Report: Environmental Benefits of Deploying PHEVs

PHEVs Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Potential for Improved Air Quality

Plug-in hybrid cars (PHEVs) could cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 500 million tons a year by 2050 without taxing the electric grid, according to a report issued Thursday by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Among study's key findings were:

• Widespread adoption of PHEVs can reduce GHG emissions from vehicles by more than 450 million metric tons annually in 2050 -- equivalent to removing 82.5 million passenger cars from the road
• There is an abundant supply of electricity for transportation; a 60 percent U.S. market share for PHEVs would use 7 percent to 8 percent of grid-supplied electricity in 2050
• PHEVs can improve nationwide air quality and reduce petroleum consumption by 3 million to 4 million barrels per day in 2050

According to the press release the analysis is the first to combine detailed models of the U.S. electric system and transportation sector with sophisticated atmospheric air quality models -- accounting for the future evolution of both sectors in technological advances, electricity load growth and capacity expansion.

Researchers used detailed models of the U.S. electric and transportation sectors and created a series of scenarios to examine assumed changes in both sectors over the 2010 to 2050 timeframe of the study.

Three scenarios represent high, medium, and low levels of both CO2 and total GHG emissions intensity for the electric sector as determined by the mix of generating technologies and other factors.

Three scenarios represent high, medium, and low penetration of PHEVs in the 2010 to 2050 timeframe.

From these two sets of scenarios emerge nine different outcomes spanning the potential longterm GHG emissions impacts of PHEVs, as shown in the following table.

Annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions from PHEVs in the year 2050

Researchers drew the following conclusions from the modeling exercises:

• Annual and cumulative GHG emissions are reduced significantly across each of the nine scenario combinations.
• Annual GHG emissions reductions were significant in every scenario combination of the study, reaching a maximum reduction of 612 million metric tons in 2050 (High PHEV fleet penetration, Low electric sector CO2 intensity case).
• Cumulative GHG emissions reductions from 2010 to 2050 can range from 3.4 to 10.3 billion metric tons.
• Each region of the country will yield reductions in GHG emissions.

Comments

[Doug]

This study is very encouraging. But it doesn't address weather or not people actually want to drive PHEVs. We've yet to prove that people want to drive regular Hybrid cars in any mass numbers (although they've made a notably good splash). But the Hybrid Camry isn't selling well and Honda is discontinuing the Hybrid Accord. There are very clear reasons for this, but it isn't the emissions standards that people seem to be buying when the purchase a car. They want the convenience and service it provides. At the end of the day, that is what must be solved first before figuring out of the math behind PHEVs works out.

[Engineer-Poet]

This study ... doesn't address weather or not people actually want to drive PHEVs.

Hybrids drive just like anything else.  Most of them wouldn't look any different from the standard models if the hybrid emblem was removed (the Prius is the obvious exception).

We've yet to prove that people want to drive regular Hybrid cars in any mass numbers (although they've made a notably good splash).

How do you get "no proof" from 50% of car shoppers (which was 57% last year)?  50% is on the order of 8 million people per year.

But the Hybrid Camry isn't selling well and Honda is discontinuing the Hybrid Accord.

The Camry isn't as efficient as the Prius, nor does it declare one's green cred so obviously.  However, they are going just fine; I saw one yesterday (small town in the South) and heard a radio station giving one away as a contest prize in Kentucky last month.

The Accord hybrid is a special case.  It is tuned for power and has rather small economy benefits over the standard V6.  Hybrid buyers aren't interested because it's not delivering what they want; they'll be going for the Camry hybrid instead.

There are very clear reasons for this, but it isn't the emissions standards that people seem to be buying when the purchase a car. They want the convenience and service it provides.

People generally don't buy cars for the emissions standards, period.  Some buy them to use less fuel, some to get HOV stickers, some to declare their environmental position.

When we get PHEV's, we'll see more of the same as well as people buying them to reduce or eliminate their visits to gas stations.  Some will do this for the freedom from gas prices and shortages, and some will do it to give the finger to Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton and OPEC.

[Kit P]

EPRI represents the electric industry who would love to increase demand for electricity. Me too.

NRDC is clueless on pollution.

So Doug ask the same question that I have been asking, but E-P answers for us. He provides an emosional response about giving the finger to Halliburton. In a way E-P is right. People often buy cars for emotional reasons.

This where I am different from E-P. I am a real engineer who makes decisions based logic not emotion. While I have a vested interest in PHEV becoming a reality, logic tells me PHEV are DOA.

[D-Sid]

Sales of the current Camry, Accord, and even the Escape Hybrids don't give an accurate view of the demand for hybrid cars in my opinion because they simply don't deliver on what people want from the technology, which is better fuel efficiency.

Why in the world would I buy an Accord V6 Hybrid that costs several thousand dollars more, but that only gets 2MPG better fuel efficiency? That's absurd and the Camry and Escape have similar limitations.

Only the Prius is delivering on what people want from the technology and it continues to sell extremely well. If Honda releases an Accord Hybrid with a smaller, more efficient gasoline motor that really takes advantage of hybrid technology and gets 40 MPG, you'll see sales go through the roof immediately.

[Benjamin Cole]

The PHEV is a perfect example where ham-handed government fiat is needed. Why?

It behooves no single car buyer to try to reduce pollution. The positive results are negligible. LA has smog no matter what I drive, global warming will go its way. There is no reward to the virtuous behavior. Why make a sacrifice if no one else is? Indeed, why even make a sacrifice if everyone else it? The problem is solved w/o my doing anything. (We probably all sometime in our lives attended a picnic, ate and then just went home w/o bringing food etc). Freeloading makes economic sense, if you can get away with it.

Of course, if we all drove PHEVs, there would be a huge difference, and in imported oil costs too.

So....we either need to tax pollution and fuel use seriously, or by fiat mandate rising percentages of new cars be PHEVs. It is in our national interest, our interest as a society, our interest as humans living on the planet. It is real patriotism.

[Kit P]

BC there is a Catch 22 in your argument. If most of the drivers in LA adopted my life style (8 miles from work), that would solve the air pollution problem in LA. While my driving habits would be perfect for a PHEV, it would make no economic or environmental (my air is already clean) sense to own one.

All those people clogging the freeways in California commute much more than 20 miles a day, therefor PHEV would be useless.

Elected officials in California are not serious about AGW or local pollution and neither is BC. They keep demanding someone else solve the problems that they created. So create a huge local fuel tax and ban SUVs except when it is snowing ot they are car pooling.

