Dec 20
Study Finds Plugin Hybrids Will Have Only Small Impact on Petroleum Use and CO2 Production by 2030
The US National Research Council released findings this week of its study on plugin hybrids and their potential long-term effect on US petroleum consumption and CO2 production.
For the study, two hypothetical vehicles were analyzed; a PHEV-10 with ten all electric miles like the plugin Prius, and a PHEV-40 like the Chevrolet Volt.
Several key conclusions were drawn:
1. Lithium ion batteries costs are high and will likely remain high. The PHEV-10 was estimated to cost $6300 more than a conventional vehicle to build and the PHEV-40 $18,000 more, including a $3300 and a $14,000 battery respectively. Cost as lithium ion battery technology matures was projected to only drop by 1/3 by the year 2020, and more slowly after that.
2. At gas prices less than $4.00 per gallon, PHEV-40s will not become cost effective until 2040, PHEV-10s may get there before 2030
3. The fastest market penetration that could be predicted was 40 million cars out of a fleet of 300 million by 2030. It was expected, however, that the rate would actually be closer to 13 million due to the effects of limited charging infrastructure, high cost, and market competition.
4. PHEVs would have little effect on petroleum consumption before 2030 because there won’t be enough of them in the US fleet. However, a PHEV-10 would only reduce oil consumption by 20% (70 gallons per year) whereas a PHEV-40 would reduce it by 55% (200 gallons per year), and therefore would have a much greater impact on petroleum use if it became the dominant market choice. Forty million PHEV10s would reduce US petroleum use by0.2 million barrels of oil per day. Forty million PHEV40s would reduce US petroleum use by 0.55 million barrels of oil per day. Currently, the light duty US fleet uses 9 million barrels of oil per day.
5. Nighttime charging will not add any additional stress to the US electric grid, but $1000 per car smart chargers will be necessary to avoid taxing the grid during peak hours
6. CO2 emissions would be reduced by using PHEV10s versus traditional gas cars, but hybrids would produce even less when taking powerplants into account. PHEV40s are more effective than PHEV10s at reducing CO2 emissions. CO2 reduction benefits will be small until the grid becomes “decarbonized” and renewable and nuclear sources become more contributory after 2030.
7. A portfolio approach of increased efficiency gas cars, biofuels, HEVs, and PHEVs is recommended. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are considered the only way to eliminate gasoline use altogether.
Source (USNRC)
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 20th, 2009 at 7:38 am and is filed under Research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+7
Dec 20th, 2009 (7:42 am)“5. Nighttime charging will not add any additional stress to the US electric grid, but $1000 per car smart chargers will be necessary to avoid taxing the grid during peak hours”
I have a remote switch installed by my utility company that controls my AC and water heater.. I can assure you it did not cost anywhere close to that much.
It all depends on the cost of oil, its ironic that the success of electrics will do a lot to keep oil cheap.
+21
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:00 am)I’d be curious who conducted this study, in terms of personnel, and who funded it. It sounds curiously like everything that the oil lobby would like us to believe: go “status quo” until they can offer us a hydrogen cartel.
+10
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:12 am)Is a traditional vehicle one that gets 25 or 30 mpg?
Does the PHEV-0 (base hybrid, no plug) deliver 40 or 50 mpg?
Without knowing what “traditional” or a PHEV-0 represents, what good is the report?
+29
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:13 am)I have three major problems with this report.
It assumes that there will be gasoline available, and it will remain at a low cost. But how many other studies have shown the exact opposite?
And when did the world become one big happy place where we all get along, and work together to solve the problems of the planet? For crying out loud, Iran and Iraq are fighting over the oil wells!!!
Finally, this report assumes that battery packs will remain expensive for the next 25 years. That has just not been the history of how these things happen over the last 100 years…..
I think ithe report is flawed, IMHO.
+5
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:27 am)Here’s the opening of the summary…
“The nation has compelling reasons to reduce its consumption of oil and emissions of carbon dioxide. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) promise to contribute to both goals by allowing some miles to be driven on electricity drawn from the grid, with an internal combustion engine that kicks in when the batteries are discharged. However, while battery technology has made great strides in recent years, batteries are still very expensive.
This report builds on a 2008 National Research Council (NRC) report on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs)…”
Pure fuel-cell vehicles have been abandoned, yet this 2008 report ignores that reality. It also comes from an era who’s administration shunned hybrids in favor of fuel-cells. No battery at all, even as a buffer, is rather suspicious.
Of course, listing a driving-distance rather usable battery-capacity is too.
+6
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:29 am)I think the report is flawed, IMHO.
It all depends on the assumptions made. I too, am darn sure the report is flawed.
The basic premise is that gas prices will stay low, and battery prices will stay high. If either is wrong, the report fails.
The photocopy paper I use here is no good for butt wiping, so this is one report I will NOT be printing.
/merry christmas to all here at GM-Volt.com
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:34 am)LOL, I rest my case. Well done john 1701a, Fuel cells, the space power grid, and, EEStor in Texas were all used in production of this report.
/snigger ROTFLMAO.
+15
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:35 am)Nowadays reports don’t have much meaning. Almost everyday I see one that contradicts a previous one. Your common sense holds more truth than these reports!
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:40 am)4. PHEVs would have little effect on petroleum consumption before 2030 because there won’t be enough of them in the US fleet. However, a PHEV-10 would only reduce oil consumption by 20% (70 gallons per year) whereas a PHEV-40 would reduce it by 55% (200 gallons per year), and therefore would have a much greater impact on petroleum use if it became the dominant market choice. Forty million PHEV10s would reduce US petroleum use by0.2 million barrels of oil per day. Forty million PHEV40s would reduce US petroleum use by 0.55 million barrels of oil per day. Currently, the light duty US fleet uses 9 million barrels of oil per day.
I think the only line in this paragraph that is true is the last one.
-5
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:55 am)Sounds like this report was written by Bill OReilly or maybe Rush Limbaugh!!
+6
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:02 am)Well, I’ll make it unanimous. This “study”, if not conducted by the govt itself, is definitely govt funded. As such we can sleep well tonight knowing that it’s results, by definition, are sacrosanct, valid, incontestable (NOT).
I *DO* think that it will take decades for there be enough PHEV’s on the road to make a significantdifference, but that’s all the more reason to get this show moving forward. High mileage vehicles like the Prius have given us a great start, so now it’s time to take the next step in this journey and move to the electrification of the transportation fleet.
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-1
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:07 am)http://sites.nationalacademies.org/NRC/index.htm
“The mission of the NRC is to improve government decision making and public policy, increase public education and understanding, and promote the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in matters involving science, engineering, technology, and health. The institution takes this charge seriously and works to inform policies and actions that have the power to improve the lives of people in the U.S. and around the world.”
I rest my case. (lol).
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:13 am)Here is a link to the executive summary, if interested: http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=12826&type=pdfxsum
It is clear that, in addition to PHEVs, BEVs such as the Nissan Leaf and the Mitsibushi iMEV are going to enter the market. How the market will shake out between PHEVs and BEVs is anybody’s guess but the only OEM plugin vehicles currently on the market are BEVs (both low volume producers: Meyers NMG and Tesla).
This report is flawed in that it looks at PHEVs in isolation. The report says that the grid can support PHEVs but ignores BEVs which are a greater strain on that resource and will be charging at the same time as PHEVs.
Bill
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:32 am)There is no question that the transition from petroleum to electric / hydrogen / biofuel will take decades. It is unfair to dismiss the impact of hybrid in terms of overall petroleum consumption. As a previous poster stated, ALL alternatives are keeping fossil fuels prices down, keeping our economy functioning until we transition off them.
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:34 am)There is nothing resembling any deep analytics at all here. The flow of the graphs mirror a two-dimensional projection, which are of entirely useless value. Two dimensional thinking always comes back to circular logic to favor entrenched corporate goals. And, VERY OFTEN even to the extent of a gross disadvantage or even to the disaster-profit-point of knowingly directly causing hidden damages (“as-long-as-they-don’t-get-caught”).
