Much safer nuclear or alternatives....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-23-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Much safer nuclear or alternatives....
This week’s post is on the nuclear situation.
There are two responses that make sense for nuclear energy now that the Japan quake and some checking of other reactors since have found safety issues.
I think the best answer is to do both. BUT they are both challenging to do. So we need to tackle them with a lot of brains, knowledge, energy and, unfortunately, money.
But the alternative of building a supposed to be safe nuclear facility near population centers and farms that was inadequately designed for effective safety cannot be allowed to continue. The situation in Japan shows this.
1. Germany was downwind from Chernobyl a few years ago. They already have done a close to best in the world job of adding energy conservation upgrades and renewable energy sources for electricity. And that experience is one of the reasons.
Now in today’s news, AP, in a story datelined Berlin reports that Germany now plans to begin to wean itself from nuclear power entirely. This is of interest for two reasons. One is that anything effective they manage to do can be used here and around the world. The second is that the United States in just California has more potential to generate renewable sources for electricity. So if Germany can even come close, the United States can do even better.
So what would doing without nuclear or adding very little more in the United States require?
Quite a lot which I’ll list. But the more we do, the less nuclear we will need and the more likely it is any nuclear we do add will be done safely instead almost safely but not really as it has been so far.
a) In the important and very well researched book, Addicted to Energy, by Elton Sherwin, Jr, he makes the point that simply retrofitting existing technologies or replacing things with the existing technologies to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy in the United States would save more energy than all the oil we now import.
The book should have been titled something like, “Massive savings from energy efficiency using already available technologies.”
Doing what he recommends at a flat out fast speed all over the economy right away will return more money than it costs. And, the improved GDP per energy used will arrive far sooner than we can add more renewable energy or nuclear that is actually safe or far closer to it can be done.
So, whether or not we build more nuclear, this set of things has to be the number one priority.
b) We need to do dramatically more building of renewable energy sources than we have.
Following Germany’s incentive system to ensure this happens is a first key. They have roughly a half to a third of California’s solar potential and have been installing nine times as much solar as California for many years. We must find locally effective versions of these incentives and use them very soon in California and across the United States.
We need to build close to the maximum that is even close to environmentally safe of large thermal solar plants throughout the Southwestern United States and most of Mexico. And, we need to build the transmission lines and make the upgrades to the current transmission grid to get that electricity to where it will be used.
We need to do the same with wind generated electricity from Minnesota to West Texas and add wind energy in most of the other places that have wind.
We need to add photovoltaic solar in moderate sized but inexpensive locations near cities and existing transmission grids and make the process of doing so easy, cheap, and quick where permits and grid connections are concerned.
We need to install photovoltaic solar on close to every rooftop and cover every parking lot of reasonable size with a canopy and install photovoltaic solar on every square foot of these canopies.
c) We need to continue our development and roll out of much better batteries so that homes, businesses, and cities can store the irregular supply of electricity from renewable sources for when it is actually needed.
d) We need to convert coal to gas and use that and natural gas to generate electricity in Bloom Energy’s fuels cells or those of a set of competitors if Bloom Energy isn’t up to the job; stop burning these fuels; and feed the CO2 released to algae to make biofuels.
e) We need to find out how to use far more geothermal energy including drilling much deeper to access it and to find out how to do this without causing earthquakes. Once we do that, we need to multiply our supply because like nuclear and natural gas and coal, geothermal delivers energy as needed.
The other good news besides the massive amount of usable electricity these steps can net our economy is that as expensive and time consuming as doing them all well is, it likely is cheaper and faster than building truly safe nuclear plants.
So, this is the better choice that we should rely on most and do the most and do the fastest.
2. But the recent TED talk by Stewart Brand supporting nuclear power make some good points.
Nuclear power uses dramatically less land than all of the renewable sources of any size and delivers power as needed as renewable energy sources do not – at least so far.
And, it deliver so much less air pollution and CO2 than burning coal it’s scary to contemplate.
To avoid having unbreatheable air as early London had and part of China do now, we need to burn dramatically less coal. (Gasifying it and using fuel cells to make electricity solves that problem.) But Brand has a legitimate point that so does using nuclear power instead.
And, if we really have already used up the safe limits of sending CO2 into the air as the evidence increasingly says we have, his point that nuclear can solve that problem and may well be badly needed to do so, is also legitimate.
So, I agree with Energy Secretary Chu and President Obama that we should keep nuclear power as an option.
But it’s only worth doing at all if it is done far more safely than it was recently in Japan and that level of safety likely is not in our existing reactors.
The reason is that the downside is so dreadful.
There are two problems that need to be solved every single time and solved far better than they have been.
Yes that will make nuclear far more expensive and slower to get more of. But no nuclear plant should be built or kept long in operation without it.
1. Nuclear plants should only be built in politically stable and relatively sane countries. Countries such as Iran and North Korea should have none based on their current politics. They should have nuclear power but from other countries that can afford to build safe reactors and won’t weaponize them. South Korea or China can supply North Korea and Russia can supply Iran.
In addition, every reactor should get extremely tight 24/7 security from the military of the country where they are located every single day they operate.
If that’s too expensive, don’t build nuclear. I think it is that simple.
2. Building safe reactors we are now seeing is much harder and expensive than was initially thought as the Japan experience has shown.
Here are just a few ideas I’ve had since the Japan situation has revealed the need for them.