[Carl Hage]

Assuming some incentive to reduce oil/CO2-- gas prices, emission cost/tax, patriotism/religion, etc.-- it comes down to economics as to what technologies might evolve.

I saw an interesting chart comparing add-on cost and fuel economy gains for various technologies: gasoline, new (clean) diesel techniques, and hybrid electric (HEV). Some of the diesel technlogies had comparable gains as HEVs but only $1000-$2000 vs $3000 add-on cost. A diesel HEV could get very high mileage.

In the report at www.oilendgame.com, reducing weight would be the most significant way to reduce fuel/CO2, and it's theoretically possible to substitute carbon-fiber composites for steel at equivalent manufacturing cost. Cutting the weight in half (is practical) cuts fuel use about in half. Probably a lightweight body would make a PHEV more practical as well, since battery needs scale.

Now just look at the numbers. I just bought a Prius (I'm getting >50mpg), and looked into an Accord Hybrid, but it was $35K and hard to buy, vs $22K for the Prius. I would have bought a manual Civic over the Accord or Civic-Hybrid, because it's way cheaper plus more fun to drive, yet still had good mileage.

The combined EPA08 for the Accord Hybrid is 27mpg, 4cyl-man=26mpg, 4cyl-auto=25, 6cyl-auto=21. My German friend with a diesel Quattro got 37mpg long distance highway and has about 28mpg ave.

At $3.50/gal, my Pruis will need about $7,000 in fuel per 100K miles, and save about the same vs a typical car. If the fuel economy was doubled again by PHEV, diesel, carbon-fiber, etc., it would only need $3,500/100K-mi and only save $3,500 in fuel.

The cost for a PHEV upgrade for the Pruis will depend a lot on the cost of batteries. Hopefully with new batteries coming out it will be practical for an extra $3K. I'm a bit skeptical on other cars that weren't designed to be a hybrid from the ground up. There are lots of ways to cut fuel use, and PHEV technology is among the most expensive.

The EPRI/NRDC report on PHEVs assumes 20%-80% of all cars will be PHEVs. This could be high, but the point is that electric drive has lower total CO2 than gasoline.

Note for the Tesla EV the electricity cost is low/mile, but if you include a battery replacement (at current prices), amortized battery cost is 2-3X more/mile than gasoline. (The Tesla battery life is supposedly 500 full-charges, ~125Kmi.)

Consumers pay $40K for a luxury SUV, so why worry about a mere $10,000 in fuel savings?

[Andy Schoenberg]

I would like to hear more about how the amount of electrical energy required to fuel phevs was computed. How many killowatt-hrs per household will be required and how will this energy be generated?

[Clee]

I don't believe in legislating in a technology, be it fluorescent bulbs or PHEVs. If it's fuel efficiency, or emissions reductions you want, legislate that. Don't stifle innovation by choosing technological winners and losers.

The Prius got into the top 10-sales chart by meeting enough people's wants and needs, not because of some technology mandate.
http://www.leftlanenews.com/prius-cracks-may-top-10-sales-chart.html

[Engineer-Poet]

The Kit P troll never fails to amuse:

This where I am different from E-P. I am a real engineer who makes decisions based logic not emotion.

... while ignoring the prospective PHEV buyer's logical reason of reducing or eliminating gas-station visits.

While I have a vested interest in PHEV becoming a reality, logic tells me PHEV are DOA.

It's a rather selective logic which omits key factors:

• Technical:  Batteries are much improved.
• Technical:  Motors have better performance than engines.
• Practical:  PHEVs would eliminate many visits to filling stations.
• Practical:  PHEVs would make a large fraction of driving gas-free.
• Practical:  PHEVs would make much driving independent of the cost of petroleum.
• Environmental:  PHEVs can keep pollution out of city centers, parks, etc.
• Environmental:  PHEVs can reduce their per-mile environmental footprint long after they are built, as the grid mix changes.

I note that the retail price of Li-ion cells has fallen below $700/kWh (and that's in nominal, not constant, dollars).  If Kit P doesn't think this is relevant to the business case (aka financial logic) for PHEVs, he's definitely not an engineer.

But we knew that already.

[Engineer-Poet]

Andy:  That figure depends on the vehicle mix, and this is subject to wild swings in market demand (think of the muscle cars of the 60's, the Pintos and Chevettes and Civic CVCC's of the 70's, and today's monster SUVs).  But we can make some educated guesses.  If we take 2006's gasoline consumption of 9.233 million bbl/day and multiply by a fleet average economy of 25 mpg, we get 9.69 billion miles/day (3.54 trillion miles/year).  If these vehicles drove 2/3 of their mileage on electricity at 250 Wh/mile, they would consume 1.62 billion kWh/day or an average of 67 gigawatts.

[Engineer-Poet]

As for how that electricity would be generated, that will be determined by decisions not yet made.  It might be wind farms, solar towers, burning coal (I hope not!) or splitting atoms.

[Kit P]

E-P, you are confusing long list of stuff that you make and is not true with logic. Please spare me you endless links to press releases.

I commute to work in an 89 Ford Ranger with 250k miles with a manual transmission that has been trouble free except for the battery, starter, and alternator. I need to go to the gas station one a month. Let me know when you have 15 years of data on PHEV. Explain again why you think think adding additional failure modes of the most failure prone automotive components is going to make a car more reliable.

Corollas and Civics outsold the Prius eight to one. They are simple, reliable , luxury (they have every luxury I want) cars. Like many marketing gimmicks, the Prius violates the keep it simple principle. Ford and GM 'light' trucks outsold the Prius ten to one.

The point here is that there is not compelling engineering or marketing reason to change. A small fraction of people will change without compelling reason. QED, PHEV are DOA.

Andy, electricity for changing PHEV from the grid is going to come from the least expensive power plant available to produce electricity at that time. With time of use (TOU) meters, the consumer might be able to program battery charging to avoid the worst fossil choices.

The only safe prediction is that the electricity for PHEV will come from the the most butt ugly source of energy. I recall a large oil fired power plant built in the 60s that was moth balled in the early 80s when the utility brought a nuke on line. This large oil fired power plant is running again providing electricity to a neighboring state that shut down an operating nuke for political reasons.

In practical terms 90% of the time charging PHEV is going to come from oil or imported LNG. It will come from solar or wind some time after pigs learn to fly.

[Nucbuddy]

Engineer-Poet wrote: Technical: Batteries are much improved.

Gasoline motors have a long waiting-list of improvements that have not broken into the market. Consumers are rejecting these motor improvements in favor of other car features, such as luxury, safety, fit and finish, etc.

Technical: Motors have better performance than engines.