Profit-point damage risk occurs every day (pardon me for saying it this way) with these really sleazy automotive batteries that have the letters “S-T-A-R-T” as any part of the name or description on any 12 volt battery for any vehicle. (Because lead for batteries has gotten very expensive.)
**************************************************************************************
I just can’t warn everyone enough about this, the damages are so severe when they fail (because they are too cheaply made to “fail safely” and prevent resulting surge damages to software, firmware, and automatic transmissions), and I see it every single day in every single shop I visit every day regarding these hidden damages. DO NOT BUY ANY CAR BATTERY THAT HAS THE LETTERS “S-T-A-R-T” ANYWHERE IN ANY COMBINATION ON THAT BATTERY!
*************************************************************************************
The “Scenario” is something “artistically” made up because it is a **future projection**. The lines on the graph above are far “too neat” and “easy to look at” with inferences that are too narrow, shallow, and, finally, of no value at all. This is because it is a total guestimate of far too many combined future co-variables that do not yet exist.
The competition here is the future hunt-down for those future petro-dollars via battery advancements that are very well underway. It no longer matters to many of us what the price of gasoline will be (we are so weary of petro-politics). (It can go to a buck a gallon and I still will by Volt). What matters to most of us is that the system of transportation must be changed for all the solid and valid reasons which have been very well shared right here.
Prius might just “add a pack” (double the size) on top of their 12 mile pack as an option to make it a 26 mile pack, because the slower you draw electricity out of any battery, the longer the distance you go (>10%).
So, no, nothing above makes sense for anyone to draw any meaningful conclusion from the loose graphs above, once you think about it.
There are all manner of lithium battery companies who are ready to compete once all the various EREV (and BEV) standards, voltages, wattages, dimensions, etc, are known. You can bet your bottom dollar on that!! They are all ready to “pounce” upon all the opportunities after the OEM batteries are worn out. Three years for some BEV’s(?), and, in 14 or so years if the other OEM’s build their vehicles as good as GM’s.
What all OEM’s ought to consider, is that their electric motors, controllers, and other supporting systems be made “add a pack” friendly, and, to have the mechanical abilities of their systems to possibly be upgraded in anticipation of all these battery companies’ optional packs that already exist right now in the first place (but can not ever be truly compatible without future design and OEM-permission to be).
The technically-generous OEM that makes designs allowable for these “add a packs” would certainly be viewed IMMEDIATELY-at-purchase as far more consumer-long-term-interest-friendly for ten years out or after warranty expiration, where that technically-generos OEM had a second or third owner’s interests and needs at heart. This would be an option THAT WOULD INDEED BE USED. THAT would be a very compelling long-term-investment option, very strongly compelling consumers to buy!
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:40 am)Last week I invested in a Texas based electricity distribution company that own 26% of a smaller wind generation company. This company distributes power throughout the USA.
California is adding grid capacity all the time. Several vineyards have gone to 100% self contained solar power operation. Store shelves are overstocked with efficient coil light bulbs that make standard 100w incandescent bulbs a thing of the past. New appliances are more energy efficient than older models.
Driving 40 miles per day gasoline free is a good thing by any measure. Unless your an oil company executive or OPEC per barrel rate setter.
=D~
+4
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:41 am)The report also appears to fail to take into account new technologies that may be developed over the next 40~50 years which will power PHEV’s and BEV’s electrically, which may greatly reduce their cost and absorbtion into the driving public.
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:46 am)Dan, I especially like this thought, and I *hope* that mfgs have the foresight to do so. Hey, I’m an optimist, so I think that SOMEONE will (lol).
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+9
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:05 am)“A PHEV-40 $14,000 battery cost and a projected 1/3 reduction in cost by the year 2020, and more slowly after that”.
______________________________________________________
This is like saying the standard LCD TV’s costs $3,000 today and will only decline in cost by $1,000 over the next 10 years (and slower thereafter).
These guys need to step away from the crack pipe.
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:05 am)Does this study say anything about China and India? In only the next 5 to 10 years there will be massive(that being an understatement) amounts of vehicles added to those countries.
When you hear the term “emerging markets” what they are talking about are countries which are finally building a middle class(i.e. people with disposable income). All these people who never used oil are now using oil.
I’m going to go try to find some numbers on how many cars are being registered each day in just those two country. The big difference is pretty much most people who want a car in developed countries have one so we just replace ours. In the emerging markets they are buying cars for the first time.
Energy demand will continue to grow rapidly. That is not even counting population increases in developed countries. Like Warren Buffet said in the CNBC interview which included Bill Gates. He said he spend billions on the train company because in a few decades our population will grow and we will have to move more goods around.
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:14 am)Or at least get out of Academia’s ivory tower.
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:14 am)Good Morning Tag!
OEM’s being technically-open to seeking-out and networking with these aftermarket Lithium battery interests would just be incredible.
It seems to me that this could be an incredible way for all OEM’s to each become a far stronger “hub” to assure quality control in that they would assure their customers that they wouldn’t get into trouble with consequential damages from technical omissions.
This is not as hard as less technical management might at first be concerned. Yet the market “tie ins” for aftermarket Lithium Battery “add a pack” manufacturers could clearly present contractual advantages to all OEM’s if OEM management spent some time thinking about the advantages of their battery divisions approving “add-a-packs” for the various licensing, approval, and risk assessment fees.
(There could be “add a packs” also for isolated options like for when a customer wants sound systems).
It relates to not being able to be in front of all good opportunities at all times. That phrase, (if I remember it correctly). “Part of success is showing up”. With technologies, even where you are the best, you still have to “show up” at least 4 times for the very technically-aware, and somehow present different advantages each time (good timing). This is especially true when there is an apparently “unsolvable problem” which you can easily demonstrate you can easily solve.
Volt will easily solve lots of problems. And, an entirely new array of solvency solutions starts in about 10 months.
+3
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:27 am)the report loses all credibility for not even mentioning BEVs. We all know ER-EV and PHEV’s are nothing more than a stop gap for pure BEV. I’m hoping my Ampera will last a good 10 years, when i can then replace it with something that has a 100kwh or so battery and a 200kw motor. maybe 10 years is too short, i guess Volt G2 will be six years after G1 (and it will have a super efficient genset [diesel/turbine/hcci] and a battery either with much more capacity, or a larger charge window, that’s physically smaller and cheaper) then G3 will be choosable between large BEV or ER-EV with a fuel cell (tri fuel – hydrogen, petrol or methanol) in 2022.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:33 am)“1. Lithium ion batteries costs are high and will likely remain high.”
I’m sure that the person who also said “LCD TV costs are high and will remain high” is feeling a little silly by now as well.
+4
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:37 am)I agree with most of the prior comments. The study was done by folks pushing a competing technology, the committee for fool cells….
Second, the distance we travel (78% travel less than 40 miles per day) will probably drop due to increased congestion and demographics, our population is aging and retired folks like me only drive about 10,000 per year. Third, the Plug in Prius is closer to a PHEV-15. Fourth the battery per kwh cost is expected to be cut in half (because energy density is expected to double with the same production and material costs) by 2015.
And I want to give a big +1 to Dan Petit for pointing out the pattern of Toyota doubling the battery size. The Prius has a 1.3 kwh pack. The Plug-in that first came out, had the lithium battery replaced with two of their 1.3 packs, for a total of 2.6 kwh and a 7 mile range. Now the ones going in usage in January have 5.2 kwh battery and around a 14 mile range. Who knows what will be in the 2012 production model, should we expect a 10.4 pack with a 28 mile range?
