Green Car Congress: Study Concludes That Reducing US Transportation Oil Consumption and GHG Will Require a Package of Policies

« Orbital to Establish a New Test Facility for Heavy Duty Engines | Main | Paris Mayor Doubling the Size of the Initial Autolib EV Fleet »

Study Concludes That Reducing US Transportation Oil Consumption and GHG Will Require a Package of Policies

20 June 2008

The scenario that resulted in the lowest increase in transport-sector GHG emissions used an economy-wide carbon price beginning at $10/ton CO₂, 2% annual improvement in CAFE, and a gasoline and diesel tax increasing at 10% per year in real terms (tax is not recycled back to consumers). Click to enlarge.

Individual policies, such as the increases in fuel economy standards adopted last year, will not result in significant reductions in US transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions or dependency on oil, according to a new analysis from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Using a variant of the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)—NEMS-ETIP—researchers in the Center’s Energy Technology Innovation Policy (ETIP) group modeled a number of policy scenarios using both the US Energy Information Administration’s “reference” case and “high-oil price” reference case. They developed quantitative estimates of the impact of increases in fuel-economy standards similar to those contained in the EISA in combination with the likely impacts of two different economy-wide climate policies and several different kinds of taxes on transportation fuels.

(The authors note that current 2008 crude oil prices are much higher than either EIA’s reference or “high” oil-price cases. If the NEMS-ETIP assumptions about the oil prices prove to be too sanguine, the higher underlying oil prices would likely result in all of the other policy scenarios modeled more effective, they concluded.)

It is a complex task to meet the policy goals of reducing GHG emissions and oil consumption from transportation sector. Our analysis shows that individual policies largely fail to produce the intended results on their own. Indeed, the new CAFE standards contained in EISA 2007 are not likely on their own to prevent significant growth in US oil consumption and transport-sector greenhouse gas-emissions by 2030, although, critically, they will prevent even larger growth from occurring. The new renewable fuel standards could result in greatly expanded use of ethanol, but whether this outcome materializes will depend on highly uncertain factors, such as ethanol production costs, investments on distribution and refueling infrastructure, and the deployment of flex-fuel vehicles. Even individual policies that seem radical in the US context, most notably taxation of transportation fuels, do not on their own produce the intended results.

Thus, a fundamental insight from this study is that if one wishes to reduce US06 net petroleum imports or to reduce CO2 from the transportation sector, packages of policies will be needed. If meaningful progress towards meeting the goals is to be achieved, such packages are likely to require combinations of bold policies.

Other insights gleaned from the study include:

The efficacy of energy and climate policies depends on the underlying world oil prices from now to 2030. The researchers found that if oil prices are relatively high, it is possible to achieve a reduction in net oil imports with a package that includes an initially modest 50 cent/gallon tax on gasoline and diesel that escalates 10 percent per year in real terms reaching $5.02/gallon in 2030. In that case, CO₂ emissions from the transportation sector were stabilized close to 2010 levels.

If, however, underlying world oil prices drop again during the next two decades, none of the policy scenarios modeled achieve the desired goals.
Demand for E85 becomes significant only when its price is lower than that of gasoline on an energy basis. Fairly stringent policies may be required to generate this effect.
The extent to which volumetric fuel mandates result in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector will depend on how they are actually implemented. Both a low-carbon fuel standard or carbon tax on transportation fuels, if assessed on a lifecycle basis, could help reduce CO₂ emissions, especially in combination with other measures.
Policies must be devised to make driving consumers care more about which cars they purchase and how much they drive.
Complementing CAFE increases with some form of fuel taxation is important to mitigate the GHG emissions coming from VMT growth.

This analysis is one product of a three-year Innovation in Transportation project housed at ETIP. Supported by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Hewlett Foundation, and the Energy Foundation, the Innovation in Transportation project seeks to craft innovative and effective policy strategies for overcoming barriers to the development and deployment of cleaner and more efficient fuels and vehicle technologies.

Resources

Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Gustavo Collantes, “Analysis of Policies to Reduce Oil Consumption and Greenhouse-Gas Emissions from the US06 Transportation Sector.” Discussion Paper 2008-06, Cambridge, Mass.: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, June 2008.