Maybe you meant, "Electric engines have better performance than gasoline engines." ("Electric motors have better performance than gasoline motors.") If that were the case, why are electric engines only used today in gimic cars, and why would an automaker not simply combine a gasoline engine with electric drive, the way trains and some heavy trucks do?

One of the largest trucks now in operation is the Liebherr T282B made by Liebherr Mining Equipment (Newport News, VA). Its GVW is 1,305,000 lb and it can carry 400 tons. The truck is powered by a Cummins 3659-hp engine, with a Siemens AC electric drive.

Practical: PHEVs would eliminate many visits to filling stations.

Making gas-tanks of non-PHEV cars larger would eliminate many visits to filling stations. Why are consumers currently choosing other features over that one?

Practical: PHEVs would make a large fraction of driving gas-free.

That is a feature, and not necessarily a benefit. How would that feature make PHEV's practical?

Practical: PHEVs would make much driving independent of the cost of petroleum.

Driving is already 99%+ independent of the cost of petroleum. If you want to change that, you will have to reduce the other costs of driving, or increase the cost of petroleum. To increase the cost of petroleum, perhaps you could reduce capital-gains taxes, since this would reduce a current-disincentive to speculation on the future prices of petroleum.

Business and fleet vehicle operation already incurs sizable fuel costs. Why have the owners and operators of these vehicles not switched to PHEV's? Why would you expect private automobile owners -- who, as a group, drive their vehicles only a fraction of the miles -- to switch to PHEV's before fleets and commercial-enterprises did?

Environmental: PHEVs can keep pollution out of city centers, parks, etc.

Low-emission gas-engined cars already achieve this. Stricter regulations could force all new gas-engined cars to achieve this.

Environmental: PHEVs can reduce their per-mile environmental footprint long after they are built, as the grid mix changes.

Long after they are built, cars are not driven very often. New cars average 15,000 miles per year. Registered cars in general average only 12,000 miles per year.

[mds]

Thanks for your comments. Many seem to be blind to the two technical revolutions under way:
1. Electric transportation
2. Solar power

Here’s some Li Ion battery information:
1. http://www.a123systems.com/newsite/index.php#/applications/phev/pchart2/ This chart shows battery capacity verses number of deep cycle discharges. (87% @ 3,700+ cycles)
2. http://www.lithiumtech.com/pr51407.htm New LiFePO4 battery from LTC “LTC's cells can provide 3000 charging cycles” “80% capacity” – May 2007.
3. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/09/advanced_batter.html (Advanced Battery Technology, China – Lithium Polymer battery – Sep 2006 news) “15 minutes to fully re-charge” “720W/L and the cycle life equal to or greater than 4,000 times”
4. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/report_mitsubis.html (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd – Lithium Manganese Oxide battery for PHEVs – Jan 2007 news)
MHI LiMnO prototype (Li Ion prototype?) being tested in grid application: 160 Wh/kg, 3,500 cycles
5. http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/10/altairnano_test.html (Altair Nanotechnologies Li Ion batteries – Oct 2006 news) “15,000 charge cycle life would translate into a battery that would last greater than 40 years if it was charged daily”
Technology is new and has not been scaled up yet. Do any of you think the prices for these batteries will not come down? …or that the performance will not improve?

Here is another link on a Hybrid bus that likely illustrates future direction for electric transportation in general:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/uqm-150-kw-prop.html Series PHEV Bus with Fuel-Cell generator - July 2007.
“UQM 150 kW Propulsion System to Power Plug-in Fuel-Cell Series Hybrid Electric Bus“
Importance of this post to me is found in battery configurations mentioned in two of three projects at bottom of write-up:
(a) “The drive train will consist of a newly developed motor and controller, a Ballard 60 kW fuel cell, A123Systems Li-ion batteries and Maxwell ultracaps.”
(b) “battery dominant fuel-cell bus employing Altairnano Lithium Titanate batteries to operate”
These are two configurations likely to be seen in near-future PHEVs:
(a) A123’s latest Li Ion battery is good for 3,700 (to ~87%) deep discharge cycles, or once a day for ten years. The ultra-capacitors are used to protect battery life during shallow charge/discharge during initial acceleration and stopping. There are three other Li Ion battery manufactures, I know of, with about this performance: Lithium Technology Corp. (3,000 to 80%), Advanced Battery Technology (4,000 to ?), and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd (3,500 to ?).
(b) Altairnano’s battery is in a class of it’s own. This battery can deliver 15,000 (to 85%) deep discharge cycles, or once a day for over 40 years. This is with 6 minute deep discharge cycles. It will probably last longer with slower charge and discharge times. This battery does not need ultra-capacitor assistance.

ELECTRIC TRANPORTATION IS HERE.
EVERY MAJOR CAR MANUFACTURER IS WORKING ON A PHEV DESIGN.

Then there’s solar:
1. Solar PV –
(a) Silicon PV – Bulk silicon supplies have been in short supply and are over priced. Large investments in production and newer, cheaper, production technology will change this. In the mean time Silicon PV has gotten cheaper as economies of scale from large production and newer, thinner, silicon PV technology comes on line. 20% efficiency is becoming common.
(b) Thin-film CIGS – I have over a dozen startup companies listed. All seem to be targeting 10% efficiency or better. Several will be using roll-to-roll production techniques closer to newspaper printing than the silicon chip production techniques that older silicon PV uses. CIGS will be much cheaper. 18.8% efficiency has been measured for CIS (related to CIGS) at NREL.
(c) CdTe - First Solar has several CdTe PV production plants 100MW per year or larger. There module efficiency is 9%. Prime Star Solar is licensing NREL’s 16.5% efficient technology.
(d) Dye Solar – This has reached 11% in the laboratory. Dyesol and several others are commercializing this technology.
(e) Plastic Solar Cells – These have reached 6.5% in the laboratory. Konarka and Xsunx are commercializing.
(SEE SOME COMPETITION HERE? THAT WILL LOWER PRICES.)

2. Concentrated Solar PV –
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/03/delta_electroni.html (Delta Electronics – 35% eff. CPV panels using 40.7% eff. Cells from Spectrolab – March 2007)
http://www.physorg.com/news99904887.html 40.7% efficient Cells from Spectrolab – May 2007.
“results are particularly encouraging since they were achieved using a new class of metamorphic semiconductor materials”
“predict that with theoretical efficiencies of 58% in cells with more than three junctions using improved materials and designs, concentrator solar cells could achieve efficiencies of more than 45% or even 50% in the future”

3. Solar thermal –
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/default.asp (Stirling Energy Systems – Parabolic dish with helium sterling engine, < 8 cents per kilowatt/hr)
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/03/nevada_solar_on.html Built and comes on line next month, 10-12 cents per kilowatt/hr – March 2007news.
http://www.ishitech.co.il/0306ar4.htm (claims 10 cents / kWh now – predicts 6 or 7 cents / kWh in 5 years)
I have 6 other solar thermal startup companies listed.

