considered.
Basically, series PHEVs, maximized overall design with a super-cap/battery pack combo (or an ESStor unit) tuned to your daily driving range should be simpler and cheaper in most cases. Toyota may have difficulties justifying it's more complex approach when ESSUs price go down.
Those of us with more resources (or with longer commuting distances) should have the choice to select a larger ESSU thereby extending their EV range, but at an extra cost. That's what one has to pay to live in the country.
Of course, those of us with larger families will have to invest more for a larger vehicle and larger ESSU. Family allowances and tax credits are designed to help with those extras.
Posted by: Harvey D | Mar 8, 2008 5:05:42 AM
"The PHEVs with the most EV power and range will come to dominate"
Hmm, maybe Ron. I perceive that part of the resistance that advocates like CalCars and other Plug-in Partners face is the possibility that BEVs will proliferate, which would be fine for EPRI, but not for Big Oil or automobile executives with considerable amounts of oil stock.
I say part of the resistance because thoughtful, honest representations from Dr. Frank or you also are obviously threats to the buggy whip makers, a.k.a., the SAE.
So let's have some optimistic puffery, e.g., paper Hummers for the kids, rather than more dismal science.
Posted by: jcwinnie | Mar 8, 2008 5:09:27 AM
ejj;
Regardless of whether you believe an observational science to be true science, it is indisputable that humankind is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and atmospheric CO2 is increasing. There is laboratory science which shows that CO2 is essentially opaque to infrared radiation. Global warming can be reasonably hypothesized merely based on these two factors. (This hypothesis was first presented over 100 years ago by August Arrhenius.)
Those who model the atmosphere, whom you claim are not doing 'real' science, use a multitude of factors and interactions in their attempt to do so rather than just these two.
Humanity is faced with a decision based on the increasing atmospheric CO2. The choices:
1) Do a variety of actions to try and reduce the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 or possibly to reverse it. For society to do these actions will cost money and be disruptive. If global warming is real and environmentally disadvantageous, this choice will minimize the adverse effect. If GW is not real the money will have been wasted.
2) Do not restrain CO2 emissions. Obviously, if global warming is not true, this is the wiser choice. If GW is real and disadvantageous, this choice maximizes the adverse environmental and social impact of GW.
Economists with the UN have projected that atmospheric CO2 can be stabilized at the current level for about 1% of world economic output. This gives an order of magnitude cost for option 1.
What are the costs of being wrong when you say CO2 does not cause GW? Some of the possible consequences of option 2 being incorrect:
Acidification of the oceans and collapse of fisheries.
Desertification of the US midwest, currently the national breadbasket.
Elimination of spring and summer snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains with resulting dramatic reduction of surface water for communities both east and west of the Rockies. Possible collapse of agriculture in irrigated California.
Loss of land to sea level rising, particularly in low lying places such as Florida and Banglidesh.
Possible disruption of the Gulf Stream with resulting collapse of agriculture in northern Europe and western Aisa.
Shifting the timing and severity of the Indian monsoons with adverse effects on agriculture in that country.
Melting of the tundra permafrost in Alaska, northern Canada and Siberia with defrosting of methane hydrate and massive releases of methane.
I believe even for a GW skeptic, a serious investment in CO2 reduction is a good bet.
Bill
Posted by: Bill Young | Mar 8, 2008 5:54:29 AM
A very thorough and thoughtful article. I'll be sure and put links to it when the BS (like the USA today) starts to fly.
Posted by: Neil | Mar 8, 2008 7:21:34 AM
Bill,
THANK YOU for one of the best, to the point, explanations of why action should occur! Even conceding that nothing is known to 100.0%, a risk analysis warrents action.
A second, unrelated, point I would make is that oil WILL run short some day. We can argue when that date is - but we cannot reasonably argue that it will never come. And, again, the sooner we start to change the less painful it will be (overall).
Thanks again,
Shane
Posted by: shane | Mar 8, 2008 7:35:04 AM
I do think the next-generation Toyota Prius due about a year from now will have a lithium-ion battery (that's because Japanese manufacturers have finally figured out how to build Li-On batteries that are completely safe for automotive use), which will allow for plug-in hybrid operation with a range of about 75 km (circa 46 miles) on battery operation alone before it reverts back to normal hybrid drivetrain operation. A few years later, Toyota may offer supercapacitor battery packs using capacitors built from carbon nanotubes, which could extend the battery-only range to (my guess!) 100 km (62 miles) before switching back to normal hybrid mode.