Just one final observation, if 50% of the drivers drive less than the AER of the PHEV-15, and the PHEV-15 reduces their gas consumption by 2/3, and then the other 50% drove PHEV-40 which cut their gas consumption by 2/3, would not the market turnover of 10 years result in gas consumption being cut by 2/3 in 10 years?
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:44 am)Actually, I think it’s already started – HERE. (g). And then there’s always that Independence Day bit (sorry, I couldn’t resist).
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:47 am)The other things this brings up are the ancillary carbon costs for transportation and refining of crude. Someone posted about a week or two ago that it takes 12 percent more energy to refine the crude into its constituents.
What also would be the percentage of energy (the additional carbon) in relation to the energy “ultimately delivered to the road” of transporting crude from the other side of the planet?
If we were only previously talking only about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide from each gallon of gas for the direct combustion of it in the car, would we not need to also add 12 % more for the refining of it, plus the transportation energy used at all levels of transport of it?
The energy used and carbon generated from just the transportation of it might be as high as (throwing an outrageous number out here to get opinions as to range), but another 50% energy used and carbon released to transport that energy inclusive of all the “way-segments” for that energy. That would be, and already is in fact, a set-up for EXPONENTIAL carbon dioxide generation. These absolute-carbon-totals datum have been kept hidden from us by the previous petro (governmental) interests, and, I believe we all have an absolute right to know these extra carbon percentages for the true carbon totals per gallon of not only gasoline, but everything else.
This is why I believe that any electrification is (EREV/Li BEV), is
an EXPONENTIALLY IMPERATIVE NECESSITY to allow for more feasible adaptation for future generations.
+4
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:48 am)As a comparison, the CEO of CPI (the company that currently makes the Volt’s battery pack) put the price of the Volt’s battery at $8000.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html#more
and Bob Lutz basically confirms that here:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/04/why-the-volt-will-cost-40000/
In addition, the CEO of CPI says:
“From a historical perspective over the past 17-18 years the cost has come down by a factor of 15x. In the next 5-10 years we should be able to come down by an incremental 2-4x and we will have to do that to accelerate the penetration of the technology.”
So it just depends on who you believe.
To me, it seems obvious that new technology is always more expensive, and then it gets much cheaper and more reliable once it starts to go mainstream.
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:50 am)Dan, with thinking like this, I can say with absolute confidence that you will never work for the government (lol).
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:17 am)In August 2009, I replaced a Mustang GT (17 MPG) with a Prius (PHEV-0 – 45 MPG) for my 40 miles per day commute. My monthly gasoline consumption has been reduced significantly. This decision clearly had environmental and economic benefits.
I have been looking at third party options to increase battery and plug to this vehicle.
One option calls for replacing the batteries entirely for $13,500 and I get an EV range of 25 miles. While I can expect some applause from some polar bears, the economics stinks. The math comes up short even if I ignore the additional PV Electric panels that I would need to add to my current system. (I currently about 85% generate my residential usage.. and since I “generate” during higher rates and I “use” during lower rates, there is a nice payoff for this system.)
Can I sell “carbon credits” to come up with a way to pay for my next round of “green projects”?
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:30 am)Well, sometimes it is good to get various thoughts out so that people can discuss them. Just hope that this thing did not cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Also, while we are not TOTALLY objective we are probably much more grounded in reality than those that produced the report. Just hope that when this stuff is presented anywhere that other viewpoints have a fair airing.
I’m reminded of the saying (admittedly a little negative) “Figures don’t lie, but liers know how to figure.”
But again, it is good to get different viewpoints out there for discussion.
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:32 am)HA!,
Tag,
Simply and practically-speaking, the kind people that run this site are the only “official” people who could process commentary from me for so many hours per week. The influence one has in the observations and discourse of inefficiencies, which is my full time job as an advanced diagnostics educator, (or, when publishing online regarding social or general business policies regarding things omitted, or wrong, or obsolete social-policy wise), is that it isn’t practicable for me to be doing that in any one office for 55 hours a week.
There’s a technical-timing in knowing when, and to what extent, and also regarding how many different things to bring up. That “timing” is something that always needs refinement, due to lightning-fast technological changes.
But good sugestions stem from knowing well the increasing inefficiencies and suggesting efficient ways in dealing with them.
Hopefully, the ones made by all posters here, and social concerns well-written by the very scholarly and increasingly technical posters here might somehow go far to help the future generations adapt by our attempt to understand all the facts for us to **DO** things regarding cutting today’s **exponential** factors that are exploding carbon against the future generations’ surviabilities.
Merry Christmas to you too, Tag!
+4
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:35 am)CalCars Ron Gremban has some thoughtful analysis on the US National Research Council report. From CalCars Dec 18 news summary http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/1084.html
“Plug-in vehicle battery prices are often quoted out of context. Even if accurate, such figures can be a factor of 2-3 off from actual battery pack costs to manufacturers, thereby mis-stating the economic viability of plug-in technology. It’s most useful to focus cost of complete battery packs in high volumes, calculated per “useful-pack-kWh kilowatt-hour” (capacity actually used by the vehicle). For example, the cells in the Volt’s pack have a nameplate total capacity of 16 kWh, but to ensure long battery life, the Volt actually uses only 8 kWh. Pack costs per nameplate capacity may run 3-4x the cost of individual cells, though over time this should decline to as little as 1.5x. Retail costs for small quantities of cells developed specifically for cars can’t be used for calculations — they will cost far more than the wholesale rates to carmakers.
The NRC report’s figure of $14,000 for a Volt-like 8 useful-kWh pack yields $1,750 per useful-pack-kWh. GM’s costs are closer to $1,000/useful-kWh for the first-generation Volt, and we’ve seen industry figures closer to $600/useful-pack-kWh for production packs for delivery in the next few years. The NRC report also says we can expect minimal cost declines from technology improvements and economies of scale because Li-ion batteries are already produced in great quantities for consumer products. But these are very different cells and packs. Those required for plug-in vehicles are just beginning production, with significant efficiency improvements already appearing, along with better-than-expected battery life. Consumer cells are currently selling in quantity for $150-250/kWh. Calculations with best assumptions1.5x $150 or conservative 4x $250 translate into $225-$1,000/useful-pack-kWh — a far cry from the paper’s $1,750/useful-pack-kWh estimates!”
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:39 am)You can get any answer you want depending on the assumptions you make. If you assume battery prices will stay at 875 $/kWh, then EREVs won’t be competitive unless oil prices are very, very high. Current 18650 cells can be purchased at the retail level for 250 $/kWh. I just heard an officer of A123 say they would reach those price levels for automotive batteries. If the people who did this study are off by a factor 3 in one of their assumptions, I have to wonder about the rest.
Predictions are worth about as much as the paper they’re printed on (or the electrons that carry them?).
Time will tell. I want a Volt, regardless.
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:49 am)miguel is right in pointing out “cost contexts”
OEMs’ discounted costs per useable kilowatt storage are passed on in the cost of the vehicle closer to their wholesale cost.
Retail consumer “onesies and twosies” costs require all the necessary “middle-men” having to add in their overhead to each kilowatt.
But competition means that the “better-financially-positioned” from those who also “better-technically-planned in the first place” is what will somehow bring the lower cost opportunities to the consumer ultimately.
+9
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:54 am)To Bluesbrain:
You replace a Mustang with a Prius? Oh this is just so sad I want to cry.
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:11 pm)This pretty much sums it up very well.
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
-8
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:19 pm)The Volt plus ALL other EVs will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the overall use of oil in the United States. Repeat: NO IMPACT.
Anyone who doubts this for even one second needs a check-up from the neck up !
I know there are a lot of blind and faithful Volt followers here that love to believe otherwise but you folks are all just dreamers living in a reality distortion field.
- Jake
+3
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:20 pm)Just an OT observation. Reading the posts today, one gets a sense of the incredible *passion* our group has. I know that we are of a lot of differing political stripes, but the voice of the choir here is really impressive.