REMEMBER WHEN WIND WOULD NEVER GET PAST A FRACTION OF A PERCENT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO OUR NATIONAL POWER? NOT THAT WAY ANY MORE IS IT?

SOLAR ISN’T GROWING. IT’S EXPLODING.
IT WILL MAKE THE WIND CONTRIBUTION LOOK WEAK IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

I’m all for nuclear too, but some of you need to wake up and look around. This stuff is happening.

You can’t stop electric transport or solar. You might slow them down. I’d like to accelerate them.

Some of you will only see this happening 10 years after it is obvious to everyone else. You’re funny.

[mds]

I meant to say:
"E-P thanks for your comments."
but the mistake makes it better.
Thank you all for your comments.

[Engineer-Poet]

The Kit P troll writes:

Please spare me you endless links to press releases.

He doesn't say that it's a product page with an order link.  Lying to obfuscate, or just didn't check?  Either would be in character.

E-P, you are confusing long list of stuff that you make and is not true with logic.

Look, the "tu quoque" ad-hominem attack!  Classic, but neither original nor honest.

I need to go to the gas station one a month.

I managed 6 weeks on my last tank.  Sixteen gallons.  A PHEV-20 would more than suffice to eliminate most of my regular fuel consumption; a PHEV-10 would probably do it.

I commute to work in an 89 Ford Ranger with 250k miles with a manual transmission that has been trouble free except for the battery, starter, and alternator.

You mean you've never changed the oil or replaced the filter?

Conventional lead-acid cells are limited-life items, and you should expect to replace them.

Explain again why you think think adding additional failure modes of the most failure prone automotive components is going to make a car more reliable.

Alternators fail from brushes, bushings and overloaded rectifiers.  Induction motors have no brushes, no rectifiers and typically use ball bearings; if they require service (other than replacement capacitors) after less than 20 years, it's either abuse or manufacturing defects.  Brushless PM motors are as reliable and even more efficient, and I've heard nothing bad about industrial motor controllers.

Batteries have been the problem since the 19th century, but they are good enough.  A 10 kWh pack would suffice to supply 5 kWh per cycle at 50% discharge, which would yield about 1000 cycles.  That's about 3 years at one cycle/day, with the occasional weekend at home.  A 10 kWh set would weigh perhaps 600 lbs and cost about $550 retail (perhaps $300 OEM).  If they last 2 years and drive 40% of mileage (6000 mi/yr) displacing fuel at 30 MPG, they'd save $1200/set in fuel at $3/gallon.

The next generation of lead-acid (Firefly Energy) eliminates the lead used for interconnections, and confines the lead to pores of a porous electrode.  This eliminates the standard failure modes of corrosion (the carbon backing does not react with acid) and sulfation (the pores in the carbon are too small for large sulfate particles to form).  They are also much smaller and lighter than standard lead-acid cells of the same capacity (or they can pack more capacity into the same volume, with lower weight).  The replacement of a 10 kWh pack with 50% usable with a 20 kWh pack with 80% usable would turn the PHEV-20 into a PHEV-64 and yield a weight reduction too.

Retrofitting with lithium-ion would triple the range again.  AltairNano claims to have cells which have undergone 15,000 cycles.  At 3 cycles a day, that would be what, almost 14 years?  I think most people would find that adequate.

The point here is that there is not compelling engineering or marketing reason to change.

The cost of feeding the F150's and Ram pickups is already driving people into bankruptcy, and the unreliability of the grid in some places is creating a huge market for backup power and DSM.  PHEVs can provide regulation services that utilities will pay for, further boosting the business case for owning one.  The alternative is to watch the customer base disappear as it runs out of money.  Ford seems to have gotten a clue, even if you haven't.

I love it when I can rebut your nonsense with a bunch of facts that the readers out there probably didn't know.  It equips them with the knowledge to try to de-program their brainwashed friends when they repeat the same oil-company propaganda.

[Engineer-Poet]

Nucbuddy writes:

Driving is already 99%+ independent of the cost of petroleum.

If a vehicle gets 25 MPG and lasts 150,000 miles, it will burn 6000 gallons over its lifetime. That's $18000 at $3/gallon, on the order of the purchase price. The cost could easily climb higher.

Making gas-tanks of non-PHEV cars larger would eliminate many visits to filling stations.

While eliminating cargo space and increasing the cost (including the cost of hauling all the extra weight of fuel around).

Why are consumers currently choosing other features over that one?

Customers don't have that choice from any major manufacturer yet.

Long after they are built, cars are not driven very often.

Yet their per-mile emissions usually go up, as their pollution controls wear out. This is not true of any vehicle running on electric power.

The PHEV and EV can get cleaner years after they are built. If a locality decides to retire a bunch of fossil plants and replace them with nuclear, all the air pollution and carbon emissions just disappear, even those due to electric vehicles built long before. You can't do that with any other technology available today.

[mds]

Good non-technical overview of battery technology:

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/news/2007/07/batteries?currentPage=all

[Kit P]

mds, you are incorrect. Practical EVs are not here yet and the category of renewable energy called 'renewable energy-other' is still only a fraction of a one per cent.

Both E-P and mds are confusing R&D futuristic press releases with the everyday practical world. I find new technology very interesting which is why I participate here.

E-P is have a hard time grasping a simple truth that is arguments are mutually exclusive. People like me who do not drive very much will not save money nor protect the environment with PHEV because we have found a better way to accomplish those goals. .

I am aware that Ford and SCE are doing R&D on PHEV. I think Ford and SCE are going about in the correct way. Hopefully, in five or to years the will make public a report that documents the marginal environmental improvement before California commits to another regulation where the 'unintended consequences' make things worse.

[Carl Hage]

I read the EPRI/NRDC report this weekend. Some of the press is misleading-- while a PHEV on all forms of electricity generates less CO2 than a conventional car, a PHEV powered by coal generates more CO2 than a gasoline-only HEV, and a PHEV powered by current peaking gas turbines is only slighely less CO2/mile as a straight HEV.

I previously read that an all-electric car had lower CO2 even if powered by coal-electricity, but I now learned that this is a comparison with a conventional car, not a hybrid.

