This GCC article illustrates how an understanding of the subject contributes to superior reporting. The Wall Street Journal covered this story in 6 column-inches or so and not once mentioned the use of *off-peak* electricity. When I read that piece, I could not understand the results, given that producers like TXU claim impending production shortfalls. When all charging is done off-peak, problems meeting peak demand are irrelevant.

_There is enough Li (12+ million tons global) for ~240 million PHEV. After which, you would have to go with other technology using other materials, i.e. carbon aerogel ultracapacitors.
_Converting all of these plants to combined cycle steam+gas turbine would boost efficiencies, at natural gas and coal fired plants. It would be easier to do at gas fired plants since many of them already run gas turbines.

How about changeable batteries for Cars and other vehicles. Similar to our mobile phones, imagine a car in which the battery can be changed whenever required.

Then cars could be sold to the customer without the battery (very less car cost), and the electric companies charge their amount for the batteries.

Power plants will supply charged batteries to all the petrol pumps and the user can just move in the pump station and replace batteries when required.

No need for the user to maintain or replace batteries. Vehicle costs could be brought down.

Handling batteries will be the task of Power plants, they'll upgrade their batteries with newer technology.

In short, take the battery burden off users and put it on somebody who can manage the system well.

What do ya say?

--Just a Whacky Idea!

Anyone expecting 50% electricity from wind and solar
should get in touch with the reality of electrical
power generation in this country. Wind is the last technology I would spend money on to reduce demad/increase green supply. Geoexchange subsidies I estimate to be not only 8 times more effective than wind in terms of sheer beneficial energy results, but also continues to enrich the homeowner and society by reducing the total cost of energy. Wind does exactly the opposite. Wind also has the very nasty habit of being nonexistent when demand peaks. This means that any wind capacity added to a utility's grid cannot be used to establish its peak demand capacity. In other words, when it's hot and electrical demand peaks, wind cannot be found, and the utility can add all the wind it desires, but still must maintain, staff, and have ready all those controllable, fossil fueled plants. You can never replace any of them because of added wind power. That
makes any calculations of the price of wind tricky.
When calculated realistically, wind power is very expensive for any systems that see year over year growth and don't already possess lots of excess capacity, such as is the case for virtually every single utility in the country. In terms of how much effect there has been from 2 years of the most massive construction of wind turbines, the anser is that it is imperceptible. Total
electrical capacity in the U.S. is close to 1,080,000 megawatts. Wind turbines possess plate capacities of 10,000 megawatts, but, unlike other power plants, which
easily produce 95% and up of their rated capacity, wind
real output generally runs around 25 to 30% of capacity,
making total U.S. wind power output aroud 2500 megawayy, or less than one quarter of one percent of the U.S.
total. Last year wind power increased by 2500 megawatts plate capacity, or around 800 megawatts actual capacity.
The increased electricity demand from 2005 to 2006
was approximately 1 and 1/2 percent, or 16,000 megawatts
of new capacity. Therefore the total wind added during that time was less than 5% of just the increase in demand. I think it unlikely that there will ever
be a fossil fuel power plant shuttered because of the
addition of windpower. Even the mainstream media is
beginning to recognize the gigantic problems with wind power and the fraud of attempting to stampede this country into buying a bill of goods, just because there are those politicians who frantic to "do something" to get votes from a mostly hysterical public. Until wind technology acquires the ability to produce its power when and where its needed, wind is a flop as a viable
energy source.

In the US taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel provide the revenue for road construction and repair. If most vehicles are plug-ins how will the lost revenue be replaced. Placing electric meters in the cars which could be read digitally through the grid may be one way to do it. My WAG is that a tax of as much as 10 cents/kwh may be needed. One of the factors being tauted to offset the higher cost of plug-ins is the relative low cost of electricity and the avoidance road fuel taxes.

Institute toll roads for highways, bridges, etc.

Neil, if trust was the only issue then I don't see a problem. After all, the utility would be paying you for that electricity and once a few brave people demonstrate that its reliable then the more timid may follow!

Neil,
Nevermind the ramifications, if we pull out of Iraq, they will likely either go to Afghanistan, to bases around the Middle East, or home bases. It would also mean a massive movement of equipment. Worn down gear, vehicles, and other systems would have to be refurbished/rebuilt. Current shortages in war materiel must be rectified. Units short on men and gear must be brought up to strength. Combat and reconstruction ops in Afghanistan will become more intensive. All of this will be expensive.
_Tens/hundreds of billions of Dollars/Euros, and hundreds of thousands of soldiers are needed. The Afghan govt, Army, and police need to be beefed/developed/cleaned up, to the point of being able to lead the effort. It could be another 5 years before the US/NATO will be able to pull out of the country in significant numbers. Another 10-15 years of international assistance (economic, governmental, military, etc.) will be necessary. Eventually, there might be a need for a pernament presence in the form of enlarged foreign military/govt. attaches, for training and mentoring (NCO/CO/General/governance/economic/etc).

