I figure,
I am not making a fool out of you. You are doing to yourself.
You continue think this is a contest with only one "winner". You seem to still be stuck in a pre-adolescent argument with your little friends over who is the cooler super hero: Batman or Spider-man. "Yeah, but-but Spidee can use his stickee-goo to swing from building to building.
Let's see Batman do THAT!
HA! I got the bestest super-hero!"
But enough of that..
The reader should know that I of course am very much for the development of electric cars. I do however, realize (as do many others) that no one technology is going to solve the Global Warming issue or the Energy Security problem. We need to develop any and all viable technologies available to us to deal with these problems. I am not FOR one technology and against another. I'm for hybrids, and PHEVs and pure electrics (as well as more public transit and building more efficient engines and appliances). But it doesn't do us any good to not recognize the timing and cost issues involved in each technology.
TO THE READER:
The article referred to in cmt no. 4 speaks of no new original research.
It is survey article of previously published papers. It covers the entire gambit of energy usage from power generation to personal transportation. In the section on biofuels and ethanol, Jacobson draws upon conclusions from the article he published in 2007.
Here is what the Natural Resources Defense Council had to say on Jacobson's 2007 paper 9it will give you a clue as to how reliable a researcher he is):
http://docs.nrdc.org/air/files/air_07042601A.pdf Study Overstates Potential Air Pollution Impact of Ethanol (E85)For E85 ethanol to pose a greater risk to pubic health than gasoline a series of puzzling
assumptions have to be true that either are or appear to be contrary to conclusions
reached by other scientists, air regulators, and emission experts. Considering the
uncertainty in these assumptions, the study does not demonstrate a conclusive
difference in the public health impacts between E85 and gasoline.Study finding conflicts with findings by US EPA, US DOE and NREL that found that
E85 can reduce emissions of smog-forming chemicals.Dr. Jacobson fails to explain why his results differ from the published conclusions by
scientists at US EPA, US DOE, and NREL. In a study published in the Journal of Air &
Waste Management Association, researchers at the US EPA and US DOE found that a
flex fuel vehicle running on E85 lowers the smog-forming potential of its emissions. 1
Scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) reached the same
conclusion.2 These studies were based on testing of actual vehicles.
Study’s assumption that E85 emissions are substantially different is incorrect.
There are three key reasons that the study’s emission rate assumptions are incorrect:• First, the law requires vehicles that can run on E85, called flexible fuel vehicles
(FFVs), meet the same pollution standards for smog and soot-forming pollutants
as gasoline cars. Despite this fact, the study assumes dramatic changes in
emission levels from the use of E85, a 30% decrease in NOx and a 22% increase
in hydrocarbons.3 Certification data from modern FFVs show that these vehicles
meet the same pollution standards regardless of what fuel they run on.4
• Second, the study greatly exaggerates emission impacts by assuming that 100%
use of E85 is possible by 2020, a virtual impossibility. It is physically
impossible for that much ethanol to be available or for all of the vehicles to
transform into FFVs by 2020. Currently ethanol displaces less than 5% of our
gasoline fuel supply. To achieve 100% displacement would require well over
200 billion gallons of ethanol compared to today’s roughly 5 billion. Under a
more likely penetration scenario, E85 would displace about 10% of the gasoline
supply by 2020.
•
Third, the study further magnifies small differences by ignoring the fact that
most emission from cars is due to older vehicles that would be incapable of
running on E85. By 2020, CARB estimates that less than 25% of the on-road
passenger vehicle NOx and hydrocarbons emissions are from cars 16 years and
newer (see Figure 1).5 This mistake alone exaggerates the emission impacts by a
factor of about four.
Figure 1. Emissions from older vehicles that would not be able to run on E85 dominate the 2020
emissions inventory. Study exaggerates emission changes by applying emission reductions to the
emissions from a fleet of older cars that cannot be run on E85 and are certified to meet older, dirtier
emission standards. Cars starting in model year 2004 must meet the stricter LEV II pollution standards.
Source: EMFAC2002 V2.2Study’s findings are primarily driven by assumed decrease in NOx.
Sensitivity runs by the author make it clear that the changes in the Los Angeles region
smog levels are almost entirely driven by his assumption of a 30% NOx decrease (see
Figure 2). The small changes in ozone levels appear to be primarily driven by
assumption of large changes in NOx. Simple extrapolation of the fairly linear trend
shows that there would likely be no change in ozone levels if the author assumed a less
than 10% reduction in NOx emissions, a scenario which was not included in the paper.
For the primary scenario, the author assumed a very large 30% decrease in NOx.Figure 3. Data from the California Air Resources Board demonstrates that there is no consistent pattern in
whether a FFV emits more or less when fueled on E85 versus gasoline. It should be noted that even if
there is a difference in these test results, the manufacturer is legally liable for ensuring that the emissions
remain under the emission standards for 120,000 miles.
Source: CARB certification database,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/cert.phpThe author’s comments surrounding the release of his study overstate what the study
actually shows. An accurate summary would be that this study shows that use of high
blend ethanol is unlikely to significantly improve air quality compared to use of
gasoline. SPECIFICALLY RE the 2009 report mentioned in cmt 4 I wrote the criticism found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=250672&mesg_id=250942 The most rediculous assumption he used was that of indirect land use changes by Searchinger. These assumptions have been widely ridiculed and EPA, while using ILUC for ethanol (even though there is no empirical evidence to support this hypothesis) uses a figure for ILUC that is about one fourth what Searchinger came up with. The Renewable fuels Association recently published a report pointing out errors in EPA's calculations which, when corrected, result in an ILUC number less than half as large as the one currently used by EPA (and about 1/10th that of Searchinger).
