Welcome To The 300 Club HUB On AGORACOM
We may not make much money, but we sure have a lot of fun!
Message: PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal / Petersen
http://seekingalpha.com/article/159020-phevs-and-evs-plugging-into-a-lump-of-coal?source=email
(nice comment by Jack Lifton of Great Western Minerals)
PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal 9 comments
Since I've stirred up a hornet's nest over the last two weeks first by debunking the mythology that PHEVs and EVs will save their owners money and then by showing how PHEVs and EVs will sabotage America's drive for energy independence, I figured I might as well go for the triple-crown of harsh realities by showing readers that in the U.S., where 70% of electricity comes from burning hydrocarbons, PHEVs and EVs won't make a dent in CO2 emissions. They'll just take distributed CO2 emissions off the roads and centralize them in coal and gas fired power plants.
I started to seriously question the policy arguments in favor of PHEVs and EVs when McKinsey Quarterly published an article titled "Profiting from the low-carbon economy" in early August. The article included a "Global carbon abatement cost curve" that shocked me because it showed that HEVs offered a substantial cash benefit from carbon abatement while PHEVs imposed a significant carbon abatement cost. A few days ago I got permission to reprint the original graph from a recent McKinsey & Company report entitled "Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy. Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve," 2009."
While the graph is fairly complex because it shows both the benefits and costs of various carbon abatement options and the potential amount of CO2 that each option could eliminate, the key issue is the relative positions that HEVs and PHEVs occupy on the curve. HEVs are shown on the left hand side of the graph between residential insulation retrofit and electricity from landfill gas; which means that HEVs save €30 ($43) per metric ton of carbon abatement. PHEVs are shown on the right hand side of the graph between nuclear power plants and low penetration wind farms; which means that PHEVs cost €12 ($17) per metric ton of carbon abatement. Since the McKinsey graph analyzed abatement costs at a 'global' level, I felt compelled to dig a little deeper and analyze their impact in the U.S.
In its latest report on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., the Energy Information Administration said that CO2 emissions from electricity generation were 2,433.4 million metric tons in 2007. In its 2007 annual summary of electric power in the U.S., the EIA reported that net generation of electric power during 2007 was 4,157 billion kilowatt-hours from the sources identified in the following graph.
When you divide the total CO2 emissions from electricity generation by the total amount of electricity generated, it works out to 585.4 grams of CO2 per kWh. While the figures vary among manufacturers, the average electric-only range of the PHEVs and EVs planned by General Motors, Nissan (NSANY), Mitsubishi (MMTOF.PK), BYD (BYDDF.PK), Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive, Th!nk Global and a legion of others is roughly 4 miles per kWh of useful battery capacity. So in the U.S., a PHEV or EV will ultimately be responsible for about 146 grams of CO2 emissions per mile unless the owner has the foresight and dedication to buy solar panels or wind turbines to generate the electricity his PHEV or EV will use.
To review the math, a gallon of gasoline releases 20.35 pounds of CO2 (9,231 grams) when it is burned in an internal combustion engine. So a normal car that meets current CAFE standards of 27.5 mpg is responsible for roughly 336 grams of CO2 emissions per mile. In contrast, an HEV like the Prius, which slashes fuel consumption by roughly 40% through a combination of recuperative braking, idle elimination and electric launch will be responsible for roughly 201 grams of CO2 emissions per mile.
The following table compares typical vehicle costs (without tax subsidies) and CO2 emissions per mile for each class of vehicle. It then goes two steps further and (a) calculates an average carbon abatement cost for HEVs, PHEVs and EVs, and (b) calculates an incremental carbon abatement cost for PHEVs and EVs. Both carbon abatement costs are expressed in dollars of capital spending per gram/mile of CO2 emissions.
| ICE Vehicle | $20,000 | 336 | ||
| Prius class HEV |
$26,500 | 201 | $48.15 | |
| Volt class PHEV |
$40,000 | 146 | $105.26 | $245.45 |
| Leaf class EV |
$40,000 | 146 | $105.26 | $245.45 |
Is it any wonder that Vinod Khosla keeps telling interviewers that in the U.S., China and India, PHEVs and EVs will be plugging into a lump of coal for years to come?