_Afghanistan was never going to be cheap. With a generation of war and destruction, years of drought, and drug problems, the costs will be a shock to many.

One reason fuel economy is lower than Govt. numbers is because of speeding. If you go 75 instead of 55, you incur a increase in total aerodynamic drag of ~85%. Traveling 85 instead of 60 will double your total aero drag.

Electric motors also tend to more efficiently at lower RPM, thus lower speeds...or use transmissions w/gearing ratios that allow for peak efficiencies.

When I read the results of this DOE study on PHEV
and grid demand, I was reminded of some calculations
I made last week on the question of electrical
demands posed by an all electric fleet of personal
transportation highway vehicles.

Here were my assumptions and results:
1) I know for a fact that the U.S. consumed 120
billion gallons of gasoline last year, mostly
for highway vehicles. I reduced this figure by
10 billion to account for boats, lawns mowers,
motorcycles, etc.
2) I happen to know that, in highway driving, one
gallon of gasoline is equivalent to approximately
6.2 kilowatt hours of electricity, in terms of
its ability to propel the car agiven distance.
3) The above calcs yield a value of 7.9% of U.S.
electrical generating capacity (1 million
megawatts) would be required to power all
gasoline vehicles if they were electric and
only drove on the highway. Since not all driving
is highway mileage, and since electric cars'
mileage is not reduced during city driving, the
actual percentage of capacity required is
obviously less than 7.9%.
I'm estimating that it would be around 5%.

The problems I have with the DOE study is that it
doesn't specify the assumptions that were used or in any
manner explain its calculations. Consequently, I have no
way of evaluating the reasonableness of its conclusions.
Even assuming all PHEV have a range of 33 miles, just
knowing that average daily mileage is 33 and that there
are 220 million vehicles does not allow the calculation
of the total electric miles driven by the fleet. One
has to know the distribution of vehicles by their daily
mileages in order to make the calculation.
Another strange quirk is that the study apparently is
assuming that 100% of the nation's cars could be PHEVs.
But that's totally impossible, since nowhere near 100%
of drivers have a place to plug in their vehicle at night. People who live in condos, apartments, or townhouses, and those without a garage or carport would not pay for PHEVs. So when the study claims that 84% of PHEVs could be recharged using excess capacity, I would characterize that as misleading or, at the least, confusing.
Another issue is that I consider it highly unlikely
that the nation would go completely (or, as completely as possible) with PHEVs before a practical electric car
appears on the market. An electric car fleet changes
everything, since it constitutes a greater demand on the
grid (since everyone could own one of these cars, and all of the car's mileage would be electric) and a demand that would be distributed more evenly thruout the day (since a practical electric car means a car that can be recharged quickly, thus rechargeable at public stations). However,demand would still be concentrated at night, especially if nightime electric rates prevail.

Jim Bauman
Arlington, VA

I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but there is an interesting article on electrifyingtimes.com that hypothesizes that Panasonic is prohibited by patent liscense lawsuits from making larger NMHydride batteries suitable for PHEV and BEV vehicles and that they are constrained for another 9 years.

The article suggests that is why Panasonic refuses to make replacement batteries for the electric RAV-4s in California. It further suggests that Panasonic is under a confidentiality agreement on the liscense.

Many folks think that Li+ batteries are not ready for prime time and that NMhydride is the best current technology. This constraint in the NMhydride batteries could be a show stopper or at least a serious bump in the road for projects like this if it is true.

Another reason utilities like the idea of PHEVs is that they can be used to SUPPLEMENT capacity during peak demand. PHEVs are primarily charged at night during off-peak hours, but a large number will remain on the grid during the day. During peak demand, power can be drawn FROM the PHEV batteries to supplement the grid, preventing brown-outs, and reducing the need to bring expensive peaking power on-line. This capability can be added in conjunction with the current controls some utilities use to turn off air conditioners and water heaters during peak load. The difference is that rather than simply cutting off power, the PHEV batteries can actually supply power during these peak load times and then be re-charged during the off-peak times. A sufficient number of PHEVs in their service area can eliminate the need to expend capital to construct peaking generators that would only be used a few times a year, saving the utilities a great deal of money.

Google did a study recently and found that they might actually save money by buying PHEVs for their employees and using the PHEV batteries to limit their own need for peak power. It turns out that Google's big electric bill is driven in large part by their peak demand, not their average demand. By shaving power use during the peak periods, they would save nearly enough money to buy the PHEVs, while at the same time making a strong evironmental statement and providing a nice benefit to their employees.