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
/PDNFTT
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:24 pm)The Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicts an 8.7% growth in US CO2 emissions by 2035 (last year they had predicted a 39% increase by 2030).
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/speeches/newell121409.pdf
Of the approx 6.0 billion metric tons of CO2 that we generate, ~ 2.0 comes from the transportation sector, and this includes long haul trucks, buses, trains, jet aircraft, and other means of transportation besides the personal automobile.
So even if we all converted to PHEV-40 vehicles like the Volt, there will still be a great deal of CO2 yet to be reduced to get to 50% below 1990 levels.
+3
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:34 pm)Wow, their estimate changed by 30% for the positive in just a year? Sounds like they do a great job doing estimates (not).
Reducing CO2 is a goal, but not the only goal. Some will be helped a little, some a *lot*. The point is that good things almost uniformly happen with the electrification of transportation.
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+4
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:34 pm)Check out:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12826&page=R5
And note that the person who chaired this study was from ExxonMobil.
“the PHEV-40 $18,000 more, including a $14,000 battery. Cost as lithium ion battery technology matures was projected to only drop by 1/3 by the year 2020, and more slowly after that.”
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:34 pm)…sad, at least until he can get a Volt
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:37 pm)I wonder where this NRC report is?
“Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies–Battery Electric Vehicles”
—-
I find it interesting that they would do a study on alternative transportation, but limit it to plug in hybrids (excluding BEV’s). This would only make sense if they are putting out a separate report that deals solely with the impact of BEV’s.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:50 pm)There is one single indication that is all we need to know that this is total garbage. BYD has already been making EREV vehicles with a 60 mile AER for a year now and can sell them even in low volumes for $16,000. That is today, right now as I type this. How could anyone think it’ll take decades to get to the point where we can walk into a showroom and buy one for $25,000.
+3
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:51 pm)Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!
+3
Dec 20th, 2009 (12:53 pm)Very shallow and unrealistic thinking about the future. Gas staying below $4 a gallon for so long? I highly doubt it. And don’t they realize H2 fuel cell cars (if they ever come into widespread use, which I doubt*) are likely going to be plug-ins with batteries?
*Apart from in the military. They may opt for this route instead of biofuels/ coal gasification since they are not primarily concerned with energy efficiency and would very much like to park a generator next to a source of water and make fuel rather than transport it all over the place. I mean c’mon, the warthogs in HALO use H2 fuel cells so I suppose this is destiny.
+5
Dec 20th, 2009 (1:12 pm)No news here. These ‘predictions’ are worthless. I don’t think the price of lithium batteries, for example, is predictable out to 2050, or even a much shorter period. And, there are plenty of other ‘unpredictable’ aspects to this.
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (1:23 pm)Maybe a few of the comments above should give more weight to the overall positive message of the NRC report. What the report is saying is that with a combination of approaches and changes, petrol use in the US can be drastically reduced by 2050. Here look at the graphs at the top of Lyle’s post. By 2020 there’s a significant decline (as compared to an increase on the reference line), and by 2050 there is a huge change. That’s true for most all the combinations examined.
While we may disagree with the report’s writers on lots of smaller points — such as price forecasts for Li-ion batteries — I think we here agree with the report on its main point — revolutionary change is possible, and it can start happening soon.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (1:25 pm)Great points everyone and I too feel the transition from pure ICE will be faster than the chart implies.
Aside from our predictions of soaring fuel costs and plummeting battery costs driving people the right direction
, don’t forget the longer-term cost of ownership advantages and residual value of the EV or EREV. Brakes last much longer, EREV engine needs minimal maintenance, no transmission to breakdown, electric driving is much cheaper. People will soon realize this and make the “investment” of going the EV route even while it is more expensive to buy than cheap ICE vehicles.
Besides just think of the long-term health benefits as drivers’ happiness factor increases with the exciting, quiet EV experience. People will smile more, wave people on at stop signs, bring their wives flowers more often, live longer…ok, I’m getting carried away
+3
Dec 20th, 2009 (1:37 pm)Any report that talks about future oil consumption without taking into account peak oil is worthless.
Besides, they are quoting battery costs that have already been bettered. Nissan claims $10K for a 24kwh battery – that this report says will not be achieved even in 2050.
Dec 20th, 2009 (1:54 pm)#44, add,
“I find it interesting that they would do a study on alternative transportation, but limit it to plug in hybrids (excluding BEV’s). This would only make sense if they are putting out a separate report that deals solely with the impact of BEV’s. ”
________________________
To rephrase. . ..
The overwhelming message of this report seems to be: “Don’t bother with the plug, it’s too expensive and it won’t have much of an impact.”.
– But the glaring omission of the BEV in the study automatically makes one wonder . . . WTF?? How in the world could they throw a line in the graph for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles but leave out BEV’s?
/Conspiracy guy thinks the NRC knows its bread is buttered by status quo industry. Conspiracy guy thinks plug in hybrids were a relatively easy target to shoot at, but nobody on the board wanted to deal with the likely possibility of massive BEV egg on face in 3 or 4 years.
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (2:12 pm)Got to get the cobwebs out of my head this morning. Lost almost a whole post before I submitted it!
I got up to early this morning after a sleepless night, and saw this blog with only one comment by Herm. I started a few google searches to see what if any other reports or articles contradicted this report. Being tired, I only took time to partially read one done for DOE on the cost of lithium-ion batteries in the present day and projected into the future.
Like this report it was not very encouraging, IMHO. But it wasn’t so narrowly constructed as this report.
It contained data on the materials currently used and also discussed some other alternatives. The main problem associated to cost has to do with availability of materials: whether there are sufficient quantities of the materials, and who controls those supplies. It turns out that the cells cathodes are the most expensive part. Use of Cobalt was discussed extensively as well as a few substitutes. IMHO, this is where most of the research will be and currently is done(from what I have read).
The subject report of today is definitely too narrow to have any validity. The effect of lithium-ion batteries on future use of EV’s is much more complex than the simple corrolation the report utilizes. The correct model for prediction of EV use of the lithium-ion battery is a canonical correlation where many independent variables will influence many dependent variables; the price of petroleum for example will influence mining costs as well as production costs of the various materials being fabricated into cell parts; acceptance of EV’s will influence demand and effect rates of production: scientific discoveries will shift the cost factors to those of new materials not considered in either report, todays or the one I read this morning. There are a myriad of factors not considered, all of the ones mentioned this morning by us, and others of which we have not thought about.
But the one that concerns me most, is the cost of petroleum. China and India as emerging economies will have the greatest impact on EV adoption. If this report is valid, in its limited way, we all have a huge problem that, IMHO, is not reversible. We must find ways of producing millions of EVs for everyone and totally replace conventional vehicles because by 2040 there will not be enough petroleum to satisfy world demand. It may even face us sooner than that!
One fact that I do agree with in this report is the necessity to continue research into hydrogen cells. The solution to the need to expand EV use around the world, will include this science and all others available to us.
Sorry for sounding pessimistic this morning: blame it on a bad night! I’m usually more optimistic.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Dec 20th, 2009 (2:52 pm)I suspect this report was fairly done by people who are well trained and exercised good judgement. The problem is that when authoring a report like this you have to approach the question in a linear fashion, meaning you have to use historical trends, and as some have noted big changes always represent discontinuities. For example, how many people in 2000 would have guessed how popular Wi-Fi would be today? Not very many. How many would have predicted that mobile would be replacing land lines and that VOIP would be so prevalent? I know when I suggested this the sober expert types said I was crazy because the quality and price trends wouldn’t allow for it.
People buy cars for many reasons, and while price is a factor it’s not the largest driver. If EVs can tap into the environmental, economic, and national defense reasons for eschewing conventional cars, and deliver the EV experience Weber and Posawatz keep talking about, then EVs will be a huge hit and make this report seem silly. If not then the report is probably right.