In the EPRI/NRDC report, the model (a spreadsheet) calculates about a 1/3 reduction in CO2/mile (and fuel use) by switching from a conventional car to HEV, and about the same converting to a PHEV-20 charged by non-CO2-emitting electricity. We would be worse off in GHGs if coal plants were kept running to power a PHEV, but if renewable/nuke/CCS power were available, HEV fuel use would be cut in half for 2/3 CO2 reduction over current cars.

Note some of the above comments on battery life-- the Tesla electric car battery is supposed to have a 500x charge life, while the articles cited mention 4000x charge cycles. We are talking about a 10x difference in battery cost per KWh life-- really significant whether cars or utility storage.
[Some people say PHEV owners could make money charging cars at night and feeding extra power back to the grid during peak use, but right now one would lose big-time in amortized battery cost because of charge cycle limits. Current HEVs obtain high number of charge-discharge cycles by staying within a narrow range of partial charge-discharge.]

[Nanobus]

I'm not sure anyone also read the very scary post about peak oil on this blog, but there was this widening gap between supply and demand of liquid fuels. As I vaguely recall from my basic economics class, if demand is fairly inelastic, like liquid fuel demand seems to be, and supply falls, the price shoots up way out of proportion to what you would expect. In other words, people will be switching to all electric vehicles quicker than you think, due to the horrendous price at the pump. So, invest in advanced battery companies with good patents now!

[Kit P]

Nanobus, since you took an economics class; please calculate the ROI for a Corolla or Civic that is $10-15K cheaper than a PHEV that may get 10% better mileage.

Another reason PHEV are DOA.

[mds]

Technofossil
Tesla is using old technology Li Ion batteries to get the job done. Yes, their life cycle is poor. This is not the case for A123 or Altairnano (10 years+ & 40 years+ respectively at one cycle per day). The others are likely correct figures also. These are new Li Ion batteries using nanotechnology fabrication techniques and not using cobalt cathodes.
I agree the economics are not there at this instant for a mass change over to PHEV and EV. My point is that it will be in the near future.
I'm not going to argue how much CO2 reduction PHEV and EV provide. You say yourself they're a little better than other alternatives. Surely you can see this situation will continue to improve. Besides GHGs and GW is a side show event to the economic drivers here. Electric transportation technology has come of age, oil is getting expensive, and there's plenty of ways to make cheaper electricity. Like it or not we are transitioning.

Kit P
I respectfully disagree with you. I live in Washington State:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story;jsessionid=3C8BB412FF39FD88CEC936305998133E?id=49390 PSE adds another 50 MW of wind – July 2007.
Now “PSE will have more than 5 percent of its power supply - approximately 430 MW - coming from renewable resources”
“By 2020, the utility intends to have about 1,400 MW of renewable power in its portfolio.” (Greater than 15%?)
At current rates of growth wind will account for a large percentage nationally and in the world at large. Offshore wind has just got started. Solar will smoke past wind in growth rate this year maybe, certainly by 2010. In the near future, certainly within 20 years, renewables will be at least a 2 digit percent of our energy. Nuclear too? Yes please. Again, point here is really that electricity will be getting cleaner and cheaper in the not too distant future.

As for EVs being "toys" with no real market:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/tesla-exceeds-5.html Tesla has reservations for 560 of 800 planned 2008 Roadsters – July 2007. Most new technologies (cell phones, CD/DVD players, automobiles at the turn of the century, electric lights, etc.) start has high end luxury items. Most major auto companies see this and will market a PHEV by 2010 or so. GM is going for mass market sales with the Volt. Agressive and good business plan.

[Kit P]

MDS, what planet are you from? Have you actually seen any of the wind farms in Washington State? Notice that PSE does not have any wind farms where it has customers.

First of all, I am only talking about the United States. Electricity is already clean and cheap. This is because coal plants have added controls like TransAtla did at Centralia. Wind and solar will remain insignificant at the present rate of growth.

MDS, you must be one of those who believes press releases. I have never said there is not a market for useless stuff. Fools and there money are soon parted.

Solar, wind, and EVs will have no significant (measurable) beneficial impact on the environment.

[Carl Hage]

mds writes: "Tesla is using old technology ... their life cycle is poor. This is not the case for A123 or Altairnano".

Right, what I was trying to say was that the newly emerging battery technology radically changes the economics of batteries by a factor of 10. Hopefully initial cost will drop substantially, and amortized replacement (probably not needed) will be less than cost of gas.

KitP writes: "please calculate the ROI for a Corolla or Civic that is $10-15K cheaper than a PHEV that may get 10% better mileage."

OK, I wrote a little spreadsheet (details on request). A Civic is close to a Prius, and with the most similar options is ~$20K vs $23 MSRP, about equal to the +$3K hybrid add-on often reported. The EPA08 mileage is 29mpg vs 46, or 37% less. The EPRI/NRDC assumes a bigger car, with 24 vs 37mpg, -35%.

At $3.50/g, and the PG&E EV-night rate for electricity, over 150K miles a Civic uses $18,103 fuel, a Prius $11,413, and PHEV-Prius @50% AC, $6,742. The Prius/PHEV saves $6,690/$11,361 over a Civic, and PHEV saves $4,671 over Prius. A battery upgrade is worth quite a lot.

The EPRI conventional/HEV/PHEV would use $21,784/$14,151/$8,359 in fuel, saving $7,633/$13,425 over conventional, and PHEV saves $5,792 over HEV.

How can you calculate ROI? What do you assume is the inflation rate for gas, deflation rate for batteries, changes in tax policy: income tax to subsidize oil or oil/CO2 tax to subsidize income-tax and oil-war debt?

I think the $3K HEV extra cost is worth $7K fuel savings, and if Li batteries were +$2K, it's worth the additional $5K in fuel savings.

[mds]

Kit P
This planet, but I hope to spend some time on Mars before I die. Too many dinosaurs here.
I believe most of Puget Sound Energy (PSE) wind energy purchases are from Eastern Washington, not far from large hydro-electric dams on the Columbia river. The same large power lines are used to get the power to more populated Western Washington. Think you might have stuck your foot in there.
WA and CA have traded power for years. You're wrong on the percentage so you sling mud on the geographical source? Very lame.
BTW practical EVs are obviously here. They just need charging stations and need to come down in price before the average fellow will find them economical to buy. That's why PHEVs will precede them in the market. More economic gain using smaller battery.
You’re also wrong about the growth rate. Wind’s growth rate (60% for some years) has already put them in single digit percentages in some areas like WA state and it’s still growing at a good clip. Solar has been growing at 35% for several years. That’s starting to accelerate. Doesn’t need to for a geometric gain to occur in time, but this means you’ll be seeing solar take a large share sooner.