Can you say real-world mileage in the 80+ miles per US gallon range? :-)
Posted by: Raymond | Mar 8, 2008 7:48:58 AM
The possible disasters caused by man made CO2 are just as serious and dangerous as an asteroid strike on earth.. it is a science FACT that there are a bunch of large asteroids and comets out there just waiting to hit us.. and it has happened in the past and will happen again. We should spend as much (maybe more) on asteroid deflection as on CO2 mitigation.
Yes I am pulling your chain.. but think of the consequences of a 6 mile asteroid hitting us!!!, we cant take the chance!
Changing the subject slightly, both Toyota and Ford have proven hybrid powerplants.. it would be trivial for them to stick those in regular larger cars such as a Taurus with great mileage increases.. if needed upgrade the motors and batteries but dont increase the size of the engine. This stuff works and it is proven..
Posted by: Herm | Mar 8, 2008 8:31:04 AM
MarkMC
If you search "AC Propulsion"+eBox you find out that Tom Hanks bought one and has a video on YouTube about it. That is pretty good free advertising.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qntYBos-Twg
Posted by: sjc | Mar 8, 2008 8:39:02 AM
"a serious investment in CO2 reduction is a good bet."
Sorry, Bill. You have just restated Pascal's wager which is generally acknowledged to be a bad bet.
I have looked at others who are betting on GW. At the end of one laundry list of schemes the author stated, "These are things we should be doing anyway." Reading back through the list with that perspective, I found a standard socialist/totalitarian manifesto.
The classic statement was the doofus who said the planet was too important to let democracy get in the way. Uh, OK.
Posted by: Max | Mar 8, 2008 9:36:09 AM
How can PHEV's ever provide "full zero-emissions capabilities part of the time"?
Wind and solar add CO2 to the atmosphere over their lifecycle - some 30 tons COeq/GWh for wind and 100 tons CO2eq/GWh for solar. Both sources also need baseloads, which means more coal and natural gas.
A massive switch to electric cars could be pretty catastrophic if we don't first establish a viable renewable electricity production infrastructure, which should at least be based on biomass as the corner stone for the baseload.
Posted by: Jonas | Mar 8, 2008 9:39:18 AM
Jonas, the average UK household could easily switch to higher energy efficiency appliances to save 6 kWh of electricity per day.
That very low hanging fruit adds up to about 2,190 kWh per year, or just over 10,000 electric miles in the family EV. No need to increase electricity production to support the EV network, simple efficiency measures could easily cover it.
Posted by: clett | Mar 8, 2008 9:59:48 AM
Oh yeah, with solar thermal and PV on the house, the average family could save enough to run a car on NG. Make some SNG with biomass and you are closer. Once it is all sorted out and THE solution is made cost effective and available, you might see enough people come around.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 8, 2008 10:15:00 AM
Aside from the 'series v parallel' discussion, both modes have additional benefits for vehicle design and related technology that should be incorporated into the conclusion. How will PHEVs affect driving habits? Can we expect the PHEV owner to drive significantly less? If the car is driven less, and the electricity (plugged-in) used for household appliances, doesn't this give the advantage to larger battery capacity? Will households with PHEVs be able to retire PHEV batteries that have lost their 'high-drain' automotive use capacity, and use them as 'low-drain' household stationary electricity storage? Either way, household electricity storage seems to be the way of the future.
Posted by: Wells | Mar 8, 2008 10:35:02 AM
It seems to me a simple electric clutch could connect your genset to the drivetrain, thereby turning your series hybrid into a parallel for highway speeds(were it is most desireable) The only drawback I see is it forces placement of the genset next to the drivetrain.
Am I missing something here? I can't believe I'm the only one to think of this obvious solution.
I think it's great that there is real competition between these companies, we can only benefit from this "technological diversity".
Posted by: Dave K. | Mar 8, 2008 11:23:23 AM
But Clett, the point is that you first have to make sure households actually do this. If not, a switch to electric cars means more fossil fuel use. Massively so.
I'm not confident that households actually implement efficiency measures that easily. Good incentives and policies may help a bit, but they've proven to work slowly and result in marginal improvements.
Of course, the switch to PHEVs will only come about gradually, so that leaves us enough time to build a robust renewables infrastructure.
Posted by: Jonas | Mar 8, 2008 11:34:38 AM
Regarding the debate about whether GW is real, it seems pretty undisputable really. As pointed out by the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle", which was full of propagandist lies, it is undeniable that when you look at the ice core record, you see a strong relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature. But in the movie they argue that the relationship is one going the opposite direction -- that CO2 conc's rise AFTER temperature does, since the graphs always show CO2 lagging temperature by about a millenium. But rather than disproving GW theory, this only strengthens it because what it does is confirm that there is a positive feedback relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperatures. As temperatures go up due to some external forcing like orbital fluctuations, an ice age ends and this causes more CO2 to be released until a new "equilibrium" is reached (with, by the way, a different sea level). This is the worst fear of global warming scientists because of the potentially massive amounts of methane that could be released in the Arctic tundra by warming temperatures, and because the amount of GHG's we are pumping into the atmosphere is well beyond anything in recent Earth history.