June 20, 2008 in Emissions, Fuel Efficiency, Policy | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30402758

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Study Concludes That Reducing US Transportation Oil Consumption and GHG Will Require a Package of Policies:

Comments

When did the shift away from a federal 55mph speed limit happen and what was the impact?

Posted by: relocalize | Jun 20, 2008 10:07:24 AM

When did the shift away from a federal 55mph speed limit happen and what was the impact?

1987 was when it started going away, although it wasn't until 1995 or so that it completely disappeared.

The #1 effect was a lot of us stopped hating the government quite so much.

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 20, 2008 10:12:55 AM

Thanks Matthew. I guess that was an ancillary benefit. I guess the net benefit from that respect is now negated.

I've decided to drive 58mph on my weekly 230mi round trip commute, and I'm observing a 26% increase in mpg's compared to the EPA highway fuel economy rating. I might take longer to get where I'm going, but at least I can catch up on some NPR.

Posted by: relocalize | Jun 20, 2008 10:20:21 AM

This is a realistic approach to progressively reduce fossil fuel consumption and associated GHG.

As stated, it may cease to work, if oil price drops significantly below current level. A variable fossil fuel tax could act as a compensation mechanism to keep fossil fuel sale price high and stable enough to accomplish the desired effects.

Canada's opposition Liberal Party leader has recently proposed a $14 billion/year carbon tax with equivalent GHG reduction financial support and Income Tax reductions to achieve similar results. The Conservative Party minority government is deeply against it.

Of course, countries with available bio-mass should promote the sale of locally produced biofuels (instead of imported & local fossil fuel and oil) with lower taxes.

Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 20, 2008 10:23:49 AM

Reference:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/eia-forecasts-s.html

Excerpt:

• The EIA forecasts as its base case real world crude oil prices (defined as the price of light, low-sulfur crude oil delivered in Cushing, Oklahoma, in 2006 dollars) decline gradually from current levels to $57 per barrel in 2016 ($68 per barrel in nominal dollars), as expanded investment in exploration and development brings new supplies to the world market. After 2016, real prices begin to rise, as demand continues to grow and higher cost supplies are brought to market. In 2030, the average real price of crude oil is $70 per barrel in 2006 dollars, or about $113 per barrel in nominal dollars.

Sound crazy doesn’t it?

$68/barrel in 2016
$113/barrel in 2030

But all government agencies use these numbers for planning and funding energy research: such as fuel tax policy, CAFFA fuel standards and planning for electric car development. This is how the administration slows down and confuses all energy considerations including this study.

This garbage in garbage out situation shows how critical honesty in government is needed. The hidden agenda behind what the administration has done and is doing will take historians of the future many years to tease out. But it is now clear we all must be very careful about anything we hear from government of anything that is derived from what our government says. Dishonesty in government fosters propaganda we are all familiar with and I am sure we will see later on in this thread.

Posted by: Axil | Jun 20, 2008 10:24:26 AM

Any discussion in the study about planning policies that result in shorter distances between destination pairs? Denser development, that sort of thing?

What about the impact of expanding and improving the quality of mass transit, both in cities, for commuters, and long distances?

Posted by: stomv | Jun 20, 2008 10:26:55 AM

The most important thing that we need in order to eliminate CO2 emissions from transportation is a fast charge infrastructure. Build that and the EVs will come in mass very fast.

Even at $500 per kWh it makes good economic sense over the life of any vehicle to use an EV instead of ICE. Electricity is only 20% to 25% of the cost per mile run compared to gasoline. The saved 75% to 80% is more than enough to pay for the battery even at $500 per kWh. The EV will not get much more than a 100 miles range with current fast charge battery technology but with a fast charge infrastructure this problem is solved. Also note that because you slow charge at home for 90% of the miles run during the year it means that for the 10% of the miles run where you need to make more stops to charge you will still end up doing less trips to the public charge station/gas station during the year than you need to do in an ICE vehicle. So 100 miles range is not a problem that will cost you any extra time during the year.

Even Bob Lutz now believes that EVs will come quickly I quote “Lutz told the paper he expected one quarter to one half of all new cars between 2020 and 2025 to be electric with either batteries or hydrogen as the energy source.” Source http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/06/19/lutz-pegs-first-generation-chevy-volt-price-tag-at-40-000/

Funny he still believes hydrogen will make it when it cost at least 2.5 times more to produce than electricity per mile run and the hydrogen infrastructure is perhaps 10 times as expensive to establish as a fast charge EV infrastructure and given the fact that battery technology is currently technically capable and economic whereas hydrogen technology is neither technically capable or economic.