Technofossil
Thanks for clarifying. I agree. New Li Ion batteries are way better.

[Clee]

Tell me where one can get a Li-ion battery upgrade for $2K and I'll tell my Prius-owning friends. They'll jump for that. They haven't gone for the $10K upgrades.

What a difference a year can make.
KitP says "Corollas and Civics outsold the Prius eight to one...Ford and GM 'light' trucks outsold the Prius ten to one."

Maybe that was true a year or two ago, but according to
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/07/04/054081.html
through June 2007, 94,503 Prius were sold compared with 202,211 Corollas, 173,800 Civics. That's a ratio of 2:1, not 8:1.
310,896 Silverados and 355,438 Ford F-Series. Those are ratios of 3:1 and 4:1, not 10:1. The hybrid is catching up or catching on, even at a time when they can no longer get a HOV lane sticker in CA.

[kit p]

mds, you are making invalid comparisons and stretching the meaning of words to suggest what? Again, wind and solar are insignificant sources of energy compared to the total energy mix. While it is true that wind and solar are booming compared to previous total failure to penetrate the market for energy, wind and solar is not growing relative to the other sources of electricity.

I think mds was suggesting that wind was a cleaner source of electricity in Washington State. This neither true or relevant. Washington State does not have any air pollution related to the generation of electricity.

mds still insists that EV & PHEV are here. Sorry to tell you this, but EV & PHEV only exist as toys for rich boys. The reason they will never be more than that they will only be a marginal improvement over ICE.

I will concede Clee's point that the Prius has penetrated the POV market indicating that buyers will make green choices even when there is no evidence to support that choice other than the peddler of the goods.

[Engineer-Poet]

The Kit P troll writes:

E-P is have a hard time grasping a simple truth that is arguments are mutually exclusive.

The troll either fails to realize or does not wish to admit the following points:

1. Mass re-arrangement of living spaces takes decades.  Replacement of the vehicle fleet happens much more rapidly.
2. Those people who cannot move close to work can slash their fuel consumption with a PHEV.
3. Those people who have managed to cut their daily travel needs to a few miles, but still need to drive, could do with a pure EV and cut their fuel consumption to zero.

The PHEV is only needed to travel extended distances, which it can do with hybrid efficiency.  It travels short distances on batteries alone.  The troll's own needs (assuming he's been truthful about them) would be handled by an EV today.

And technofossil writes:

a PHEV powered by coal generates more CO2 than a gasoline-only HEV, and a PHEV powered by current peaking gas turbines is only slighely less CO2/mile as a straight HEV.

That's true as far as it goes, but there's more.

There are actually 3 salient points here:

1. PHEVs displace liquid fuel and provide relief from shortages with no usability impact versus ICEVs.
2. The PHEV's per-mile carbon contribution can be reduced after manufacture.
3. The PHEV can stabilize the grid and increase the usable contribution from e.g. wind.

This last is due to value created by integrating the vehicle with the grid (demo project report here, more reports here).

[Clee]

So for a grid-stabilizing PHEV, should we assume 3 battery cycles per day, one for the drive to work, one for the drive home and one discharging into the grid during peak hours? That would be about 1000 cycles per year, so a 4000 cycle battery would last 4 years?

[Kit P]

Now, I understand what E-P does not understand. PHEV are not more efficient on the highway. In a side-by-side test with professional drivers trying to achieve fuel economy, a VW diesel achieved much better mpg than the Prius. The VW exceeded EPA numbers while Prius was much worse.

Second, EV do consume fuel contrary to to what E-P states. Considering how much fossil fuel PHEV will use 50 years from now is what EPRI is trying to predict.

Very few places in the US have a problem with grid stability. Having grid stability is no mystery. You need adequate reliable generating capacity with a reliable fuel supply. Starting with the most reliable and economic of new sources of electricity:

1.Nuclear
2.Coal
3.Natural gas
4.Hydroelectric
5.LNG

California's official policy for the future is to rely on LNG ans wind. This is the choice with the highest cost and environmental impact.

Back to PHEV. Anyone who thinks putting millions of batteries on the road is a good idea has not done a detailed environmental analysis. Aside from the cost, environmentalists have stopped liking LCA because sometimes the best environmental choice is not politically correct.

[mds]

Clee,
I agree that the cost remain high. I own a Prius. I'm not going for the $10k upgrade. A123 has purchased HyMotion and claims they will cut this cost in half. (...in 2008? ...2009?) I'm waiting to purchase a Series PHEV like the Volt. Pheonix may be the first.
Thank you for pointing out the increased rate of Prius sales ...and their mpg sucks compared to what near future PHEVs will do.

Kit P
OK one more time.

1. Yes, wind and solar are not significant part of total,
BUT they are in some areas, eg WA for wind
AND higher growth rate means (PERCENTAGE GROWTH COMPARED TO OTHER ENERGY SOURCES) means the percentage will OBVIOIUSLY be increasing.

2. Obviously wind is not cleaner than hydro-electric in WA, BUT it is cleaner than new coal or natural gas plants they could build for new power. I was not commenting on this. I was commenting the increased use of wind.

3. Yes, fully functional EVs and PHEVs are toys for rich boys. Point is they exist now for rich boys AND will come down in price so the rest of us can afford them. EVs and PHEVs will be a huge improvement over ICE.

BTW:
You seem to be confusing the Prius will a PHEV. It is not, unless it has been converted. (...an expensive process that will get cheaper, but should be designed in up front to further reduce cost) The Prius is an HEV, or HV, and, yes, it only gets mpg comparible to newer diesels. The Prius is just the first step toward a PHEV. ICE improvements and new diesel engines won't be able to compete with PHEV designs. They can only compete with the 'CONVERTED' Prius PHEV on price of the vehicle. When (not if) prices of new Li Ion batteries (and possibly Pb Acid batteries from FireFly) come down, PHEV will begin to dominate the market. If batteries continue to improve, and prices drop, then we may see EVs dominate.

Like many new technology developments, EVs and PHEVs are toys for the rich now. They will be the staple of the masses soon.

[Engineer-Poet]

The Kit P troll writes:

PHEV are not more efficient on the highway.

Thank you for the blazingly obvious claim.  Regular hybrids are not more efficient than conventional ICE cars on the highway.  That's where the battery is unused, and is effectively dead weight.  A PHEV has no advantages (unless the ICE sustainer is shrunk and optimized even more for efficiency than the usual Atkinson cycle used by the Prius).

What the troll won't say (because he's into deception) is that most miles driven are in cities or traffic, where hybrids shine and a PHEV would kill.