News stories, speeches and press releases can only maintain the electric drive illusion for so long. Sooner or later the public is going to realize that it's all hype, blue smoke and mirrors, and that PHEVs and EVs have little of substance to offer customers in the U.S. market. When the public comes to the realization that electric drive vehicles:
- Won't save their owners significant amounts of money;
- Won't be as fuel efficient as HEVs when battery capacity is factored into the equation;
- Won't be as CO2 efficient as HEVs when utility emissions are factored into the equation; and
- Are nothing more than feel-good, taxpayer subsidized eco-bling,
The backlash against lithium-ion battery developers like Ener1 (HEV) and Valence Technologies (VLNC) that have attained nosebleed level market capitalizations based on electric drive hype may be vicious. The big winners should be developers of cheap and efficient high-performance lead-carbon batteries like Exide Technologies (XIDE) in cooperation with Axion Power International (AXPW.OB); C&D Technologies (CHP) in cooperation with Firefly Energy; and East Penn Manufacturing in cooperation with Japan's Furukawa Battery Co. (FBB.DE).
It would be wrong for readers to assume that I dislike lithium-ion battery technology, because I believe it will be an increasingly important part of the coming cleantech revolution. I also believe that companies like Advanced Battery Technologies (ABAT), Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI), Johnson Controls (JCI) and A123 Systems (IPO pending) that are taking a diversified approach by focusing on products for a wide variety of consumer, industrial, utility and military applications will grow and prosper. But the companies, reporters, financial analysts and politicians that have built a mountain of unreasonable expectations from an electric drive molehill may be in for a tough time.
DISCLOSURE: Author is a former director and executive officer of Axion Power International and holds a large long position in its stock. He also holds a small long position in Exide.
Related Articles
|
Alternative Energy
Get essential analysis of |
This article has 9 comments:
- Follow
- Blog: The Age of Technology Metals
- •
- Biz.
So it came to pass that in year 9 of the false god Climate, whose priest was lithium, there arose a prophet called John and all that John foretold came to pass and the rain of truth fell and lithium dissolved to reveal bright lead underneath as it had been foretold verily by John...the text breaks off here.
- Follow
- Blog: ipo-law.com
- •
- Biz.
Have a great trip Jack. I hope you come back with something interesting you can share on the rare earth metals front.
- Follow
I'm re-posting my comment from another article in April here, where it actually fits the discussion better:
The "other" electric car starts to sound more reasonable in the long term. The "other" is the hydrogen fuel-cell powered electric car. Yes, I know, the production and distribution infrastructure needed is immense, but in the long run sounds more feasible in light of Mr. Lifton's arguments. (Those were arguments against the viability of economical Li-ion batteries over the long term due to supply constraints).
My personal grand energy plan has always been and still is based on nuclear energy. Nuclear plants would be designed and built as three-way machines. A three-unit plant would have one reactor for electricity, one for reverse osmosis clean water production, and one for electrolytic hydrogen production. Crossover capability would allow all three reactors to produce power for peak time of day, but would divert increasing power to the hydrogen and water trains as night fell. At that point, the vast available clean baseload of two reactors produces clean water and hydrogen gas all night with (of course) zero CO2 production. In the battery (vs fuel cell) EV scenario, as discussed in previous SA articles, the nightime charging of all those extra batteries would have to come from more baseload coal plants, which makes your battery car dirtier, despite the efficiency gained from the inherent electric motor high energy conversion efficiency. What battery EVs there are would also retain their "CO2 cleanliness" if the nightime charging were from new nuclear baseload units, which run at 100% all night anyway (no one really does nuclear "load following" and they aren't designed for that).
Building nuclear plants that can cleanly fill in the nighttime demand valley with massive fresh water and hydrogen production, while at the same time giving a clean charge to the battery EVs, is an alternative whose time will have to come.
Sorry for simply re-posting, but it's 5:30am on Sunday, and I'm incapable of real thought yet. And besides, since your semi-infinite series of (good) articles, I realize there's nothing wrong with incessantly beating the same drum, as long as it's a good drum to beat.
The "other" electric car starts to sound more reasonable in the long term. The "other" is the hydrogen fuel-cell powered electric car. Yes, I know, the production and distribution infrastructure needed is immense, but in the long run sounds more feasible in light of Mr. Lifton's arguments. (Those were arguments against the viability of economical Li-ion batteries over the long term due to supply constraints).