Don’t make it more complicated than it is. Just get the fast charge infrastructure up with government subsidies to overcome initial loses because of few EVs and the market will do the rest of the job to make a zero emission society.

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 20, 2008 10:33:40 AM

Fuel consuption is already dropping. So far the summer driving season has barely been a shadow of itself. People exchanging SUV's for smaller units is already making an impact. The tide has turned, the public is wanting better cars. We just need to get them to market.

Posted by: Joseph | Jun 20, 2008 10:34:11 AM

I've decided to drive 58mph on my weekly 230mi round trip commute, and I'm observing a 26% increase in mpg's compared to the EPA highway fuel economy rating.

Interesting that you didn't need a law passed for you to make this choice, isn't it?

Just as we've seen the number of miles driven drop as the price of gas has risen, we're also seeing people drive slower as well. No new laws needed.

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 20, 2008 10:34:32 AM

Matthew, you are right, I didn't need a law passed since I am personally motivated to minimize my fuel consumption (which is why I telecommute when I can). I also understand longitudinal vehicle dynamics and engine efficiency maps. Joe Public is probably not as informed or motivated.

Posted by: relocalize | Jun 20, 2008 10:51:43 AM

Joe Public is probably not as informed or motivated.

So why do you suppose *he* is also driving less and more slowly?

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 20, 2008 10:54:29 AM

Here is a question - could you do it without a fast charge infrastructure, IF most people kept their ICE cars for long drives ?
Lets say you have an SUV. The value has plummeted as no-one wants them anymore.
You buy a 100 mile range EV which you use for daily commuting, and short range stuff.
You do the odd long run in the SUV (@ 58mph as suggested).

All you really need for this is to lower the cost of keeping a car you don't use very much - say limited mileage insurance, or pay per mile insurance.

Many people in the US have 2 or more cars, and it would make a lot of sense if one of these became an EV [ as soon as nice ones became available (not a Reva) ].
Just EVs, not PHEVs which might be too expensive for most people.
Alternately, make it simple for people to share ICE cars for occasional long runs.

Posted by: mahonj | Jun 20, 2008 11:04:18 AM

"Joe public is probably not as....motivated"

uuhhh, dude, look around. Almost all the hybred models are currently on backoder. Sales of SUV's have plumeted, cars are out selling trucks for the first time in decades. The mass hordes are not going on vacation. Distilate demand is down 300,000 bpd from last year.

Posted by: Joseph | Jun 20, 2008 11:07:42 AM

As we see from the study of various gas fuel futures, the result is either faster or not quite so fast environmental destruction, but not one is a path to sustainable technology.

@ Henrik ~> Any recharge infrastructure will let BEV's show up fast. Even slow charging is acceptable if it is in shopping malls, restaurant and theater parking. As battery technology improves the BEV will be useful to more and more of the driving situations. The cost savings will be the primary motivation for the shift, and so the technology can be introduced speeder by an encouraging tax structure.

This single change To BEV's will make city life far cleaner and more healthy. Helping our climate is just an added bonus.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 20, 2008 11:12:33 AM

This study isn't worth the paper its printed on. Just look at the smooth linear projections. That alone tells you that new ideas are not present.

Is it really impossible to project that the auto-markets will have more and more electric alternatives over the next 5, 10, 15, and 20 years?

A BEV has no need of any gasoline. It is as if the US auto fleet declined by a complete vehicle. PHEVs will consume but 10-20% of the amount of gasoline. It produces a discontinuous rate function.

Every single gas auto retired, is the equivalent of of ten PHEVs. The adoption of a 50% market penetration of PHEVs and BEVs, would be the equivalent of slashing the US auto fleet from 250 million vehicles to a gasoline auto fleet of but 25-50 million cars. When was the US auto fleet that small size? Back in the 1920s?

Where is the discontinuity in rate of change from adopting a new technology like electrified autos?

The nice smooth linear projections show, It doesn't exist and was never considered.

Where is the discontinuous rate changes, shown from price spikes, resulting in a 3-5% drop in consumption just this year?