Going forward, I think no reactor should be built that doesn’t have all of these needed steps in place that the Japanese reactors did not have.
a) Radioactive steam was released into the air and then spread out. They did not have a superfort sized building encasing the entire site that would have allowed that steam to enter there but not the surrounding community. The VAB, vehicle assembly building that was used for the Saturn moon rockets show we can build such structures.
That will be expensive to do for each reactor; but it can be done.
b) Many of the things the workers in these reactors could not do because of high radiation can be done by robots controlled from safer locations. Such robots are just now arriving in Japan to the stricken sites. That’s unacceptably unsafe, they should have already been inside and ready to use. Every nuclear site should have them & likely doesn’t now.
That will be expensive to do for each reactor; but it can be done.
c) The cooling that didn’t happen caused the problem in Japan and its severity.
Better reactor design and fuel rod storage design going forward can make this problem less likely. But dramatically better electric power backup within each site and of the coolants needed as well must be in every site.
They should have a mini-reactor that is even better protected than the main reactors that can supply the electricity needed to run the plant and its cooling systems – at least in shut down mode for the main reactors.
And, if that fails, they also need the natural gas and fuel cells to make electricity onsite with at least 3 weeks of supply necessary to maintain the controls, robots, and shut down mode cooling.
There would have been no problem in Japan if they had all these things ahead of time.
Doing all these things for every reactor built or retrofitted to those we will keep will be expensive to do for each and every reactor; but it can be done.
My position is that we need the nuclear reactors; but we should not use them or build more without these safe-guards. It will make them a lot more expensive and make them take longer to build.
But better that than nuclear accidents that happen near people and farmland. And, without these safeguards we run a very large risk.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Current Republicans are misleading people....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-16-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Current Republicans are misleading people....
(Next week’s post will be on the nuclear situation. This week it may be a bit too early to know how bad it will get.)
In the important and very well researched book, Addicted to Energy, by Elton Sherwin, Jr, he makes the point that simply retrofitting existing technologies or replacing things with the existing technologies to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy in the United States would save more energy than all the oil we now import.
The book should have been titled something like, “Massive savings from energy efficiency using already available technologies.”
Since the majority of these changes improve energy efficiency for the use of electricity and natural gas, the savings he speaks of will only cut petroleum use if we also begin to use dramatically more plug-in hybrid and all electric cars and trucks.
But doing both these things well and soon and on a large enough scale will indeed increase the energy independence of the United States.
We will need far less oil from outside our country and the reduction in demand will cut the prices for fuel from petroleum to less than they would have been.
In fact, gasoline and diesel prices would be much higher now if Federal Standards had not mandated higher mpg standards in cars and trucks.
Tightening these standards now will help speed the adoption of plug-in hybrids and all electric cars – and increase the efficiency of new vehicles that still use gasoline and diesel.
Recently we had an increase of gasoline prices from close to $3 a gallon to close to $4 a gallon. This was due entirely to the growth in demand and the threats to supply and its increased costs.
So, the more we are able to reduce demand for petroleum fuels, the less we will pay for gasoline and diesel fuel.
In fact, gradually beginning to tax oil in some way for part of its real cost for climate change will help speed the changes that cut demand.
That means that adding something like 25 cents a gallon to gasoline and diesel from such taxes is a way to make the future price of gasoline closer to $6 a gallon instead of $12.
So, trying to cut back fuel efficiency standards or these carbon taxes is penny wise and twenty dollar bill foolish.
Meanwhile I got an email today from a conservative Republican source that said that the only way to energy independence was to drill for more oil within the United States and to trash or turn off the kinds of programs that will cut the long term prices of oil. It came right out and said that doing anything else was only boosting gasoline prices and cutting back our energy independence.
So, fight back against people who disagree.
Simply put, this is either total ignorance or deliberate deception – and it’s a campaign which many current Republicans openly endorse.
It deliberately leaves key parts of a solution off the table and only leaves solutions favorable to the oil companies and the oil industry instead.
They actually have a reasonable point that increased oil production and drilling within the United States would help, particularly in the short run once the oil starts flowing.
So, I was saddened by the recent offshore drilling disaster in our Gulf of Mexico since that’s the best place to do this increased drilling.
Before that, the support was there from most people for more drilling in the Gulf.
But their email was NOT about energy independence or keeping gasoline costs low. It SAID so but completely left out the large additional leverage of the ways to cut demand to achieve these things.
This is irresponsible and inaccurate. And, they are trying so hard with it, it’s clear they hope to fool a lot of less informed people into leaving out many parts of the solutions we need badly.
Some people believe it. Unfortunately, it’s dangerously wrong.
If the other solutions are blocked because of it, we will all be in worse trouble and gasoline prices will both be higher and increasing faster.
This is most unfortunate. But it also shows that the other side has not stepped up to the plate enough that most people getting these emails know it’s inaccurate and incomplete at best.
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-16-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Current Republicans are misleading people....
(Next week’s post will be on the nuclear situation. This week it may be a bit too early to know how bad it will get.)
In the important and very well researched book, Addicted to Energy, by Elton Sherwin, Jr, he makes the point that simply retrofitting existing technologies or replacing things with the existing technologies to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy in the United States would save more energy than all the oil we now import.
The book should have been titled something like, “Massive savings from energy efficiency using already available technologies.”
Since the majority of these changes improve energy efficiency for the use of electricity and natural gas, the savings he speaks of will only cut petroleum use if we also begin to use dramatically more plug-in hybrid and all electric cars and trucks.
But doing both these things well and soon and on a large enough scale will indeed increase the energy independence of the United States.