Essentially, the global warming skeptics, through this admission in this movie, have completely disproven their own argument.
Posted by: MarkMC | Mar 8, 2008 11:59:15 AM
Max,
I happen to believe that global warming is real and a nacent environmental catastrophe. I have my own laundry list of 'we oughta's' in response to global warming. None of my 'we oughta's' include a diminution of democracy. Several of my 'we oughta's' do require governmental leadership and policies but these are not inconsistent with representative government.
Bill
Posted by: Bill Young | Mar 8, 2008 1:25:31 PM
If you're skeptical about manmade global warming, I suggest you watch this short clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2u4zNGtnY8
The simple question being:
"What would it take to convince you?"
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Mar 8, 2008 1:47:43 PM
A very good article. I'm confused about the table, though. Why does the Prius-like battery achieve 77% DoD at the 6.25C rate and the Volt only achieve 50% DoD? Based on what I know of the chemistries, the Prius-like number seems MUCH more aggressive than the Volt number. If anything, I'd expect the Volt pack to achieve greater DoD.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Mar 8, 2008 2:23:48 PM
re: Jonas, (ie. one of the admins over at biopact.com)
How can PHEV's ever provide "full zero-emissions capabilities part of the time"?
Wind and solar add CO2 to the atmosphere over their lifecycle - some 30 tons COeq/GWh for wind and 100 tons CO2eq/GWh for solar. Both sources also need baseloads, which means more coal and natural gas.
A massive switch to electric cars could be pretty catastrophic if we don't first establish a viable renewable electricity production infrastructure, which should at least be based on biomass as the corner stone for the baseload.
Unless you're assuming carbon sequestration with LONG TERM STORAGE, biofuels also don't create "zero" emissions.
And mechanical carbon sequestration at present doesn't even exist, except as "enhanced oil recovery". Which isn't really long term storage.
Infact, many studies point out that biofuels actually are dramatically worse in emissions than conventional petroleum. Often far worse than tar sands or liquid coal.
Mark Delucchi 2005
Tad Patzek 2006
Paul Crutzen 2007
Alex Farrell 2008
Joseph Fargione 2008
Timothy Searchinger 2008
EU Commission's Joint Research Centre 2008
UK Royal Society - John Pickett 2008
Palm Oil, for instance one of your favorites, is pegged at increasing emissions 10x once you include land use.
greyfalcon.net/palmoil
On the flip side, even if powered 100% by the least efficient coal plants you can find, there is no study which shows that driving electric doesn't reduce emissions compared to gasoline.
i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/01/electric-cars-versus-ice.html#4030488244458553829
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Mar 8, 2008 2:28:29 PM
Dave K, besides placement issues you also have to throw in some gearing. I think BYD is doing what you say. An auto tranny lockup clutch is all you need. Run in serial mode at low speeds and lockup above 30 mph.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Mar 8, 2008 2:32:00 PM
Speaking of "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
greyfalcon.net/carbon
Here's the producer of that show grudgingly admitting that:
1. "The reason why we have had a rise in CO2 over the past century, obviously, that has been caused by industry."
2. If the Troposphere is warming faster than the Surface, then it is possible that manmade global warming is true
Guess what, the Troposphere is warming faster than the Surface.
greyfalcon.net/trends.png
greyfalcon.net/christy
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Mar 8, 2008 2:42:31 PM
The Volt's large battery pack (16 kwh) is unrealistic and impractical. The Prius' much smaller battery pack is far more consistent with reality.
In the near future, GM's large fleet of HEV's using Hitachi's Lithium battery will save far more petroleum (and even Lithium also) than PHEV's like the Volt produced in much smaller number.
Ultimately, the high-efficiency full HEV's will run on biomethane or H2 and will achieve petroleum independency. The gov. will just need to mandate larger gas station to start selling CNG after a certain date.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Mar 8, 2008 2:45:27 PM
3,000 lb. personal transportation devices are an anachronism in a world with $20/gal fuel.
Posted by: Santos | Mar 8, 2008 4:22:22 PM
try explaining how the Prius works in one sentence.
It get 46.4 mpg , EPA.
Posted by: DS | Mar 8, 2008 5:02:40 PM
Dave and doggy,
You got it. I spotted this simple implementation as soon as I saw the BYD. It is just too good to pass up.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 8, 2008 5:30:09 PM
Excellent article on PHEV.
WRT to global climate change/sjc:
I agree with the energy independence part.