Dec 20th, 2009 (3:19 pm)This report ignores the strongest market driver for electrification of transportation. The global gasoline supply line is extremely fragile, aging, and vulnerable, and most importantly, depleting (of the easy-to-get oil). It is just barely running on bailing wire and a prayer right now. Underinvestment by the oil majors now has guaranteed relentless production declines from today forward.
Anyone who experienced the gas lines and even/odd day gas rationing of the Arab Oil Embargo days knows how vulnerable our gasoline supply is. I experienced the inconvenience of those times and it has me willing to shell out a premium for a vehicle such as the Volt, that will never be held hostage to the many things that can (and soon will) go wrong with the US gasoline supply.
Anything published by US government agencies should be read with a grain of salt. Nearly all government agencies have a hidden agenda, which is to advance the cause of whatever lobbying group they are most beholden to. Just take a look at the US Energy Information Agency (EIA), which after a decade of denial of the “peak oil” theory, has been forced to radically alter their stance in the face of now overwhelming recognition (even by several major oil companies and oil producing nations) that the oil age is now headed into relentless decline. The EIA’s track record is now a laughing-stock, and their past reports are a lasting monument to their incompetence, or worse, their bought-and-paid-for allegiance to certain vested interests in the energy industry. That my friends is our government “looking out for its citizens.”
Dec 20th, 2009 (3:23 pm)$8000 is the cost of the cells to GM, they they package them in the T-Pack with the BMS and cost goes up to $11-12k.. all this should come down in Voltec 2.0
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (3:30 pm)Ok, Don. If you’re going to defend this report then I’ll ask you directly.
Why would these well trained reasonable experts include PHEV10′s, PHEV40′s AND Fuel Cells in the study, but leave out BEV’s (the category that, without question, will have the most entrants into market over the next few years)?
Why do these learned reasonable scientists claim that the Volt’s battery is $875/kwh when we’ve heard nothing anywhere near this high from GM or LG?
Dec 20th, 2009 (3:47 pm)Related (imo, of course),
Oil’s Washington juggernaut
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/19/news/economy/oil_money/
Dec 20th, 2009 (4:12 pm)The introduction makes clear that the scope of the inquiry was limited to looking at PHEVs. It didn’t BTW look at fuel-cells. An earlier report did that. Perhaps a later report will look at BEVs.
Hopefully we can do better than opining first and reading — it at all — later. I realize that Fox News has made this approach popular but it’s not the most productive approach if you actually want to understand something or have a decent dialog.
I wasn’t BTW defending the report, I was just pointing out that by their nature these reports are limited to projecting past trend lines. If they don’t do that then they’re criticized as being “too political” since guesses and speculation start playing a major role.
Dec 20th, 2009 (4:15 pm)No, $8000 is the price for the total battery pack. Read the link.
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (4:18 pm)That actually makes a lot of sense. Now that they see plug-ins starting to get real, they will surely try to bash them.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (4:24 pm)Because it was the oil companies that pushed fuel cells to begin with, and the oil companies that chaired this report.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (4:27 pm)______________________________________________________
USNRC Report = Wrong Conclusion
The USNRC Report is crafted in it’s wording and use of facts to direct the reader to draw the conclusion that a single person’s contribution of purchasing a Volt type vehicle is a materially insignificant act. The report can easily be deconstructed and re-composed to direct the reader to draw the opposite conclusion. I’ll do just that when I return from vacation and hijack a topic thread with my retort. Here is just one example retort item:
USNRC Report Quote: “PHEV-40 would reduce it by 55% (200 gallons per year)”
My Retort:
PHEV-40s on the average will cover 75% of miles driven using plug-in electric with the remaining 25% miles using a gas RE-ICE. PHEV-40s will be capable of utilizing E85 therefore allowing those vehicles to reduce oil consumption by over 90%.
______________________________________________________
Dec 20th, 2009 (5:16 pm)Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!
The sooner the better!
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Dec 20th, 2009 (5:19 pm)What a wonderful report! By 2050 hydrocarbon fuel use will drop to practically zero! If not for plug-ins and alternate fuels the graph for hydrocarbon fuels continues its disasterous upward path.
Go GM! Go Volt and all planet saving technologies!
Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all!
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (5:24 pm)-”Study Finds Plugin Hybrids Will Have Only Small Impact on Petroleum Use and CO2 Production by 2030″
This is known as the “Longer Tailpipe” argument and has been proven as baloney over & over again.
Plug-In Hybrids will indeed decrease petroleum use, as well as lowering CO2 production.
Once again, the “Longer Tailpipe” argument is baloney and has been disproven over and over again.
Chances are, this so called study was funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Do they really think that we here at gm-volt.com are that stupid?
We’re not falling for it Exxon, no matter how many studies you and your fossil fuel stooge cronies undertake
Dec 20th, 2009 (5:26 pm)“Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are considered the only way to eliminate gasoline use altogether.”
**********************
-In other words:
1) Electric cars can easily be fueled at home from any number of domestic power sources, even partially your own. But that’s no good and it will never catch on. Batteries suck and they wont ever get better. So ignore that idea.
2) Current cars require you to purchase fuel from a station every week. The only good replacement is- a fuel cell car which requires you to purchase fuel from a station every week!
3)Thats our prediction, and our prediction sets policy, so get yourself on over to the gas station/hydrogen station.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (5:45 pm)I will say again that anyone who thinks they can foresee the future and predict not only what electric car technology will look like in 20 years, but what it will cost, should be forbidden to make any public statements. Are we actually paying for this nonsensical blather with tax dollars? Arrogance comes in many guises.
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (6:01 pm)I think I speak for all of us when I say, “this report stinks!”
=D~~~~
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (6:13 pm)I hate to criticize the National Research Council. Normally they are very competent and capable. But this report is nonsense. LiFePO4 cells are already dropping in cost quickly. See http://www.evcomponents.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=TS%2DLFP40AHA With four of these cells for less than $200 you can assemble a 40 amp hour 12 volt battery that is waaaaay better than a U1 size AGM sealed lead acid deep cycle batt which will run about $80 not including shipping. For just over twice the bucks, you can almost double your range (due to Peukert factor reduction with LI versus Pb) and get five times as many cycles. Net gain of factor of ten in distance for about a 2 in cost. So a factor of almost 5 better cost effectiveness. Today!!!! Also, there is no way that adding a $1 microcontroller and a $30 solid state switch to a battery charger to allow pre-programmed or even internet connected utility controlled charging will have a net cost of $1000. More like $50 in mass production. These guys are just plain off the mark cost wise and thus their market penetration projections are nonsense. If we don’t do this, the Chinese will (already are). And when they finally learn to engineer with quality ( the Japanese did, their first cars were junk too ) they will be unstoppable.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (6:34 pm)Well I guess you’ve read the whole thing?
I have to admit I haven’t. But I did take the time to read the bios on the 16 members that make up the committee.
By my count, 11 of 16 (over 2/3) have either petroleum or hydrogen (or both) in their backgrounds. Why waste my time reading this thing?
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12826&page=90
/also, found this gem in there. “Assembled battery packs currently cost about $1700/kwh of usable energy. — That would put the Leaf’s pack at almost $33,000!!! (oh, but wait, that’s a BEV and we’re not talking about those, right?)
-what a freakin’ joke.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12826&page=83
Dec 20th, 2009 (6:46 pm)This is a real nice post i also bookmarked your site and look for more updates. thanks.
Dec 20th, 2009 (7:00 pm)I think what you are saying about China, the rest of the BRIC’s and development is critical to putting studies like this in context. Predicting the future is hard and if you are creating a snapshot that moves forward with all things being equal the study is about right.
But…China a developing country having narrowly averted a complete economic meltdown, has been buying about as many new cars as the US. What happens to gas demand when the downturn is over? Peak oil may or may not turn out to be true, but the largest known producing oil fields have clearly peaked. How fast will prices rise after the downturn?