We will need far less oil from outside our country and the reduction in demand will cut the prices for fuel from petroleum to less than they would have been.
In fact, gasoline and diesel prices would be much higher now if Federal Standards had not mandated higher mpg standards in cars and trucks.
Tightening these standards now will help speed the adoption of plug-in hybrids and all electric cars – and increase the efficiency of new vehicles that still use gasoline and diesel.
Recently we had an increase of gasoline prices from close to $3 a gallon to close to $4 a gallon. This was due entirely to the growth in demand and the threats to supply and its increased costs.
So, the more we are able to reduce demand for petroleum fuels, the less we will pay for gasoline and diesel fuel.
In fact, gradually beginning to tax oil in some way for part of its real cost for climate change will help speed the changes that cut demand.
That means that adding something like 25 cents a gallon to gasoline and diesel from such taxes is a way to make the future price of gasoline closer to $6 a gallon instead of $12.
So, trying to cut back fuel efficiency standards or these carbon taxes is penny wise and twenty dollar bill foolish.
Meanwhile I got an email today from a conservative Republican source that said that the only way to energy independence was to drill for more oil within the United States and to trash or turn off the kinds of programs that will cut the long term prices of oil. It came right out and said that doing anything else was only boosting gasoline prices and cutting back our energy independence.
So, fight back against people who disagree.
Simply put, this is either total ignorance or deliberate deception – and it’s a campaign which many current Republicans openly endorse.
It deliberately leaves key parts of a solution off the table and only leaves solutions favorable to the oil companies and the oil industry instead.
They actually have a reasonable point that increased oil production and drilling within the United States would help, particularly in the short run once the oil starts flowing.
So, I was saddened by the recent offshore drilling disaster in our Gulf of Mexico since that’s the best place to do this increased drilling.
Before that, the support was there from most people for more drilling in the Gulf.
But their email was NOT about energy independence or keeping gasoline costs low. It SAID so but completely left out the large additional leverage of the ways to cut demand to achieve these things.
This is irresponsible and inaccurate. And, they are trying so hard with it, it’s clear they hope to fool a lot of less informed people into leaving out many parts of the solutions we need badly.
Some people believe it. Unfortunately, it’s dangerously wrong.
If the other solutions are blocked because of it, we will all be in worse trouble and gasoline prices will both be higher and increasing faster.
This is most unfortunate. But it also shows that the other side has not stepped up to the plate enough that most people getting these emails know it’s inaccurate and incomplete at best.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Energy efficiency upgrades with already available technology is critical to do....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-9-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Energy efficiency upgrades with already available technology is critical to do....
In the important and very well researched book, Addicted to Energy, by Elton Sherwin, Jr, he makes the point that simply retrofitting existing technologies or replacing things with the existing technologies to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy in the United States would save more energy than all the oil we now import.
The book should have been titled something like, “Massive savings from energy efficiency using already available technologies.” Addicted to Energy is shorter but both misrepresents the content and is a bit negative.
His book, by contrast is quite positive. He points out that the work needed to make these energy efficiency upgrades will both create jobs and improve the economy from energy savings and less need for new electric power generation plants.
Yesterday, I found out the United States may be on its way to being behind the economy of the EU countries and left with increasing energy costs while they are NOT so burdened.
They actually have an EU plan to make these upgrades in every part of Europe.
AP ran a story yesterday titled, “EU plan to double energy efficiency by 2020.” Arthur Max wrote it.
The EU plans to boost energy efficiency dramatically by producing better household appliances, renovating public buildings and private homes, and driving more energy efficient cars. The plan to do this was adopted yesterday, Tuesday, 3-8, according to the article.
The EU aims to cut greenhouse gases 25 % below 1990 levels by 2020, outperforming its original 20 % target, with the resulting increase in energy efficiency in transportation, buildings, construction, and agriculture.
“"The good news is we don't need to wait for technological breakthroughs," said European climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, because existing technologies are enough. "We need to start the transition toward a competitive low carbon economy now," she said….”
The principal goal is to cut emissions 80 % by 2050. This new plan also sets milestones of 40 % by 2030 & 60 by 2040.
The plan, called Roadmap 2050, will be presented to the European Parliament and member countries for creating legislation to implement the plan.
Environmentalists criticized the plan for not being even more ambitious. That’s unfortunate since implementing the plan can be accelerated later and an even more ambitious plan might be rejected as undoable. (The United States and the EU should both have done this 20 years ago too! I think the environmentalists should support this now; and find ways to add doable upgrades later once it is actually happening. That actually might get to the goals they seek. Getting in the way of putting this plan in motion now will jeopardize those goals.)
The plan targets investments of 270 billion Euros a year, or 1.5 percent of the EU's economic output.
That sounds like a huge amount of money and one that might slow their economy.
But that is totally misleading. It may save their economy and give them a significant economic advantage instead!
In the most important point in the article, it explained why that’s so!
Initially most of that will return and later all of it will return from the savings due to lower oil and gas imports. (If they also switch to plug-in hybrids and all electric cars and trucks as a part of this plan, they may do even better.)
The long term projection shows this plan reaping returns that would please a venture capitalist!
Check out this quote.:
“Over the next 40 years, fuel costs could fall by euro175 billion to euro320 billion a year, the commission said, but without action those bills will more than double.”
This means the investments of 270 billion Euros a year will begin to save 670 billion Euros a year or more. Their imported fuel bill will be 320 billion Euros a year or less instead of 990 billion Euros a year or more – and rising!
If the United States fails to do likewise, Europe will have a massive economic advantage.