However, I'd encourage everyone to research the science behind the "climate change deniers". There are literally hundreds of articles in the world's most respected scientific journals, eg. "Nature" and "Science" that provide strong evidence for human-induced climate change.
Show me 10, or 3, or even one paper in "Nature" or "Science" that provides a model of current climate change *without* anthropogenic inputs.
When you look at claims by climate deniers they can usually be traced fairly easily to marketing PR originating from funding by a few large fossil fuel companies. They are full of misleading half-truths and outright misrepresentations, and tend to cross-reference other climate deniers. The few times valid scientific sources are quoted, they are often misreported.
The "science" behind climate deniers' claims tends to evaporate in a puff of smoke.
This is why climate denier (mis-)information can be found on the internet and in book form, or even in movie form in the case of the so-called "Great Climate Swindle", but rarely in scientific publications where it would have to meet scientific standards of rigor and scrutiny.
The IPCC 4th assessment (www.ipcc.ch/#) is the result of the work of thousands of climate scientists. Nothing comparable exists for "climate skeptics". Arguments originating from climate skeptics are rarely from scientists, and almost never from climate scientists actively publishing on the topic of anthropogenic climate change.
Scientific discussion of climate change is important and necessary, but the "climate skeptic" melange of half-truths and selective reporting ain't it.
Cheers,
Godo
Author of "The Carbon Buster's Home Energy Handbook"
Posted by: Godo Stoyke | Mar 8, 2008 10:41:16 PM
I believe that people aren't realizing that because the majority of PHEV's will presumably be charged at night when power generating stations are already running at low capacity, a new power infrastructure will not be needed.
Also, even if the electricity used in a PHEV is generated by an average efficiency coal plant, it is still significantly more efficient than burning hydrocarbons in and ICE with a thermal efficiency of 30%. The concept of burning liquid fuels to turn a crankshaft is almost stupid when you consider the amount of technology available, since the majority of the energy goes right out the tailpipe.
Lastly, we also have a lot more coal to work with on this earth than oil, even if it isnt the best idea for electricity generation.
1.00 per gallon equivalent sounds great to me!
Posted by: George | Mar 9, 2008 4:53:59 AM
Re additional electricity usage: refineries use electricity to refine oil: I've read numbers like 10-14 kwhr/gallon. In other words, by not using liquid fuel, the electricity that would have been consumed refining it is available. No extra electricity is consumed. At 250 whr/mile at the wheels(assume 500 whr/mile at the plug) these numbers would indicate that an electric-only range of 20-28 miles is available, more if efficiency is higher.
It's hard to get meaningful refinery data though - any "insiders" here that can help?
Posted by: Frank | Mar 9, 2008 6:06:21 AM
Hi DS,
Can't do it in one sentance, but here are a couple:
The partial load efficiency of the traditional automobile engine is about half of its best efficiency which occurs at signficantly higher output power than is required for typical driving. The Prius effectively achieves two times fuel economy by using an improved efficiency engine only at its optimum efficiency loads, and lets the battery/motor power the car the rest of time, besides recouping decelleration energy with the battery/motor during braking.
Posted by: donee | Mar 9, 2008 6:20:55 AM
Re Jonas:
"a switch to electric cars means more fossil fuel use. Massively so."
No, because electric cars aren't using any gasoline! Even when the electricity comes soley from the worst possible source (ie coal), the CO2 emissions of an EV are lower than the gasoline equivalent. Even with today's grid it makes sense to go EV.
Posted by: clett | Mar 9, 2008 8:07:04 AM
@Greyfalcon. Why don't you visit our website and actually read what we write, instead of projecting your fantasies on us?
We don't advocate liquid biofuels in the developed world, we advocate them in the developing world, where they can contribute greatly to rural, social and economic development. Unless of course you think the natives there don't have the right to use trucks and cars, and should remain in poverty indefinitely.
We don't think that people who earn $300 a year can afford a $100,000 electric car. We think they can afford a Tata Nano, perhaps, if several families save up.
But from most of your comments over these past years, we have gathered that you have no clue whatsoever of the world outside of the comfort of your home. This world does exists, you know.
Had you read our website, you would have known that we favor a transition to electric transport in the wealthy world, provided it isn't coal fuelled.
That aside, let's look at what you write.
Unless you're assuming carbon sequestration with LONG TERM STORAGE, biofuels also don't create "zero" emissions.
What is long term storage? Biochar stores C for millennia. Is that enough?
And mechanical carbon sequestration at present doesn't even exist, except as "enhanced oil recovery". Which isn't really long term storage.
Geosequestration will probably be implemented on a large scale. Many trials are underway.
Our view is: if this is going to be done anyways, then it's better to apply CCS to biomass from the start. That way you make the biggest CO2 reduction gains.