My personal grand energy plan has always been and still is based on nuclear energy. Nuclear plants would be designed and built as three-way machines. A three-unit plant would have one reactor for electricity, one for reverse osmosis clean water production, and one for electrolytic hydrogen production. Crossover capability would allow all three reactors to produce power for peak time of day, but would divert increasing power to the hydrogen and water trains as night fell. At that point, the vast available clean baseload of two reactors produces clean water and hydrogen gas all night with (of course) zero CO2 production. In the battery (vs fuel cell) EV scenario, as discussed in previous SA articles, the nightime charging of all those extra batteries would have to come from more baseload coal plants, which makes your battery car dirtier, despite the efficiency gained from the inherent electric motor high energy conversion efficiency. What battery EVs there are would also retain their "CO2 cleanliness" if the nightime charging were from new nuclear baseload units, which run at 100% all night anyway (no one really does nuclear "load following" and they aren't designed for that).
Building nuclear plants that can cleanly fill in the nighttime demand valley with massive fresh water and hydrogen production, while at the same time giving a clean charge to the battery EVs, is an alternative whose time will have to come.
Sorry for simply re-posting, but it's 5:30am on Sunday, and I'm incapable of real thought yet. And besides, since your semi-infinite series of (good) articles, I realize there's nothing wrong with incessantly beating the same drum, as long as it's a good drum to beat.
- Follow
- Blog: ipo-law.com
- •
- Biz.
Dave, while I suspect your personal grand energy plan would take a fair bit of time to implement and face a number of daunting emotional and technical hurdles, I did some searching about and found the following NERL report on the relative cost and energy efficiency of producing hydrogen through electrolysis.www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/...
I'm personally open to almost anything that doesn't take a half-trillion dollars per year out of the U.S. economy and send it somewhere else.
- Follow
Author: "PHEVs and EVs won't make a dent in CO2 emissions. They'll just take distributed CO2 emissions off the roads and centralize them in coal and gas fired power plants."
It is fantastic that now you are looking at the problem with a system approach. I will not agree or disagree with your conclusions, but I think you got a step closer to understanding DOE's overall strategy (right or wrong, again, no opinion here). Your own table shows that a PHEV or HEV will lower CO2 emissions by 50% with respect to a conventional ICE, and some 25% with respect to a Hybrid. So, even if you plug into a lump of coal, the DISTRIBUTED emissions on the freeway went down, and what is more important, and as you point out, they are now CONCENTRATED at the power plant, where carbon sequestration might be feasible (it is NOT feasible at the tailpipe). You helped me see why DOE is so interested in carbon sequestration. Of course, carbon sequestration will bring down overall efficiency, so what we gain in the end may not be so much, and instead of that 50% we may not get much. And when compared to hybrids, carbon sequestration at the plant may not be worth it. I do not know, but I see EV and PHEV as a good step in the direction of reducing oil consumption, switch to domestic coal, and still reduce CO2 emissions. Of course the wildcard is carbon sequestration. I remember people working on it 25 years ago, so it may be a pipe dream.
Thank you for writing these articles, themselves, and the ensuing discussion, are always helpful.
It is fantastic that now you are looking at the problem with a system approach. I will not agree or disagree with your conclusions, but I think you got a step closer to understanding DOE's overall strategy (right or wrong, again, no opinion here). Your own table shows that a PHEV or HEV will lower CO2 emissions by 50% with respect to a conventional ICE, and some 25% with respect to a Hybrid. So, even if you plug into a lump of coal, the DISTRIBUTED emissions on the freeway went down, and what is more important, and as you point out, they are now CONCENTRATED at the power plant, where carbon sequestration might be feasible (it is NOT feasible at the tailpipe). You helped me see why DOE is so interested in carbon sequestration. Of course, carbon sequestration will bring down overall efficiency, so what we gain in the end may not be so much, and instead of that 50% we may not get much. And when compared to hybrids, carbon sequestration at the plant may not be worth it. I do not know, but I see EV and PHEV as a good step in the direction of reducing oil consumption, switch to domestic coal, and still reduce CO2 emissions. Of course the wildcard is carbon sequestration. I remember people working on it 25 years ago, so it may be a pipe dream.
Thank you for writing these articles, themselves, and the ensuing discussion, are always helpful.
- Follow
Brilliant article, but we know the bottom line don't we. It's.....no, that for my new book.
- Follow
Again in his long jihad against EV's, PHEV's and trying to justify his so far vaporware carbon lead batteries he uses selective information and ignoring obvious future trends.
First coal use has dropped again a couple % since his graphs were made as coal continues to fall from plant closings and far more eff Ng cogen plants and wind, solar replace them. This trend will accelerate. Even the coal plants left are being upgraded to cogen cutting their coal needs by 30%. More wind cap was installed last yr than any other generation means including coal showing an obvious trend.
And most utilities are required to get 20% renewables soon, further dropping coal use as will it's cost rise from carbon taxes, energy prices.