They will prosper while we go broke!
The current good news is that the Silicon Valley and California have more knowledgeable people about science, technology, and the real energy situation, and the world economy than most of the members of the current congress.
If they succeed in doing as the EU is doing which they are working to do, eventually the rest of the country will follow along – if we are lucky.
If so, our economy will improve too instead of getting far worse!
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-9-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Energy efficiency upgrades with already available technology is critical to do....
In the important and very well researched book, Addicted to Energy, by Elton Sherwin, Jr, he makes the point that simply retrofitting existing technologies or replacing things with the existing technologies to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy in the United States would save more energy than all the oil we now import.
The book should have been titled something like, “Massive savings from energy efficiency using already available technologies.” Addicted to Energy is shorter but both misrepresents the content and is a bit negative.
His book, by contrast is quite positive. He points out that the work needed to make these energy efficiency upgrades will both create jobs and improve the economy from energy savings and less need for new electric power generation plants.
Yesterday, I found out the United States may be on its way to being behind the economy of the EU countries and left with increasing energy costs while they are NOT so burdened.
They actually have an EU plan to make these upgrades in every part of Europe.
AP ran a story yesterday titled, “EU plan to double energy efficiency by 2020.” Arthur Max wrote it.
The EU plans to boost energy efficiency dramatically by producing better household appliances, renovating public buildings and private homes, and driving more energy efficient cars. The plan to do this was adopted yesterday, Tuesday, 3-8, according to the article.
The EU aims to cut greenhouse gases 25 % below 1990 levels by 2020, outperforming its original 20 % target, with the resulting increase in energy efficiency in transportation, buildings, construction, and agriculture.
“"The good news is we don't need to wait for technological breakthroughs," said European climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard, because existing technologies are enough. "We need to start the transition toward a competitive low carbon economy now," she said….”
The principal goal is to cut emissions 80 % by 2050. This new plan also sets milestones of 40 % by 2030 & 60 by 2040.
The plan, called Roadmap 2050, will be presented to the European Parliament and member countries for creating legislation to implement the plan.
Environmentalists criticized the plan for not being even more ambitious. That’s unfortunate since implementing the plan can be accelerated later and an even more ambitious plan might be rejected as undoable. (The United States and the EU should both have done this 20 years ago too! I think the environmentalists should support this now; and find ways to add doable upgrades later once it is actually happening. That actually might get to the goals they seek. Getting in the way of putting this plan in motion now will jeopardize those goals.)
The plan targets investments of 270 billion Euros a year, or 1.5 percent of the EU's economic output.
That sounds like a huge amount of money and one that might slow their economy.
But that is totally misleading. It may save their economy and give them a significant economic advantage instead!
In the most important point in the article, it explained why that’s so!
Initially most of that will return and later all of it will return from the savings due to lower oil and gas imports. (If they also switch to plug-in hybrids and all electric cars and trucks as a part of this plan, they may do even better.)
The long term projection shows this plan reaping returns that would please a venture capitalist!
Check out this quote.:
“Over the next 40 years, fuel costs could fall by euro175 billion to euro320 billion a year, the commission said, but without action those bills will more than double.”
This means the investments of 270 billion Euros a year will begin to save 670 billion Euros a year or more. Their imported fuel bill will be 320 billion Euros a year or less instead of 990 billion Euros a year or more – and rising!
If the United States fails to do likewise, Europe will have a massive economic advantage.
They will prosper while we go broke!
The current good news is that the Silicon Valley and California have more knowledgeable people about science, technology, and the real energy situation, and the world economy than most of the members of the current congress.
If they succeed in doing as the EU is doing which they are working to do, eventually the rest of the country will follow along – if we are lucky.
If so, our economy will improve too instead of getting far worse!
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids headed for the mainstream....
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-2-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids headed for the mainstream....
Even if we are not yet at peak oil or it’s more than 3 years off, relying on it for transport is becoming dramatically riskier.
The oil it is inexpensive to extract is mostly gone. And, as the population grows and the economies of the world’s countries improve, the demand for transport will continue to increase. While most transport has been powered by oil, that increase in demand has led to increased oil prices.
But now that we have added political turmoil in the oil producing countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, supply of oil may drop or suddenly be less available.
Five to ten dollar a gallon prices for gasoline and for diesel fuel in the United States are on their way.
Even without global warming considerations, that means that depending on oil to power transport is a very bad idea because it threatens sudden and continuing cost increases for transport throughout the world’s economy. It can even lead to rationing of fuel and periodic shut downs of fuel.
This will be economically disastrous if when that happens we have too little ability to power transport by other means.
Further, since the United States imports a huge percentage of its oil supply – and mostly from areas increasingly unstable politically, if we can manage to cut our use of oil in half or more by using other power sources for transport, our national security and economic stability will be dramatically better.
Lastly, the billions of dollars now leaving the United States to pay for imported oil will stop leaving.
The combination of these literally means that the future health of the economy of the United States quite literally depends on switching away from oil as a way to power transport.
All-electric cars and plug-in hybrids – and hopefully soon trucks as well – are rapidly on their way to becoming a solution to this and entering the mainstream.
Soon gasoline only or diesel only vehicles will become a tiny minority of those sold.
Increasingly, major car makers all over the world are well on their way to introducing practical all electric cars and plug-in hybrids. This has become so much the case that developments in this area are hard to keep up with as they are increasing and picking up speed and momentum. Tesla is leading the way. But nearly every other car manufacturer in the world is racing to follow on if not will all electric cars with plug-in hybrids. As this rolls out, the added costs for such cars will gradually decrease due to the increasing volume and economies of scale.