Infact, many studies point out that biofuels actually are dramatically worse in emissions than conventional petroleum.
You mean a few studies, some of them written by men paid by the oil industry, which have received a fair deal of criticism from the science community.
The studies you refer to were not written by scientists, but by conservationists, oil men and hydrogen pushers - all these studies have been thoroughly debunked by the science community.
Tad Patzek 2006 [an oil man, and totally debunked by the switchgrass study]
Paul Crutzen 2007 [not peer reviewed, not accepted for publication, not dealing with biomass but with first generation dummy fuels; so a bit irrelevant to the discussion; but then, biochar negates N2O emissions, so that problem is considered solved]
Alex Farrell 2008; Joseph Fargione 2008; Timothy Searchinger 2008 [rejected by scientists from Argonne, NREL, etc...; indirect emissions are important, but highly controversial because they cannot be pinpointed clearly; in any case, they can be negated immediately simply by using alternative land use techniques, such as using standing biomass as a feedstock for energy - this immediately solves the problem; adding biochar makes the fuels carbon-negative]
UK Royal Society - John Pickett 2008 [first generation, we don't think first generation biofuels are part of the discussion; we only think in terms of fourth generation biofuels.]
Palm Oil, for instance one of your favorites
There's no need to project your fantasies on us. Please do this in the privacy of your home.
is pegged at increasing emissions 10x once you include land use.
But to answer your question: it is not true what you say. Palm oil plantations sequester more carbon than rainforests. The number you keep referring to so stubbornly is pushed by conservationists who have narrowed down the debate by focusing on a very particular, unique type of land, namely peat lands. The agro-ecological zone for palm oil is a bit larger than that.
The truth is palm trees grown on biochar land actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
In any case, we will never deny poor farmers in Africa the opportunity to make a living by growing these plants. If you can offer them an alternative, go ahead, and good luck.
On the flip side, even if powered 100% by the least efficient coal plants you can find, there is no study which shows that driving electric doesn't reduce emissions compared to gasoline.
You mean: there is no study showing the effect of a transition towards electric in a non-renewables scenario. So we don't know.
Greyfalcon, for your own wellbeing I suggest you check a bit more what we actually write. It is immature of you to suggest that we push biofuels in general. We don't, and you know it.
I would also suggest that when a conservationist publishes something, you also read the reply from scientists. That way, you may get a more balanced view.
Posted by: Jonas | Mar 9, 2008 9:08:37 AM
==You mean: there is no study showing the effect of a transition towards electric in a non-renewables scenario. So we don't know.==
No. All of them addressed coal.
Many of them dealt with a variety of types of coal.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7
==we don't think first generation biofuels are part of the discussion==
Well then, you'd be mistaken.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/eia-forecasts-s.html
==rejected by scientists like Micheal Wang==
Oh come now, you're not saying that Micheal Wang's studies are an honest representation of biofuels emissions. He's seriously one of the last researchers in the world still proclaiming that corn ethanol is wonderful.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Mar 9, 2008 10:08:47 AM
But Greyfalcon, please stop projecting other people's projections on our own. This is really getting hysteric. Projecting projections on projections. Call Freud please.
We have nothing to do with corn ethanol.
Posted by: Jonas | Mar 9, 2008 12:16:11 PM
I hope the newest developments in nanotech are going to RADICALLY change the auto industry. Let's hope that things like this silicon anode nanowire lithium ion battery gets on the market quickly and it's relatively inexpensive. These Stanford researchers are saying it could increase the capacity of the lithium ion battery by TEN times! To say the least, that would be AWESOME.
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltcom-interview-with-dr-cui-inventor-of-silicon-nanowire-lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough/
That's revolutionary. I bet Bob Lutz at GM is getting some good news behind the scenes about upcoming battery technology. He's already saying that 300 mile range batteries are on the horizon.
http://www.gm-volt.com/2008/03/08/lutz-why-do-you-need-fuel-cells/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468405514712501.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
I can't wait. Hopefully they'll be here by 2011 or so. Imagine not having to put gas in your car but 3-4 times a year .... if you are making a long trip or something. It looks like it's on the way. It makes me want to travel to the future like in those "Back to the Future" movies to check out the cars of 2016 or so. I bet they're going to be great. All kinds of different electric car models to choose from probably. :)
Posted by: Future Chevy Volt owner | Mar 9, 2008 12:45:31 PM
==rejected by scientists from Argonne, NREL, etc==
==But Greyfalcon, please stop projecting other people's projections on our own. We have nothing to do with corn ethanol.==
You do realize that Michael Wang is the guy you are referencing at Argonne Labs, right? That "if he says those studies are wrong, they must be wrong".