It isn't there. So this "study" is nothing but a total waste of time. It just goo and dribble.

Posted by: stas peterson | Jun 20, 2008 11:16:44 AM

@ Matthew,

Are you done hating your mother for making you brush your teeth?

Have you forgiven the Department of Health for insisting that all restaurant employees wash their hands?

Posted by: dolared | Jun 20, 2008 11:17:22 AM

Oops, sorry, Joe/Jane Public. I digress regarding the public's motivation to reduce oil consumption. We are probably a biased bunch on this website. Regarding public information, where is this element? Is it just me or is school about being a "good" consumer rather than a "smart" consumer.

Ultimately, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption in transportation will come naturally by the consumers' response to increasing oil prices.

If a more proactive approach is sought, a 55mph speed limit is cheap and highly effective - not to mention the increased revenue from speeding violations (sorry Matthew). Significatnly introducing new technology to market will take years/decades. Changing the speed limit could happen within a few months (if not over night).

Posted by: relocalize | Jun 20, 2008 11:53:25 AM

If a more proactive approach is sought, a 55mph speed limit is cheap and highly effective [...]

Highly effective? I'm guessing you are quite young; do you not know that the 55mph speed limit was one of the least-obeyed laws in the land? As you allude to, the only thing it is effective at is generating ticket revenue.

Posted by: Matthew | Jun 20, 2008 12:03:30 PM

@Mahonj and @J. Taylor

The EVs will be sold in volume even without a fast charge infrastructure but such an infrastructure is necessary in order to eliminate CO2 emissions in transportation. Most importantly, society will benefit more in all regards (economic, environmental and from the security/strategic point of view) if we make it possible right now to replace all ICE vehicles with purely electric vehicles.

From a social point of view the ones who need to get affordable transportation the most are also those that can’t afford to buy both a short range EV and an ICE for their transportation needs and range extended EVs will also be more expensive because they are more complex. Therefore, also to help >all people< with their transportation needs we should invest in a rapid deployment of a fast charge infrastructure. The government could perhaps limit subsidies to highway fast charge stations only because this is where they are needed the most. It could very well be that the shopping malls, restaurant and theater parking will do it all by themselves to attract customers. But chargers at these places will not really help people doing a long distance trip.

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 20, 2008 12:21:18 PM

The 55mph speed limit was literally a death sentence here in the desert. UofA, ASU, NM state, LV tech and SoCal all did studies. The results were frightening.

Posted by: Joseph | Jun 20, 2008 12:31:47 PM

The 55mph speed limit was literally a death sentence here in the desert.

Natural selection also reduces GHG emissions.

Posted by: | Jun 20, 2008 1:09:30 PM

Joseph: care to explain? (I don't live in a desert)

Posted by: Neil | Jun 20, 2008 1:10:07 PM

As you allude to, the only thing it is effective at is generating ticket revenue.

Still better than punishing hardworking people with work-taxes.

Posted by: | Jun 20, 2008 1:15:18 PM

What is all this stuff about fast charge infrastructure and 100 BEV range? Make an affordable (under $20k) plug in hybrid with 20 mile all electric and you will cut the average person's gasoline use (and bill) by 50%. Make it modular and upgradable so it can go 40 miles electric with another battery and you capture more market.

Forget the infrastructure for now, that will develop. Just subsidize the replacement of any car over 10 years with an affordable plug-in hybrid and scale the subsidy for income. That will put them on the road next year -- in volume. Honda, where is that Civic hybrid?

Also, increase depreciation rates on hybrid or electric buses, and leasing companies will flood the market with them -- quickly. Help Schools buy electric buses with 100 mile range, and they can recharge between morning and afternoon -- and save money to spend on education.

Posted by: JMartin | Jun 20, 2008 1:30:07 PM

How come no one's concerned about SO4, CO, NO, benzine and particulates anymore? These are real dangerous toxics that continue to emerge from tailpipes to far worse effect than CO2.

Posted by: chokin | Jun 20, 2008 2:18:59 PM

When they lowered the speed limit to 55 MPH most everyone drove 65 MPH. Now that it's 65 MPH most everyone drives 75 MPH.
I currently drive 55 MPH. I get an occasional finger but most people think of me as an old fart with no place in particular to go.