GM has said that batteries are already reduced by 30% of the prices noted, and the study aims for prices in 2020 that GM is seeing today. The momentum and manufacturing critical mass for PHEV and EV cars seems likely to create an environment where more cars will be available, popular and purchased than a study like this could reasonably predict, based on the recent past. Incentives are in place to help overcome the difference in prices.
All things will not be equal in the future, and a study like this wouldn’t make those assumptions.
Dec 20th, 2009 (7:12 pm)Predicting technology 20 years out is just a wild guess. Even projecting from the current 10-year battery development cycles, we are seeing a giant progression. I see no reason that this development will slow down. Quite the contrary.
I wonder if this report was created by the same thinking that predicted that housing would just keep going up.
I find it highly unlikely that these predictions are accurate.
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (7:38 pm)I personnaly like analysis to include positive steps on what can be done to accomplish objectives. We on this site want to move forward and applaud those who attempt to explore options how to reduce our reliance on oil. Who knows, we might come up with an inexpensive way to convert to a hybrid, EV or whatever
Dec 20th, 2009 (7:50 pm)I believe that the number of cars sold in China has already exceeded those sold in the U.S.; 2,000 per day and rising. Cost of gasoline can only be rising in the future.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Dec 20th, 2009 (7:57 pm)I did read the link, and read several reports based on this interview (one on this site), here is the quote from your link:
“All four of these items together justify a 2.5x premium for the AT application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh) compared to the $350/stated kWh of a CE system, CPI says.”
The key here is $1000 per available kwh (also known as usable), the Volt has 8kwh available for use and thus the cells cost $8000 to GM.. can also be stated as $500 per actual kwh capacity. That was a good deal for GM.
GM did a presentation, one of the slides stated that packaging the cells was 30% of the total cost of the completed pack.. thus the total cost is $11,700 to GM. To that add the cost of the warranty, supposedly CPI should cover some of that.
Dec 20th, 2009 (7:59 pm)I wonder what percentage of “our” cars are replacement vehicles, vs an “additional or first car”. It would seem like a higher percentage of the car purchases in China would be “new” to the individual/family (or maybe I’m wrong). I’m just trying to sort out how many of those 2000/day are “new” wheels on the road (I know that they are all new, but you know what I mean)(g).
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:15 pm)We need to but our efforts to find ways of reducing the number of vehicles on the road: conservation is often the last method considered. In Europe, they use their cars less and travel by alternate methods or even walk. Our style of life requires us to travel distances to get to shopping malls and entertainment. We need to consider how our urban areas our constructed.A return to self sufficient neighborhoods would lessen the consumption of gasoline. The never ending trend of larger and larger companies in retail markets destroying the little mom and pop shops and stores only means more money in the pockets of large corporations. Look at the recent recession caused by a few giant banking institutions. It is the small community banks that usually support small businesses; apparently the large bankers have forgotten about small business, the foundation of this country. We need to conserve what was best in our past as well as find ways to lessen our consumption,, for example by insulating current homes and offices, by designing more efficient buildings, using better light bulbs, and bringing energy conserving products to market in mass produced quantities to lower their prices as fast as possible. One of those products is the Chevy Volt. If GM can bring the Volt to market sooner at a lower price, we would be able to see the immediate impact of th cost of foreign oil in real terms.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:25 pm)1. Lithium ion batteries costs are high and will likely remain high (until 2040). -Bullshit-
2. At gas prices less than $4.00 per gallon, PHEV-40s will not become cost effective until 2040 – Bullshit-
3. The fastest market penetration that could be predicted was 40 million cars out of a fleet of 300 million by 2030 -Bullshit- Not the fastest. It depends on the oil situation.
4. PHEVs would have little effect on petroleum consumption before 2030 because there won’t be enough of them in the US fleet. -All depends on adoption due to oil situation-
5. Nighttime charging will not add any additional stress to the US electric grid, but $1000 per car smart chargers will be necessary to avoid taxing the grid during peak hours -Every car manufacturer will offer these. Welcome to the smart grid-
6. CO2 emissions would be reduced by using PHEV10s versus traditional gas cars, but hybrids would produce even less when taking powerplants into account. -Copenhagen proved that nobody is going to do anything about CO2 emissions. Only a petroleum problem and increased fossil fuel costs will cause governments, companies and individuals to change.
7. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are considered the only way to eliminate gasoline use altogether. -Ah, I guess we now understand the perspective of the authors. Hey guys, hydrogen is not a fuel it’s an energy carrier that requires more energy to generate than it produces. You don’t know this yet?-
-1
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:32 pm)Dang this page is so slow does Michigan still have dial up sheesh this page is just down right slow even when I use the scroll bar on here at this web article. Here in Washington State we got High Speed Internet and I love it! It’s a whole lot better than dial up plus it doesn’t take your freedom away when using the telephone also I do hope we do have a greener future and I hope this economy gets better.
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:34 pm)Tag,
Their market probably is mostly new owners rather than replacement. That means the world vehicle population will be exploding/increasing dramatically (India and other emerging economies included).
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:39 pm)We may not eliminate our dependance on oil immediately but it will begin the process.
Dec 20th, 2009 (8:49 pm)Thanks, that’s pretty much what I’d thought (and feared). On a totally prejudiced and self-serving motivation level, that will probably drive the electrification process even faster. Some countries try (or do) limit the size of families. Will vehicles be next?
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:07 pm)Hey LRGVProvolt,
What if anything does your handle mean? I’m always having to look it up in the thread to type the LRGV part – the ProVolt part I understand. If it’s your initials, just say so – no need to post your name. (Tagamet used to be a prescription med for upset stomach/ulcers, but now it’s over the counter. lol).
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:21 pm)Read the link again. The sentence right before says:
“• Fourth, a vehicle pack battery pack has non-cell costs such as a monitoring system.
All four of these items together justify a 2.5x premium for the AT application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh)…”
The Volt’s battery pack costs GM around $8000. That’s for the whole pack assembly, not just the battery cells.
-1
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:23 pm)This is no suprise. Right now vehicles only amount to 25% of our oil usage. So if everybody stopped driving right now we’d only decrease our oil usage by that amount.
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:26 pm)Wonder if we may be seeing a Christmas video from Frank Weber? It’s been a year since the Europe Ampera mule was driven at highway speed.
=D~
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:28 pm)That would put a pretty good dent in our need for foreign oil.
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:28 pm)Screw the oil sheiks!
Buy a VOLT anyway!
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (9:35 pm)While I agree with your main point, I believe your figures are off.
Oil consumption breaks down roughly as follows:
• 44% gasoline (mostly for passenger vehicles)
• 17% diesel (mostly for heavy duty long distance travel)
• 5% jet fuel
• 15% fuel oil (home heating and industrial)
• 19% other (petro-chemical, plastics, fertilizer, etc.)
So even if we were able to eliminate all gasoline consumption, we would still be using a lot of oil. With this in mind, it’s obvious to me that we need other solutions in addition to plug-ins. These would probably include:
• Ethanol from non-food sources ( http://www.coskata.com )
• Bio-diesel from algae ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ih-DLurcZA )
• More domestic oil production (stripper wells, oil shale, tar sands, offshore drilling)
• Conservation
-2
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:05 pm)Does it really matter people, climategate proves that sciencists lie for political reasons. 98 or 96 percent of greenhouse gases are water vapor, water vapor!!! I’m just amazed by the media today. CO2 an evil gas wait a mintue don’t trees need it to survive! Trees that product oxyen so we can survive! Human caused climate change is biggest scam of our lifetimes. This so called Human caused climate change and Health care bill is making me so mad! Look up the facts people.
+2
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:10 pm)OK, does importing 2/3 of the oil we use concern you?