Technology to make such cars go farther and cost less with lower weight batteries and increases in efficiency in electric power grids and uses are in rapid development.
And, most of what were thought to be problems for deploying such vehicles are not serious or rapidly being solved.
Here are some examples:
Envia Systems Inc of Newark, California has a new joint venture deal with GM. (GM Ventures Makes Strategic Investment in Envia Systems Jan 26, 2011 This was part of a funding round of $17 million.) "Envia's advanced cathode technology uses inexpensive materials that store more energy per unit of mass than current cathode materials. Since the cathode is a key driver for the overall battery cost, the more energy the cathode delivers, the lower the battery cost because fewer cells are needed." Their website also notes this will allow for lighter weight battery packs.
D r. Yi Cui of Stanford University discovered that silicon nanowires could form a potent and reliable lithium-ion anode material with the ability to improve anode capacity by up to 10X. His breakthrough was published in Nature Nanotechnology and is one of very few readily implementable lithium-ion battery technologies. Use of silicon nanowires can immediately increase the energy capacity of batteries by 40% and more thus increasing the range of electric vehicles by a similar amount. "
Amprius Inc of Menlo Park, California is a development stage company working to turn this discovery into usable products to achieve this result.
This literally could mean battery packs providing a 20% longer range and nearly a 15% drop in battery pack weight at the same time.
What if we could suddenly add such dramatic increases in efficiency in transporting electricity and changing from alternating current to direct current or the reverse that we would add the equivalent of 300 new coal fired power plants without adding new plants to generate electricity of any kind?
That would certainly allow for powering a lot of electric and plug in hybrids!
Transphorm in Goleta, California near Santa Barbara is developing a technology to do just that.
"Transphorm is redefining power conversion. Leveraging breakthroughs in modern materials and unmatched expertise, Transphorm's ultra-efficient power modules eliminate up to 90% of all electric conversion losses. From HVACs to hybrids; servers to solar panels - Transphorm enables significant energy savings across the grid."
GreenTech Media's coverage of Transphorm notes that there are several steps not yet done that would be needed to move this technology into large scale use enough to achieve this result.
But since the technology works, the money to be made by doing so and the need to do it are such that I think these steps will be taken successfully.
What about other problems?
Here’s a recent article from the Sierra club and my comments on each of their points.:
Electric Vehicles: Myths vs. Reality
Myth 1: Switching to an electric vehicle will just mean that the same amount of pollution comes from the electricity generation rather than from the tailpipe — I'll just be switching from oil to coal.
Reality: According to a range of studies, an electric car leads to 35 to 60% less carbon dioxide pollution from electricity than the CO2 pollution from the oil of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine.[1][2][3]
In some areas, like many on the West Coast that rely largely on wind or hydro power, the emissions are significantly lower for EVs. And that's today. As we retire more coal plants and bring cleaner sources of power online, the emissions from electric vehicle charging drop even further. Additionally, in some areas, night-time charging will increase the opportunity to take advantage of wind power -- another way to reduce emissions.
A caveat to consider, according to some studies, is that when coal plants supply the majority of the power mix in a given area, electric vehicles may emit more CO2 and SO2….
(My comments on this point: That’s an air pollution and CO2 release objection which is valid in and of itself. But they leave out some key points. This still means moving away from oil to powering transport with other sources. And, although increased costs of operating coal fired plants due to regulation and the need to install less polluting systems to retrofit these plants will occur, it will be far more predictable and slower than the price run up in oil. And, the United States HAS enough coal and need not send money out of the country as it is now doing by importing oil. We can afford the regulations and these upgrades with the money electric cars and hybrids will save us in paying higher and higher prices to import oil that we no longer will need to pay.)
Myth 2: Plug-in cars will lead to the production of more coal and nuclear plants.
Reality: Even if the majority of drivers switched to electric, the existing electrical grid's off-peak/nighttime capacity for power generation is sufficient without building a single new power plant.
Studies have shown that electric vehicle owners will largely charge their vehicles at night when there is plenty of capacity on the grid. In some areas, new "smart charging" allows you and the utility to set up a system by which you and other electricity users distribute the load evenly during charging so that the system is not overwhelmed by increased demand.
(My comment: Mid-day charging also lends itself to using solar power for the source of the electricity and will be used to do so in my view. So much of the potential need for more coal and nuclear plants will be removed by this.)
Myth 3: Electric car batteries pose a recycling problem.
Reality: Internal combustion engine vehicles use lead-acid batteries, and their recycle rate is about 98% in the US.
The newer batteries for electric vehicles, such as those made of lithium-ion, include even more valuable and recyclable metals and will have a life well beyond the vehicle. In fact, a Belgian company plans to use Tesla Motor's electric vehicle battery pack material to produce an alloy it can further refine into cobalt, nickel, and other valuable metals as well as special grades of concrete. Technology will soon allow for EV batteries to store energy produced by solar or wind power.
Myth 4: My electricity bill will go way up.
Reality: While you'll spend more on electricity, the savings on gas will more than cover it. If you drive a pure battery electric vehicle 12,000 miles a year at current electricity rates (assuming $.12 per kilowatt hour though rates vary throughout the country), you'll pay about $389 per year for the electricity to charge your battery, but you'll save about $1200 in gas (assuming $3 per gallon, a 30 miles per gallon vehicle, and 12,000 miles driven). So $1200 minus $389 equals $811 in savings -a 68% reduction in fueling costs. Some utilities are offering EV owners lower off-peak/nighttime rates. The more we successfully advocate for these off-peak incentives, the lower your electricity payments will go.