Posted by: shigley | Jun 20, 2008 2:38:51 PM

@ Henrik:

I agree that the infrastructure will be a primary concern. But the automaker's approach seems to be that as they get their cars onto the roads the market will provide the incentive for charge stations. Probably, like coffee shops added internet services to attract customers - we'll see the same with electric quick/slow charging.

I would like to see a sunbelt municipal government invest in waste-to-electric "hybrid" charge stations. That is, a methane capture system in municipal landfill spins turbine, supplemented by a PV array. The energy is stored in some big (LiOn) ESS unit and dispensed for fee nearby. This solar+waste mini-power plant would demonstrate the potential for larger scale systems, provide new revenue to cities and push the renewable factor further into the public eye.

San Diego, Santa Monica, Santa Fe, Scottsdale - hello?

Posted by: gr | Jun 20, 2008 2:50:59 PM

You need long range policies to create and maintain infrastructure that is necessary in times like these. With oil prices now, a person can immediately change his/her habits but society still has the long term drag effects caused by infrastructure developements made when energy was cheap. These last a long time. These don't change and are just as bad.

A package of policies will be needed just to replace cars with EV's to create the electrical infrastructure. Anyone who doesn't believe some sort of planning is necessary is dreaming.

Posted by: aym | Jun 20, 2008 5:46:57 PM

joseph is correct. while 55mph speed limit is good for the northeast, once you get out west the terrain is not conducive to such slow speeds. everything is just farther apart, and it makes sense that you should be able to go faster. ever been to texas..?
just a quick example. i used to go camping in death valley when i lived in california.
one way trip ~375 mi
at 55mph = 6.8 hrs
at 85mph (a conservative speed if you've ever been out to inyokern area) = 4.4 hrs
just making a point here before everyone starts crying about how i "shouldn't be allowed" to drive that far and see one of the last well-preserved areas of our beautiful country..
and by the way, i did it in a truck. no prius is going to make it offroad to the places we'd go.

Posted by: marc | Jun 20, 2008 6:14:06 PM

"to far worse effect than CO2."

And there was no "holocaust."

Posted by: | Jun 20, 2008 7:09:29 PM

There are several ideas here that are just excuses to avoid change ...

Idea ( 1 ) "We don't need a "recharge-infrastructure" just use hybrids.
While hybrids are a great short term help, they are not a solution to the lack of oil, nor are they a long term way to clean up our environment. A nation driving 100% Prius cars is still 100% addicted to oil. This just puts the need for a real solution off for a few years, but does not solve anything. We still run out of gas. We still have global warming. We still have smog.

Idea ( 2 ) Just put recharge points at highway Gas stations.
Seriously! The first recharge methods will take time, and the constraint is on the power source, not the car batteries. We know this time period can be 2 hours with today's technology, and may be lowered with later upgraded methods.
Few people want to go onto the highway and sit for two hours while a car recharges, but most of us would be happy to have a nice restaurant meal, do a little shopping, or watch a movie while our car recharged.

Seriously, we DO need a universal standard for BEV recharging, and to see it installed in every city at the largest shopping plazas. We also need to insist that BEV cars be made available to buy.

Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 20, 2008 8:28:38 PM

Stas writes: Every single gas auto retired, is the equivalent of of ten PHEVs. The adoption of a 50% market penetration of PHEVs and BEVs, would be the equivalent of slashing the US auto fleet from 250 million vehicles to a gasoline auto fleet of but 25-50 million cars.

Stas, isn't this a bit of magical thinking? You still have 125 million ICE vehicles PLUS 125 million PHEVs somehow using in total the gasoline of 25-50 million cars?

Posted by: George | Jun 20, 2008 11:34:51 PM

@J. Taylor

Very good points. Maybe I am being too optimistic about how fast the first EVs will be able to charge. Nevertheless, there are a couple of articles here at CCG that indicate that 10 minutes fast charge of an EV is quit doable.

The best reference is probably the City EV from Subaru due for sale in 2009. They say it will be able to charge its battery to 80% capacity in 8 minutes. The two-seat Subaru R1e is capable of driving at speeds up to 65 mph with a range of up to 50 miles. I quote “The price and specifics of the vehicle are not yet disclosed, but FHI said it plans to have its electric cars down to around ¥2 million (US$17,500) apiece by 2012 or 2013. Mori said that by the mid-2010s, mass production will significantly decrease the cost of batteries, enabling electric cars to come down to below ¥1.5 million (US$13,100).”