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:12 pm)how about FILLING station …
+1
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:25 pm)It doesn’t really matter what country we buy our oil from. It’s a world oil market. Think of the oil market as a swimming pool – producers pour oil in, consumers take oil out. We don’t import all or even most of our oil from the Persian Gulf today, yet the decisions of Persian Gulf oil suppliers have a profound impact on our economy.
So importing oil from anywhere helps those countries that export oil the most. These are:
Country ………………….. millions of barrels per day
Saudi Arabia …………….. 8.65
Russia …………………… 6.57
Norway ………………….. 2.54
Iran ………………………. 2.52
United Arab Emirates ….. 2.52
Venezuela ………………. 2.2
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:32 pm)LJGTVWOTR! NPNS!
Had an entertaining comment all typed up (Statik style) earlier but got lost in the posting process. Everything has pretty much said already, but I’ll take the report as a positive. Even in their scenario which starts out significantly worse off then today’s reality there will still be 40 million PHEVs by 2030 in addition to unmentioned BEVs.
Oh and the peak load problem (which is a ral issue that will adressing), even if we stub our tow and don’t prepare properly, utilities can still implement time of use metering fairly easily to fix things.
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:40 pm)OK, does importing 2/3 of the oil we use concern you? Of course it does, but didn’t exxon mobil buy xto the other day? Maybe natural gas will be used a lot more in the future. Of course this is a big what if but wouldn’t it be funny, if we’re just saving our oil at this point. Buying other countries oil right now and when they run out, sell ours to them for 10 times the price? Of course by then everyone will probably have a new energy source. But still an interesting idea of what could happen.
Dec 20th, 2009 (10:55 pm)U.S. oil production peaked in the early 70′s, and has been declining ever since. We’ve basically used up most of our oil. There’s not much left to save. At this point, the U.S. only has 3% of world’s oil, and we use 25%.
Conversion to natural gas is an interesting idea, but there are major problems. For example, power companies require natural gas in the mix because it’s the only fuel that can adjust electrical power output very rapidly, which is necessary to meet variable peaks in demand. So Picken’s plan to replace natural gas with windmills won’t work.
I believe extended range EVs like the Volt are our best chance at reducing foreign oil dependence.
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:12 pm)Sort of off subject, but I do not understand why 15% of the oil we use goes to make home heating oil? Why not replace those heaters with natural gas, like in Southern California. Is natural gas not available or does it not work in a northern winter? In Southern California we generate a considerable fraction of our electricity by burning natural gas, so if we could build 50 or so 1000 MW nuclear plants, we could cut down on burning natural gas so it would be available for home heating. And if built and additional 50, we could cut down on the amount of coal we burn.
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:16 pm)I believe extended range EVs like the Volt are our best chance at reducing foreign oil dependence.
I agree with you, extended range EV’s like the Volt are the best way to reduce foreign oil dependence. The Middle East will have to find new ways to make money.
Dec 20th, 2009 (11:21 pm)It’s been decades since we’ve built a nuclear plant. IMHO, building new ones is way overdue. New designs can burn current nuclear waste and end up with a teacup of their own waste. I wish nuclear had as fast a track as hydrogen fuel cells have had for the last decade’s research. JMO
Merry Christmas,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Dec 21st, 2009 (12:40 am)So when is the Volt with the natural gas fuel cell range extender launch date?
So long as it has maximum torque at 0 rpm and strong, instant, totally smooth acceleration available at all times, I could care less what the range extender is or uses for fuel, though I suppose something much cleaner than gasoline and that doesn’t take much energy to produce or extract would be ok.
Dec 21st, 2009 (12:57 am)Great point, that was part my third issue (the US portion anyway) before I ran out of time to finish the comment at # 73. I would guestimate that out of a fleet of 300 million passenger cars, only a fraction, would be driven regularly with substantial mileage accruing and only a fraction of those would even be used for regular commuting.
These high mileage cars are likely to be the ones that are replaced sooner. This may give PHEV’s more bang for the buck in replacing gasoline miles driven.
Dec 21st, 2009 (1:03 am)The following drawing represents U.S, energy flow trends in 2002.
It shows where losses occur: the major losses come from transportation, and use of coal to make electricity, The ratios of lost energy to useful energy for each are 21.2/5.3% and 20.0/2.1 These are the major losses that need to be worked and improved on.
In the transportation area, the loss is caused by use of the ICE. This area is being addressed by shifting to EV for our transportation. About 50% covers passenger vehicles and the other 50% by transport fleet trucks.
In the area of power generation, coal is apparently a very inefficient fuel. The use of coal either needs to be improved to lower losses or an alternate power source should be utilized as is being done in the transportation sector. More efficient boiler designs are needed for utilities to use if we continue using coal as a fuel. Here perhaps the most efficient boiler designs can find ways to capture the heat that is lost. Industrial use of boilers is more efficient than in the production of electricity for residential and commercial use because industrial users capture that heat and channel it to heat their buildings and for other process uses.
What is amazing is the use of carbon fuels for theswe purposes are so inefficient and polluting. We burn the petroleum and coal, get very little in return as usable energy, and damage the atmosphere making it poisonous to those living near the industrial plants and ultimately our fragile atmosphere encompassing our globe. We need to be more conservative in the use of these two fuels.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Dec 21st, 2009 (1:09 am)…And you won’t even get that new car smell.
When you bought the Prius you got a new toy that cut your gas bill way down. The folks who buy Volts or Phev Prius’ will have fun new toys also. Folks that convert their Prius to PHEV will have the satisfaction of knowing they did something good, pretty much.
Dec 21st, 2009 (1:19 am)This is the reason that lowering the cost of the Volt where the masses can afford to buy it is so important. Nissan states that they will be pricing the Leaf so that it is affordable. In the U.S., the bulk of the vehicles sold will likely be replacements, unlike the situation in China or India. GM needs to make the Volt affordable.
Then as you say, EVs “may give PHEV’s more bang for the buck in replacing gasoline miles driven.”
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Dec 21st, 2009 (1:24 am)I agree Herm, I smell a rat. The government can quickly turn the tables by taxing oil products and that would make electric much more competitive.
With the leaps and bounds of technology I wouldn’t bet against electric. There’s no way anyone can predict the technological future. Even Einstein couldn’t predict the Currie experiments that led to the Atom bomb..
A mobile electric power source for cars is already here, who knows how much better it will get in the next few years. There’s just too many horse and buggy thinkers that call themselves experts. The time for electric has arrived and there’s no going back.
Dec 21st, 2009 (2:12 am)Take a look at this link for actual figures on U.S. imports from our foreign suppliers:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Based on your figures on total exports for the countries listed, We import about one eight of Saudi Arabia’s oil, one half of Venezuela’s, and about one sixtieth of Russia’s. Canada and Mexico are our largest suppliers. Yet our imports form the Persian Gulf are significant.
It doesn’t really matter what country we buy our oil from. That is true; the fact is that we lost $26 billion each month on average this year to those foreign countries listed on the link.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
+1
Dec 21st, 2009 (2:23 am)What? You don’t believe that the ice caps and glaciers are melting and disappearing, or that there are millions of people in the great the U.S.A. that don’t have health insurance.?
Get your facts straight!
Merry Christmas and Happier New Year.
And Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Dec 21st, 2009 (2:27 am)I think strongly tying the commercial viability of PHEVs to the present cost of Lithium Ion batteries is a bit short sighted. The fact that PHEVs will be sold in any appreciable amount has already lit a fire under the battery industry. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future we see other chemistries or technologies significantly increase the energy density of batteries. It may be lithium-sulfur, sodium-ion, lithium-air, or something else. If that happens, expect those car companies who have a handle on the PHEV technology to do very well.
Dec 21st, 2009 (2:34 am)It stands for where I live. Right now I need a Tagamet for my stomach.
Can’t keep up with the number of posts and not sure if I answered everyone responding to my posts. Had a rough night last and slower than usual today.
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
P.S. Merry Xmas
Dec 21st, 2009 (5:51 am)Somebody please take that other GM EV, the Saab 93 EV with 2 motors and 355 HP and bring it to market. That and a trailer with 20 HP generator is all anyone should ever need.
Dec 21st, 2009 (11:29 am)Misleading information. PHEV vs. HFCV is stupid comparison. PHEV are on the road and they can easy adopt any fuel and HFCV are not available and never be.
Dec 21st, 2009 (12:10 pm)After the EMP attack from the mullahs, none of this will matter.
Dec 21st, 2009 (12:39 pm)“A journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step.”
Dec 21st, 2009 (1:22 pm)LRGVProVolt Says:
What? You don’t believe that the ice caps and glaciers are melting and disappearing, or that there are millions of people in the great the U.S.A. that don’t have health insurance.?
Get your facts straight!
Merry Christmas and Happier New Year.
And Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
Yes I believe in climate change it changes all the time. Yes ice caps and glaciers are melting. But is it human made climate change? And please don’t say science say this. It should say climate model computers say. C02 is what less than 1 percent of the atomsphere? C02 is what about 3 percent of total greenhouse gases? Water vapor being the other 96 or so percent! If I’m wrong on this last two points please went me know! With facts, Another point Look at the Medival Warm period. I’ve also heard 1998 now isn’t the hottest year 1934 is.
Merry Christmas and Happier New Year
Dec 21st, 2009 (11:38 pm)First Ford, Volvo, Fiat (Chrysler), Opel/Vauxhall (GM) currently manufacture and sell 42 (or more) vehicles in Europe that rated between 60 and 76 mpg(Imperial) combined cycle, about 50 to 63 mpg(US) combined in actual practice for those US drivers that are easy on the accelerator according to
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/fuelConSearch.asp
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/advancedSearch.htm
The current average fuel economy US “light passenger vehicles” is above 21 to 22 mpg(US). That is 4.65 gallons/100 miles or almost 700 gallon per 15k miles, roughly average annual travel.
Those European 50~63 mpg(US) vehicles are mostly diesels that would consume about 1.81 gallons/100 miles (a savings of about 2.8 gallons/100 miles) or 273 gallon per 15k miles. This would be a savings of roughly 425 gallons (10 barrels of gasoline or roughly 22 barrels of sweet crude) per vehicle year.
We already know that price premium for the VW diesel Jetta is about $1,300 over a comparably equipped gasoline Jetta.
So, emissions and emissions abatement costs are NOT major (or limiting) issues with diesels in the US. And emissions abatement technology is STILL IMPROVING IN EUROPE and possibly the Asian Pacific. In fact, Europe will have built and sold about 7 million diesel passenger vehicles in 2009.
Just for fun, I tired to calculated the crude oil savings … ? 4.2 million barrels per day? … I am not certain I did it correctly so double check me … I’m getting tired.
Anyway … the savings could be large … and small displacement (2.2 liters or less) turbo diesels could be PART of the solution (with a natural path to bio diesel).
Further there no natural limiting factor on annual production volumes other than facilities and manpower to build them. By 2020, it is conceivable that 70 million units could be on US roads, enough for about 1 out of EVERY 3 licensed US drivers.
It is also reasonable to assume based on European efforts to improve fuel economy and emissions that gains of 15% to 30% may be possible over the next 10 years.
As far as EVs and EREVs are concerned, if they require 5,000 kWhr/15k miles, electricity is FREE, and diesel cost $5 per gallon … the economics for plug-in remain unfavorable until the plug-in price “premium” falls below about $5k.
And that does not even consider the “highly localized and concentrated down wind emissions” from any carbon fired power generation source used to charge these plug-ins.
Just some facts, thoughts, and personal opinions ….
Dec 22nd, 2009 (2:18 am)Man clearly controls the climate, so sayeth Al Gore, creator of the interwebs.
The whole analysis is clearly wrong, it doesn’t factor in the $7,500/Volt China will give us to make the car affordable, or the taxes that we must put on gasoline to make $40,000 4 seat toymobiles look cost competitive, so it’s obviously absurd. Once gas costs $12/gal the Volt will only take 6 years to pay the premium off vs. a civic for me, assuming electricity is free and my building puts a charger in the shared garage for me to use every night. That’s the assumption they need to make, that electricity is free, Santa is real, Lithium is abundant and can be sourced from US deposits and China will loan us money to make the Volt cost competitive. If you just use those assumptions it makes perfect sense. Big Oil, Big Business and those greedy fat cats on wall street are why you won’t see a realistic analysis with those assumptions in it, they want you addicted to oil.
Dec 22nd, 2009 (9:51 am)1. not so sad. I still have the Mustang, just don’t drive it to work! (It’s a ’99 Mustang GT Convertible.).
2. I can get a Volt. Probably won’t be the first year of production.
3. The Mustang “qualified” for “cash for clunker”. I didn’t take the government offer. a. my “deal” didn’t qualify: I got a 2008 Prius. b. the 2010 didn’t have a plug or a plug conversion kit. (maybe still doesn’t) c. I’m still looking for a more economical plug/battery kit.
Cheers!
Dec 22nd, 2009 (10:18 am)Diesel comments cleaned up this morning.
Anyway … the savings could be large … and small displacement (2.2 liters or less) turbo diesels could be PART of the solution (with a natural path to bio diesel).
Further there are no natural limiting factor on annual production volumes other than facilities and manpower to build them. By 2020, it is conceivable that 70 million fuel frugal diesel units could be on US roads, enough for about 1 out of EVERY 3 licensed US drivers.
This assumes that openning the “ABOVE 45 mpg(US) combined market segment” could expand annual US sales back into the range of 15~18 million units/year.
I recalculated the crude oil savings.
At a savings of roughly 22 barrels of sweet crude per vehicle year and 70 million fuel frugal diesel vehicles in 2020 … the potential savings could be in the range of 3.8 million barrels of crude per day! Possibly more with alternative refining processes. I have more confidence in this number.
Add some bio diesel (minimum infrastructure impact) and the savings just go up!
Why not require all vehicles to be diesel if the savings could be so great?
Refinery yields are about 20/11 gallons gasoline/diesel or 12/20 gallons gasoline/diesel depending on the specific “refining” process used +/-.
So to optimize (minimize) crude oil consumption, diesel/gasoline consumption MUST BE BALANCED with refinery diesel/gasoline output. This says there MUST be both gasoline AND diesel users.
Further, this IS NOT an argument AGAINST plug-ins!
This is presented as a case for an appropriate ratio of fuel frugal diesels to gasoline vehicles as an IMMEDIATE short term bridge to “cleaner/greener coming technologies” like plug-ins, hydrogen, or whatever.
At lest that is the way I see it ….
Dec 23rd, 2009 (4:42 pm)in the hunt for an ROI (Return on Investment)
Here’s a step in the right direction for converting the Prius to PHEV.
(enginer system + installer)
http://www.3prongpower.com/products.html
The IRS tax credit seems to apply. (for 4kWH battery) (10% of the cost of the conversion)
Per enginer, the 4kWH system has a 30 miles range. .. $4499
Interesting that PICC says their system is 6.1kWh with a 25 mile range. The “turn off” is Installed system cost is $13,500
http://pluginconversions.com/faq.html
3prongpower has a good one in their FAQ:
“How long is the Return on Investment (ROI) if I install a PHEV upgrade?
A long time. Even though electricity for PHEVs costs less than $1.00 per gallon equivalent, it will still take years to save enough money on gasoline to pay for your installation. However, you will be helping the nation get off of foreign oil, reduce your Co2 (global warming) emissions, and be setting an example for your friends, children, grandchildren etc. ”
hahahaha .. At least they are being honest!
Cheers!
Dec 23rd, 2009 (10:25 pm)[...] this nugget from GM-Volt.com. The blog is obviously focused on the upcoming Chevy Volt PHEV (we’re less than a year [...]