HERE is some more criticism of Jacobson and his "research" techniques:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=219456 Now as to how much GHG reductions we can expect from PHEVs - there is a great deal of guess work here. PErhaps the biggest unknown is how quickly the public will start buying these cars. That makes estimating how much impact they will have fraught with difficulty.
The Electric Power Research Institute (an electic utilities funded organization. One can assume the electric utilities are ardent supporters of Plug-in hybrids as they expect increased demand for their product as more PHEVs are deployed). THey forcasted the numbers of PHEVs on the road by 2050 and the total reduction to GHG emissions from the ground transportation sector as a result.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=216598#218948">16.4% to 26.7% GHG reductions from PHEVs by 2030 - Electric Power Research Institiute.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=216598#218653EPRI forecast a GHG reduction for PHEVs of 40% to 65% for those built in 2050. That's for 2050. Jeff Green (GoogleKnols) and others (EPRI) have forecast a possibility of PHEVs reaching 40-41% of the fleet by 2030 (EPRI has admitted this relies on some very strong sales growth for PHEVs). So in 2030 what would the total GHG reduction for ground transportation for PHEVs be? Well you take 41% times .4 and get 16.4%, and 40% times 65% and get 26.7%.
So that's a range of 16% to 26% for PHEVs (assuming they are 40% of the fleet by 2030). The mid-point of theat range is 21.5%. Clearly, there is more that could be done. Additional GHG reductions could be achieved using biofuels, in particular ethanol.
THere is another unknown involved in how much GHG eissions reduction can be achieved by PHEVs and pure electrics. That is how much of the power to recharge them will come from coal?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2008-02-25-plug-in-hybrids-pollution_N.htm">The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) released a report which concluded that unless we reduce the proportion of coal used to generate electric power, PHEVs could make pollution worse.
>
>
...NOw, as to the report by the Vice President, Mr. Biden. I am very pleased we are investing in Green technologies, Batteries and electric motors, wind turbine improvements and related technologies. I only wish the Republicans would have let us put more of such investments in the ARRA.
Now, let's take a look at what the Vice President said:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/Recovery_Act_Innovation.pdf?loc=interstitialskip#page=10">THE RECOVERY ACT: TRANSFORMING THE AMERICAN ECONOMY THROUGH INNOVATION
"Today, an American driving 32 miles a day to and from work7 will spend almost $1,000 a year on gasoline, each day adding to U.S. dependence on foreign oil.8 A consumer driving an electric car would save over $630 per year powering the car with electricity generated in American power plants instead of gasoline made from imported oil.
The only highway-enabled electric vehicle option available today, however, would cost more than $100,000."
Now I took the Vice President's numbers and put them in an Excel Spreadsheet.
You can see it here
https://sites.google.com/site/truthisstrangerthanfictionx/PHEV_savings_Biden.xls"> PHEVs estimated fuel savings Note I assume these numbers were based on the PHEVs getting a real world range of 40 miles (no sitting in big traffic jams) so no gasoline would be used at all. They also used gas at price of $3.00 a gallon.
IF I use the same assumptions he did I get the $600 dollars saved per year. I do think that using the 27.5 mpg figure is of questionable valididty as you should be comparing cars of similar size and weight to the coming PHEVs. I don't think people are going to give up larger cars for a smaller one. So you have to consider that you are likely only going to sell the PHEVs for the most part to people who find small cars acceptable. Those cars, such as the Corolla , Cobalt, Elantra, get more like 33 mpg. When you use 33 mpg figure the savings per year is $461.
Now what about the pay-back period for these savings? The payback (assuming the initial marginal cost for the PHEV is $20,000 today) and looking at two marginal cost reductions (50% and 70%) your payback periods are (for $461 annual savings) 50% reduction of initial marginal cost - payback period = 22 years. For a 70% reduction in the initial marginal cost (bringing it down to $6,000) the payback period is 16 years.
Now, as to how long it will take to achieve a 50% reduction (or a 70% reduction) to the marginal cost of PHEVs that's the big question. I know very few are predicting a 70% reduction in 5 years. That would be based on assuming
very strong sales of PHEVs in the first 5 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid|
Disadvantages of plug-in hybrids include the additional cost, weight, and size of a larger battery pack. According to a 2010 study by the National Research Council, the cost of a lithium-ion battery pack is about USD 1,700/kW·h of usable energy, and considering that a PHEV-10 requires about 2.0 kW·h and a PHEV-40 about 8 kW·h, the manufacturer cost of the battery pack for a PHEV-10 is around USD 3,000 and it goes up to USD 14,000 for a PHEV-40.<178><179>
According to the same study, even though costs are expected to decline by 35% by 2020, market penetration is expected to be slow and therefore PHEVs are not expected to significantly impact oil consumption or carbon emissions before 2030, unless a fundamental breakthrough in battery technologies occur.<178><179><180>
Even with a fundamentel breakthrough in Battery techologies - this would not impact prices that much in as short a time as 5 years. You still have to go from the drawing board or the lab to proto-type to manufacturing scale production. This also requires new investment. This all, in the real world, takes time.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