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/electric-subaru.html
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/subaru-will-eva.html

With only 50 miles range this car will be “worth twice as much” to the consumers if a national fast charge grid was available along all highway gas stations.

Several battery manufactures have said their batteries can be charged in 10 minutes including but not limited to A123, Altair, NEC, and Toshiba. I think this it is possible for all high power LiFePO4 and LiMn2O4 batteries and titanium based batteries.

***
Fast charge for heavy duty trucks is probably going to be more difficult to implement because of the size of the battery and the amount of heat that need to be removed during the fast charge. A heavy duty truck will need a battery from 140 to 350 kWh to get a 60 to 175 miles range. I have one reference on a heavy duty 60.000 lbs truck used in Port of LA to move containers internally. This truck charge its 140kWh battery in 2 hours (down from 8 hours with lead acid batteries) and it can also swap its batteries (two big ones) in 3-5 minutes.
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f1AlrG8gVU
Brochure:
http://www.balqon.com/admin/images/pdf/nautilus%20E30_0402.pdf

Unless fast charging for heavy duty trucks can be minimized to max 20 minutes I think battery swapping will be needed as well along all highway gas stations to also accommodate the transition of these vehicles to EV power. If it is more that 20 minutes too much money will be spend to pay the driver to wait for the battery to charge.

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 21, 2008 12:41:05 AM

On the 55mph point, surely a better alternative would be for a mandatory requirement for all cars to have an 'overdrive' or higher sixth gear.

My partner's 2.5 litre Audi A6 TDi returned 55 UK mpg from a mainly motorway journey at 70mph. At 60, the national speed limit on non-divided highways, mileage is about the same. At 55mph or below, driving in 6th is difficult without labouring the engine, especially on hills, so you actually get more of a fuel penalty than a bonus at this speed. It's all in the gearing.

Electrics are good for short commutes in cities. Hybrids are best suited to stop-start journeys, also in cities, where braking etc regenerate batteries for acceleration. But aren't these the types of journeys that government's are trying to reduce?

I don't see the advantage in EVs or Hybrids, especially for the type of driving I do which is more occasional but longer distance drives for camping trips and visiting family. A Diesel is far better value, even though prices are currently reaching £1.30 per litre/£6 per gallon ($10 per US gallon).

Lets not also forget where most of this lovely clean electricity comes from - coal and gas fired pwower stations, and forget the extra number of power stations that would be needed to supply EVs, especially in the short term. And what happens when batteries need to be replaced - where do the old ones go?

My money is on biofuels derived from algae based biomass. If this can be produced economically and at a scale that can displace petroleum demand would this not be simpler? Pity that some green activists are trying to kill and bury biofuels because of food vs fuel debate. Sure this is valid for crop based biomass and palm oil, but not for promising sources such as algae.

If algae does take off, it could also be a opportunity for developing countries to create an algae based fuel industry, especially for the most desertified areas within reach of the sea. Maybe this is a good way also perhaps to use the process not only to produce fuel but also clean water in the process if this is possible for areas where clean water supply is scarce.

Posted by: Chillegibbo | Jun 21, 2008 7:17:24 AM

@Chillegibbo

The EV batteries are non-toxic lithium batteries. They will be nearly 100% recycled because they contain valuable metals.

Also 40% of all new electricity in the EU come from clean wind power. (Net capacity additions and net reductions 2007: Wind power 8,504 MW; Gas 8,226 MW; Coal (-750 MW); Nuclear (-1,203 MW) Source: Platts PowerVision and EWEA).

Still not 100% from clean modern energy but give it 3 or 4 more years with 30% growth and 100% of all new electricity in the EU will come from wind and some solar. In the US it depends on who is elected I am afraid. Obama and the US will be 100% clean and modern energy by the end of his term and McCain it will be “clean coal” that is not clean at all because it use water resources and still emit 20% of their CO2 because the CO2 capture is in reality only 80% CO2 capture. McCain’s nuclear ambition is ridiculous because it is too expensive compared to wind and it is still not clean because it uses water resources and produce dangerous waste and help other countries to acquire doomsday technology because there will be more relevant engineers to hire in the global labor market.