In a side-by-side test with professional drivers trying to achieve fuel economy, a VW diesel achieved much better mpg than the Prius.

Of course.  Boost-and-coast or high-speed cruising is going to favor a turbodiesel.  Stop-and-go will favor a hybrid.  I can get 44 MPG in my 1.7-ton diesel on the freeway (automatic, no less); in stop and go, I'm lucky to get 26 (where a Prius will top 60).

Second, EV do consume fuel contrary to to what E-P states.

There are people who run EVs on PV arrays and consume no fuel at all.  The more nuclear, wind and solar are on the grid, the more the fuel consumption of EVs (and PHEVs) can be offset.  The PHEV may be slightly worse than the HEV today (but only if fed by coal-fired power), but changing the grid mix can improve that up to the day it's scrapped.

Very few places in the US have a problem with grid stability. Having grid stability is no mystery. You need adequate reliable generating capacity with a reliable fuel supply.

That way involves lots of spinning reserve, which is expensive in both capital and fuel; the pressure of deregulation has cut that.  The stability of the grid has been going down (I experienced it first hand; I was in the Eastern blackout) and decreasing frequency regulation is a known problem.

Both EVs and PHEVs can be integrated into the grid to provide voltage regulation, power-factor correction and spinning reserve.  This has been tested, and it works.  The result is to improve reliability while cutting fuel consumption (fewer unloaded powerplants kept in reserve) and capital cost (fewer plants, lines and transformers required because load peaks are shaved and reactive loads are smaller).

[greg woulf]

The numbers of the situation barely matter. There's a way to cut right through all the BS, and that's to look at the potential of the car.

ICE's have no potential for zero emissions, EV's have full potential. You CAN run an EV on solar, you CAN'T run a diesel on solar. That's the bottom line for the future if emissions matter.

If emissions don't matter then it becomes a matter of fuel supply. You CAN run an EV on from any fuel source, You CAN'T run an ICE from electricity so the EV's have much more potential there as well.

The only area that ICE's win is in the economics. They are cheaper to make. Some of that cost is because the technology is young, but some of it is that the material is more expensive.

We're pretty close right now to the added cost being offset by the operational savings. I think fuel costs have to rise as we run low on production.

If you believe that there will never be an oil/fuel shortage, and that emissions don't matter, then I have to say that I think you're a deluded fool, or someone getting paid to try and hide facts in BS.

Good Posts E-P, Kit is a troll.

[Kit P]

That is right Greg, 'emissions don't matter' where I live. My 2007 Corolla is clean enough because we already have clean air. This is true for 90% of the US.

I also have reliable cheap electricity. While I would be an optimal economic candidate for a PHEV, I am not stupid. When IOUs start buying large fleets of PHEV ans start using batteries for grid stability after accounts show investors why PHEV have a good ROI; then I will reconsider.

Once again it is necessary to state the obvious truth, PHEV are DOA and EV are MIA. Press releases from manufactures of toys for rich boys not withstanding.

[Engineer-Poet]

I notice that the Kit P troll suddenly stopped talking about energy security when it became obvious he couldn't defend his position.

Now he's saying he's got reliable electricity, but he doesn't know that his reliability comes because the utility either makes or purchases things like regulation services.  Ford is working with Edison International (corporate parent of Southern California Edison) on PHEVs.  One of the services these PHEVs are likely to provide is... regulation!  And they can do it at lower cost than conventional methods.  The value of regulation services is sufficient to pay for the batteries (averaging almost $1600/year for 32-amp connections and going even higher), so the owner of such a vehicle might even get money back after paying for charging.

I guess the troll would never lower himself so far as to be part of the solution!

[Engineer-Poet]

It appears that Toyota thinks that putting millions of batteries on the road is a good idea, because they've got a PHEV in testing in Japan (one major issue appears to have been emissions certification).  Expect the range to double or triple with the pending switch from NiMH to Li-ion.

[Kit P]

E-P, just how much money do you want me to divert from my children's education to solve your problems created by your greedy wasteful lifestyle?

E-P want me to spend $25k to buy a HEV that might save one gallon on of gasoline a week. Next he wants me to spend $35k to buy a fantasy PHEV that might displace three gallons on of gasoline a week with coal generated power. Living close to work, driving economical POVs, and having an energy efficient house are all choices I have made.

The closest power plant to where I live is a pumped hydroelectric. The best way to regulate the grid for real and reactive load is by adjusting the voltage regulator on a generator near the load. This something I have done many times. NIMBYism and California energy code (Title 24) have exacerbated this problem in California.

Regulating the grid with batteries in PHEV is just another fantasy that E-P is promoting based on a lack of critical thinking when reading press releases.

I am part of the solution, the old fashion way in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, 'waste not want not.' If you need an image, think of the Franklin Stove. Just a city boy and world traveler who has decided thermal mass, passive solar, and trees are better than high priced consumer goods that do not work.

Not that I am not open to new ideas. Last summer I installed 1000 square feet of thermal barrier in the attack for $125. Thanks to NASA we now have relatively low thermal barrier cloth.

So lets get real. You have people living in crime infested, filthy dirty cities, where they spend hours on on clogged freeways getting to an affordable cracker box house that is only tolerable with central air suggesting I am stupid for not thinking PHEV and windmills are a solution.

So, how much is E-P willing to pay out of your pocket for a PHEV powered by windmills somewhere else?

[Engineer-Poet]

Oh, look, it's trying to make a funny!  Why else would it accuse me of doing what it's doing?

just how much money do you want me to divert from my children's education to solve your problems created by your greedy wasteful lifestyle?

So your 8-mile one-way commute is roughly equal to my average daily driving for all purposes, which makes you the wasteful one.

(If you want to do something about your kids' education, deporting all the illegal aliens in California will not only get rid of huge burdens on the welfare and criminal justice systems, it will eliminate a lot of low-achieving seat-warmers from the schools and allow the substandard teachers to find other employment.  The former illegals will likely consume much less petroleum back in their native countries, reducing demand pressure and cutting the world price.  All of this will leave you more money for better education.)

E-P want me to spend $25k to buy a HEV that might save one gallon on of gasoline a week.

By your own words, your commuting alone is 80 miles/week.  Not even your Corolla gets 80 MPG; maybe it gets 32 in LA traffic, so call it 2.5 gal/wk plus extras.  A PHEV-20 would eliminate your commuting fuel usage; a PHEV-10 would do it if you recharged at work.

A PHEV-10 addition to a Prius would require about 2.5 kWh of energy.  Using A123systems 26650 cells, a pack which provides 2.5 kWh at 80% discharge requires about 410 cells.  There's no bulk price listed, but at $7.50/cell the pack would cost on the order of $3100.

Your 8-mile commute would drain the pack to ~36%, so the cycle life would probably be on the order of 5000 cycles.  Charging it with 50% wind power at 8¢/kWh and half solar PV at 24¢/kWh would cost $1600, for a total cost of $4700.  Comparing to a 32-MPG Corolla, the pack would save about a quart of fuel per cycle or 1250 gallons total.  You'd break even at just a bit under $4/gallon.

The total cost of gasoline to the American taxpayer is on the order of $5/gallon already; if you include the social cost of CO2 at the Stern review's figure of $85/ton, the CO2 alone has a cost of 75¢/gallon.  I've seen the retain price topping $4/gallon retail this year.  It looks like a PHEV plus green electricity is already competitive and will be the clear winner in the near future.

Now, Kit P troll, tell us what you're willing to spend (in dollars, and lives in Iraq, and destroyed ecology world-wide) to avoid the switch to electric propulsion?  I'm going to put money down on a VentureOne as soon as they'll let me.

[Engineer-Poet]

s/retain/retail/

[Kit P]

Sorry E-P, PHEVs are still DOA and BEVs are MIA.

I will not keep E-P long, do not want him to miss coloring time at whatever institution you reside at in LALA land.

There is no compelling reason for me or society in general to switch to electric propulsion. When I was doing renewable energy business development, I did consider a Prius or a VW running on biodiesel as part of presenting a green image.

It is necessary to convince the skeptic and not the zealot. I am skeptical of the economics providing a compelling reason. How does E-P reply, 'You'd break even at just a bit under $4/gallon.'

Break even? If I suggest a risky renewable energy project my customers they want 15% ROI.

Each time I explain why PHEVs are DOA, E-P does not provide a good answers and always changes the subject like this 'what you're willing to spend (in dollars, and lives in Iraq, and destroyed ecology world-wide) to avoid the switch to electric propulsion?'

Okay slick, explain your plan to save the world by increasing demand for LNG.

[Reality Czech]

Perhaps if you actually explained (as in, provided an argument supported by facts) instead of just asserting, you might convince people.

Perhaps you have some facts which support the "PHEV/EV is a dead end" argument.  You'd have a really good case if you could provide support for any of the following:

• Electric motors are more expensive than combustion engines.
• Electronics are becoming more expensive and less reliable over time.
• Batteries are not improving, and the raw materials are becoming scarce.
• It is becoming more and more difficult and expensive to produce electricity from the wind and sun.
• There is no possibility of the petroleum supply failing to meet demand at reasonable prices.
• There are no political or ecological reasons to switch away from petroleum.

This may be a tough row to hoe, but a person of your claimed capabilities should be more than equal to the job.

[Reality Czech]

I almost forgot!  Please also show your supporting data for your assertions that

• PHEVs are DOA, contrary to Toyota's announcement
• EVs are MIA, contrary to Tesla Motors' order book

If you can't do that, you just aren't connected to reality.

[Engineer-Poet]

ROFLMAO!

[Engineer-Poet]

And as for this:

Okay slick, explain your plan to save the world by increasing demand for LNG.

Who needs LNG?  The PHEV can get most of its energy from electricity, which can come from wind, hydro, solar, CHP, industrial cogeneration and combined-cycle turbines burning anything from desulfurized crude oil to scrubbed coal syngas to gasified charcoal.

You've had more than a day, and you haven't addressed any of Reality Czech's points.  I guess this means you can't.  I must say that I'm not surprised.

This makes you a liar as well as a troll.  Time for a new pseudonym, so you can escape your reputation.

[Kit P]

E-P, again your assumptions are wrong. I found some interesting reading elsewhere.

While I am back maybe you can explain why LNG tankers and are making more frequent daily trips to US ports? Maybe it has something to do with increasing use of natural gas to make electricity.

Oh gosh that would be another compelling reason to not increase demand with PHEV.

[Reality Czech]

The LNG thing is easy:  states like California have been trying to forbid coal-generated power.  This has driven the consumption of electricity from natural gas up by roughly 100 billion kWh/yr between 2004 and 2006.  All they have to do is stop.

While you're back, maybe you can explain why your "DOA/MIA" claims are flat wrong?

[Kit P]

“All they have to do is stop.”

That is a very realistic argument. Stop demand from increasing at 1.5% year (including conservation) while creating a new demand that is equivalent to 10-20%.

Reality Czech answer is also wrong. The reason that so many CCGT fired on natural gas got built is that they were viewed as a safe cheap investment. The reason we are importing LNG is so much of the reserves are off limits for political reasons. When the price of natural gas increased, demand for lower cost coal increased and new coal plants started getting built. Now the price of coal is increasing, so nuclear is now being considered.

Cause and effect, my friend. There is nothing to CAUSE people to buy EVS. In the doom and gloom virtual reality that E-P Reality Czech live in, there are many reasons. My reality is that I can not save money I do not spend and I will not spend extra money to clean up air that is already clean.

Furthermore, I do not resent big oil companies or electric utilities that provide me a valuable service that I use sparingly.

[Reality Czech]

I can see two things here:

1. You are still making wild accusations without any basis.
2. You have been called on two false statements you made, and you refuse to take them back or even acknowledge that they were refuted.

Engineer-Poet is right, you are just a troll.  Every time someone takes you to task, you change the subject and blather on, making more wild accusations.

You made the first mention of LNG in this thread.  You did it AFTER Engineer-Poet set forth a model for getting the required energy from wind and solar.

California's electricity use in 2005 was 265 billion kWh (including direct use).  This is an average of about 30 GW.  Total gasoline consumption was 376 million barrels, or 15.8 billion gallons.  At an average economy of 25.4 MPG, the fleet would cover 401 billion miles per year.

PHEV technology can replace roughly 80% of fuel consumption with electricity.  If the vehicles drive 320 billion miles on electricity at 350 watt-hours per mile, they would consume 112 billion kWh/year or an average of 12.8 GW.  California has over 1300 km of coastline, and that coastline has between 25 and 40 kW/m (25-40 megawatts per kilometer) of wave energy striking them.  30 kW/m * 1,000,000 meters is 30 GW, enough to supply all California's PHEV needs and then displace about 60% of its remaining electric power consumption.

There is nothing to CAUSE people to buy EVS.

You must have slept through 9/11, and not read much since.  It would be nice to make all the economic and political factors disappear just by dismissing them!  Unfortunately, the world runs on cause and effect rather than wishful thinking, and you cannot lie for long before the lies catch up to you.