(Gasoline is already headed to $5 a gallon and soon after that we may see $10 a gallon. That means the savings per month will begin to approach the monthly payment needed to by an electric or plug-in hybrid car!)
Myth 5: Electric vehicles will just fail again like they did before.
Reality: Manufacturers are serious this time -- rolling out more than a dozen new plug-in models in the next couple of years, starting now. With higher gas prices and climate change worrying many consumers, stricter fuel economy standards for new vehicles required of auto manufacturers, and billions of public and corporate dollars being spent on an EV infrastructure and research in the US, EVs are here to stay.
Myth 6: My battery will run out of juice.
Reality: The majority of drivers in the US drive less than 35 miles each day, sufficient for a fully charged pure electric vehicle (most can go 80 to 140 miles on one charge), and an extended range electric vehicle (that drives about 35 miles on electric and then the gasoline power kicks in).
Using a 220-volt outlet and charging station, a plug-in hybrid recharges in about 100 minutes, an extended range plug-in electric in about four hours, and a pure electric in six to eight hours. A regular 110-volt outlet will mean significantly longer charging times, but for plug-in hybrids and extended range electrics, this outlet may be sufficient. Most of the time, the battery will not be empty when you plug in, thus reducing charging time.
Most people will charge at home. However, some businesses and public entities are beginning to install 220-volt public chargers. Some are installing fast-charging stations along highways and in public places that can re-charge a car to 80% of battery capacity in less than 30 minutes.
(Increases in range compared with these numbers due to better battery technology and customer demand are also quite likely in my opinion – for both all electric and plug-in hybrid cars. And, for plug-in hybrids as gasoline prices go much higher or begin to be erratic in supply on occasion, the demand for increased range will also go up as well.)
Myth 7: Electric vehicles are much more expensive than traditional vehicles.
Reality: While the initial sticker price of EVs is higher than traditional vehicles, you need to do the math to account for a variety of factors. For individual consumers, there is currently a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle, as well as a partial federal credit for the charging unit. Several states have additional tax credits on top of the federal ones. Additionally, the average EV driver will save more than $800 a year in fuel (the cost of electricity compared to gasoline).
Due to a cleaner, more streamlined system under the hood, an EV may save the average driver about 46% in annual maintenance costs, according to one federal government study.[5]
(Larger and larger savings for oil base fuel and less time and money spent each year in the shop, will begin to give “EV’s” a net cost ADVANTAGE. Meanwhile, they will begin to cost less!)
Myth 8: Electric vehicles are only available in California.
Reality: While EVs are not yet available for purchase in every state, they are quickly becoming available in many. The fully electric Nissan Leaf is being sold to customers in California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Tennessee. The Chevy Volt, an extended range plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, is currently being sold at select dealerships in California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington, DC. Customers in nearly all states are expected to be able to purchase or lease a Leaf, Volt, or plug-in Toyota Prius by late 2011 or early 2012. The Tesla Roadster, a fully electric luxury sportscar, is available in several locations throughout the country. By 2012, many other models will become available nationwide, including the Ford Focus EV, Tesla Model S, and the Mitsubishi iMiev.
Myth 9: Charging an EV on solar power is a futuristic dream.
Reality: The technology to power your EV with solar power is already available. The investment in solar panels pays off faster when the solar power is not only replacing grid electricity, but replacing much more expensive gasoline.
According to Plug-In America, EVs typically travel three to four miles (or more) per kWh (kilowatt hour) of electricity. If you drive 12,000 miles per year, you will need 3,000-4,000 kWh. Depending on where you live, you will need a 1.5kW-3kW photovoltaic (PV) system to generate that much power using about 150 to 300 square feet of space on your roof. Utility credits for the daytime solar power can offset the cost of charging the car at night. If solar PV isn't feasible at your home, find out if your utility offers a green energy option.
(Here in the Silicon Valley, electrical engineers have already begun to retrofit existing cars to become all electric and powering them from solar arrays on their homes!
When gasoline prices recently spiked to over $4.60 a gallon they had no increased costs at all!
And, as solar and premade EV’s drop in cost, this will become a very popular option. 300 square feet (or even 600 square feet for two cars) is NOT that big a collector. 20 feet by 15 feet or 20 feet by 30 feet will fit on most roofs with space left over!)
It all adds up to an interesting ride as EV’s become the mainstream kind of cars and trucks people buy and drive!
Today's post: Wednesday, 3-2-2010
We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.
At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.
And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.
Today’s post:
Electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids headed for the mainstream....
Even if we are not yet at peak oil or it’s more than 3 years off, relying on it for transport is becoming dramatically riskier.
The oil it is inexpensive to extract is mostly gone. And, as the population grows and the economies of the world’s countries improve, the demand for transport will continue to increase. While most transport has been powered by oil, that increase in demand has led to increased oil prices.
But now that we have added political turmoil in the oil producing countries in the Middle East and elsewhere, supply of oil may drop or suddenly be less available.
Five to ten dollar a gallon prices for gasoline and for diesel fuel in the United States are on their way.
Even without global warming considerations, that means that depending on oil to power transport is a very bad idea because it threatens sudden and continuing cost increases for transport throughout the world’s economy. It can even lead to rationing of fuel and periodic shut downs of fuel.
This will be economically disastrous if when that happens we have too little ability to power transport by other means.