I agree with you that an EV should be able to serve its owner as well as an ICE can (no compromising on anything) so this is why we need fast charge stations everywhere.

Posted by: | Jun 21, 2008 8:08:17 AM

me above

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 21, 2008 8:08:38 AM

The problem with EV's is that they are useless in any part of the world where the temperature dips below freezing. Not only does your battery capacity drop because of the low temperature, you also need to use a significant part of it to keep the winshield clear and the driver warm enough to avoid crashing into schoolchildren.

Here in Ontario, electricity is mostly dirty and generated in antiquated plants, with frequent brownouts in the summer.

Why would I spend huge money to get a summer-only car that is mostly powered by coal? The baseline may be hydro/nuclear, but those facilities don't even meet our needs today.

It will take more than 15 years before we can get cleaner electricity sources online, and that's an optimistic estimate given that we haven't even reached the planing stages (we are still in the "if we switch off a few lightbulbs we'll be o.k." stage, a.k.a. denial).

Posted by: Bernard | Jun 21, 2008 10:01:47 AM

"Obama and the US will be 100% clean and modern energy by the end of his term "

Henrik, what makes you think that 250 million cars, the coal/oil/nuclear utilities, shipping, rail, air transport, military ($500B petroleum-based budget) will suddenly become 100% clean in only 8 years (assuming two terms.) This is the kind of idolatry that arises from cults and fanatics. I have read your posts and believe you to be neither.

Posted by: sulleny | Jun 21, 2008 11:05:25 AM

@Sulleny
You get me wrong. It is a flow consideration (new electricity added to the grid). It is not a stock consideration (composition of existing sources of electricity). The relevant consideration is the flow because the conversion of transportation from ICE to EV will require new added electric generation. Existing generation is already used for other purposes. Many people don’t distinguish between flow and stock which is why they wrongly claim that EVs will not be CO2 neutral. The EU and USA is only a few years away from achieving 100% CO2 neutrality with regard to added electricity and this is coming predominantly from wind power. Of cause it will take decades to replace the existing and CO2 polluting power plants (the stock). Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in which case I apologize.

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 21, 2008 12:17:31 PM

I should also stress that energy policy is not really a matter of DEMs or GOPs. The republican governors of California and Texas are doing the right thing in their jurisdictions in my opinion. When I favor Obama’s energy policy from McCain’s it is not at all an endorsement of one party or the other. It is limited to the energy policy in the white house which is also related to security policy. I simply don’t trust that McCain will lead America (or the free world for that sake) away from its addiction to fossil fuel. His statement about staying in Iraq for 100 years and now this ‘clean coal’ and nuclear has convinced me that he is stuck in old ways of thinking in this regard. It is not visionary at all. To have visions for a better future is some of the most important part of being a good president for America and as a world leader. I would be more comfortable to see both candidates offer such visions.

Posted by: Henrik | Jun 21, 2008 1:12:56 PM

Henrik, I agree. Personally I would like to see *more* government and private sector partnerships that expand the flow generation. I like the idea of small municipal-based solar, wind and W2E (Waste to Energy) projects. An easy one in the southwest would be landfill methane micro-turbines supplemented by solar. The accumulated energy is stored and dispensed for a small fee to public EVs at cheap (or no cost). This demonstrates the W2E concept, EVs, solar and gives the early adopters a free (or small $$) "fill up."

As for the politics, forces beyond the main cast often produce compromises unanticipated at election time. I expect the same from both parties next time around.

Posted by: gr | Jun 21, 2008 3:38:26 PM

HAS ANYONE HEARD OF THE COMPRESSED AIR CAR IN EUROPE. IT COMING OUT IN 2009-201O....AND THEY GET GREAT MILAGE PER CHARGE.

Posted by: GEORGE | Jun 28, 2008 12:01:59 PM

I agree with Axil: garbage in , garbage out. How does anyone get paid to write this trash?