And at the same time you are tacitly admitting that Wang analysis is completely wrong about corn ethanol emissions.
Which begs the question of why you believe Wang's counter-arguments are actually correct.
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Mar 9, 2008 2:24:35 PM
Excellent article! Thank you.
For all those who are uncertain about or disbelievers of Global Warming - just consider this:
1. If those scientists who say Global Warming is real are right we really need to do the best we can to avoid disaster.
2. If those who say Global Warming is real are wrong - and we put all our effort to slow down, hopefully stop the non-existent warming process we will still leave a much better, cleaner world, WITH BREATHABEL AIR, for our children and grandchildren. Did anyone look at children diagnosed with asthma lately?
3. If those who say Global Warming is nothing but hysteria are wrong and we did NOT do all we can to slow down, hopefully stop the process we put the human race into its greatest peril.
Place your bets!
Laszlo
Posted by: Laszlo | Mar 9, 2008 2:38:57 PM
Re: Jonas,
I'd like to see some numbers supporting your statements that palm oil plantations sequester more carbon than do original rainforests. Coming from a forestry background this seems hard to believe. Maybe if you are comparing previously-deforested land in Africa with palm oil plantations this would obviously be true, but as far as I understand it, Kalimantan rainforests were of quite high biomass, which is all now in the atmosphere. I'd be interesting in seeing the literature which supports your argument.
Posted by: | Mar 9, 2008 2:57:19 PM
Last I checked, Jonas was saying that Congo would be an ideal place for Palm Oil plantations.
Then again, he does hold some argument. Can't really say they can't go about doing it. Atleast anymore than you can't say they can start up coal-to-liquid plants.
Which incidentally, coal-to-liquids and cellulosic ethanol use near identical infrastructure.
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
(Kind of like how an IGCC coal plant can use biomass or coal.)
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Mar 9, 2008 3:29:06 PM
Quoth Max:
You have just restated Pascal's wager which is generally acknowledged to be a bad bet.If you think that an appraisal with verifiable and quantifiable assertions is in any way comparable to Pascal's wager, you need to review your logic.
The classic statement was the doofus who said the planet was too important to let democracy get in the way.Which a red herring, because it was was neither quoted nor endorsed by anyone here.
Wells asks:
Will households with PHEVs be able to retire PHEV batteries that have lost their 'high-drain' automotive use capacity, and use them as 'low-drain' household stationary electricity storage?IIRC, utilities have considered using old PHEV batteries for load-levelling, so they still have considerable usefulness after a stint in a vehicle.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Mar 9, 2008 3:52:01 PM
Very interesting article. In analyzing various options it’s very important to test to a driving cycle that matches real-world driving conditions. Are there any online resources that document the power and energy used/recovered during the various phases of the drive cycle? Such as during acceleration, braking and cruising at various speeds.
Posted by: Scp | Mar 9, 2008 4:20:20 PM
The average driving range in not what what we should focus on, it's the median value which is important. If 1 motorist drive a nearly infinite distance and the rest only 10 miles per day, the average will be nearly infinite, but the needed battery capacity for pure EV range will be of course 10 miles.
Posted by: Philippe | Mar 9, 2008 5:04:33 PM
Philippe: an excellent point, but rather than trying to find one value that provides the best solution, I'd like to see a range of distance options that allows each consumer to maximize their own benefit/value based on their own driving cycle.
Posted by: Neil | Mar 10, 2008 9:20:01 AM
@Rafael,
I believe that Dr. Andy Frank should be a recipient of the civilian equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor, for his pioneering work at UC Davis in hybrid power trains. His views on the Engineering of the PHEVs is superb, insightful and illuminating.
However, like you, I consider his views on the economics of oil pricing, extremely simplistic, except for the immediate next half decade, at most.
Petroleum is at present an "uneconomic good", in the sense that cost of production is entirely unrelated to the monopolistic pricing imposed by the politicians and the nationalized oil companies of the world, and their agents, the un-nationalized oil firms.
The present situation does provide a degree of competition at the margin though. The situation does bear some minor reflection to the cost of market share though. This was demonstrated in the recent past when oil prices fell back to $10.00 a barrel. OPEC almost dissolved in the competition for maximizing today's revenues. All it took was a lack of demand, at the margin, and the inexhaustible and unsatiable urge to spend every dime possible, and even strangle the golden goose by short-sighted politicians, everywhwere.
Private businesss does have some recognition of the long term need, but most politicians have a world view as short as the next popularity poll. They don't care about maximizing total profit or regulating an oil field for maximum total production. Revenues for today and tomorrow and losing market share and revenue today, is their only concern.
Tommorrow they may be voted out of power, or deposed in a coup, so their extremely short time view in somewhat understandable, even if in the long range idiotic for their national resources, for which they don't give a fig. This situation however reduces their economic power to thwart challenges to their monopoly, that are continuing to build.
As the Electrification of Ground Transport proceeds, and an adequate and other substanitlaly cheaper priced Substitute(s) to liquid fossils fuels become widely available, those days will return and prices for liquid petroleum will collapse, once again.
How far the prices will fall, and when, is debateable, but the floor is set by the variety of substitutes that are becoming available. Everything from "unconventional sources" including heavy oil, tar sands, bio fuels, CTL, and invisible supply from efficiency gains, none of which is a full adequate substitute alone. They can assist at the margin to the ultimate substitute, electricity substitution, which can be the near universal substitute, both in universal availability and necessary volume.
Posted by: stan peterson | Mar 10, 2008 10:45:59 AM
@Jonas:
Wind and solar add CO2 to the atmosphere over their lifecycle - some 30 tons COeq/GWh for wind and 100 tons CO2eq/GWh for solar. Both sources also need baseloads, which means more coal and natural gas.
Let me complete the picture:
Wind: 30 tons/GWh
Solar: 100 tons/GWh (pv? thermal?)
Coal: 600 tons/GWh
Now please explain how exactly wind and solar will worsen the GHG situation?
As for the baseload 'problem': the wind is always blowing somewhere. With the right geografical distribution, you'll get a solid baseload from wind.
Posted by: Anne | Mar 10, 2008 4:29:32 PM
@Mark,
Too bad there is enormous hole in your thinking. What caused the original warming that CO2 liberation then tracks after a delay, in the first place?
It turns out to have to be solar in origin.
There is a enormous difference from an under-damped and over-damped positive correlation or "feedback". CO2 levels are actually a heavily negative feedback that is in any case heavily overdamped as well. Any fundamental controls theory says so.
The proof for that assertion is that there are NO "runaways" evident in the Earth's geological record. The Earth never went into a building hysteresis resonance.
Since the comparatively ignorant Science of the 50s and 60s, when the qualitative hypothesis of AGW through the means of GHGs was proposed, it has has been researched.
It has been Quantified by 21st century Science, to show that while true, GHGs can add warming, the level is insignificant. The time constant, to melt significant ice caps, if they were indeed melting, measure into the millions of years, so sea level concern is a truly insignificant and a phantom menace, as well.
Once feared to be capable of multi-degree climate modification over a century. Instead it has been calibrated and relegated to changes of but a few tenths of a single degree per century. Hence GHG warming is "true", but "truly irrelevant".
I welcome all of this tiny warming and recovery from the last Little Ice Age. It appears we may be facing a new Little Ice Age aborning, based on the new Science of solar astro-physics, and solar meteorology and its predictions. Meanwhile we are re-invigorating the plant kingdom, stunted by having consumed almost all but a trace of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Back when AGW was proposed, in the 50s and 60s, the world and its Science was primitive. Only a handful of computers existed in the world; man had never ventured into Space; and not a single space satellite had been launched into orbit. Automobiles were polluting, and emissions were uncontrolled. Modern medicine didn't exist, and the Internet and web weren't even conceptual ideas.
@Godo,
For the person who asked diparagingly if there are any papers produced that represent real Science that oppose the new religion of AGW, you reveal your true ignorance.
I recommned any of the papers produced by Dr Lintzen, the chairmen to the MIT department of climatology, or Dr. Christy at the the University of Alabama Huntville or even the papers of Dr. Svensmark of the Royal Danish Society or Dr. Shaviv of Israel.
You might find it interesting to see real Measureable Science being conducted at the world's largest accelerator at CERN, and the CLOUD experiment that is calibrating the formerly wholly unknown cloud formation effect of cosmic ray as modified by the solar wind.
If you actually read the IPCC AR4, you would see that the IPCC have promised to reduce the power of CO2 to warm by a factor of 5.7/300 or 98% in AR5, unless the the building evidence of multiple diverse experimental evidence is reversed in the next 4 years. This is highly unlikely as such evidence has been sought and repeatedly produced negative results.
The IPCC has also made plain in AR4, that they will incorporate evidence from the CERN Cloud experiment or others in AR5. The preliminary evidence is a reduction in GHG power to alter the climate by another about seven times. This on top on top of the 98% reduction above.
When GHGs can't change the climate but a tenth of a single degree per century, or less, GHGs may alter the climate but we truly don't give a damn for the next 5000 years or so.
Your own sainted IPCC, has said the issue is almost over and unless a miracle happens to stop it, they will say so in AR5!
There is absolutely no reason to waste scarce developmental money on "prudent preventable AGW" exercises.
Posted by: stan peterson | Mar 11, 2008 3:39:24 PM
Why can't both major automakers made a modular battery architecture, where minimal batter capacity comes standard and consumers can add capacity in 2.5Kw or 5kw increments to suit their budget and personal driving habits. Consumers can then do their own optimization to get close to the 100% utilization of battery capacity.
Posted by: MKD | Mar 11, 2008 5:54:18 PM
@Stan,
AGW was proposed in the 50's and 60's? Dr. Lintzen as the leading climatologist? Claims that the IPCC AR5 will reduce the impact of CO2?
You make bold claims, but a little checking sees that they are your interpretations of the situation.
Lintzen is an advocate of the oil companies and he receives money from them for years. He may have outstanding credentials but most if not all his recent publications have been critiques and not actual work in climate. He is the anti AGWs best advocate and for years he has been fighting it. He has not changed scientific opinion at all. There are many others with equally impressive credentials doing work in the field now that totally disagree with his view.
Christy had said ...is convinced that human activities are a cause of the global warming that has been measured, he is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."
Shaviv and Svensmark? Cosmic rays affecting cloud formation? Who's reaching now. Let's look at anything tiny that may cast doubt and ignore the big obvious thing. Right. That's being real objective.
No international or national scientific organization does not recognize AGW's scientific validaty including the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which was the last to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate with a statement in 2007.
Here's the IPCC report in pdf format for the various sections.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
Where does it say that they will reduce the effects of CO2 or AR5? Where, oh where? You are no climate scientist stan. I doubt that you looked at it either and are just repeating what you've seen someplace else. A someplace that is so obviously partisen that you don't want to say where.
AGW is the science of the 50's and 60's? I suggest you really look into that because that is a total falsehood. It did not originate in that period. Lintzen's objections haven't changed in a decade. I would think that would put his science back in the 20th century and not the 21st.
Frankly, the constant injecting of ideology based reasoning is a constant pain. I can tell it's the same diatrabe over and over. People are sick of seeing it. I see a long rant and I think, what is stan doing now even before I reach the end.
Posted by: aym | Mar 11, 2008 7:57:33 PM
MKD,
That makes too much sense, so they probably will not do it :) The car makers may be worried about after market suppliers and service. You have 4 kwh that is 3 years old and 3 kwh that is 1 year old....etc. Who sold them to you and who is supporting them if something goes wrong. They would have to be identical cells, because charging circuitry is crucial with lithium batteries and on and on...
Posted by: sjc | Mar 11, 2008 8:08:57 PM
AGW science started no later than 1896. That's 112 years ago, for those of you who are counting.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Mar 11, 2008 9:27:21 PM
Re additional electricity usage: refineries use electricity to refine oil: I've read numbers like 10-14 kwhr/gallon.
Frank, that's way off. I've seen numbers below 10 kWh per barrel for simple refineries in the developing world. Complex US refineries probably use more electricity, so I'm willing to bet your 10-14 kWh number is per barrel instead of per gallon.
Lousiana refineries process about 3 million bpd. 10 kWh/gal is roughly 400 kwh/bbl, implying electric use of 1.2 billion kWh/day. That's about 5 times the total electricity consumed in the entire state of Louisiana for all purposes.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Mar 12, 2008 2:06:58 PM
Interesting how some rough backward calculations can tell you if you are in the right ball park or not. We really do not know how much electricity, natural gas, water, energy, land or just about anything else concerning oil refineries in exact numbers. The large oil companies were not really into publishing those figures and now that they have sold a lot of refineries off to other companies, we have even less information.
Refineries were just those smoky smelly things that were located in some other county and city that we did not want to drive by. The oil companies sold off a lot of them, because it was not the most profitable part of their business. They also got rid of a lot of EPA and worker safety liability at the same time. Maybe in our Green Car quest, we can eliminate refineries all together so that we do not have the NIMBY factor for refineries or power plants.
Posted by: sjc | Mar 15, 2008 8:41:38 AM
Good article.
Except the whole "Utility Factor" explination is flat wrong. This is not how it works. It is a 0-100% factor, but its based upon driving statistice from the National Highway Transportation Survey. It shows the amount of driving you that will be made in depleting mode (EV or blended).
I am developing the standards for PHEV testing and its my job to know this stuff.
Posted by: LabRat | Mar 28, 2008 1:29:10 PM
@ LabRat:
Care to direct the readers to a better description of "Utility Factors" for hybrid vehicles? There is quite a bit of confusion in the literature surrounding mileage-weighted probabilities and utility factors. If you are writing the standards for PHEV testing, I'm curious to know what you are referencing for this calculation.
Posted by: bryan.jungers | Jun 11, 2008 11:03:58 AM