Further, since the United States imports a huge percentage of its oil supply – and mostly from areas increasingly unstable politically, if we can manage to cut our use of oil in half or more by using other power sources for transport, our national security and economic stability will be dramatically better.
Lastly, the billions of dollars now leaving the United States to pay for imported oil will stop leaving.
The combination of these literally means that the future health of the economy of the United States quite literally depends on switching away from oil as a way to power transport.
All-electric cars and plug-in hybrids – and hopefully soon trucks as well – are rapidly on their way to becoming a solution to this and entering the mainstream.
Soon gasoline only or diesel only vehicles will become a tiny minority of those sold.
Increasingly, major car makers all over the world are well on their way to introducing practical all electric cars and plug-in hybrids. This has become so much the case that developments in this area are hard to keep up with as they are increasing and picking up speed and momentum. Tesla is leading the way. But nearly every other car manufacturer in the world is racing to follow on if not will all electric cars with plug-in hybrids. As this rolls out, the added costs for such cars will gradually decrease due to the increasing volume and economies of scale.
Technology to make such cars go farther and cost less with lower weight batteries and increases in efficiency in electric power grids and uses are in rapid development.
And, most of what were thought to be problems for deploying such vehicles are not serious or rapidly being solved.
Here are some examples:
Envia Systems Inc of Newark, California has a new joint venture deal with GM. (GM Ventures Makes Strategic Investment in Envia Systems Jan 26, 2011 This was part of a funding round of $17 million.) "Envia's advanced cathode technology uses inexpensive materials that store more energy per unit of mass than current cathode materials. Since the cathode is a key driver for the overall battery cost, the more energy the cathode delivers, the lower the battery cost because fewer cells are needed." Their website also notes this will allow for lighter weight battery packs.
D r. Yi Cui of Stanford University discovered that silicon nanowires could form a potent and reliable lithium-ion anode material with the ability to improve anode capacity by up to 10X. His breakthrough was published in Nature Nanotechnology and is one of very few readily implementable lithium-ion battery technologies. Use of silicon nanowires can immediately increase the energy capacity of batteries by 40% and more thus increasing the range of electric vehicles by a similar amount. "
Amprius Inc of Menlo Park, California is a development stage company working to turn this discovery into usable products to achieve this result.
This literally could mean battery packs providing a 20% longer range and nearly a 15% drop in battery pack weight at the same time.
What if we could suddenly add such dramatic increases in efficiency in transporting electricity and changing from alternating current to direct current or the reverse that we would add the equivalent of 300 new coal fired power plants without adding new plants to generate electricity of any kind?
That would certainly allow for powering a lot of electric and plug in hybrids!
Transphorm in Goleta, California near Santa Barbara is developing a technology to do just that.
"Transphorm is redefining power conversion. Leveraging breakthroughs in modern materials and unmatched expertise, Transphorm's ultra-efficient power modules eliminate up to 90% of all electric conversion losses. From HVACs to hybrids; servers to solar panels - Transphorm enables significant energy savings across the grid."
GreenTech Media's coverage of Transphorm notes that there are several steps not yet done that would be needed to move this technology into large scale use enough to achieve this result.
But since the technology works, the money to be made by doing so and the need to do it are such that I think these steps will be taken successfully.
What about other problems?
Here’s a recent article from the Sierra club and my comments on each of their points.:
Electric Vehicles: Myths vs. Reality
Myth 1: Switching to an electric vehicle will just mean that the same amount of pollution comes from the electricity generation rather than from the tailpipe — I'll just be switching from oil to coal.
Reality: According to a range of studies, an electric car leads to 35 to 60% less carbon dioxide pollution from electricity than the CO2 pollution from the oil of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine.[1][2][3]
In some areas, like many on the West Coast that rely largely on wind or hydro power, the emissions are significantly lower for EVs. And that's today. As we retire more coal plants and bring cleaner sources of power online, the emissions from electric vehicle charging drop even further. Additionally, in some areas, night-time charging will increase the opportunity to take advantage of wind power -- another way to reduce emissions.
A caveat to consider, according to some studies, is that when coal plants supply the majority of the power mix in a given area, electric vehicles may emit more CO2 and SO2….
(My comments on this point: That’s an air pollution and CO2 release objection which is valid in and of itself. But they leave out some key points. This still means moving away from oil to powering transport with other sources. And, although increased costs of operating coal fired plants due to regulation and the need to install less polluting systems to retrofit these plants will occur, it will be far more predictable and slower than the price run up in oil. And, the United States HAS enough coal and need not send money out of the country as it is now doing by importing oil. We can afford the regulations and these upgrades with the money electric cars and hybrids will save us in paying higher and higher prices to import oil that we no longer will need to pay.)
Myth 2: Plug-in cars will lead to the production of more coal and nuclear plants.
Reality: Even if the majority of drivers switched to electric, the existing electrical grid's off-peak/nighttime capacity for power generation is sufficient without building a single new power plant.
Studies have shown that electric vehicle owners will largely charge their vehicles at night when there is plenty of capacity on the grid. In some areas, new "smart charging" allows you and the utility to set up a system by which you and other electricity users distribute the load evenly during charging so that the system is not overwhelmed by increased demand.
(My comment: Mid-day charging also lends itself to using solar power for the source of the electricity and will be used to do so in my view. So much of the potential need for more coal and nuclear plants will be removed by this.)
Myth 3: Electric car batteries pose a recycling problem.
Reality: Internal combustion engine vehicles use lead-acid batteries, and their recycle rate is about 98% in the US.
The newer batteries for electric vehicles, such as those made of lithium-ion, include even more valuable and recyclable metals and will have a life well beyond the vehicle. In fact, a Belgian company plans to use Tesla Motor's electric vehicle battery pack material to produce an alloy it can further refine into cobalt, nickel, and other valuable metals as well as special grades of concrete. Technology will soon allow for EV batteries to store energy produced by solar or wind power.
Myth 4: My electricity bill will go way up.
Reality: While you'll spend more on electricity, the savings on gas will more than cover it. If you drive a pure battery electric vehicle 12,000 miles a year at current electricity rates (assuming $.12 per kilowatt hour though rates vary throughout the country), you'll pay about $389 per year for the electricity to charge your battery, but you'll save about $1200 in gas (assuming $3 per gallon, a 30 miles per gallon vehicle, and 12,000 miles driven). So $1200 minus $389 equals $811 in savings -a 68% reduction in fueling costs. Some utilities are offering EV owners lower off-peak/nighttime rates. The more we successfully advocate for these off-peak incentives, the lower your electricity payments will go.
(Gasoline is already headed to $5 a gallon and soon after that we may see $10 a gallon. That means the savings per month will begin to approach the monthly payment needed to by an electric or plug-in hybrid car!)
Myth 5: Electric vehicles will just fail again like they did before.
Reality: Manufacturers are serious this time -- rolling out more than a dozen new plug-in models in the next couple of years, starting now. With higher gas prices and climate change worrying many consumers, stricter fuel economy standards for new vehicles required of auto manufacturers, and billions of public and corporate dollars being spent on an EV infrastructure and research in the US, EVs are here to stay.
Myth 6: My battery will run out of juice.
Reality: The majority of drivers in the US drive less than 35 miles each day, sufficient for a fully charged pure electric vehicle (most can go 80 to 140 miles on one charge), and an extended range electric vehicle (that drives about 35 miles on electric and then the gasoline power kicks in).
Using a 220-volt outlet and charging station, a plug-in hybrid recharges in about 100 minutes, an extended range plug-in electric in about four hours, and a pure electric in six to eight hours. A regular 110-volt outlet will mean significantly longer charging times, but for plug-in hybrids and extended range electrics, this outlet may be sufficient. Most of the time, the battery will not be empty when you plug in, thus reducing charging time.
Most people will charge at home. However, some businesses and public entities are beginning to install 220-volt public chargers. Some are installing fast-charging stations along highways and in public places that can re-charge a car to 80% of battery capacity in less than 30 minutes.
(Increases in range compared with these numbers due to better battery technology and customer demand are also quite likely in my opinion – for both all electric and plug-in hybrid cars. And, for plug-in hybrids as gasoline prices go much higher or begin to be erratic in supply on occasion, the demand for increased range will also go up as well.)
Myth 7: Electric vehicles are much more expensive than traditional vehicles.
Reality: While the initial sticker price of EVs is higher than traditional vehicles, you need to do the math to account for a variety of factors. For individual consumers, there is currently a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle, as well as a partial federal credit for the charging unit. Several states have additional tax credits on top of the federal ones. Additionally, the average EV driver will save more than $800 a year in fuel (the cost of electricity compared to gasoline).
Due to a cleaner, more streamlined system under the hood, an EV may save the average driver about 46% in annual maintenance costs, according to one federal government study.[5]
(Larger and larger savings for oil base fuel and less time and money spent each year in the shop, will begin to give “EV’s” a net cost ADVANTAGE. Meanwhile, they will begin to cost less!)
Myth 8: Electric vehicles are only available in California.
Reality: While EVs are not yet available for purchase in every state, they are quickly becoming available in many. The fully electric Nissan Leaf is being sold to customers in California, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, and Tennessee. The Chevy Volt, an extended range plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, is currently being sold at select dealerships in California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Washington, DC. Customers in nearly all states are expected to be able to purchase or lease a Leaf, Volt, or plug-in Toyota Prius by late 2011 or early 2012. The Tesla Roadster, a fully electric luxury sportscar, is available in several locations throughout the country. By 2012, many other models will become available nationwide, including the Ford Focus EV, Tesla Model S, and the Mitsubishi iMiev.
Myth 9: Charging an EV on solar power is a futuristic dream.
Reality: The technology to power your EV with solar power is already available. The investment in solar panels pays off faster when the solar power is not only replacing grid electricity, but replacing much more expensive gasoline.
According to Plug-In America, EVs typically travel three to four miles (or more) per kWh (kilowatt hour) of electricity. If you drive 12,000 miles per year, you will need 3,000-4,000 kWh. Depending on where you live, you will need a 1.5kW-3kW photovoltaic (PV) system to generate that much power using about 150 to 300 square feet of space on your roof. Utility credits for the daytime solar power can offset the cost of charging the car at night. If solar PV isn't feasible at your home, find out if your utility offers a green energy option.
(Here in the Silicon Valley, electrical engineers have already begun to retrofit existing cars to become all electric and powering them from solar arrays on their homes!
When gasoline prices recently spiked to over $4.60 a gallon they had no increased costs at all!
And, as solar and premade EV’s drop in cost, this will become a very popular option. 300 square feet (or even 600 square feet for two cars) is NOT that big a collector. 20 feet by 15 feet or 20 feet by 30 feet will fit on most roofs with space left over!)
It all adds up to an interesting ride as EV’s become the mainstream kind of cars and trucks people buy and drive!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)