The authors note that the EIA forcast of oil proces has already been proved wrong:
"In addition to their reference case forecast of oil prices, EIA also makes projections for high and low oil prices, each of which makes different assumption regarding the behavior of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The reference case assumes that OPEC continues to be the primary source of oil, increasing their production through 2030 at a rate similar to that of the last 15 years. EIA’s high oil price scenario accounts for a hypothetical scenario where aggressive OPEC behavior influence
oil markets. The high oil price scenario in AEO 2007 projects a world oil price of $59 per barrel in 2007, continuously increasing through 2030 to $93 per barrel in real terms. The average price of gasoline in this scenario starts at $2.66 in 2007 and ramps up to $3.10 in 2030. Of course, 2008 crude oil prices are much higher than either EIA’s reference or “high” oil-price cases. The NEMS-ETIP assumptions about the oil prices may be too sanguine, in which case the higher underlying oil prices would likely result in all of the
other policy scenarios modeled more effective. Oil prices are unaffected by the
introduction of policies in the NEMS-ETIP model."

Despite this, they choose the following key assumption for their model:
"Imported oil prices are predicted to fall from $59/barrel in 2007 to $41/barrel in 2014, to then rise to $51/barrel by 2030 in the reference case."

Their assumptions for PHEVs are also garbage:
• PHEV’s use electricity for only 10 percent of their VMT, and that this percentage remains invariable over time;
• PHEV’s are introduced only in three passenger vehicle categories, namely compact, midsize, and large cars—no plug-in hybrid light-duty trucks are introduced;
• The fuel economy of PHEV’s remains about constant throughout the estimation period, at circa 65 miles per gallon; and,
• PHEV’s have a maximum of 50 percent market penetration potential, based on the fraction of homes that have garages for battery recharging.

None of these assumptions are sensible.

As to the policies modelled, where is the innovation?
The grandly named "Energy Technology Innovation Policy (ETIP) group" only models a handful of policies none of which is innovative:
"economy-wide carbon prices, fuel-economy performance standards, and several kinds of transportation-fuels taxes."

Even their assumptions for these old chestnuts are garbage, for example they assume "economy-wide carbon pricing" of $10 or $30 to $60 per ton CO2.
Estimates of CCS costs are mostly in the $80 to $100 range, so not much changes unless the CO2 tax is higher than the cost of CCS. By contrast, once the CO2 tax is higher than than CCS cost, market forces will rapidly change electricity generation.

The most glaring omission from the policies modelled is any form of vehicle purchase tax or feebate, which would directly affect consumer choice and hence the fuel efficiency of the new vehicles purchased.

It is bizarre that this feeble drivel comes from the "John F Kennedy School of Government". If JFK had adopted this approach, we would still be modelling the flight of rockets instead of actually building and testing rockets till they could land a man on the moon.

What we actually need is a program similar to the JFK space moon landing program to put in place all the fiscal policies, emissions regulations and minimum standards necessary to reduce GHG emissions enough to stabilise GHG forcing.

Ten years after Kyoto, these bogus "studies" only spread misinformation and encourage endless talk and delay.
The approach taken by the Governor of California will be much more effective - set goals for reducing GHG emissions by target dates and mandate a government taskforce to introduce a very large range of measures which taken together will achieve the targets.
I hope the incoming president and congress will start to set federal fiscal measures and minimum standards and let the market compete to deliver.

Posted by: Polly | Jul 2, 2008 8:54:22 PM

I'm personally worried about the US economy. It is driving force of World economy too. If we are living Oil Peak or it has been passed already, then we are going to have difficult times. In U.S. the main transportation made with oil fueled vehicles. Many US cars are using double gasoline compared to European counter parts. In Europe we have electric trains and more alternative transportation than in US. In Finland gasoline price is now 1.60 EUR / liter ( 9,50 USD per / Gallon) and rising.

We need more time with oil, that's why we need to increase taxes for oil more than this report says. This gained time we need for building alternative energy sources to make electricity, which may power less cars than we already have.

Posted by: Finn | Jul 3, 2008 12:42:11 PM

I heard that the 55 mph speed limit was set so low because they never thought it would last set that low. Well it did last and it saved a lot of lives and fuel. We may need to consider this again.

It is well past time that we all stop talking about this and actually DO something. The waiting and talking is a reminder to me of the the 70s, where everyone talked about the problems, but did nothing about them until it was too late.

Posted by: sjc | Jul 6, 2008 7:49:00 AM

can i ask if you have already made a research about the oil cost in relation to transportation fee's towards estimation of fare increase

Posted by: ria | Jul 7, 2008 10:00:53 PM