Plus he ignores at night when EV's, PHEV's much of the power will be charged is from hydro and old Nukes, both lower cost than coal and little carbon output. New nukes cost way too much, $9-18/kw to build. Coal is $4/kw and going up as it's fuel is.
He ignores the cost of Lithium batteries is dropping fast as they are now below the cost of sealed lead batteries. He can quote his sources all he wants that they are more expensive but the fact you can buy them at those prices rules. Plus GM announced they were buying LG batteries for that price, $.30/wthr in SAE magazine, you know, Society of Automotive Engineers.
And the other increasing trends of home generation and dropping prices of wind, solar CSP and PV. Home wind is now $2k/kw with inverter , CSP/a 5hp solar steam engine can be made for under $3k/kw and 3x's as much heat as a bonus, and PV will soon be $4k/kw in home plug and play units. By the time enough EVs, PHEV's are out their these will easily be done making them extremely low carbon..
Then he uses the prices of the first EV's, PHEV's which are double what they will be once enough of them are out there to make a difference in about 4-5 yrs.
Now let's get to his vaulted batteries, the CL. Where are they John? How much do they cost? Where do I buy one? Which car company has said they are going to use them? Inquiring minds want to know.
And let's not forget his capacitor CL hype he touts as his CL makers do too. An Ultracapacitor is a device that used 2 plates collecting a space charge between them and it goes from rated voltage to 0 discharging. Does CL's do that John?
A battery is a chemical cell which stores energy in chemical changes. Regular lead goes from 2.2vdc/cell fully charged to 10.75vdc/cell discharged.
So which does a CL do John? You, Axion, Ultrabattery, EEStor need to tell the truth. Companies that lie are seldom good investments.
- Follow
- Blog: theinformationnet.com
I like the way you detail the info, but your arguments have been touched upon before. I the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" one expert notes that "all you're doing with an electric car is moving the smokestack".
Also, in a SeekingAlpha article wrote on March 19 "Which Is Worse: Buying Solar Panels from Eurasia or Oil from OPEC?" I point out that we need to have and keep an infrastructure here in the US, otherwise all we are doing is importing a different form of energy from another country - solar in my argument, batteries in yours.
Also, in a SeekingAlpha article wrote on March 19 "Which Is Worse: Buying Solar Panels from Eurasia or Oil from OPEC?" I point out that we need to have and keep an infrastructure here in the US, otherwise all we are doing is importing a different form of energy from another country - solar in my argument, batteries in yours.
- Follow
- Blog: ipo-law.com
- •
- Biz.
Manya05, the most interesting part of this article for me is the carbon abatement cost curve from McKinsey. It really deserves a lot more attention than I could ever give it in a blog. If people who are concerned about CO2 would take the time to study the curve and see where they can make a difference with efficient lighting, insulation, efficient appliances etc., we could make a big dent in the problem while saving money.Thank you Professor Banks. It's always a pleasure to hear nice words from you.
jerrydd, the mere fact that you can't buy something at AutoZone does not make it vaporware. The DOE has approved a $34 million grant to "Exide with Axion" to manufacture batteries for micro and mild hybrids based on Axion's lead-carbon technology. NYSERA has two tests scheduled, one for substation deferral and another for solar power at CUNY. Both projects are part of Imre Gyuk's summary presentation on storage available here:
www.ge.com/battery/res...
I am a former director of Axion and I know a great deal about its technology. It is not, however, my place to speak for the company. That's management's job and until they release data I certainly can't. Frankly I'm growing weary of personal attacks that go after me and a company you know nothing about without addressing the facts.
You're very good at talking about how you think things ought to be but less than worthless when it comes to providing credible third party analysis that supports your hopes, dreams and aspirations.
The Federal renewable mandate is 15% by 2021. That is not soon or substantial. The EIA summary I linked to says that power generation grew by 2.3% from 2006 to 2007. If we assume for the sake of laziness that 2.3% is a reasonable estimate of future growth rates (which it most certainly won't be in a PHEV or EV world) total power generation in 2021 will be 5,715 billion kWh including 857 billion kWh from renewables. So even with the renewable mandate hydrocarbon fueled electric generation will increase by 701 billion kWh by 2021.
The hard cold fact is that your beloved EV is responsible for 146 grams of CO2 per mile, you're just dumping it in the backyard of the poor soul who lives next to the power plant.
Since you obviously don't want to participate in a civil discussion between rational adults, I would be grateful if you stopped reading and commenting on my articles.
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply