 | Drumbeat: June 1, 2010 | The Oil Drum | The BP Deepwater Oil Spill - Cutting Metal Under Water and Tuesday Open Thread 1 |  |
What the US Government (the EIA) is Forecasting with Respect to US Oil Production and Renewable Energy
Posted by Gail the Actuary on June 1, 2010 - 9:28am
I thought new readers might be interested in what the US government--that is, the US Energy Information Administration-- has to say about future US oil production and future US renewable production. I have taken the forecast information from the Annual Energy Outlook 2010.
Figure A shows US historical energy consumption by source. One can see that the largest source of energy is petroleum. Natural gas and coal are close to tied for second place in US energy consumption.
Renewables make up only a small part of US energy supply. If you define renewables broadly (including hydroelectric (blue); ethanol + wood (orange); wind (tiny green line) and other renewables (invisible)), then renewable energy consumption has been close to flat since 1985. If you define renewables as only the newer renewables (wind and solar), then renewable energy supply is tiny, but growing rapidly from a small base.
Note: In the sections that follow, the figures numbered with numbers are from the Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Figures B and C (as well as Figure A above), are ones I constructed, using EIA data.
Forecast of US Total Energy Consumption
According to Figure 1, the EIA expects coal, nuclear, natural gas, and liquids to remain close to flat to 2035, with renewables providing the majority of growth. ("Liquids" is a new word that energy organizations have come up with, now that world crude oil production is flat. It includes substitutes of various kinds--including ethanol, coal to liquid, and natural gas liquids.)
We will see from later graphs that not all of these estimates seem reasonable. Clearly, if there are big cut-backs in fossil fuels because of carbon dioxide concerns, or because of issues with deepwater oil production, then EIA's forecasts are not correct.
Notice that the green renewables category shown at the top of own at the top of Figure 1 defines renewables broadly. Thus, if one compares to Figure A above, it includes the blue hydro-electric line, plus the orange ethanol + wood line, plus the green wind line, plus the invisible other renewables line. According to Figure 1, production of renewables has changed very little since 1980. Going forward, the EIA expects the renewable band to grow, but still to remain small compared to fossil fuels.
Breakdown of US Liquids Fuels Supply
Figure 2 shows where liquid fuels are expected to come from. Biofuels (the green band) are expected to grow from a tiny amount historically (invisible until recently), to a big band by 2035.
The purple band represents US's own domestic oil production. It has been declining (so the band is getting narrower). Growing forward, this band is to increase slightly in width--as we will see below, because of more deep-water oil production. Petroleum imports (dark blue) are expect to remain flat, and natural gas plant liquids (a lower energy product) are expected to grow.
Many Oil Drum readers (and staff members) would say that all of the EIA forecasts for 2035 are likely high. We have seen how the estimates by government agencies of the oil spill proved to be too low. Here, the government has a real desire to show a high number (so that no one is too concerned about the future), so a person wouldn't be too surprised if there is a little (or lot of) fudging on the high side.
Breakdown of Biofuels
To understand better where the increase in "biofuels" shown in EIA figure 2 is coming from, I put together Figure B, above, using backup data. According to this data, biofuels are expected to increase from 0.78 barrels per day in 2008 to 3.11 barrels per day in 2035, a more than three-fold increase (but not enough to make a big dent in the 19 million barrels a day of oil the US currently uses).
The biggest category both in 2008 and 2035 is US-produced ethanol. The forecast is that production will continue to increase, presumably mostly from cellulosic ethanol. Another major source of growth is "Other biomass derived fuels", which includes fuels created using pyrolysis or using gasification.
A question a person might reasonably ask is whether there really is enough biomass to be making all of the liquid fuels from it (some as cellulosic ethanol; some using pyrolysis or gasification). Another question is whether the cost of these processes can be brought down to levels similar to the price of gasoline. These processes are currently very expensive.
Cellulosic ethanol goals to date have been missed. The advanced biofuel mandate for 2010 was 100,000,000 gallons, but this was reduced to 6,500,000 gallons (less than 10% of the original), because of insufficient progress to date. Robert Rapier of The Oil Drum points out that the technology for cellulosic ethanol is more than 100 year old. In his view, lack of success is not from lack of funding. The reason for the lack of success is instead,"fundamental based on physics, chemistry, and the nature of biomass"--in his view, producing cellulosic ethanol in quantity cheaply can't be done!
Coal-to-liquids are included with biofuels, but even in 2035, are expected to be small (0.24 barrels per day).
Breakdown of US Crude Oil Production
We can also look at some detail behind the second category in Figure 2 above--namely forecast US crude oil production.
One can see from EIA's Figure 80 that historically, US domestic crude oil production has been in steep decline. The forecasts is for an increase to a little over 6 million barrels a day. This is still low in comparison to US oil consumption of 19 million barrels a day, and in comparison to historical US crude oil production, which has been as high as 9.6 million barrels a day in 1970.
The text (page 75) indicates that a significant share of new production relates to deepwater. It also seems to reflect offshore locations recently added, which are now under a moratorium.
In the short term, a vast majority of the increase comes from deepwater offshore fields. Fields that started producing in 2009 or are expected to start in the next few years include Great White, Norman, Tahiti, Gomez, Cascade, and Chinook. All are in water deeper than 800 meters, and most are in the Central Gulf of Mexico. Production from those fields, combined with increased production from fields that started producing in 2007 and 2008, contributes to the near-term growth in offshore production. Over the longer term, production from the continued development of other recent discoveries, as well as new discoveries, offsets production declines in older fields, resulting in an increase in production through 2035 (Figure 80).
Removal of the Congressional moratorium on drilling in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic, and Pacific regions of the Outer Continental Shelf also allows for more crude oil production from offshore areas in the Pacific after 2016, in the Atlantic after 2021, and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico after 2025 [86]. In 2035, U.S. crude oil production includes 0.4 million barrels per day from the Pacific offshore, 0.2 million from the Atlantic offshore, and 0.1 million from the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Lower 48 onshore production of crude oil continues to increase through 2035, primarily as a result of wider application of CO 2 EOR techniques. EOR makes up 37 percent of total onshore production in 2035, up from 12 percent in 2008. Continued exploitation of the Bakken shale formation and the startup of oil shale liquids production after 2023 also contribute to the growth in onshore oil production.
Clearly, if deepwater production is scaled back, this will have an impact on future US crude oil production.
Forecast Use of Liquid Fuels by Sector
When one looks at consumption by sector, it is pretty clear that the EIA is not expecting a big increase in electric cars. Instead, transportation use of oil is expected to grow, even with planned efficiency improvements.
Electricity Generation by Fuel
The EIA expects that in 2035, the vast majority of electricity generation will be from coal and natural gas, with increases in production taking place in both.
Renewables are expected to grow by 2035, but here again renewables are defined broadly, and the big piece - hydroelectric- has not been growing historically.
Renewable Generation Growth
Here, I have put together a graph of expected generation by renewable source, based on EIA forecasts. Hydroelectric is the largest, but is not expected to increase much. The biggest growth is expected to be in biomass. It would seem as though the large increase here would conflict with the large increase in biomass used for biofuels shown above.
Wind is expected to roughly increase to four times its 2008 amount by 2035. At this level, it would still provide less generation than hydropower does today.
Summary
The EIA in its forecasts is expecting very large growth from renewables, but even with this growth, fossil fuels are expected to continue to provide the vast majority of energy supply to 2035. The "new" renewables are expected to grow rapidly, but the "old" renewables are expected to grow much more slowly.
There is good reason to suspect EIA forecasts are too high, both for renewable energy and for other energy sources. The "new" renewables show very large increases. It is not clear that they are attainable. Also, if there is a conscious effort to scale back fossil fuel usage, this may reduce fossil fuel use going forward. If renewable energy sources are already estimated optimistically, total fuel use may drop by more than the forecasts would suggest.
What the US Government (the EIA) is Forecasting with Respect to US Oil Production and Renewable Energy
PDF version
223 comments
What the US Government (the EIA) is Forecasting with Respect to US Oil Production and Renewable Energy
PDF version
223 comments
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Just a reminder--this thread is NOT about the oil spill. However, I do want to remind some of the new folks of TOD nlrms, etc.
A *very* sincere thank you to all who have donated thus far. It will help with the increased costs we face (see point 3 below).
1. The Oil Drum is a pretty special place. We strive to maintain a high signal to noise ratio in our comment threads. Short, unengaging comments, or comments that are off topic, are likely to be deleted without notice. (to be clear--engaging, on point humor and levity, more than welcome.)
We are trying to perform a service to the public here to coordinate smart people who know their stuff with other people who want to learn about what's going on. Promotion of that ideal will be the criteria by which we make our decisions about what stays and what goes.
2. If you see a problematic comment USE THE COMMENT MODERATION SYSTEM--see the "Flag as inappropriate" and (?) beside it? Learn more there. If you see comments that are questionable after you've done that (that aren't being removed), let us know at the eds email address.
It is up to this community to enforce the norms we have established here (a high signal to noise ratio), keep. it. up.
Our guide to commenting at TOD can be found here: http://www.theoildrum.com/special/guidelines . Please check it out if you are unfamiliar with it, but it is essentially 1) citations welcome (if not necessary), 2) be kind to others, and 3) be nice to the furniture.
3. We have gotten a lot of queries whether this bump in traffic is adding costs to keep the site functioning. Truth is, yes, we are incurring added expenses from these events. It is also true that we try not to beg from you very often as we are not the types to bother you with constant queries.
That being said, if you are inclined to help out, your support is always welcome and very much appreciated. To those who have already given, thank you very much.
You can find the donate button in the top left hand corner of the main page.
4. Again, this post is not about the oilwell. Don't make it such, please.
Gail,
The EIA projections(figure C) for renewable energy( especially wind) look strange because they have to assume that present incentives will not be renewed, for example the PTC 2.1cents/kWh that is due to expire in 2013. see
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/no_sunset.html
Thus we can see a very rapid increase in wind generated electricity up to 2013, consistent with growth of 30% over last 10 years an then no new capacity after 2014. Where they assume sunset legislation is renewed then wind ( and solar) will continue to grow.
For example if we use capacity at end of 2009( rather than the output for 2008) wind capacity of 35GW would be expected to generate 87,000GWh in 2010, about a third of hydro's 250,000GWh, and the projection of wind providing 200,000GWh by 2015 looks more reasonable.
If you look at planned generating capacity, planned capacity for 2010 and 2011 are way down from 2009. For example, for 2009, planned nameplate generation capacity was 9,459 megawatts. For 2010, the corresponding amount is 2,559, and for 2011, the corresponding amount is 1,591.
You have also probably noticed recent stories about actual new capacity being down to 2007 levels in 2010. Part of this is not doubt the low price of natural gas.
Also, governments are in terrible financial condition. I think not renewing subsidies is not all that unreasonable an assumption. I don't think governments can afford it. Wind is no longer new. By now, it should be self supporting, if it ever will be.
Another issue is that in many areas, transmission lines are at their limit for adding wind. Unless someone pays for the fairly major upgrades needed to the transmission systems, it is not clear that additional wind can be added, I have read this is particularly an issue in the "best" states for wind, which are pretty well built out to transmission capability.
So a slowdown in growth doesn't seem all that unreasonable.
Texas, the #1 wind state, is moving rapidly forward with transmission upgrades for wind
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11886
Other parts of the country should do the same.
Government need not pay for wind subsidies, ratepayers certainly can (and should) to avoid the many negatives of FF power, especially coal. This can be in the form of a carbon tax and mercury tax on coal and NG, or a subsidy for wind. One or the other permanently as simply good public policy.
The drop in new wind is related to the current surplus of natural gas and will pick up again when that surplus is burned up and prices rebound enough to stimulate more drilling. It is a shame that subsidies to wind were not increased to offset the temporary NG surplus and related price drop.
Regardless of future prices, I anticipate minimal new natural gas supplies from the Gulf of Mexico for a number of years. Depletion curves from existing wells in the GoM are relatively steep.
Alan
It is worth noting that the ERCOT transmission upgrades do not limit Texas to 18.5 GW of wind. "Domestic" demand in the Panhandle and West Texas can be served by wind outside of these upgrades for "export" and North Texas and coastal Texas wind can also feed large "domestic" markets.
Hi Alan,
If I understand the situation in Texas correctly,they have a leg up on everybody else because their grid is mostly intrastate and they can do pretty much as they please,in terms of managing their supply and distribution,so long as they can reach agreement among themselves.
Of course it doesn't hurt their case that the wind resource and the market for it are close enough together to be within the practical distance limitations of conventional transmission lines.
My personal opinion is that the biggest obstacle to wind power now is political inertia and resistance from vested interests happy with the status quo, rather than technical limitations or money.
We can always divert the money from something else, once the need to do so becomes obvious to the man on the street;but of course by then it might be too late to "giterdone".
What do you think about the political roadblocks holding wind back?
What are the likeliest ways to remove them or simply bypass them?
IMHO, the simplest way to get to renewables fast is to charge FF (IMHO that includes nuclear) for their externalised costs. That means charging for the cost of poluting:
- The health cost to America (including long term effects such as increased mercury levels)
- Clean up of pollution
- Pay for the damage done to nature
- Pay the cost of climate change caused by their part in GHG emissions
- Etc.
For nuclear this also means insuring themselves against any possible disaster and paying the cost of all the security measures.
If the government started to charge these costs, that would make FF more expensive and the money could then be used to pay for the costs that are now payed for by income- and other such taxes.
Hi pc,
Does anyone have good data to support what should be the price of gasoline at the pump if all actual costs were included?
Besides the factors that pc mentions, there is also a military cost associated with protecting the shipping lanes for oil from the mid-east to our shores (and maybe many other less obvious military expenses).
Aside from some factors that are priceless (human health, planet health, etc) I have seen figures of $10 to $12 a gallon as representing a full, unsubsidized cost. Can this be correct?
If you add a disaster tax to energy use you will only create demand destruction on a massive scale amongst the lowest income users. We are getting to the point now where the only solution to efficient and equitable distribution is rationing. Leaving it down to price or trying to control consumption through taxes is not going to work.
Yep.
Folks should also be aware that California has added very little wind during this wind boom. That's not because we aren't planning to. Rather, CA is a low wind resource state with basically three wind 'pockets' in the state (San Gorgonio, Tehachapi and Altamont Passes). The transmission was maxed out in those areas prior to this boom. We are currently in the process of building the transmission. Expect about 4GW of wind capacity to be added in Tehachapi pass after the transmission is there.
On transmission. We have basically had negative transmission investment since the 70's. Economic dispatch alone (think time zones) is reason enough to build a national transmission grid..even if we weren't building significant generation.
Of course for an apples and apples comparison we would have to compare LAST year's Electric Power Annual planned wind addition capacity numbers to see that developers don't file this number very far ahead. Thus this year's 9459MW for 2009 (in Jan 2010) was only 3651MW in Jan 2009. This makes your conclusion a little suspect when using Jan 2010 numbers to project 2010. There IS a development slowdown going on, of course, see AWEA's quarter report for first quarter 2010.
The lead "Total Energy" graph is misleading and a waste of electrons.
Coal is almost all used to generate electricity (a small amount to make steel), with an average thermal efficiency of <40%.
Energy from wind, hydro, other renewables and nuclear is measured only by the electricity they produce. BTW, pumped storage losses are SUBTRACTED from hydro when they should be subtracted from coal and nuke (and later wind).
Please take down that graph and shrink coal by dividing by 2.5. Natural gas used for generating electricity is, on average, about 50% efficient. So adjust the width of that NG band.
Alan
Alan, watch the attitude and calm yourself.
That's what the data says in quads--and that is how it is reported by the EIA--which is what she is reporting here.
Breathe deeply, please. Go after the data, not Gail.
It is a systemic flaw that continually misrepresents the contribution of FF, especially coal, and under represents the contributions of renewables and nuclear.#
This systemic mis-representation is *NOT* minor but dramatic (reduces coal's contribution by 60% for example) and changes the entire graph and outlook.
I have pointed out this flaw several times to Gail, but she has never acknowledged or adjusted for this systemic flaw.
The result is a TOD article of minimal value due to it's flaws.
Alan
# One special adjustment, although minor, is that losses from pumped storage (which store coal and nuke power for use later) are charged to hydropower and not to coal & nuke.
Make your own graph then Alan. And take some xanax.
Yes, EIA is not accurately describing where the USEFUL energy comes from and how FF sources will grow.
Here in Missouri the local power company has used pumped storage for over 40 years (except when the dam broke and destroyed a state park). The reservoir on Taum Sauk mountain was built to level demand with supply for coal fired plants and later the only nuclear plant in MO - Callaway.
The graph in and of itself is ample indication that the EIA cowboys have long since been captured by the cows they are supposed to be keeping an eye on.
Of course it is technically accurate as drawn, but it cleverly diverts the readers attention from the relevant facts.
But I'm not mad at Gail, or anybody,so long as the commentary section is an open forum.To the contrary, I'm glad she posted the graph again.Any reader worth his salt will learn about more than just the relative usage of various energy sources as a result of reading the comments.
I would visit this site for maybe an hour or two a week, rather than an hour or two a day otherwise-the comments are generally where I find the red meat unavailable anywhere else.
The kind of graph one uses depends on what you are concerned about.
If your concern is substituting natural gas or coal to liquid in cars, instead of petroleum in cars, then it is helpful to know that there is less coal currently in use and less natural gas currently in use than petroleum, so wholesale substitution for petroleum is not likely. This is especially the case for coal, where the coal to liquid process uses quite of a bit of the coal for the conversion.
If your concern is what the government is saying, my graphs show what the government is saying. There is a lot of misunderstanding as to what is possible. Quite a few have the impression that opening up additional areas to drilling we could completely solve our oil problems.
I think the biggest issue with the particular way of counting is if you are concerned with fine points. But even here, I think there is room for difference of opinion. Many believe that wind acts as a substitute for coal or gas rather than an equivalent form of electricity, partly because of its variability, and partly because of its need for backup power. In this regard, note that wind normally competes in price with natural gas or coal inputs to power plants, not to the price of wholesale electricity. That is one of the reasons why wind construction is down so much now.
Even if you compare wind generation to electricity generation alone, the basic point is that wind is a very small percentage of the total. According to Alan's number later on the thread, for 2009, wind amounted to 1.8% of total electricity for 2009. (Less than this, if you discount for wind's low quality, but that is another issue.) As a percentage of total energy, it is clearly less than this--something on the order of 1%, depending on how you weight non-electric fuels. When we are dealing with graphs, it seems rather silly to quibble about whether wind is 1% or 0.5% of the total. The basic point is that it is small, and it is small regardless.
"then it is helpful to know that there is less coal currently in use and less natural gas currently in use than petroleum, so wholesale substitution for petroleum is not likely"
But so much of that natural gas and coal is devoted simply to refining crude oil to gasoline. This is incredibly inefficient. You could instead take that natural gas (and electricity) you are otherwise wasting in oil refineries and convert it to electricity and you could use it to power half the equivalent number of electric cars! This is FOR FREE!!! This means that if you take the electricity and natural gas simply used to REFINE a gallon of gasoline, and instead use that to make electricity, it would power an EV to go 13 miles. That gallon of gasoline will power a regular car to go 25 miles. And the benefit is that you no longer need all that crude oil!!!! It's having your cake and eating it too!!!! All we have to do is convert the majority of the automobile fleet over to electric, which is not trivial, but not unfeasible over a 20 year period, especially when EV's cost 10 times less to drive than a regular car.
N.H., there is very little coal devoted to petroleum refining these days. There is fair bit of NG, for the production of hydrogen, but most of that energy is actually preserved in the end products.
I don't think your numbers quite stack up, either.
The industry standard is that it takes 10% of the energy in oil to refine it, so for every gallon of gasoline you have used 1.1 gal equiv of crude to make it.
Your statement that 10% of the fuel wiull get you half the distance suggests that the same amount of fuel will get you 5.5 x the distance, and this is just not so.
One gallon of gasoline has an energy content of 132 MJ, so it takes 13.2MJ to refine it.
If we take a comparable car, meaning an ICE car that is the same size as a Leaf, like a Toyota Yaris 4dr, we get 30+ miles per gallon (city) for all compacts.
Now, using that 13.2MJ of refining energy, we can burn it in a combined cycle gas turbine for 60% generation efficiency, we lose 10% in transmission, so 54%, and then we are left with 7.12 Mj, or 2kWh at the plug. You lose another 10% in charging, so now we have 1.8kWh in the batteries. The numbers for the EV's are 4 miles/kWh in city driving (less hwy), so we will get 7.2 miles of driving. This is one quarter of the mileage of the gallon of gasoline, not one half.
Since we are looking for optimum solutions, we should look at the most fuel efficient car available, the Prius, where we get 50mpg, and then the EV is only getting one seventh of the distance, on 10% of the energy.
So, yes, you do get more miles per gallon burning the gasoline to make electricity, 50% more, but not 550% more as you originally stated.
And yes, the electric is cheaper to drive, but given the much higher upfront cost, the driver will never recuperate that cost, even if the electricity is free. This, of course is at current fuel prices. If they double (at least) then this equation changes.
Until then, there are good reasons for electric cars, but saving money for the owner/driver is not one of them.
I have to go out now so I can't look at your numbers until later but I have confirmed my analysis several times from different sources, and I have gone through the calculation from the very raw numbers. The numbers are hard to find because the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to know them. But it seems that about 2 kwh of electricity is needed to produce a gallon of gasoline well to pump, and somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10-20 kwh or natural gas. You can convert that natural gas to electricity at say 50% efficiency and then look at the miles you'd get if instead fed to an EV like the Leaf with its mileage of 245 Wh per mile. This compares with 25-30 mpg for a regular car. The raw numbers come from the DOE here, which show how much gasoline refineries produced, and how much electricity and natural gas they purchased to so do. You also have to consider what is needed to get the oil to the refinery too, which in the case of tar sands is a lot of natural gas. So whether my 50% figure is right or not, the fact is that it's significant, probably in the 35-50% range depending on where you are.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm
This analysis say 15%, but it also only considers the refineries, not including the tar sands operations and transportation of the product and fuel all over the place:
http://blog.storybridge.org/2009/07/leave-oil-in-ground-drive-electric-w...
Hi Null:
Could you post the source of your data for the amount of non-fossil fuels used to refine gasoline? That's a point I'm unfamiliar with (and don't know where to look)
Thanks,
Jim
I don't know, I imagine it would be pretty low. The only input would be in the electricity refineries purchase, and then you'd have to figure out how much of that electricity would come from non fossil sources, which would vary significantly with region.
I was impressed to find out that refineries use about 5GW of electricity - more than 1% of US electrical consumption.
it is helpful to know that there is less coal currently in use and less natural gas currently in use than petroleum, so wholesale substitution for petroleum is not likely.
No, it's not helpful at all, because it's not the case. The US has enormous amounts of coal. I don't think CTL will be a big factor due to the very large size of the individual plants, combined with the risk of carbon limits. But...coal resources are not a significant limiting factor.
If your concern is what the government is saying, my graphs show what the government is saying
On the other hand, nobody on TOD has ever taken EIA forecasts seriously. Why would we start now??
Many believe that wind acts as a substitute for coal or gas rather than an equivalent form of electricity, partly because of its variability, and partly because of its need for backup power.
That claim mostly comes from nuclear advocates, for whom wind is a competitor.
the basic point is that wind is a very small percentage of the total.
And that would be highly misleading. Wind was 42% of new US generation last year, and it could be 100% in 4 years, and then start replacing existing FF plants. The US could replace coal in 10 years after that, if it wanted to. It's just a political choice.
the basic point is that wind is a very small percentage of the total.
And that would be highly misleading. Wind was 42% of new US generation last year, and it could be 100% in 4 years, and then start replacing existing FF plants
I think your statement is misleading. Wind IS a small % of the total generation, that is undeniable.
The amount that gets built in any year is less than 5% of the total, so 42% of 5% is also a small %.
Not only that, you are working in nameplate capacity, if we work in actual electricity contribution, which is what the EIA production figures are, you need to correct for capacity factor of about 33%, in which case, wind's effective % of new generation is much smaller.
To say it could be 100% in 4 years is even more misleading - there are GT and coal plants under construction, and still will be in 4 years, and possible a few nukes underway by then, that are on the drawing board today. I suspect solar will still be getting installed too, though in small % (that phrase again!)
So I don't think there is any reasonable basis to claim that wind will be 100% of new generation in 4 years. Majority, possibly, depending how you measure it, but not 100%.
And as for replacing FF plants, if you replace the GT's how, exactly, are you going to meet the rapid fluctuations in supply that wind exacerbates? There is not enough storage to match wind's current capacity, let alone future.
Keep your facts real, and the discussion will stay that way too.
I have more data on wind dispersion analysis, this time from northwest Germany.
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2010/06/wind-variability-in-germany.html
This is a huge amount of data I analyzed, several years worth of power collected at 15 minute intervals.
As I have stated elsewhere, wind is the most predictably unpredictable energy sources known to us. (Its even more predictable than oil, because only a few of us even know how to estimate reserves.) We understand exactly how to characterize wind's unpredictability, so the next step is to just deal with it.
Wonders will never cease if we stay optimistic and motivated on a path forward.
Good stuff WHT. The shape of the graphs are almost identical. It looks like the 10% exceedance level is about 45% of total capacity, for both Germany and Ontario. Would be interesting to normalise both of these to % capacity on the X axis and plot on the same graph to see how close they are.
See my comments downthread about dealing with the (predictable) unpredictability.
This discussion is related to the Original Post, which is about what is likely over the next 25 years. We have to keep that context in mind. OK, on to niggling details:
Wind IS a small % of the total generation, that is undeniable.
The original quote was "very small".
42% of 5% is also a small %.
No, that's misleading. What matters is the marginal additions, not the legacy generation.
you are working in nameplate capacity, if we work in actual electricity contribution, which is what the EIA production figures are, you need to correct for capacity factor of about 33%, in which case, wind's effective % of new generation is much smaller.
No, if you adjust for nameplate the % doesn't change much. Keep in mind that a lot of gas generation has low average utilization. Heck, the overall grid has a capacity factor of only about 40%, not much different from the 35% that new US wind is achieving.
To say it could be 100% in 4 years is even more misleading - there are GT and coal plants under construction, and still will be in 4 years, and possible a few nukes underway by then, that are on the drawing board today.
First, the coal plants are a choice - they could be cancelled. 2nd, the gas plants will likely be finished by then. Most importantly, what I meant was that new wind could handle 100% of new demand - if you look carefully at my comments you'll see what I mean.
if you replace the GT's how, exactly, are you going to meet the rapid fluctuations in supply that wind exacerbates? There is not enough storage to match wind's current capacity, let alone future.
First, we have quite a lot of existing GTs, and 2nd, don't forget DSM. As we've agreed earlier, DSM should be the first choice for dealing with wind intermittency.
I really don't see why eveyone is taking such offense to this. I don't see any attitude; this is barely even a dissenting "opinion" (which is what people are reacting to). Alan simply points out how the graph is obviously and starkly misleading.
There is no reason the EIA data can't be posted next to a graph that is revised for thermal efficiency.
Alan: In looking at the source table of the graph Gail has posted, it appears to me that EIA has actually imputed typical loss values for fossil fuels to renewable electricity production, so as to more appropriately value the 'primary' energy value of these sources. This seems to acheive a similar result to your suggestion to deflate the primary energy input of coal and gas to their output electricity values.
Thus, if you divide the 2.4 Quads attributed to Hydro by the 40Quads of primary energy input to electricity you get 6%--or roughly the output fraction of hydro. This is actually more physical energy than is input to or produced from hydro, but more accurately captures its energy value.
On your point about pumped storage, that's always irked me as well. However, EIA finally 'fixed' this. They are lumping pumped storage with 'other' generation rather than hydro and renewables now.
I wish they would fix my other pet peeves(half of industrial petroleum consumption is lumped under 'other' and not explained--this is mostly refinery use for process heat, I believe), and they attribute electricity losses to end use sectors explicitly, but fail to do this for oil refining (thus the significant underestimate of the share of petroleum used in transportation).
Another problem with EIA data: electrical production is only included if it's a large utility or industrial co-gen operation. Distributed production (by residential PV, say) isn't included.
As an engineer at a utility company with about 17000 customer solar installations...it's a rounding error.
Right now it is. Of course, industrial/commercial installations are more important than residential, and things are going to grow.
If it does grow substantially, we'll never know it from EIA data.
In Figure 1 a couple of things stand out as implausible. The grey layer for liquids maintains constant thickness out to 2035. It should shrink somewhat, 30-40% perhaps. The bottom layer for coal grows to 2035. It suggests that more new coal fired plant will be build than is retired in that period. That seems at odds with Obama's concerns for global warming.
A refinement of the graph would be to have separate layers for gas-for-transport and gas-for-electrical generation. An increased wind build may require more gas for backup then again there may be a switch to NG as an alternative to liquids, especially diesel.
What I show is what the EIA is saying. A major issue is where all of the imported oil the EIA shows in its Figure 1 and Figure 2 are going to come from.
It is possible in the US to figure out how much natural gas is used for electricity. According to EIA, in 2009, about 30% of US consumption of natural gas went to electrical power. About 0.1% went to vehicle use. 27% is shown as being for industrial use, and the remainder (43%) is for residential and commercial used--generally heating and hot water use.
Hi Gail,
i just think that your argumentation is strange. You posted the data from EIA and discussed whether this outlook is plausible or not.
But if different readers criticise, that this data is itself unfair, unclear, not exact enough... (what seems to be true to me), you argue that you just took the EIA data.
For a discussion about reliable data it is necessary to talk about the whole "environment" of any diagramm. Even if it has been no data from the EIA but from any Aspo-branch (for example) it is always needed to remember for which use the diagramm was made. Otherwise no scientific conclusions can be made and we are sending out the same noise as any newspaper... Their statements change every day with a new statistic.
So you might agree that a good answer would have been: "Yes the data itself is questionable, but i just did not point that out." We could still discuss, how the data should look like and if all the single critics were reasonable.
But it is a fact, that the normal practise is to talk about primary energy. That is itself no trick or anything. It is just the fact, that it is easy to count coal, oil or gas any country imports (or exports). It is much more difficult to calculate the net-energy used, because the efficiency is different for any powerplant and at least unknown. For renewables the things are the other way around. To give any numbers one can only rely on the electrical power produced by any wind or water power station.
To mix this different kinds of data in one diagram is just unacademic nonsens. But even if we would decide to use an estimated efficiency to convert all the data in the electric power, this diagram would be only one piece of information, for it is still an important figure how much coal, oil, gas a country needs, in comparism to what it really gets out of it.
For scientific use it is not unimportant if wind has a share of 1 or 2 Percent. 2 Percent are a double of 1. Additionally the point that wind energy has a "low" quality is missleading. If we talk about the availability through a day or through a year, it is clear, that there is sometimes wind and sometimes not. But it is not the only possibility to run other plants to plane these changes. You could even build more windfarms. You might not need all of them all the time, but in big countries like the USA theres everyday wind anywhere. The same is true for europe. If there is no wind in spain, there might be wind in germany. But it is true, that much more capacity is needed.
But this fact has nothing to do with the real energy output. If you say that the needed capacity for wind is higher and additional talk about the low quality of wind energy you weight the same fact two times. That is just wrong.
If, as i believe, one day would be no more oil, gas, coal we would use all windenergy, when it is available and if theres no wind, theres no energy. It must be questioned if it is not one of the systems errors to produce energy, when we need it, but to use energy when it could be produced.
It is no major issue for me to ask where the perdicted imports will come from, because you and i know, that they will come from nowhere. If it would be 99% of oil imported it would still be senseless. It is no difference if the EIA predicts 6,8or 20 million barrels imports, if they are not there. But it makes a diefference to talk about the half percent or one percent of wind we already have, maybe in short time this would be the only source to rely on in short term.
I have a friend which talks about 100% Renewables in 2020. I agree with him, that this might happen. But the question is, if 100% of the amount we use now would be Renewables or if the Renewables we have today (maybe a bit more) would soon be 100% of all energy we have.
Why do we always discuss graphs, that are not worth the paper they are printed on? We could have tenthousand posts which perfectly explain why anything could not be true. But this would not help finding out, what is true.
I think your reaction was a little bit thin-skinned, if this metaphor is understood in english also. Why could'nt we have a discussion about the way to use data and be more exact in the use? Why could'nt we make notes to any data containing not only the year and the source, but additional information the authors may give, the way how they got that data, which presumptions they used etc...
I have been trying to point this out myself for quite some time.
All I seem to get back is "alternatives won't work because they don't produce 24/7."
The point that always seems to be ignored is that fossil fuels won't work at all once they are gone...
US Electricity generated by Wind
2005 - 0.4%
2006 - 0.7%
2007 - 0.8%
2008 - 1.3%
2009 - 1.8%
2010 - over 2%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
The EIA projections are clearly FAR too pessimistic !
EXISTING factories (never mind any new ones) can supply a marginal 1/2% of total US electricity/year. 2035 = 15 years x 0.5% (remember, not ONE new factory in 15 years) = 7.5% + 2.x% (current) = 10% of US electrical demand.
If we do build some new factories and transmission, 20% is certainly easily within reach. 35% is quite doable.
I also noted that imported oil (and NG from Canada) is included, but imported hydroelectric power is not.
Manitoba has 800 MW under contract for Minnesota and Wisconsin and is shopping an additional 4 GW. Quebec has 25 GW that they are willing to develop and sell. Newfoundland 3 GW.
Surely we will but most of this new renewable power.
OTOH, the EIA did note the increase in hydroelectric production by overhauls and improvements to existing hydropower plants (Hoover +7% for example).
One need only look to China to see how quickly renewables can grow.
The EIA is pessimistic, and understates the potential of renewables, AND conservation.
Alan
BTW, Solar hot water energy production is typically not included in EIA stats (hard to measure, so don't even try) and the economics are favorable in most of the USA. Only about a 1/3 of a million installed to date. A combination of incentives, mandates and higher fuel costs could easily and dramatically increase that number.
I agree with Alan that the EIA projections for renewables, at least wind and solar, are probably quite pessimistic. If history is any guide the EIA projections are extremely pessimistic. This is the case because wind and solar have been growing 30-40% per year in the US over the last decade. At 35% annual growth rate we get a doubling every two years. This is what I call Moore's Law in renewable energy. If we assume, to be conservative, that we can continue at half the historical rate of growth over the next twenty years we get to about 50% of today's electricity consumption from wind and solar by 2030 (this is five doublings over 20 years instead of 10, so 2^5 = 32 times today's 1.5%). Of course, EIA projects a large increase in consumption of electricity by 2030 but this is by no means certain when we consider the dramatic reduction in energy consumption in just the last two years of recession.
There is in fact a lot of spare transmission capacity still for wind and other renewables around the country. And many states are building more transmission lines to allow more renewables onto the grid. The DOE completed a major study in 2008 analyzing the feasibility and cost of reaching 20% wind power by 2030. They found a small incremental cost (2%) in the 20% by 2020 wind scenario vs. business as usual. This amounts to a pittance of 50 c/household per month. Moreover, I believe their economic analysis was way too optimistic about natural gas and other fossil fuel prices, which they assumed essentially to remain level through 2030. TOD readers know this is very unlikely to be the case.
These numbers should be very encouraging to TOD readers - it was for me when I worked out the math. All we have to do is "simply" continue at half of today's growth rates to achieve about 50% renewable electricity by 2030 or thereabouts.
Here's my article on these issues at RenewableEnergyWorld.com: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/01/exotics-and....
And a related piece: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/05/the-debate-....
Thanks, Tam and Alan, I was going to have to make yet another post explaining how exponential grwth works wrt. renewables. To be more precise to double in two years requires
41.4% if the growth is measured anually, which is the typical way. If you measured daily then 34.7%/365 per day would do the trick. I think growth rates are stated for whole years, not the instantaneous growth rate that ould be appropriate for calculus. But that doesn't really effect the argument, if high growth rates can be maintained over time huge increases will happen.
Enemy, exponential growth of humans is clear. Each time humans create babies that live to adulthood they are capable of creating new humans - If two create 4 on a regular basis exponential growth occurs. Exponential growth of invested money is also clear if the interest compounds and the bank is secure. Money invested at 10% in a savings account (at a safe bank) increases exponentially because you keep increasing the base on which the interest is based.
But windmills and solar panels do not currently give birth to more windmills and solar panels. Therefore any growth in the industry is because of decisions that people make about using resources to make them. If it doubles and then doubles again there is nothing inherent in the windmills that makes that happen thus it could just as easily stop doubling or decrease, or just increase by some percent less than doubling. Windmills and solar panels are not driven by sex, but made by the decisions of humans and the availability of resources to make them. Unless we are having some windmill sex and baby windmills you have a long way to go to prove that their numbers will grow exponentially.
I'll second that, and throw something else into the discussion here, that was mentioned in Gail's post. Presently both wind and solar (but especially solar) benefit from very generous government subsidies and tax credits, and mandates for renewable energy. These have been the primary drivers of growth. Take away the subsidies/credits, and we will likely see a substantial decrease in the rate of construction, same if the renewable mandates are relaxed.
Applying Moores "law" here (and it was really just an observation by Moore, gravity is a law, this is just an observed trend) is like trying to apply it to the stock market. Things can change that will influence the rate of growth.
The construction of transmission lines is another factor. These are being built purely to service wind, and if the wind operators had to pay for them (like any other new generator does) we would likely see a further slowdown in wind construction. As things get tighter in the future, no one should expect a free ride, and that includes wind - if they want more transmission, they should pay for it.
Wind should either receive a permanent subsidy *AND/OR* there should be carbon and mercury taxes on coal and natural gas. Just good public policy !
Texas has adapted a "postage stamp" philosophy for the almost $5 billion in transmission upgrades; every ratepayer pays for them in proportion to the electricity that they buy from the grid.
Quite good and effective idea.
Alan
How about adding in the costs of the consequences of the environmental disaster now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, Oh, I see, that doesn't count as a sub sea dee in your ledger, eh?! Because in my book not counting it isn't acceptable any more. We need to implement whole cost accounting.
How's this for a Sub Sea Dee...?
I say quadruple the government subsidies and tax credits for solar, wind and other renewables then cut all tax credits and subsidies currently enjoyed by the Oil companies. Fair is fair! let's level the playing field and get serious about reducing fossil fuel usage once and for all.
FM,
Let's separate our issues here. There is almost no interchangeability (at present ) between wind power, (or electricity in general) and oil. None of the oil (or less than 1% ) is being used for electricity, so no matter hopw much wind power is produced, it has no impact on lil demand.
AS for subsidies, yes, there are (unfortunately) all sorts of subsidies for coal, oil and (especially) nuclear. But two wrongs don;t make a right. The truth is, NONE of them should be subsidised. Subsidies hide the trues costs, and keep unit energy prices artificially low, which encourages over consumption.
A much better solution is to;
1) end ALL subsidies
2) impose a carbon tax
And go from there.
It wouldn;t matter if Texas looked like a pin cushion with windmills, as long ads Americans are driving cars, they will want oil, and therein lies the real problem. No amount of wind turbines, subsidised or not, will solve that issue.
True, but for the purposes of electricity generation I lump oil and natural gas together and that brings the percentage up to 24%
I'd agree with that but I still think that for now we still need massive subsidies to jump start the transition from our fossil fuel based lifestyle to one that doesn't depend as much on it. Among other things, we need to completely reform our transportation system to an electric rail based system.
The oil industry rode the gravy train of incentives and tax credits for a long time. That party has got to end. We need to husband our resources both natural and financial from here on out.
I still vote for giving incentives, subsidies and tax credits to alternatives in much the same way that I'm willing to support my son until he is fully grown and independent.
At the same time I'm no longer willing to support my alcoholic uncle...
At the same time I'm no longer willing to support my alcoholic uncle...
That would be oil based transportation, and I agree.
But I still disagree about subsidies, if they are are making energy cheaper. We need the cost to be high so people/companies go out of their way to save it. Right now, easiest thing is to just pay the bill.
Even if electricity were free, the railways would not electrify, they will only do so when diesel is a crippling cost, and they know it remain so.
My general theory on it (and this has been proven to work well in water conservation, which is my business), is that you don't subsidise production, you tax it, to keep the marginal cost high, and then you subsidise any and every conservation method. This will change the general direction very quickly. In this context, subsidising electrification of railways is appropriate, though I draw the line at electric cars - subsidise transit instead.
As long as you subsdise production, of any sort, you are effectively paying all people to use more, and I'd rather pay only those that are prepared to use less, but try to get everyone in that camp. It can be done.
Absolutely. Time and again, the government has driven technology much faster than the free market. It seeds the infrastructure and later sells it off.
The one exception to that is the space program. The government has been trying very hard to dump it off, but the numbers don't work very well.
I think any government program that help renewables is a smart use of public funds. We will all reap the rewards.
"A much better solution is to;
1) end ALL subsidies
2) impose a carbon tax"
Sounds reasonable, and I'd add:
3) impose a war tax on gasoline to bring the cost of gasoline up to where it pays for the Middle East oil wars.
"There is almost no interchangeability (at present ) between wind power, (or electricity in general) and oil."
I think you are underestimating how quickly electric cars are going to take over the market. They are basically better in every single way (all of the public's misconceptions of the drawbacks of electric cars are no longer valid, and in fact opposite of what is really the case), and they cost 10 X less to drive. This will drive an increasingly mad dash for car users to convert to electric, especially with oil prices rising. Here is a good article about the Nissan Leaf.
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/31/nissan-ceo-carlos-ghosn-is-still-re...
The only way to see how they do in the market, is to see how they do in the market,. Give me $10,000+ in tax credits amd I'll make a car that does well in the market too...
I don;t think you can say they are better in every way, because they are not. They have less range, less power (try towing something with one) are not yet available in any larger sizes/commercial vehicles (vans/pickups) and likely won;t be. If you have to drive inter city you are out luck.
I'm sure the leaf will do well, as did the Prius, but it took 10 years to get to a million Prius, worldwide, out of about 40million, so a 2.5% market share.
And, in a recession, how many people who need to save money, can afford a new car? You are better off to buy a 5yo Yaris/Rio/Fit etc.
The electrics are coming, but they are not taking over for quite some time.
Not really.
"The only way to see how they do in the market, is to see how they do in the market. Give me $10,000+ in tax credits amd I'll make a car that does well in the market too..."
I can predict with very high certainty that a car which is 1) better and 2) cheaper than the competition will take off in popularity. The only reason the tax credits are needed is because this is new technology entering the market. Wait until mass production kicks in and the bugs are worked out of the system, and we have a couple years of innovation in battery tech..... the tax credits will instead be needed for gasoline powered cars!
"They have less range"
True, but for 98% of people's driving, 150 or 200 km per day will be more than enough. For the odd time you need to drive more than this you can go to a high capacity quick charge station which will charge the car in 15 minutes. They are establishing these along a network of highways and cities so you could drive across the country with minimal inconvenience.
"less power (try towing something with one)"
Not at all true. You are only basing your assumption on neighbourhood EV's or the Prius, which aren't representative. Electric cars are significantly more powerful than the internal combustion engine. They have 100% torque at zero rpm. The 250 horse power motor for the Tesla Roadster is the size of a watermelon.
"Te are not yet available in any larger sizes/commercial vehicles (vans/pickups) and likely won;t be"
They will be soon, believe me, when people realize how powerful they are.
"I'm sure the leaf will do well, as did the Prius, but it took 10 years to get to a million Prius, worldwide, out of about 40million, so a 2.5% market share."
The problem with the Prius is that Chevron got control of the patents for its batteries and stipulates that it can't have a wall plug (that way all the energy must come from gasoline). This means that the battery pack size needs to be small, since it is only charged by the engine. This means performance is slugggish. This means it has limited market appeal. And having two drive trains makes things much more complex and unnecessarily expensive. And there is a limit to the mileage of a non-plugin hybrid to about 50 mpg which limits the overall benefit of hybrids, in light of the above mentioned drawbacks. With plugins all this will change.
"And, in a recession, how many people who need to save money, can afford a new car? You are better off to buy a 5yo Yaris/Rio/Fit etc."
True, but once EV's get mainstream they will cost no more than a Yaris to buy, but they will cost 10 X less to drive.
Plug in Hybrids? EVs going Mainstream? Solar powered charging stations?
Don't be ridiculous! It will never work...
I can predict with very high certainty that a car which is 1) better and 2) cheaper than the competition will take off in popularity
I agree, right now the electric car is neither. It is an expensive, sexy toy, the equivalent of a Rolex watch compared to a Timex, they both tell the time, but you need to wind up the Rolex more often.
The only reason the tax credits are needed is because this is new technology entering the market.
This is absolutely not true. The reason they need tax credits is because they are much more expensive, and (most) people are not prepared to pay the full price, and because there is seen to be political mileage to be gained from such credits.
When PC's entered the market, they were new technology and needed no tax credits. Mac computers have always been more expensive, but have gradually taken over the market because people prefer them, Cell phones cost much more than land lines, but needed no tax credits to take over the markets, same for the change from analogue to digital and now to smart phones.
When fuel injection entered the vehicle market, it did not need tax credits to displace the carburettor
Neither did steam turbines to replace steam engines, or oil fired boilers to replace coal on ships, or jet engines to replace piston engines on aircraft etc etc.
All these changes happened, without tax credits, because they were an improvement in service/efficiency/convenience/cost that customers were willing to pay for.
If it needs a subsidy, it is because customers, quite simply, are not prepared to pay for it.
For the odd time you need to drive more than this you can go to a high capacity quick charge station which will charge the car in 15 minutes. They are establishing these along a network of highways and cities so you could drive across the country with minimal inconvenience.
Can you provide a reference showing how you get a FULL charge in 15 minutes, and similarly for the charging stns -who are "they", show me a non government subsidised organisation doing this?
Electric cars are significantly more powerful than the internal combustion engine. They have 100% torque at zero rpm. The 250 horse power motor for the Tesla Roadster is the size of a watermelon.
They are not more powerful. A similar sized Porsche 911 has more power than a Tesla, as does a Corvette, even a Hyundai Genesis V6 (310hp for just $28k). Yes they do have peak torque when you are standing still, and that is very useful if that is how you do your driving. BUt if the vehicle has to carry/tow any real load, for any distance, and especially if there are hills involved, they may have the torque, but the range of the car drops dramatically. The efficiency of discharge from batteries decreases the faster you discharge them.
This means that the battery pack size needs to be small, since it is only charged by the engine. This means performance is slugggish. This means it has limited market appeal.
A smaller battery pack means less range on electric, but that was not the real objective with the Prius, or any hybrid. It is to capture regenerative braking energy and to shut the engine off at low speed/low acceleration so that the engine spends less time out of it's efficient operating range. The Prius is the best selling car in Japan - how is that limited market appeal?
And there is a limit to the mileage of a non-plugin hybrid to about 50 mpg
The 2000-2006 Honda Insight still holds the world efficiency record for a production gasoline car, at 61mpg city/70 Hwy. If it was being built today, with newer batteries etc, it would doubtless do better still. What then , is the basis for your 50mpg limit?
once EV's get mainstream they will cost no more than a Yaris to buy,
I'll believe that when I see it. To compete, they need to come down in price by 75%, and that is to compete with small cars. To compete with larger ones where you need more batteries, is more expensive still.
EVs will make their mark, but will not take over majority status for decades, or until oil is astronomically expensive. In which case the recession that will cause will see most people walking/cycling/riding the bus, and minimise their driving generally. The less miles per year you drive the less the advantage of an electric . And if you are someone who drives for a living, you can't get enough miles in a day as you lose too much time charging.
"right now the electric car is neither. It is an expensive, sexy toy,"
I'd hardly call the Nissan Leaf an expensive sexy toy.
"The reason they need tax credits is because they are much more expensive"
I was giving you credit, but with this statement, not anymore. Do you not understand what economy-of-scale is? If a brand new technology coming to market costs $33,000 before it's even mass produced, you don't think costs might drop a bit in the near future? It does not take decades to optimize mass production lines, only a few years.
"When PC's entered the market, they were new technology and needed no tax credits. Mac computers have always been more expensive, but have gradually taken over the market because people prefer them, Cell phones cost much more than land lines, but needed no tax credits to take over the markets, same for the change from analogue to digital and now to smart phones.
All these changes happened, without tax credits, because they were an improvement in service/efficiency/convenience/cost that customers were willing to pay for."
That`s kind of a weak argument, of course EV`s would eventually take over by themselves without the credits, the point is the tax credits help speed up the establishment of mass production, and you do agree we need to be doing everything possible to speed the process up don`t you? And it doesn't help that the oil industry buys up the patents to these new technologies to keep it off the market.
"If it needs a subsidy, it is because customers, quite simply, are not prepared to pay for it."
Sure, or it also means mass production hasn't dropped prices to be competitive yet.
"Can you provide a reference showing how you get a FULL charge in 15 minutes, and similarly for the charging stns -who are "they", show me a non government subsidised organisation doing this?"
You get 80% charge in 15-30 minutes depending on which battery you use. It's not good to take it to 100% charge at such high currents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf#Recharging
http://www.toshiba.com/ind/data/tag_files/SCiB_Brochure_5383.pdf
http://green.autoblog.com/2010/02/03/nissan-and-orlando-florida-team-up-...
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/04/28/nissan-and-seattle-partner-up-for-e...
And I don't see any problems in subsidizing a network of fast charge stations. Carmakers already take for granted the established network of gasoline stations serving their products, so EV manufacturers should expect the same, to make a level playing field and all....
"They are not more powerful. A similar sized Porsche 911 has more power than a Tesla, as does a Corvette, even a Hyundai Genesis V6 (310hp for just $28k). Yes they do have peak torque when you are standing still, and that is very useful if that is how you do your driving."
This is just silly. I'm not going to argue with you if you think the Tesla Roadster isn't a powerful car (and it's more efficient that a Prius). And if they were mass produced they would cost $50,000.
"if the vehicle has to carry/tow any real load, for any distance, and especially if there are hills involved, they may have the torque, but the range of the car drops dramatically. The efficiency of discharge from batteries decreases the faster you discharge them."
Series hybrids would be a better alternative in this case. The electric motor does the work (high power at low torque) and is powered by an onboard generator -- Chevy Volt.
"A smaller battery pack means less range on electric, but that was not the real objective with the Prius, or any hybrid. It is to capture regenerative braking energy and to shut the engine off at low speed/low acceleration so that the engine spends less time out of it's efficient operating range. The Prius is the best selling car in Japan - how is that limited market appeal?"
Sure. But hybrids aren't a major share of the market are they? Therefore, for whatever reason they have limited market appeal.
"The 2000-2006 Honda Insight still holds the world efficiency record for a production gasoline car, at 61mpg city/70 Hwy. If it was being built today, with newer batteries etc, it would doubtless do better still. What then , is the basis for your 50mpg limit?"
OK, I'll give you that. The efficiency limit is around 60-70 mpg. My 50 mpg comes from the Prius. Still pretty poor compared with EV's. And battery efficiency isn't a limiting factor, they are already very high efficiency anyways. The efficiency limit is the ICE, still trudging away at around 20%.
"I'll believe that when I see it. To compete, they need to come down in price by 75%"
No, when you factor in the lower costs of driving, they need to come down by about 30% max. Not a tall order! If oil prices go up significantly the Leaf is already competitive.
"EVs will make their mark, but will not take over majority status for decades,"
Nah I think we're looking at at 5 years max.
NH, that's too bad if you don't think it's sexy, I think it's kinda eye catching, but style is not the issue here. At $32k, it is more than 2.5 times the price of the gasoline version of the same car (versa hatch, at $13k). I don"t know how you define expensive, but I'd say 2.5 x the price for the same car, with a different powertrain IS expensive. And this is not a brand new technology, electric vehicles of many sorts have been around for over 100 years - it is a re-implementation of an existing technology.
I don;t see how you can say all those other examples of successful innovations are a weak example, I think they are very good examples - if the customer sees value in the innovation, they will pay for it, and they did in those cases. As for the patents, well, the car companies could have bought them too, i'm sure the inventor will sell to the highest bidder.
And the car is already mass produced, it just has a different drivetrain, though it has been around for over 100years. Car companies spend fortunes developing new engines and drivetrains all the time (e.g the CVT) but they don;t need tax credits. I think this just ends up encouraging them to bring things to market before they are really ready.
The official Leaf site says 26 minutes to 80% charge, not your 15, and your implication was to full charge. I note the rapid charging has the potential to reduce battery life.
AS for the charging stations, yes, carmakers take advantage of gas stations, but those stations were set up in response to customer demand -government never subsidised gas stations. The government doesn't even subsidise ethanol pumps! So again , all motorists are paying for something that only a few can use. But governments are free to make those decisions, and do the same in other areas all the time...
As for the Tesla, I am not saying it is not a powerful car, I am responding to your statement that "they are more powerful", when that is just not the case. Even the Nissan leaf, at 110hp, is less powerful than the gasoline version of the same car (Versa hatch, at 122hp) They actually don;t need to be as powerful, as the Tesla demonstrates, but that is not what you said. If you had said "comparable performance, or "power close to" or something like that, but you clearly stated "more powerful" and that is clearly not the case - lets keep our facts straight.
"hybrids aren't a major share of the market are they?" Again, I will refer to the Japan example, the best selling car, by definition, has more share than any other. They are not a major share of the market in the US, because small cars are not a major share, and also becuase people have been unwilling to pay the premium. As with electrics, if you want cheap motoring, buy a Fit, Yaris, Rio, etc.
"when you factor in the lower costs of driving, they need to come down by about 30% max."
let's take a closer look at that.
So the LEaf, at $33k, and the Versa Hatch at $13k. Each gets driven 15k miles/year (national average). With the leaf, at 4miles/kWh, that will be 3750 kWh/yr. using a price of $0.15/kWh, that is $562/yr. A five year ownership is $33k+$2.8k = $36k
Now, the Versa, gets 24/32 mpg, and we'll assume 2/3 city driving, so that is 26mpg average, for 583gal/yr, and at $3/gal that is $1730/yr. so the five year cost is $13K+$8.5k = $22k
So definitely cheaper with the Versa, and if you are leasing/financing, as most new cars are, the interest on the Leaf makes it even more expensive. To close the gap, the Leaf must come down by $14k, which is a 42% reduction, compared to your estimate of 30% (but better than my original estimates)
AS for five years to take over the market, well there are precedents - the Model T, the Volkswagen, the Mini, the Corolla. All of them were significantly cheaper than any other car at their time. The electrics are not. Maybe in five years they'll be competitive, and then they can start trying to take over the market...
Just an aside on an earlier comment--ALL cars are expensive toys.
I think that comparing the engines via horsepower is like an apples and oranges comparison.
Much more useful is to use torque curves as a fair comparison.
The electric motor wins this type of comparison with a almost flat torque curve.
Porge,
Clearly the "driveability" is what matters, though the way we quantify it is usually by reference to torque and power, but this is still less than ideal.
For the record, the electric motor is not always a flat torque curve, it starts out flat (and at maximum) but at some point starts to decrease with rpm's.
But this torque curve (and a steam engine is similar) is ideally suited to driving, especially stop-start.
We did get into this discussion because someone said that electric cars were more powerful...
As a practical matter, they are.
EVs of equivalent HP are much more fun to drive, due to the better torque. This was called "the EV-1 grin".
Acording to an oil industry blogger who had some experience with the EV-1, driving the Volt:
"The experience was exhilarating. "
http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/
Monday, January 25, 2010
"910 Miles Per Gallon*"
Here's lot more info:
Here's a nice description of that electric torque, vs a Porsche:
"Zero-to-60 mph acceleration is less than 4 seconds, which is Ferrari quick. Around a tight, technical racetrack, the Tesla will beat the pants off your garden-variety supercar." LA Times
The Chevy Corvette, with a monster 6.2 liter, eight cylinder, 430 horsepower engine takes 4.6 seconds. The Tesla accelerates faster than the Porsche 911. Faster than the Ferrari Spider....I can say with certainty, now, that if anyone doubts whether all-electric cars can compete: they can. Scientific American
"The all-electric sports car is faster than Porsche 911 or Audi R8 yet is six times as efficient as conventional sports cars." Tesla achieved overall corporate profitability in July, thanks to strong demand for the Roadster. http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/27/tesla-roadster-runs-313-miles-on-a-...
Here's a 0-60 in 3.5 seconds electric Ford Pinto dragster! allcarselectric.com
and opb.org
Here's a discussion of low-CO2 Formula One: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/formula-zero-carbon-moto...
Here's a good discussion of EV racing.
-----------------------------
This started with N-H saying " They are basically better in every single way (all of the public's misconceptions of the drawbacks of electric cars are no longer valid, and in fact opposite of what is really the case), and they cost 10 X less to drive. "
Of course, what N-H's statement really applied to were EREVs, like the Volt. They really are better in every way: better performance, quieter (unless you add a "ringtone" to warn the deaf or satisfy the need for noise), lower maintenance, lower life-cycle costs (either by recognizing external costs, or in a few years with economies of scale - this has been approximately accomplished by the US $7,500 tax credit).
"as a matter of fact, they are"
Nick, ypu know by now that I am pedantic on things like this so i will take you to task again. If is does not have more power (kW) it is NOT more powerful, by definition.
It can be (and by all accounts, is) better/more fun/exhilarating to drive, faster off the line, etc etc but it is not more powerful as defined by nameplate power. i will even agree that it can have a lower nameplate and higher capacity factor, which certainly makes it more efficient, but not more powerful.
To quote the old cliche, everyone is entitles to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts. More kW means more powerful, and the electrics don;t have it, so don;t call them more powerful
I think the real issue here is that power is not necessarily the best metric for comparing performance of cars. People have traditionally focused on power, and the electrics (and steam cars) showed that this is not always the most important criteria - it is the real world performance that counts. On that score, even I agree that electrics out perform ICE's in every area except range and cargo hauling capacity (and cost)
Lets keep our facts as facts, and if the comparisons don;t favour your point of view, then don;t quote them, but please don't make statements that are factually incorrect - the marketers and politicians do enough of that, in this forum we like to cut through that and deal with reality.
The discussion is much more informed, relevant and useful as a result.
I am a data and facts guy (as are most other engineers), and if the data dictate that my position should change, then it shall change. But when I see data being misquoted, then I cannot take any of the claims being made at face value, and start to look for data to verify/debunk the claims, as you have seen.
I respect your opinions, but I have no respect for ignoring/misquoting the facts
I agree that electrics out perform ICE's in every area except range and cargo hauling capacity (and cost)
Well, we're pretty close to general agreement here, which is great.
If is does not have more power (kW) it is NOT more powerful, by definition.
I agree that it's useful to be clear on technical details, so here goes: Power equals torque. ICE engine ratings traditionally are for peak torque. For EVs, we see that immediate torque is more important (both at zero speed and at mid-range speeds). Both are factual, measurable, quantitative measures, and it's perfectly valid to choose one over the other.
On the larger issue: I think the one area where EVs clearly are at a disadvantage is range. That's why I think that PHEVs and EREVs will much more important for some time.
"I agree that it's useful to be clear on technical details, so here goes: Power equals torque."
Unfortunately, this is still wrong, but it explains why we are butting heads here.
Power is work done per unit time (Joules/second), torque is the force applied at a radial distance (newton.metres or pound.feet).
In car and engine terms, power = torque x rpm (x a correction factor). At zero mph you have peak torque, but no work is being done, so power is zero.
Torque is indeed the biggest factor for driveability, but is still different from power. MAx speed up a steady gradient, for example, is purely dependent on the maximum power available. I can have a small motor with massive torque, but going up a hill, the max speed is a function of the weight and total power. The gear ratio required depends on the engine torque/speed relationship, that's why ICE's need complicated gearboxes and electrics and steam (think locomotives) do not.
Agrred that the PHEV approach is the better near term solution, though I think the niche that buy all electrics will change their driving to the range available, and likely have a second car anyway.
Ah. Yes, I see the problem.
When I said power, I didn't mean it in the physics sense of work being done (rate of energy flow), I meant it in the car & driver sense of acceleration.
I agree - there will be a reasonably large niche of EV buyers for whom range is not a problem. That niche will likely expand with time, as people get used to the idea, and flexible alternatives like car-sharing1 expands.
1 e.g., www.zipdrive.com
Nick, thank you for seeing my point on this. I am a big believer that if everyone understands fundamental physics, there is much less confusion, hype and ability to deliberately deceive people (I am not saying you were trying to do this, but some people do), and the world is a better place for it.
Understanding of basic physical principles is what makes all this technology possible, so when we are discussing it, I like to have these things both understood, and correct, otherwise there can be lots of wasted discussion caused by a misunderstanding! In the engineering business (I used to do foundations many years ago) if you have a misunderstanding at the start, the consequences later are very severe, so you ALWAYS make sure everyone is on the same page about the basic facts before building anything. The same logic is a good one to apply to these (or almost any) discussions.
To quote the great physicist Richard Feynman "in introducing any new technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, because Nature cannot be fooled". I think we can both agree that there are many times where the exact reverse happens, especially where politicians and narrow corporate interests are involved.
What you are talking about is definitely "driveability", which is more qualitative, although acceleration is easily measured, and electrics almost always win that comparison, and it is a more meaningful comparison than power, for everyday driving. If I was promoting electrics, I would always use the 0-100 comparison rather than power. We do 0-100 every day but I NEVER run my vehicle at peak power. Most (gasoline) ICE's won't last even 50hrs at peak power! In WW2 Rolls Royce did a lot of work on the reliability of the Merlin engine, used in Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Lancasters, etc, But they were not too concerned about longevity. The average flying life of a Spitfire was just 50hrs before it got shot down!
Run an engine at lower speed and lower power, and the engine will last a long time - this is the main reason why pickup trucks have oversized, slow revving engines, lots of torque, and the engines last forever, if maintained. But hopelessly fuel inefficient.
For car sharing I don;t think electrics are the way to go, not yet. Problem with a ,multi user vehicle is then the range/charging time/availability. It would be very easy for that zip car to have three-four different users in a day, each of which ahs saved up all their errands for when they have the car, but who wants to be paying rent for charging time?
A better solution, for now, is hybrids and the PHEV's when they are available (and diesels!), better fuel efficiency than anything else, and you don;t have to charge them if you don;t have time.
'
That said, I expect Zipcar etc to get electrics, because their customers will demand it, and that is fine, but I think hybrids are a better fit for that business model.
This is great - we seem to be approaching a near-total consensus. So often, people give up on long discussions, and want to "agree to disagree". Seems like a bad approach, to me.
Regarding Zipcar - what I meant was that if car-sharing vehicles are available conveniently, the need for infrequently used long range capability is much less important. That's the genius of car-sharing: they're distributed widely, very close to residences, so that the need for personally owned cars is greatly reduced.
"long discussion" is an understatement!
I'm not sure if we have really changed any views here, but we do understand each other.
I am a supporter of wind, and all renewables, but we must acknowledge the limitations of the various types (wind is intermittent, hydro geographically limited, biomass has potential for deforestation, etc. I do not think the gov should try to pick winners.
Even though I think it must be acknowledged that wind needs more transmission line per kW than anything else, I am a supporter of the smart grid, and an HVDC network. This would have been a perfect stimulus project
I do NOT like subsidies, as they make things get built that should not, and make energy cheaper than it should be which encourages waste. As a society, we tax labour and not energy - result is that jobs go overseas and energy consumption stays here!
I also think we are way too focused on personal transport, and our spreadeagled cities are consume far too many resources, and perpetuate the need for personal transport. This same thing makes it hard for people on modest incomes (mostly young people) to get ahead, so much of their income goes on cars! A city like London, where a car is an option, not a necessity, allows for much cheaper living. We will see densification of the cities here, gradually and painfully.
Which brings me to Zipcar, it;s a great business model, but not for the car companies! For every three zipcar members, one less car gets sold! But, as you say people will choose the most appropriate car for the journey, which is great.
The times they are a changin', whether people want them to or not!
I agree.
On the other hand....it matters how we says things. If we highlight the problems of a thing, without first stressing it's overall benefits, then we communicate the wrong things.
Opponents of wind, for example, will stress intermittency, and make it appear overwhelming, when in fact it's very manageable. I know that's not what you mean to convey, but a narrow comment can leave that impression.
I certainly prefer a simple carbon tax, and almost all economists agree. Unfortunately, that's very hard to do, so subsidies for renewables are clearly much better than nothing.
I agree on the desirability of urban living, but I would note that housing costs are much more important than energy or transportation costs: that means that living in London, even with no car, is much more expensive than living in the suburbs of London. For the same reason, I don't expect PO to have much impact on urban sprawl - it's much cheaper to buy a Prius, Leaf or Volt than to move downtown.
Well, in our discussions here, you (and others) have highlighted (appropriate) benefits, and in some cases (the context of EV "power") some incorrect information. I am wary of one thing solves all solutions, as this usually is just not so, though governments sometimes embrace such things.
The wind intermittency is indeed ,manageable, but what annoys me is that the wind industry (generally) sees that as someone else' problem to manage. I would like to see feed in tariffs for wind (or solar, or any renewable) being on a TOU schedule, if not linked to wholesale rates. Then the developers can do their sums about the relative merits of storage etc, and some innovative solutions will appear. For example, and air liquefaction plant would set up with a wind farm to liquefy air at night, (which can be stored) and sell the electricity during thew day. Same for cold storage warehouses etc. But when you just pay blanket rates, that do not reflect the TOU value for electricity, there is no incentive to do this. PRice these realities in from the start, so everyone knows what they are getting into,and can plan accordingly.
Agree also about the carbon tax, and the political realities involved, which leads to subsidies. And, some very wasteful ones at that (80c/kEWh for solar power, for example). I don;t think we (society) have the time or capital to waste on such feel god subsidies, real, pragmatic, scalable, solutions are needed, and solar PV is not one of them. I am even OK with a blanket subsidy for all renewable energy, but not with singling out type (e.g. solar) a kWh is a kWh, and why divert capital form the cheapest to the most expensive?
With the cities, what I can se more of is the decentralisation, where jobs actually start moving to the suburbs. For white collar jobs, that is not so hard these days. I think PO will stop urban sprawl, but not reverse it, per se. There is no point destroying houses to make farmland, its a waste of built infrastructure. But from here on, I think city area will grow far slower than population, if at all. Densifying the existing suburbs is a much cheaper option than developing new ones. If cities start charging developers the true infrastructure cost in their development fees, they too will shift to densification. It may not be the idyllic way to live, but, done properly, its cheaper and far less resource consuming.
Ultimately, I think that;s the problem, getting the economy to consume less resources, whether they are renewable or not. We cannot consume our way out of this.
The wind intermittency is indeed ,manageable, but what annoys me is that the wind industry (generally) sees that as someone else' problem to manage.
Well, the cheapest solutions are those that are managed by the ISO. Solutions over which wind developers have control (storage at the windfarm, etc) are far more expensive.
I would like to see feed in tariffs for wind (or solar, or any renewable) being on a TOU schedule
That's not a bad idea. Interestingly, it would shift support somewhat from wind and nuclear towards solar.
80c/kEWh for solar power
I don't think anyone is currently paying anything close to that - where did you see that?
solar PV is not one of them.
You may be right. OTOH, solar provides more valuable peaking power, and PV competes with retail pricing, not wholesale. Current subsidies are an investment in building scale and reducing costs, and I suspect they'll pay off.
If cities start charging developers the true infrastructure cost in their development fees, they too will shift to densification.
Have you seen any really good analyses of this, with good numbers and quantitative analysis? I'd love to see that.
We cannot consume our way out of this.
It depends on what "this" is. If we're talking about PO and AGW, then certainly substituting electricity (from wind, nuclear, solar, geothermal, etc) for fossil fuels will solve these two problems just fine.
"As for the patents, well, the car companies could have bought them too, i'm sure the inventor will sell to the highest bidder."
This is a highly simplistic assumption. See the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car"
"And the car is already mass produced, it just has a different drivetrain, though it has been around for over 100years. Car companies spend fortunes developing new engines and drivetrains all the time (e.g the CVT) but they don;t need tax credits. I think this just ends up encouraging them to bring things to market before they are really ready.
You seriously believe that electric cars are currently mass produced? You'll argue anything to death. The induction motors and associated electronics are new technology and the supply chain must mature to ramp up production. This will take a few years and then costs will come down dramatically, as will battery costs. There is a difference between a new type of tramsmission and a completely whole new drive train.
"The official Leaf site says 26 minutes to 80% charge, not your 15, and your implication was to full charge. I note the rapid charging has the potential to reduce battery life."
I also said, "depending on the battery used". And if you had looked at my other link you would have seen that the Toshiba batteries can be recharged in 10 minutes, so why don't we split the difference and call it 20 minutes? You have reverted to splitting hairs now, and like usual you seem to be ignoring the fact that all new technology dramatically improves in performance quickly once it enters the mainstream market so I stand by my 15 minute recharge time. The ICE has been around for 100 years. It is finished improving.
"As for the Tesla, I am not saying it is not a powerful car, I am responding to your statement that "they are more powerful", when that is just not the case."
Splitting hairs ..... splitting hairs.... why can't you just admit that the performance of electric cars is just as good as, if not better, than equivalent ICE powered cars?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTKexaylnt4
"Again, I will refer to the Japan example, the best selling car, by definition, has more share than any other."
But do hybrids as a group represent the majority of the automobile market? Probably not.
"So definitely cheaper with the Versa, and if you are leasing/financing, as most new cars are, the interest on the Leaf makes it even more expensive. To close the gap, the Leaf must come down by $14k, which is a 42% reduction, compared to your estimate of 30% (but better than my original estimates)"
You are high balling electricity costs. In BC it is 8 cents a kwhr, less in other places and more in others. And if gasoline prices go up then your analysis changes dramatically. Are you willing to bet that gasoline prices will stay down? Who knows where they will go, but you can also be reasonably certain that electricity prices will not fluctuate like gas prices. And I think you should do an analysis for longer than 5 years. You are also not considering the other major cost saving advantage of EV's -- they hardly have any moving parts to break down or need maintenance. This could easily amount to thousands of dollars of savings. Most ICE cars start to have expensive problems in the 5-10 year time frame. Also, consider that an EV will last much longer than an ICE for the same reason (easily 50 years if well maintained), and therefore will have higher resale value. Also, it is my opinion that the resale value of ICE's will diminish rapidly in the future simply as a result of peak oil. No one will want to buy one anymore in 5-10 years when new EV's are out that are so much better, and people are worried about gasoline price fluctuations. Overall, you have lowballed the value of EV's.
NH,
On the issue of patents, the fact that GM sold it to Chevron indicates the silliness of the situtation - you can't "blame the oil companies for buying the patents" if a car company sold it to them!
On mass production, the CAR is mass produced, but the electric drive train is not. BUT electric drivetrains, in various forms, have been around for a long time (trains, forklifts, submarines etc) and the drivetrain is not the issue, it is the batteries. Induction motors are very old technology indeed
Now, the charging time, yes you showed me a battery that is not being used in the car. I can show you a supercapacitor that is also not being used in the leaf, that charges in seconds. There are lots of technologies not being used we can show each other. The only one that matters is what IS being used, and those were the specs given.
Now, the electricity costs. The US residential average is 11.3c/kWh, but is significantly higher in the most populous states (Ca, Tx and the north east), so a geometric average is likely higher. Also, electricity for EV's does not currently include any road tax, which is in gasoline costs (US average is 45.6 c/gallon from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Gasoline_Taxes_April_2009.svg)
So let's add this in, as all cars will need to pay their road taxes. If we use the 2011 CAFE standard of 30.2mpg, that is 45.6/30.2= 1.51c/mile. Now, the EV range is touted as being 4 mi/kWh, so at 1.51c/mile, we need to add 6.04c/kWh of road tax for parity. So, with a residential average of 11.3+6.04=17.34, you can see I am actually LOWBALLING the true cost. Of course, you can charge your EV's at off peak rates, where available, but add in that 6c tax component and you'll never be under 10c, and likely much higher.
At the moment, electrics are getting a free ride, but even you must admit, that if all 220million are EV's, they are going to have to pay road tax!
I think the five year horizon is appropriate, and is in fact the standard by which the American Automobile Association compares vehicles;
"In 2004, the American Automobile Association adopted a new method for calculating vehicle operating costs that represent the real-world personal use of a vehicle over a five-year and 75,000-mile ownership period. The total cost of owning and operating an automobile include fuel, maintenance, tires, insurance, license, registration and taxes, depreciation, and finance." (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/...)
Now,of these costs, only fuel, maintenance, insurance and possibly depreciation will be different. The AAA find that fixed costs (deprec, insurance, financing) are more than double variable costs (fuel, tyres, maintenance), and the fixed costs mostly are related to the value of the vehicle. Of course it will cost much more to insure, as it is a much more expensive car, and same for interest charges. I think the electrics will depreciate fairly quickly as more newer and better ones keep coming out. When it comes to resale after five years, losing half the value on $13k is much less painful than half the value, or even a third of it, on $33k.
The total annual cost of ownership for the electric, at current prices, will be much higher.
If ICE's depreciate as you think they will, then the option of buying cheap, late model ones becomes even better for the cost conscious motorist
On the issue of patents, the fact that GM sold it to Chevron indicates the silliness of the situtation - you can't "blame the oil companies for buying the patents" if a car company sold it to them!
We're not blaming Chevron for buying the patents. We're blaming Chevron for using the patents to hinder competition. Further, the larger picture is that GM didn't want to deal with the new competition either - it would have cannibalized their legacy ICE sales, and threatened the careers of people within the company who had invested decades in ICE expertise.
On mass production, the CAR is mass produced, but the electric drive train is not. BUT electric drivetrains, in various forms, have been around for a long time (trains, forklifts, submarines etc) and the drivetrain is not the issue, it is the batteries. Induction motors are very old technology indeed
The technology has been around for a long time, but not the specific engineering. Economies of scale apply to specific products, not a general technology.
Further, economies of scale apply very strongly to batteries.
The US residential average is 11.3c/kWh, but is significantly higher in the most populous states (Ca, Tx and the north east), so a geometric average is likely higher.
I believe the average price is weighted by sales volumes. Further, EVs will be mostly charged at night, and time of day pricing (which is available to all utility customers in the US) will be roughly 50% of the average. The road tax idea makes a certain sense, but there are no proposals to tax electricity in this way. Given the political need to find indirect ways to subsidize EVs (rather than tax carbon, as we agree should be done), this is highly unlikely to change.
if all 220million are EV's, they are going to have to pay road tax!
Sure, but what we're concerned about here is the transition. When EVs become 20% or more of the cars on the road something will have to change, but by then we'll be "on our way".
I think the five year horizon is appropriate, and is in fact the standard by which the American Automobile Association compares vehicles
The crucial difference is that you didn't include depreciation, which is the single largest cost - instead you used the purchase price. Well, depreciation takes into account resale value, so you've overstated capital costs by quite a bit.
The Prius has had rather lower depreciation than the average ICE vehicle. If EVs drop rapidly in price (or gas prices rise quickly), that would conceivable increase depreciation for existing EVs, but I think it's fairly obvious that adoption would accelerate, not slow down. Overall, the idea that EV prices will drop quickly is positive for EVs, not negative.
At $32k, it is more than 2.5 times the price of the gasoline version of the same car (versa hatch, at $13k).
Paul, do you have more info on that? References, etc? I've heard this suggestion before, but I'm not convinced. There are a lot of cars in the same size range with very different pricing. For instance, I'm sure we can find a BMW of about the same size as a Toyota Camry. Or, to go to Nissan, their luxury marque has sedans that are much more expensive as their cousins in the Nissan lineup.
I'm puzzled that you don't see value in an EV: don't you agree that our oil consumption creates many problems, including contributing to recessions; a $2T oil war; conventional pollution (particulates, NO2; CO2, etc?
As far as cost comparison: you really need to do a lifetime comparison, not a 5 year comparison. If you're going to do a 5 year comparison, at least include resale/residual value.
Nick,
My reference for prices is http://www.nissanusa.com/versa/?next=header.vlp.postcard.thumbnail.
There is currently a dealer incentive of $1500, making it actually $11800, but I didn't include the tax credit on electric either.
Well, the reason I don;t see value in an electric, at present, is simply that you pay a lot more and get less. Even if we were to double or treble fuel prices (something which I am in favour of), which would enable all sorts of non oil alternatives, like biomass methanol/ethanol, CNG (or C biogas), it would still be cheaper to drive a small ICE vehicle.
You can argue on the basis of reducing oil, clean air, etc but on cost it loses. Look at the fixed costs from the AAA study, until the cost of ownership decreases siginificantly, a lot of people simply cannot afford an EV (or a Prius, I might add).
On the scale of 220 m vehicles, I do not think this is the best use of society's (limited) capital, not by a long shot. Just as we agree on DSM for electricity, I think there is huge scope for DSM in transport, and especially personal transport.
The reason I liked the article from the Low Tech magazine is that it really highlights that fuel efficiency improvements have been eaten up by the increases in size, weight, performance, etc. If we are all about energy efficiency, and I am, then we should really be taking a good look at the cars we drive. The original Insight was a good example of what can be done, as are many of the micro cars from the past (citroen 2cv, messerschmidt, etc). The timing for the insight sucked, oil ws cheap then, but it would likely sell well today. If we simplify, lighten and shrink the vehicle, then we can get better range in an EV. The people who really want to save oil will accept these compromises, as will many people who drive old beaters because that is all they can afford.
Look at the original Mini, a perfect example of simplicity, and several groundbreaking design concepts (the east-west engine and front wheel drive, wheels at the extreme corners, simple sliding windows, etc) The objective there was the smallest and simplest car to hold four people. Design an EV with the same objective, and you would come out with an electric Mini! Change it to two people, and it gets better still. Given the ideal commuter nature of EV's, I think a small, streamlined two seater would sell, and could be built much cheaper for the same range (less batteries) or much more range for same price (same batteries).
GM's original EV-1 (and I have seen the movie)was like this. If they brought out that same car today, with today's technology it would do well, and they have already done all the design work, they just need to drop in the new drivetrain! Call it the EV2, and market it as being the next generation of the EV that started it all. You could probably just take the electric component of the Volt driveline, up the battery from 8 to 16kWh and you are done.
Einstein said "you cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that created it". Here we have the same thinking in vehicles, but with a different drivetrain. A major change in transport and vehicle thinking is needed, not just the drivetrain.
My reference for prices is....
I'm not asking for Versa pricing, I'm asking for information that suggests that the Versa is an equivalent to the Leaf. For instance, a Toyota Camry uses the same body as the Lexus ES350, but the prices are very different.
Well, the reason I don;t see value in an electric, at present, is simply that you pay a lot more and get less. Even if we were to double or treble fuel prices (something which I am in favour of), which would enable all sorts of non oil alternatives, like biomass methanol/ethanol, CNG (or C biogas), it would still be cheaper to drive a small ICE vehicle.
First, it's always been cheaper to drive a smaller, cheaper, high MPG vehicle. The average new vehicle in the US costs $28K - most people don't want a Versa.
2nd, you have to realize that vehicle pricing is artificial. Smaller cars are priced much closer to marginal production cost, and overall they typically lose money for the manufacturer. The difference in production costs between a small vehicle and a large vehicle is much smaller than the difference in prices - in effect, small vehicles subsidize large ones. If car companies only sold small vehicles, their prices would have to be higher.
Why do they do this? To segment the market. They want to sell cars to low-income buyers and make a little money, and sell much more expensive versions to higher-income buyers. They don't want to leave money on the table, so for instance, they add leather and mark it up heavily. This is true for many industries and markets, not just cars.
So, it's not really realistic to say: let's all move to smaller cars, and save a lot of money. It's an illusion, a mirage.
You can argue on the basis of reducing oil, clean air, etc
Uhmmmmm, wouldn't you argue on this basis as well?? Don't you agree that these things are important?
The timing for the insight sucked, oil ws cheap then, but it would likely sell well today. If we simplify, lighten and shrink the vehicle, then we can get better range in an EV. The people who really want to save oil will accept these compromises, as will many people who drive old beaters because that is all they can afford.
I think that's not realistic, but...it doesn't matter. The cost of wind turbines to power a vehicle like the Volt or Leaf for their lifetime is only $1,800. That's about $180 per year, or less.
Why is it important to down-size a vehicle to save $450-$900 in electrical generation investment?? Clean electricity is cheap and plentiful - we just need to choose to build it.
"I'm asking for information that suggests that the Versa is an equivalent to the Leaf. "
Nick, the Leaf wikipedia page says that the prototype Leaf was a versa with the electric drivetrain. This is what was used for driving reviews by many motoring writers late last year and earlier this year. Nissan says the Leaf is a unique platform, but in size and shape, it is very similar to the Versa (hatch), so i think this is a valid base for comparison.
"Smaller cars are priced much closer to marginal production cost, and overall they typically lose money for the manufacturer. The difference in production costs between a small vehicle and a large vehicle is much smaller than the difference in prices - in effect, small vehicles subsidize large ones. "
Actually, if small cars lose money for the mfrs, then, by definition, they are are being subsidised by the larger, profitable ones. But small cars are really only money losers for the American mfrs, the Japanese and Korean companies have been profitably making smalls cars for decades.
"So, it's not really realistic to say: let's all move to smaller cars, and save a lot of money."
I think it is very realistic to say if we all move to small cars, we will save money (regardless of electric or ICE). Now, the price of small cars would have to increase, to be sure, but not to the levels of the big cars, and they will still be cheaper to drive and insure. In fact, if we were all driving small cars today it would be easier for electrics to move in as the expectations for big electric cars would not exist.
"wouldn't you argue on this basis {oil} as well?? Don't you agree that these things are important?"
Yes, these things are important, but you were saying electrics would win on cost, and currently, compared to a similar vehicle, this is just not so. Even if you got all your electricity for free (and paid no road tax), the five year cost of the Versa is still better.
The Prius has been successful for many reasons, but unless you are a high mileage driver (like a courier/taxi driver), cold hard cost is not one of them.
"Why is it important to down-size a vehicle to save $450-$900 in electrical generation investment??"
This is not the reason to downsize. The reason, with ICE's, is to use less fuel. With electrics, the reason is to use less batteries, which are the most expensive (and energy intensive) part. if you can halve the battery size by making the car more efficient, then it is much cheaper and more competitive. The EV-1 was like this, and look how the drivers fought tooth and nail to try to keep them - why not do the same again?
The electrical generating capacity largely exists already, IF they are always charged off peak.
“Lets keep our facts as facts, and if the comparisons don;t favour your point of view, then don;t quote them, but please don't make statements that are factually incorrect - the marketers and politicians do enough of that, in this forum we like to cut through that and deal with reality.
I am a data and facts guy (as are most other engineers), and if the data dictate that my position should change, then it shall change. But when I see data being misquoted, then I cannot take any of the claims being made at face value, and start to look for data to verify/debunk the claims, as you have seen.”
An ironic statement coming from someone who said in an earlier post regarding EV’s,
“They have less … power”
Which is clearly not true. The power depends on the battery pack and the motor. The power of an ICE depends on its engine. Some EV’s will be more powerful and vice versa. EV’s have higher low rpm torque so their “wow factor” for 99% of the people who will drive them and really couldn’t care less about a formal definition of power, is that “EV’s are more powerful”.
You are seriously expecting me to believe that the new Toshiba batteries, or something equivalent, which are made for EV’s, won’t find their way into EV’s in the near future, simply because they aren’t in them yet? If you believe that a new battery out this year which is better than existing batteries in existing EV’s won’t make it into EV’s in a couple years, because it isn’t in them yet, then what's the point of even discussing batteries? I am surprised at how little consideration you are giving to the likely pace of very near future improvements in EV technology when it hits the mass market.
"The electrical generating capacity largely exists already, IF they are always charged off peak."
No, actually in my earlier posts I pointed out that more or less half of the EV's could be driven "for free", simply using the power not otherwise sucked up by refineries to refine gasoline. Since refineries operate in the daytime as well as nighttime, then it is reasonable to assume that we will have electricity savings at peak hours too which will allow for a minor component of EV's to be charged in the daytime, which is exactly what we will need since most will be trickle charged overnight but a small percentage if EV's will be charged in the daytime when people need extra range from a quick charge.
NH
Upthread, you said this;
Electric cars are significantly more powerful than the internal combustion engine. They have 100% torque at zero rpm. The 250 horse power motor for the Tesla Roadster is the size of a watermelon.
The first statement, as written, is meaningless, as you are saying a CAR is more powerful than an ENGINE. I can show you ICE's used in trucks, trains and ships (and cars) that are more powerful than any electric car yet built. A more useful statement might have been "electric cars are more powerful than equivalent ICE cars", this is now a meaningful statement, but is still wrong.
That they have 100% torque at zero rpm is true, and very useful, but has no influence on power. At zero rpm, the power output is actually zero.
You then said;
The 250 horse power motor for the Tesla Roadster is the size of a watermelon.
Now we have something to compare - 250 hp. Look at any current production two seater sports car that sells for close to $100k (an equivalent) and they ALL have more than 250 hp, as do some much cheaper ones, like the Hyundai Genesis. You have yet to provide me with one example of an equivalent ICE car with less power. Something like a Mazda Miata, which is a two seater, does have less power, though I would not call it an equivalent car, either.
The size of then engine has nothing to do with this statement. That it is small, and lightweight, is definitely a bonus but we were not talking about these things.
I think you are misunderstanding a fundamental fact, and advantage, of electrics. They have (and will always have) less power than their ICE equivalents because they need less power to deliver the same driving performance! (except, as noted uphill and load hauling)
I am not arguing driving performance, I arguing your saying they have more power, when they don't. Now, ICE vehicles are actually "overpowered" and there are reasons for this, some valid, and some not, but that is a whole different discussion.
With "power" we have a direct, measurable quantity, and electrics, to date, always have less of it than equivalent ICE's (because the use what power they have more efficiently).
You think I am splitting hairs, but I am trying to weed out incorrect statements and misrepresentation of data. The entire field of renewable energy has been tarnished by some people (not all) who make incorrect or misleading statements, commonly called "hype". This has resulted in many failures, and many investors being fleeced (especially in alternative fuels). Whenever I see a statement, I try to determine if it is true, or hype. A statement like electric cars are more powerful is wrong, and is immediately recognisable to me as hype, or someone who is taking power in the wrong context (as you are). So then I question any other statement from that person, as if they are using "more powerful" as the basis of their position, their entire position may be wrong. In the case of electric cars, the position that they are more driveable etc (which I don;t question) is not related to their power, it is related to their torque characteristic, as you have correctly said. So don;t weaken your position by incorrectly saying they "are significantly more powerful" when all the engine data show that they are not.
As for the Toshiba batteries, they may, or may not, find their way into cars, unless you are an industry insider, neither of us can know this for sure. What if they are too expensive? There are new, highly efficient ICE's being developed (e.g. ethanol boosted direct injection) and these may, or may not, get put into cars. There are highly efficient turbo diesel engines available today, which are not being put into north american made cars.
So, you have speculation, and we just don know for sure. What we do know for sure, are the specs of the batteries that Nissan has chosen to use in its electric car, and I am sure they have put much though into that decision. So that is what is hitting the road today, and that is the valid basis for comparison.
Again, in the electric car and renewable energy field, there are lots of companies making lots of claims about what they "will do" or "can produce" or "expect to achieve" or "will be on the market by.." Look at the MDI air car, they have been caliming for years to be on the market in two years... The car makers said several years ago they would have these cars on the road in 09, and they didn't. Data from the electric Minis in New York is showing their typical range to be 2/3 of what was expected. Claims made, but not achieved.
What does matter, is what actually gets done/produced, not what is claimed/promised/potential as these are facts, everything else is opinion/extrapolation/expectation. That is why I give little credence to what "is likely"because, the track record is that it often doesn't happen the way people think it will. EEstor has been making great claims about their technology for years, saying what it can do, while revealing no proof, and ZENN based their business on this "likely improvement" and look what has happened - they are gone. So, I discount claims/expectations very heavily, if not completely. Show a working prototype, with real world data, or better yet, a production model or commercial process, and then I am ready to be convinced.
"No, actually in my earlier posts I pointed out that more or less half of the EV's could be driven "for free", simply using the power not otherwise sucked up by refineries to refine gasoline. "
This is not necessarily true either, for several reasons, not evn including the dubious energy balance you are using:
Firstly, unless refineries close completely, they will still operate to refine crude into things other than gasoline, though hopefully on a smaller scale, so not all the energy is available, though it is on a per gallon basis.
Secondly, they refineries are concentrated in the midwest and Gulf coast. There are relatively few on the east and west coasts, but that is where most of the drivers are. The way the US grid is, presently, divided into four non-interconnected grids, turning off refineries in Texas does not make more electricity available in California, where there are lots of drivers.
Thirdly, in many cases, the in-city distribution lines are already close to their capacity at peak times (that is why BC hydro is needing to upgrade residential lines in Vancouver for these laneway houses). So even if the electricity is available in daytime peak, that does not mean the distribution capacity is, unless other loads can be shed. This is why PG&E's electric car charging rate has summertime peak rate of 29c/kWh and an off peak rate that same evening of 6c, and I would not be surprised to see this differential get even higher.
But for off peak charging, we have no problem.
I can show you ICE's used in rucks, trains and ships (and cars) that are more powerful than any electric car yet built.
We shouldn't underestimate electric motors:
The largest trains tend to have electric motors.
Here's a very heavy-duty EV truck.
Here's an electric mobile strip mining machine, the largest tracked vehicle in the world at 13,500 tons.
The Emma Mærsk does rely on it's main diesel engine, but it's two 80MW electric engines are only slightly less powerful.
--------------------------
PG&E's electric car charging rate has summertime peak rate of 29c/kWh and an off peak rate that same evening of 6c, and I would not be surprised to see this differential get even higher.
Do you happen to have a link to that? That would be useful.
Nick, you missed the point here about engine size and electric motors. NH made this statement;
"Electric cars are significantly more powerful than the internal combustion engine. "
This statement is very poorly written, and incorrect. It implies that electric CARS are more powerful than any internal combustion, when it just 'aint so, there are massive engines built. There are massive electric engines too, and we all know this, but he said, specifically, electric cars.
How can an electric car be more powerful than the engine in a truck, train, or ship? Why would anyone even want to draw such a comparison, and what is the point of doing so?
So, if he thought more carefully about what he really meant, he might have said "electric cars are more powerful than ICE cars", but we already know this is not true either.
he could have said "electric cars have better acceleration than (equivalent) ICE cars" and this would be true.
But why waste all our time by making a poorly worded statement, that is also wrong?
This is what frustrates me, and gets me called a hair splitter, but we have to make sure that inaccurate statements are weeded out as soon as they are made.
A point of convention on this statement too;
"it's two 80MW electric engines are only slightly less powerful."
You should be saying electric motors
keep to the standardised terminology and there is less potential for confusion all around.
Here is the PG&E link.
http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/electricvehicles/index.shtml
This one is laid out clearly, but if you have a look at their menu of different tariff,s you can quickly see the real problem - there are so many different pricing structures and most consumers wouldn't have a hope of understanding them.
This is where the oil companies got it right - a simple posted price that everyone can understand, and decide if they want to buy, or not.
The same could and should be done for electric. A standardised TOU schedule, and then different discount structures for different sized customers, if at all
Nick, the Leaf wikipedia page says that the prototype Leaf was a versa with the electric drivetrain. This is what was used for driving reviews by many motoring writers late last year and earlier this year.
Ah, I see where you got this. In car-maker jargon, the Versa body was used as a "mule".
Nissan says the Leaf is a unique platform, but in size and shape, it is very similar to the Versa (hatch), so i think this is a valid base for comparison.
That doesn't follow at all. Many vehicles are roughly the same in size and shape, but go for very different price points. Again, compare a Toyota Camry with a Lexus ES350 - they even use the same body but go for very different prices. Other comparisons are even stronger: you can easily find a Porsche or Ferrari with roughly the same size, and rather less passenger capacity, for much, much higher prices. A Prius is a hatchback, but it goes for twice the price of the Versa. How does the Leaf compare with the Prius?
I think it is very realistic to say if we all move to small cars, we will save money (regardless of electric or ICE).
Yes, but not as much as one would project by simply looking at today's small car prices. I don't know exactly how to calculate it, but to make your argument, you need to do some calculations.
Now, the price of small cars would have to increase, to be sure, but not to the levels of the big cars, and they will still be cheaper to drive and insure.
Well, if insurance is based on replacement prices, then insurance won't fall as much either.
In fact, if we were all driving small cars today it would be easier for electrics to move in as the expectations for big electric cars would not exist.
True, but we don't. It's very clear that car buyers don't want that.
Yes, these things are important, but you were saying electrics would win on cost, and currently, compared to a similar vehicle, this is just not so. Even if you got all your electricity for free (and paid no road tax), the five year cost of the Versa is still better.
Again, a 5 year calculation can't use the full purchase price, and the Versa probably isn't a good comparison. Have you re-run your comparison using the proper depreciation, and the tax credit? You have to use the credit, if your argument is about the current conditions. We can argue about what should be the case, but the tax credit is in effect right now.
More importantly, don't you agree that we should take external costs into account??
The Prius has been successful for many reasons, but unless you are a high mileage driver (like a courier/taxi driver), cold hard cost is not one of them.
Actually, that's not quite true. Consumer Reports says that the Prius actually does save money over a comparable ICE vehicle.
With electrics, the reason is to use less batteries, which are the most expensive (and energy intensive) part. if you can halve the battery size by making the car more efficient, then it is much cheaper and more competitive.
If you were to reduce the battery in the Volt from 16 kWh to 8 kWh, you'd save about $3,000 (the cells cost about $350/kWh, right now). That's significant, but I'm confident that most buyers are willing to pay $3K in order to have a conventional sedan, rather than a smaller 2-seater. And, GM indicates that they expect to cut the battery cost by 50% in the next 5 years.
Nick, Notwithstanding that you can pay lots or little for cars, I think the Versa is still the most appropriate comparison here. Same size, layout, equipment level, etc etc. The honda Civic hybrid is a $7k premium over the non hybrid version, and there is clearly much more cost in the Leaf electric (battery) system)
There can be no argument that, regardless of the car that carries it, you (currently) pay a large premium for an electric drivetrain.
Ok, so the tax credit is here, today, and we can use it in pricing. I would not base any business model on any tax credits being there in the future, as often they are not.
But today's buyer get's the benefit, so that is what they make their decision upon.
I am not going to take the time to analyse how much car prices would need to rise. They should be higher than they are if the car companies want to be profitable, but that hasn't happened either! lets just agree that it's likely that all (non electric) prices will rise, unless we start getting our cars from China!
With the volt, I agree about the battery pricing. What I am getting at is for an all electric, an EV-1 type vehicle could be made cheaper, and with longer range (the main drawback) of the Leaf. Or take a Mazda Miata, do some weight reduction, and electrify it, and I think it would sell well. I don't understand why none of the mainstream mfrs are doing this. I neither understand why they made a "unique platform" for the Leaf, and Volt, instead of using something they already have - there is probably a reason, but I can;t see what it would be, other than to say it is "all new"
For the all electirc, make it really light (like the origina t-zero), and then you can get a lot more range out of the batteries. Look at this conversion done in Japan;
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/27/electric-vehicle-travels-record-623-m...
This got 9mi/kWh, but under ideal conditions, and at 25mph. This is hardly an aerodynamic vehicle. But, streamline it, remove 2/3 of the batteries (and their weight), and you would probably still get 9mi/kWh in city driving. A 20kWh pack ($7k) would give 180miles range!
This is what I am getting at, put some real engineering effort into optimising (minimising, actually) the car. Get an interior designer to design a real minimalist but stylish interior, with minimal gadgets/electronics etc.
The model T, VW, Mini all sold lots because they were way cheaper than their contemporaries, and they achieved this by being smaller, and simpler, and standardised. Do this with an electric, and you have the one feature that matters-electric, and solve the biggest drawback - range. I am not saying this will replace all cars or appeal to all buyers. I am saying this business model, for cars, has worked time and again, and will work now. With people chomping at the bit to buy electrics, some of them are willing to give up size and speed and "luxury" to do so. For the 20 somethings, where having less stuff (other than iphones and ipads) is trendy, a minimalist electric car would be a huge hit. Make it competitive with ICE cars and you have a winner. get these youngsters in the habit of driving smaller cars and they are more likely to stay with smaller cars in the future too.
the Versa is still the most appropriate comparison here. Same size, layout, equipment level, etc etc.
Have you done the comparison in detail, including a comparison to both the Versa and the Prius size, layout, equipment level, etc? I haven't done it, but until someone has (and has documented it online) there's no evidence for it.
The honda Civic hybrid is a $7k premium over the non hybrid version, and there is clearly much more cost in the Leaf electric (battery) system).
Actually, without the battery an electric drivetrain (with comparable economies of scale) should be much cheaper. Now, the battery is certainly a significant expense, but I think it's not as much as you might think. For instance, the Volt's battery pack cost is $8k, total.
There can be no argument that, regardless of the car that carries it, you (currently) pay a large premium for an electric drivetrain.
I don't know - depends on how you define it. I'd say that a Leaf will have a substantially lower TCO than a Prius (which sells for about $25K, same as the Leaf (with the tax credit)). A Prius, in turn, has a lower TCO than a comparable ICE vehicle (per Consumer Reports)
They should be higher than they are if the car companies want to be profitable,
GM and Ford are now profitable (barely). That, of course, is with a mix of small and large, cheap and luxury.
take a Mazda Miata, do some weight reduction, and electrify it, and I think it would sell well. I don't understand why none of the mainstream mfrs are doing this.
The Insight didn't sell. It wasn't just a poor performer, it truly bombed. Americans don't want 2-person high-MPG commuter vehicles, they just don't.
I neither understand why they made a "unique platform" for the Leaf, and Volt, instead of using something they already have.
The Prius is selling much better than other hybrids. Manufacturers have all concluded that it's because of it's distinct identity.
This got 9mi/kWh, but under ideal conditions, and at 25mph.
Again, this would save maybe $3k in battery cost, which consumers are more than willing to pay for a larger vehicle.
The model T, VW, Mini all sold lots because they were way cheaper than their contemporaries, and they achieved this by being smaller, and simpler, and standardised.
They were also miserable to drive, especially for long distances.
Surprisingly, car companies now actually want EVs to succeed. They understand that if EVs are perceived as econoboxes or the poorman's golf cart, they will fail miserably in the larger market. There might be a place for a stripped down model eventually, but it would create an enormous delay for the whole concept to start with it.
As for the resale value, lets look at the Prius - it holds half its value after five years. So if the $32k Leaf does, that, it has lost $16k This is more than the buy oprice of the Versa.
lets be kind and assume it has only depreciated 25%, from 32 to 24k, that is still $8k. Now, we can assume the Versa has depreciated by 2/3 over that time - $8k, so we are at line ball, in this optimistic case.
BUT we have had to pay insurance on a much more expensive car, and interest on a much more expensive car, so the fixed portion of ownership cost will be higher.
Of course, Nissan may decide to sell/lease these vehicles as a loss leader, and it appears they are doing so, and this is a legitimate sales tactic.
I don;t see how you can say all those other examples of successful innovations are a weak example, I think they are very good examples - if the customer sees value in the innovation, they will pay for it, and they did in those cases.
I like free markets, but they're not perfect. There are many examples of market failures, due to external costs, or other problems.
As for the patents, well, the car companies could have bought them too, i'm sure the inventor will sell to the highest bidder.
The first time I read this, I thought you were joking. Surely you're familiar with examples of companies buying competitors to put them out of business. It's not at all unheard of, where the legacy company is very large and has a lot of cash, and the upstart competitor is small, growing quickly, but is still affordable to buy.
In fact, in this case the first buyer was GM, which originally hoped to use the NIMH patents, but decided to put them on the shelf (I'm being charitable, here). Then GM sold to Chevron, which certainly seems to have suppressed them by refusing to license them.
AS for subsidies, yes, there are (unfortunately) all sorts of subsidies for coal, oil and (especially) nuclear. But two wrongs don;t make a right. The truth is, NONE of them should be subsidised. Subsidies hide the trues costs, and keep unit energy prices artificially low, which encourages over consumption.
Paul, I think we all agree on this.
So, we're agreed that wind is not subsidised more than FF energy sources, right?
So, we're agreed that wind is not subsidised more than FF energy sources, right
No, I am not agreed with this.
The subsidies for different things are variable, sometimes hidden, and sometimes in the form of mandates.
In my part of the world (british Columbia) , for example, there is no nuclear, so no subsidies there, if I build a hydro plant, I have to pay for the transmission line to it, no subsidy there, the ONLY way I can build coal plant is if it has 100% carbon capture (provincial law!), I have to pay a carbon tax on any fossil fuels, and wind gets a 1 c/kWh federal subsidy on top of a preferred feed in tariff from BC Hydro. So here the deck is well and truly stacked in favour of wind.
Fossil fuel production in Canada all pay various resources royalties (as does hydro electricity too - only wind and solar are free).
We have just read that Texas is spending $5bn on transmission for wind generation - a huge subsidy.
So, subsidies are all over the map, and, in my opinion, almost all of them are wrong, but that does make them even.
A provincial view? '-)
In the US, at least, the historical and present subsidies just for research are far, far larger for nukes than for all renewables combined.
The fantasy of an even playing field is just that, a fantasy. Oil, coal, nukes are huge and historically powerful industries that know well how to get and keep power and to work things to their advantage. To pretend that the wind or solar industries are anywhere near that ballpark of influence pedaling is myopic in the extreme.
Paul,
I'm glad to hear that BC has no nuclear, and charges carbon taxes. How high are the carbon taxes?
Sadly, the US is not as advanced. Heck, I haven't heard of anyplace this advanced. Are you sure BC is as good as you say? If so, wow - I'd be pleased to hear about it. In fact, it might be a good article for TOD.
OTOH, this is a discussion of the US's EIA forecasts, and we can agree that in the US that FF's get very large subsidies, right?
A quibble:
Texas is spending $5bn on transmission for wind generation - a huge subsidy.
That's only about $.25 per W. That's not tiny, but it's not that much compared to FF subsidies - about 12.5% of wind's capital costs.
Dohboi, NIck,
First, a mea culpa. I did mean to say that "all subsidies are wrong, but this DOES NOT make them even", though I think you both read it that way anyway.
The carbon tax here is paltry, so low that it won;t make a difference. It is a political compromise to win support from those who wanted a carbon tax, but not to be so high as to really offend those that didn't! Result, another tax to administer/collect, that does not change consumer behaviour, and so achieves nothing.
The tax started at $10/ton C last year, rising $5/yr to 430 in 2012. Works out to about 25c/gallon - not enough to make any difference to any buying habits.
BC is a great place, mainly because of geography, not government. The government here is good, but far from ideal, as are all gov'ts. There is a disproportionate population of very young and very old people here (nice place to retire to) so the attitudes can be a bit extreme on some things, though that is good sometimes too, and makes politics interesting. Everyone wants to be green, as long as they don;t have to do/give up/change anything, and expect government to lead the way. They want green power, but not hydro, even run of river, or wind ("bird killers") even though the province has lots of both. They don;t want power to be exported (it is, but only at peak times, BC is actually a 15% net importer, but with 90% controllable hydro power and huge storage), even though exporting renewable energy is about the best, most sustainable business plan I can imagine. I would much rather sell power to the US to pay for schools, health care etc, than tax ourselves.
And all this can be done without "destroying the rivers" or "killing the birds" or "laying waste to vast tracts of old growth forest" (though these things were done in the past.
I am not sure i can agree that FF's get huge subsidies in the US - although the Interstate is an example of government facilitiation to use them. The massive spending on road infrastructure (at the expense of rail transit) represents a sort of subsidy, but I think it's more accurate to say that this is simply the path America chose to go down in the post war years, and it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Europe chose a different path, and places like Canada and Australia are somewhere in between.
The American (transport) system has evolved to depend on FF's and for electricity, they are simply the cheapest, no subsidies needed.
Now let's quibble on the quibble. The Texas grid is $4.93bn for 18,000MW of wind (nameplate) but we can agree to use average capacity at say 33%, so it is then $5bn for 6,000MW, which is $833/kW. With a nameplate capital cost of about $1500/kW, or $4500/effective kW, it is 18% of the capital cost. There aren't really any comparable subsidies for FF electricity, and nuclear, well, it has it's own different set of subsidies.
Now, anyone else could benefit from this transmission, I suppose, but If i said I was going to build 3000MW of solar somewhere in the middle of texas, there would be that much less capacity available for wind. This was announced specifically for wind, but maybe they would do the same for solar, of anything else too - in Texas they like to encourage any energy industry - the opposite of California.
It's interesting to hear about BC. Are people really concerned about birds, or is it really people who don't want turbines in their view?
Regarding Texas wind transmission: yes, Texans seems ready to encourage energy of any sort - I think they feel the same way you do about exporting energy. I'd be curious about how transmission costs are handled in general - suspect that they're generally distributed over all ratepayers, but I don't know for sure.
An 18% subsidy seems quite small to me - I suspect that the cost of FF's CO2, mercury, sulfur, occupational health, asthma, etc, etc are muc higher than 18%. And, of course, nuclear's subsidies for new plants in the US are much larger, including a PTC, loan guarantees, Price-Anderson
When you have lots of retirees, you have lots of people who spend lots of time birdwatching. A webcam of a bald eagle nest somewhere regularly out-rates normal TV channels!
It is not the view - BC is so mountainous that there are lots of places you can put them where no one will ever see them, though this might be some way from transmission lines too...
States and Provinces, unlike Federal governments,can't print money to pay their bills. But creating energy is the next best thing. Across US and Canada, those places that are net energy exporters ($value) are the ones that are, and will continue, to do best.
That's why I like localised generation as much as possible - the money stays local.
Regarding birds: somebody needs to talk to these people. Authorities like the Audobon society agree that the risks to birds from wind turbines are much smaller than the benefits.
Yes, localized generation is good, and clean energy exports are good, too.
Nick, you are welcome to come and talk to these people. Come to the town of Squamish, just north of Vancouver, which has the highest population of bald eagles in the world (americans go there to see them, because they have destroyed most of their habitat in America). Try to tell them that the birds benefit more from turbines than they lose. In fact, just try to convince them the birds aren't at risk at all. When people move to a town, or province, specifically to see the birds, you should build your turbines somewhere else.
I have been tarred and feathered in the equivalent debate concerning micro hydro. Whether their opinions are justified or not, they are still their opinions and they are unlikely to change, no matter what data/track record/benefits are presented.
But they still want electricity, of course, just NIMBY.
And, BC having sooo much storage and hydro, is one of the few places that can handle large amounts of wind with minimal infrastructure expansions or stability issues. But the wind resources are mainly coastal, which is prime real estate, and prime eagle country!
The issue with wind turbines and birds all depends on proper siting. You obviously don't build them beside bird refuges. If they were really bird killers then Grouse Mountain wouldn't have built one to attract 100's of tourists to come take tours every day.... I personally like the sight of wind turbines. I think they should be everywhere that doesn't adversely affect birds or wilderness values.
And I am not a supporter of microhydro. We are giving up tremendous wilderness values with these things. A few are fine in my opinion in developed areas but these guys are going into very remote areas. They require permanent roads which is a permanent disturbance, unlike forestry which results in the roads and forest reverting back to forest afterwards (unless of course Gordo then promptly sells it off for real estate revenues....)
The supposed justification for hydro is to move to renewable sources of energy but I question the sincerity of this motive. How much is our energy DEMAND increasing from the unsustainable population increases which the Liberals are promoting so that people who already own real estate can make even more money via real estate development? Does the increased production capacity outweigh the increased demand? What fundamental economic base do we have to support such a population increase? We don't have one. Therefore, our economy is very vulnerable to larger economic swings, and the way the government deals with revenue problems is just sell off more public land for real estate development.
Do you know how the Naikun project is going?
Oh, and by the way, Gordo is giving natural gas some tax breaks....
http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2009EMPR0008-000195.htm
http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/EEC/Strategy/BCECE/Documents/FACT%20SHEET%20St...
The issue with birds really has nothing to do with siting, turbines hurt a minimal number of them, compared to man's other constructs. But the bird watchers just won;t listen, no matter what. I also like the sight f them The ones at Pincher Creek, AB are mesmerising to watch.
The Grouse mountain turbine is a good idea, I have been in quiet discussions with a couple of other ski areas for several years about doing the same.
There is some standoff between them and BC Hydro, the details of which I know not.
Anyone who thinks they are an eyesore has never seen a coal fired power stn, or the coal mines that feed it.
As for hydro, I did say MICRO hydro, which is less than 500kW, and has negligible impact on anything
But even the run of the river project are low impact, if done properly. Roads in and of themselves are not a big deal, it;s when they start to get used by lots of people is the problem!
I have had to scare away the deer and bears on my way to the Spillimacheen station in the columbia valley, if there are no people, the wildlife could care less. If the roads are built properly, there is no erosion, and minimal forest impact.
Make no mistake, these are renewable energy, and a great investment for the province. They produce for a century or more, with minimal material consumption. They are controllable, and are the only electrical system with real storage capability, making them an ideal match for windpower.
BC is still a net electricity importer (by about 15%),so this is a case of first trying to provide for the population we have.
Regardless of what other economic swings occur, having a reliable, renewable source of electricity is of great value. if we can make an export industry out of it even better. I;d rather pay for schools and hospitals by selling electricity than raising taxes. BC has one hell of a lot of retirees who pay very little in taxes, but consume as much or more services as everyone else - we have to fill that tax gap somehow, which is the main reason for the HST, but the resource revenues help too. It;s a shame the government is spineless when it comes to public sector cuts, they have had to cut staff and services because they pay them too much, and no one is willing to go there about pay/benefit reductions, but eventually they will have to.
I have no idea about the Naikun project, or even where it is.
As for the NG up in the northeast, well, the BC government wants to be in the energy game - BC is also a net importer of NG too, nothing wrong with trying to be self sufficient. When we have enough electricity to use that instead of NG (after doing massive DSM) then we can ditch the NG altogether, though I doubt that will ever happen by choice.
BC has one hell of a lot of retirees who pay very little in taxes, but consume as much or more services as everyone else
Canada doesn't have income tax on pensions? hmm...maybe I'll add BC to my list of potential places to retire to...
I'm not thoroughly familiar with the tax rules, but there certain tax benefits.
You could do much worse than retire here, though you have to compete with everyone else. Given that BC has the mildest climate in Canada, you can see why its popular.
This also leads to excess NIMBYism.
Where I live,, on the Sunshine Coast (look it up on google maps), there is a salmon hatchery on the inlet. They hatch salmon for the fish farms, but that market is decreasing because the fish farms have ll set up their own hatcheries. The hatchery identified a good alternate business in raising sturgeon for caviar, which would allow them to up their workforce from 22 to 30. Locally owned company, medium paying jobs, sustainable business, just what we need. BUt down the road from this place, a bunch of retirees have opposed it tooth and nail, complaining about (potential) noise, smell, traffic etc, none of which is an issue. One of the couples have moved from my old town, Calgary to retire by the sea. To come to the coast and then complain about a fish related business is like moving to the high plains and complaining about someone ranching cattle!
Those who have made their living, and do not need to make it any more, have a VERY different world view from those wo still need to work. Even more annoying when they have made their living somewhere else and then come here to retire, and want everything else to stop. These same people, the coast Seniors society, have also opposed every single micro hydro and wind (and tidal) power project that has been proposed for this area (and anywhere else) I don;t know how they really expect the lights to stay on!
The "me first" approach and lack of people thinking about the bigger, and longer term picture, are the biggest obstacles to renewable energy, IMO.
Even if the life of a wind turbine is only 20yrs, that is as long as most other "engines" and other infrastructure ( tower, transmission, access, etc) last much longer, same for hydro. A country that can get itself to 100% renewables has given its children the best possible gift, but I don't see any country really going for that, not even the poster childs like Sweden and New Zealand.
These same people, the coast Seniors society, have also opposed every single micro hydro and wind (and tidal) power project that has been proposed for this area (and anywhere else)
This sounds very frustrating.
One thought: I wouldn't be too fast to judge a category of people by one organization that purports to represent them. Organizations can be dominated by an individual or minority, or develop a culture around an issue that has inertia. It may be very difficult for individuals to challenge such a thing, and there may be a diversity of opinions that the official organization's policy fails to capture.
AS for subsidies, yes, there are (unfortunately) all sorts of subsidies for coal, oil and (especially) nuclear. But two wrongs don;t make a right. The truth is, NONE of them should be subsidised. Subsidies hide the trues costs, and keep unit energy prices artificially low, which encourages over consumption.
Paul, I think we all agree on this.
So, if FF is also highly subsidised, we're agreed that wind subsidies are not an argument against wind, right?
Not all externalities of fossil fuels are carbon related.
[double post]
Even if wind mills double in manufacturing rate yearly, I think wind will fall to the same end as hydroelectric. A whole bunch of hydro dams were built in the '30s-'50s then pretty much fell off a cliff as we ran out of waterways. There are limited areas of wind and we'll use up most of the onshore pretty quick and long before we get to a useful capacity (for current energy usage). We should built them strategically to use for additional power (storing energy in some form for when the wind's not blowing), but saying that they can meet 35% of the US's power needs if we just put more of them out there is unlikely. Nuclear is the only thing that can replace oil and gas on a useful scale.
Fortunately, you are wrong.
First, we will not run out of good wind sites. Even without technological advances (wind is hardly a mature technology), the economic wind sites in the USA are several multiples of our electrical demand.
Nuke has a problem that it cannot be modulated. On 24/7 at 100% except when it breaks or is refueled. Even with reasonable pumped storage, it is hard to see USA at more than 60% nuke. And we can only build, at most, eight new nukes in the next decade. So it is a VERY long term solution (and I do support building 5 to 8 new nukes in the next decade).
Wind would be "pushing it" to supply 45% to 50% of our total electrical supply, even with HV DC and pumped storage. And without regional shifting via HV DC, 35% would be right at the maximum wind contribution. Perhaps 30%.
Best Hopes for a Rush to Wind and an Economic, Safe buildout of new nukes,
Alan
I have a feeling that people have not even scratched the surface over the possibilities of wind power.
I did a complete analysis of wind power variations in Ontario here (several years worth of data)
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2010/05/wind-energy-dispersion-analysis...
I also just finished one of Germany that I will post soon. This is also several years of data in 15 minute increments.
All wind variations are governed by maximum entropy principles, so to say something only occurs in "limited areas" as GregTX posits runs counter to this principle. Entropy is disorder, and we have variable wind places all over the earth. Even the best sites have huge entropic variability. We just have to learn how to extract efficiently given these variations.
WHT,
Your excellent plotting of the wind energy data also highlights the fundamental problem, the intermittency of wind.
50% of the time you are getting only half of nameplate generation, or less, and 20% of the time, you are getting 3% of nameplate. And the data show the low periods often occur during the daytime peak consumption period.
So to be a large scale player, wind either needs lots of storage, or lots of interconnection with other areas. Neither currently exists, and both are very expensive. The Texas example, $4.93bn for transmission for 18,493MW of wind, works out to $267/kW of nameplate capacity. But use the average capacity factor of 30% and it actually becomes $890/kW. Wind generation itself is about $1500/kW nameplate, which means about $5000/kW after capacity factor, so the transmission is a 20% increase.
And given that this is within Texas, it won't change the probability distribution much, so for 50% of the time, the grid will only be getting 10%, or 1,849GW, and the effective capital costs have increased by an order of magnitude compared to nameplate. Adding in storage changes the probability distribution of power delivered, but has it's own cost.
Whichever way we go, adding wind to be a significant (>20%) and reliable (i.e. able to permanently decommission coal plants) part of the grid, is going to be more expensive, and likely less subsidised, than it has been to date. This suggests a slowdown is imminent.
First, there is significant variability within Texas (just ask any Texan how big Texas is). Even within the Panhandle, a front will move through and increase wind production in waves.
The wind provinces of Texas can be divided into Panhandle, West Texas, North Texas and coastal Texas, each with significant offsets in production from the others. North and coastal Texas are near major load centers, minimal transmsission is needed.
Since coastal Texas is on a completely different cycle (twice daily sea breezes) than the others, the PUC and ERCOT have been looking for ways to increase the incentives for production there.
You are setting an unneeded goal by saying "permanent decommissioning of coal plants". Taking a coal plant today that currently operates 24/7 for 340 days/year and mothballing it for 9.5 months/year is a significant accomplishment. Solar PV (Summer peak) may later combine with wind (winter peak) for fewer coal plants, but that is still a decade or more away. Wind is today.
Alan
PS: Summer peak is caused by air conditioning#. And a/c is the easiest conservation target.
Increase efficiency of the units by almost 2 is quite doable with off the shelf products.
And further insulation, weather stripping, better windows and doors can cut that by half again (I will do better than 60% reduction in heat gain in my home).
Add better shading (trees do take time, but they do work !), awnings work immediately, and more efficient appliances (less heat from refrigerator motor is a mixed blessing in winter, but a clear win-win in summer !) Plus white roofs when a new one is needed.
All of which helps mitigate wind's weakness in summer.
# Studies show that other domestic loads go down in summer. Less lighting, less cooking, even less water heating (more showers but cold water is warmer, more than offsetting. Standby losses for attic and outside water heaters are less in summer heat).
Alan,
Well, Texas being "big" is a relative term - it is "small" by Canadian and Australian standards! There will be some variability within Texas for sure, but a summertime high pressure system will result in mild daytime weather everywhere.
The analysis that WHT did on Ontario's wind energy comes from an area 50% larger than texas (415,000 v 268,000 sq.mi) and shows significant periods of minimal production. Texas will be different in some aspects, but there will still be plenty of low production time to be met by other sources.
I also disagree with "minimal transmission is needed" because if this were the case, why are they spending $5bn on transmission, specifically for wind?
As for the coal plants, I think permanent decommissioning should be the goal. Like nuclear, they do not modulate that well, so if they are going to be operated, it won't be for just three months of the year, it will be all year, though maybe with half the boilers/turbines shut down. In either case, it is uneconomic for the owner, so they will likely operate at closer to full capacity, and take whatever they can get for the electricity, or just shut down.
As operation of coal plants moves away from continuous to load following, they get less efficient, and so the coal per kWh (and CO2) actually increases.
More likely, they will retire the older coal units and install NG turbines.
I do agree wholeheartedly with you about conservation. If that $5bn was spent on the conservation measures of the sort that you outline, it would save more energy per year than the same $ spent on wind turbines (+transmission) would produce, and would free up transmission capacity for new projects.
Conservation would be a better investment than transmission, but the returns don't go (directly ) to the party that pays for it - this is the main reason why conservation does not get done on a grand scale.
Best hopes for less wasted electricity!
Paul
"Conservation would be a better investment than transmission, but the returns don't go (directly ) to the party that pays for it - this is the main reason why conservation does not get done on a grand scale."
Good point. Any ideas on how to make that incentive structure work better?
Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee?
Yes, you give them the conservation means for free.
I work in water conservation, and we have found that this is the only way that things get changed in a timely fashion. Just paying a rebate/subsidy for a new A/C or whatever simply means those who are already changing will claim it. But off to replace the old ones (and you have to rigidly define "old") for free, and people will jump on it.
Where does the money come from? Same place as wherever Texas is getting the $4.93 bn for transmission. Conservation is effectively an investment in "reclaiming" infrastructure, and so it should be funded in the same way. When it is evaluated in the same way, $/kW, it is always cheaper than expansions (for water or electricity).
If you have seen any of the posts from Here in Halifax, who runs Nova Scotia's program you will see just how good the paybacks are.
it not only saves energy, it saves new capital for generation plants, and relieves the load on transmission lines. Any new generation, now matter how green, adds load to transmission, and means customers are spending more on power, not less.
In Australia in the early '90's the country was facing a massive water crisis, and the Fed gov's approach was, (in many more words, of course), to simply say they would not fund any more expansions of water supply and sewage treatment - the cities would have to tax their own people the full cost. BUT the Feds said they would assist with any and all conservation initiatives. The cities "followed the money" and shelved expansion plans and embraced conservation. The water usage for the major cities flatlined for the next 15 years, and has only recently started to increase as conservation targets are getting thinner (but are still there).
It's very simple - don't subsidise any expansions, and let the parties that want them, pay for them. Subsidise conservation, and pay for the people that are prepared to conserve, everyone benefits, but the incentive is clearly there to jump in get your conservation done before the money runs out.
It has to be carefully managed , of course, and many government et programs are not. But it would have bee an ideal "stimulus" project, as it can be implemented on a wide scale, in short time. It uses lots of ordinary tradesmen etc, and does not require years of planning and engineering and expensive construction.
BUt the utilities cannot control the process in the same way as they control construction of new lines/generators, so they always prefer expansion, and only (typically) only do enough conservation to be able to say they are doing it.
And whatever you do, don't cheap out on the conserving replacement, else people will make a Very Bad Association ("conservation" = "sucks"). City of Tampa did a great job on this decades ago, offering their residents free water-saving (2.5gpm) shower heads. My in-laws didn't want both of theirs, gave us one, we carried it across the country and back again, and I think we are still using it. Well more than half the shower heads we've bought since then have been crappier, in terms of the quality of the shower. so yay Tampa.
Other conserving appliances are more sensitive to installation quality, and that has to be noted, lest the plumber (say) not level the low-flow toilet.
d2c,
it's funny people's attitudes to showerheads. WE now use 1.5 gpm on all our projects (have since 2004), most people can't tell the difference from 2,5, but saves a lot of (hot) water.
As for the toilet, yes, quality matters - if you are not using one of these, then you are sitting on an inferior throne;
http://www.caromausa.com/
So to be a large scale player, wind either needs lots of storage, or lots of interconnection with other areas.
Ontario wind capacity is small, and the sites are generally within 100 miles of each other (there are a few small ones farther away). Variability in Ontario doesn't tell us much about the need for long distance transmission.
Not the correct interpretation IMO. We will have to get used to a different way of thinking about wind. This is like a variation of the Carnot cycle. WITH WIND POWER, WE ACHIEVE VERY HIGH USAGE EFFICIENCY GIVEN THE ENTROPIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WIND. I have to scream this otherwise no one will understand that this is a law of nature. We need to talk about efficiencies within the physical laws just as with the Carnot cycle. Intermittency is an observable result of entropic dispersion and we have to get used to it. It is not a fundamental problem, it is the way it is. It's like saying the fundamental problem with farming is the intermittency of the rain. We adapt. It's not a problem, its an opportunity.
WHT, well at least we can start out with a good set of facts on which to draw our interpretations.
Clearly, there are significant periods of time where the production is a negligible portion (<10%) of name plate capacity. And for 90% of the time, it is less than half of name plate capacity. So the effective capacity is quite a bit less. The term "capacity factor" which is the average production, is often used, and is a meaningful description of the annual production (it's definition being annual production/nameplate capacity).
But we still have a problem in that electricity can;t be stored (on a large scale), and with the electric grid, instantaneous demand MUST equal instantaneous supply (within a certain tolerance range of a few %). To get these to meet you either add or shed loads, or add or shed generation. if you don;t, in the case of too much load and not enough generation, you get voltage drops, current overload, and, very quickly, breakers tripping and brownouts/blackouts, which are unacceptable to customers.
So,when we have an unpredictable source like wind, we want to have discretionary loads that can be turned on or off appropriately. Here is the opportunity - with full implementation of time of use pricing, customers can take great advantage of this, by doing extra "work" when supply is high and prices are low.
But the system operator still has to satisfy whatever load is left, and must do so every minute of the day. If the wind source is dropping faster than loads are being shed (and the operator does not control the loads, customers do) then they have to bring on other generation, or else drop load by forced blackout, which is obviously the last resort.
So, the more wind energy as a % of the total, the greater the variability, and the greater the need for both discretionary loads, and for "peaking" generation, which is gas turbine, hydro or storage (of some form).
The farmer has an advantage, which is large "storage" of water in the ground. That is why he may leave the land fallow for a year in dry areas, to increase soil moisture for the next year's crop. he moderates demand, and utilises storage. Of course, a long enough drought and he is out of luck. Unless he can irrigate, which is the equivalent of the gas turbine power plant - as much as you want, whenever you want. And the result is higher productivity, and protection against the variability of the weather. With the grid, given that a lack of supply means blackout, this cannot be allowed to happen (look at Pakistan) and so there has to be appropriate mitigation strategies (back up generation, storage, load shedding, imports from elsewhere, etc). All of these measures have a cost attached to them, and once wind becomes a major portion of grid generation, they have to be implemented.
But transferring winds unpredictability to go grid unpredictability is not an option. Electricity is the one commodity that cannot tolerate shortage of supply without immediate, and sometimes far reaching consequences.
"Electricity is the one commodity that cannot tolerate shortage of supply without immediate, and sometimes far reaching consequences."
I don't quite know what you intend by this, but I assume you know that in much of the world electricity is intermittent.
And a shortage of supply of oil would also have "far reaching consequences" I and many others here would aver.
Perhaps you mean that hospitals and some other areas have a critical need for stable electricity. This is obviously the case, and that is way every hospital worth its salt has backup capacity now already.
So I am left wondering what you might mean by this cryptic comment.
I think the "far reaching consequences" will translate to "may you live in interesting times".
dohboi, I'm finally coming to accept that there are basically two kinds of people, those that can, and those that can not, think outside the BAU.
Double post deleted.
Seems traffic here is at an all time high and the site performance is starting to show some strain... perhaps it needs a new BOP.
What I meant by immediate consequences is that if supply cannot meet demand, you get current overload, breakers tripping, and blackouts. For far reaching, I meant in geographical terms. The 2003 blackout in the North east started with one plant suddenly going offline during a peak period, causing voltage drop/current increase, power lines overheated, and droped onto trees, shorting out. This put more load on the remaining lines, already at capacity, and resulted, in minutes, in a series of cascading failures resulting in 55 million people, over a 1000 mile long area, in the dark.
That is a problem with grid connectivity, in the wrong scenario, there are many dominoes that can topple. A small island grid can only take out itself.
I guess I should have said;
"Matching supply to demand with electricity is critical, and the consequences of failure are immediate, and can, under certain conditions, extend to the entire grid. "
Does this now make sense?
Clearly, there are significant periods of time where the production is a negligible portion (<10%) of name plate capacity.
Again, that's far from negligible. 10% of name plate means roughly 1/3 of average output - that's very significant. We seem to be stuck with using name plate figures for some things, but for this kind of analysis average output is the proper benchmark.
And for 90% of the time, it is less than half of name plate capacity.
Again, when we use name plate as our benchmark, we get goofy conclusions. If average output is 30%, we really wouldn't expect that output would be above 50% for the majority of the time.
If the wind source is dropping faster than loads are being shed (and the operator does not control the loads, customers do)
This is incorrect in some cases, and misleading in others. In some cases the utility does have direct control. In others, customer response would be largely automated, and could be designed to respond in predictiable ways.
So, the more wind energy as a % of the total, the greater the variability, and the greater the need for both discretionary loads, and for "peaking" generation, which is gas turbine, hydro or storage (of some form).
Peaking generation may not be needed. Currently Demand Response is greatly under-utilized. OTOH, 20 years from now there will be many more EVs, and DR programs can be greatly expanded. Eventually, as a practical matter all ICE vehicles will be electric. Imagine 220M EVs, able to either accept or provide a terawatt for 12 hours.
Nick, I do believe you started this nameplate business with your "42% of new generation capacity" statement up top.., For the record, I am very happy to use average output, where appropriate.
Unfortunately the one place where it is not appropriate is instantaneous output, and instantaneous grid demand, and these factors must be constantly balanced, and we must have plan to balance them when wind output is negligible.
There are some cases where load customers cede control to the utility, usually being paid to stop using power, and I was once such a customer, but these are, currently, exceptions. there will be more, with more TOU pricing, but the operator cannot control them all. We will end up with some statistical response, and there will still be times when the response is not enough.
We can get rid of peaking generation, but then what happens when we have a demand/supply mismatch, and resulting blackout? Is it the operators fault, when he no longer has enough reserve on hand, or the customers fault for not load shedding enough?
It all comes down to how much reliability customers want, and are prepared to pay for.
We will end up with some statistical response, and there will still be times when the response is not enough.
I think you're understimating the power of statistical forecasting. Utilities can know with sufficient certainly how customers will respond.
OTOH, I agree that at some point backup will be needed. If we get to 30% wind market share and want to push it higher, there might be some costs to maintain rarely used backup generators. It would be interesting to quantify that. If it were ICE backups in EREVs, the cost would be very, very low. If it were coal plants that were maintained only for this purpose 5% of the time, that would be somewhat more expensive. We might choose to use gasified biomass, stored for use in very cheap simple cycle peaker generators, as we do now with natural gas.
If the backup is used rarely, we can use very cheap generators, and it won't add much system cost.
Assuming demand response is insufficient--Forget EREV's as a power source for a long time--just add paralleling gear and radios to existing standby gensets (it's cheaper). They need to be exercised anyway. Voila--Another 10-15% dispatchable peakers.
That's an awfully good point. Hospitals, jails, and many other have to have large backup generators, and they need to be tested and exercised at least every 6 months.
Regarding V2G from EREVs - I agree that's not likely to happen in a big way very soon. OTOH, I don't think we're going to build wind nearly as fast as we should, either. The point is, both are possible, ought to be pursued hard, and are synergistic.
This is already being done (at least, in BC), though there is still more scope to do so.
Where extra standby is needed, to make up for wind;s variability, will the wind operators pay for it?
Where extra standby is needed, to make up for wind;s variability, will the wind operators pay for it?
The answer is yes, in the US. If wind power provides peak capacity credit, it gets paid for it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If other sources provide relatively more peak capacity credit, they get paid for it. So, there's no subsidy for wind.
More importantly, we're agreed that wind should be supported by public policy which recognizes it's value, and that if it does so it will flourish.
Hi Alan,
"First, we will not run out of good wind sites."
It's late and I'm getting loopy and just can't resist ;-)
Peak wind? Just saying....
Well, the renewables must peak eventualy. But that is a different kind of peak, that isn't followed by a decline.
In my view, renewables are affected by the same things as everything else.
If credit becomes less available (ultimately because of less oil availability, so the economy can't grow, so there are many defaults, and banks cut back on lending), wind is affected as much as anything else.
If governments are in terrible condition, because tax revenues are down and because they have overextended themselves on "stimulus" programs, they will have to cut back in what they do for wind energy.
If roads deteriorate because of oil related problems, and because local governments are too poor to buy asphalt, this will affect all kinds of transportation, including that of wind parts.
The calculation of the supposed low-cost of wind is based on the assumption that infrastructure will be maintained by someone else for the next 40 years (including electric transmission lines). I think that this is a very iffy assumption.
I expect if we have major problems with oil, they will cause major problems with finance. Electricity (including wind) will have major problems within five years (ten at most) of oil and finance. So essentially, everything peaks at once, including supposed "renewables".
Renewables which can be manufactured and maintained with local materials will last--but large-scale wind turbines are not in this category.
because of less oil availability, so the economy can't grow
This is enormously unrealistic.
For instance: the US uses less oil now than it did in 1979, but it's GDP is 150% higher, and it's domestic manufacturing is 50% higher.
Despite almost flat oil production/consumption for the last 5 years, the world economy kept growing - it paused last year, and now it's growing again.
Our current credit problems are made somewhat worse by imbalances in oil export/imports, but they would exist in any case.
In a way.
It's true the energy produced by each wind site continues, (and will probably increase as upgrades are made).
The decline comes in the form of a rate of installation. At some point in time, we will reach a maximum rate of installed sites. Since the number of available sites is finite it follows that there must be an eventual decline after that maximum rate is reached if we take into account practical considerations. Theoretically the rate could increase until the last site was completed.
When there are hundreds of thousands of available sites the rate of installation can be very high. But when there are thousands of sites left it follows the rate of installation will have slowed. External factors will greatly affect the rate of installation over time, and no company wants to be left in a position of going full bore to dead stop.
This is something that might be modeled mathematically given certain assumptions.
The point I was really trying to make was I had not though about wind being a finite resource before, based on site limitations. It may take 300 or 3,000 years before we use them up, but we could do so. Humans have a funny way of doing that stuff ;-)
Insane.
For the 1000th time, nuclear can't replace oil or gas.
All nuclear can do is make electricity. Right now 40.1% of our energy goes to make electric power about 20% from gas and a tiny bit from oil.
There's no reason we can't get over 20% of our power from wind and solar which is what we get from now nuclear.
Nuclear power technology is dependent on uranium which the US lacks.
What logic is there in 'replacing' energy imports from oil with energy imports of uranium assuming that any of this analogy makes any sense?
Crazy.
You need to look at USGS maps for wind capacity. One wind turbine manufacturer has many links to onshore wind potential. Go to www.bergey.com and you will find numerous sources for evaluating wind potential around the US including alaska and Hawaii.
Wind potential for North and South Dakota is such that with storage capabilty these two states could supply entire US with all electric power currently needed.
Your comparison of hydro power's limitations (in US) with wind power's limitations is without merit.
with storage capability
This is not a trivial caveat. Given that 80% of the time, wind produces less than 3% of capacity, if the Dakotas were to serve the entire US, then storage equal to 97% of the US demand (i.e. all of it) will be required. But what will this storage be? To date, the only commercially viable, large scale storage has been pumped hydro, which is geographically limited. Underground compressed air energy storage has promise, but it too is geographically limited. By building ALL the windpower in the Dakotas, if they get a calm day, you've got nothing. Distributing it all over the country at least spreads the risk of this
And to get the power from the Dakotas to the rest of the country would require and immense investment in transmission lines, again, spreading the windpower out will decrease (but certainly not eliminate) the transmission requirements
From an engineering viewpoint, this is all possible, but at enormous cost.
Hawaii is a different story, consistent trade winds, short transmission distance and lots of mountains for pumped storage, and ideal candidate, unlike the mainland.
Your assumption that "80% of the time wind produces less than 3% of capacity" does not describe the Dakotas.
You obviously have not looked at the USGS maps for wind. North and South Dakota are rated in catagories 5 and 6 out of a best possible rating of 7. This is for nearly 90% of the area of the two states and translates to average wind speed over 24 hour period of 17mph to 20 mph at 50 meters height. I know this is accurate as I have lived in North Dakota for short periods of time and been all over both states since 1991.
Yes storage is a problem for using wind as primary power in most areas of the US, but my post was simply to explain the potential of wind power generation in the Dakotas. As a possible solution to storage, the wind power could be used to manufacture ammonia by Haber Bosch process, then burn it in gas turbine combined cycle power plant to make electricity (over 50% conversion efficiency), which is still better than coal power plant at 39% max.
Mbnewtrain,
Your assumption that "80% of the time wind produces less than 3% of capacity" does not describe the Dakotas.
You obviously have not looked at the USGS maps for wind.
You are correct on both counts. Firstly, I apologise for an "upside down" error. - 80% is the exceedance probability, so it is 20% of the time that it is less than 3%.
The graph is here, at Web Hubble Telescope's website (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_csV48ElUsZQ/S-NqzuhaNFI/AAAAAAAAASU/Gn_1J46R7I...)
I have not looked at the USGS map for the Dakotas (not have I been there, except for the Turtle Mountain park on the Manitoba border), though I do know they get good wind.
But it is still a Rayleigh distribution, and it will suffer the same problem, most of the energy produced from the higher winds, and there will still be a significant portion of the time, probably 30%, where it is producing less than 10% of capacity.
It was not really clear that you were just talking about the potential - there is a difference between saying "can produce power equal to that of the US" and "can power the US". The first is undoubtedly true, the second is possible, but not likely.
I get a bit nitpicky on wording of these things because they can be taken to mean things they are not, or not mean things that they are. Politicians, of course, are masters of this.
The storage issue, in particular, is widely promoted as solving wind's intermittency, but the no large scale storage systems have been developed. I am a proponent of finding ways to use the energy when it is there, in other words, store the work done by wind. Your Haber process is a potential example of this, as long as the process can handle fluctuations in throughput (I have no idea if this is the case or not).
But rather than burn it in a turbine, it would be better to use the ammonia to make fertiliser, something for which the Dakotas are close to a large market, and the use the NG that was earmarked for ammonia in the CCGT, where you will get 60% output.
There are innovative ways out there to use wind energy. Where I am coming from is that the intermittency must be acknowledged, as must the associated costs of transmission and/or storage. Compared to such costs, innovative things like the Haber process, over cooling of cold storage, over heating of buildings/water, switching from NG heat to electric heat in high wind(cheap electricity) times, charging EV's, if they exist, and all sorts of other "work storage" ideas come into play.
The simplistic "build transmission and storage" solution would price wind out of the market, if wind had to bear those costs, and no other generation form (except solar) needs them, so they won't pay for them.
So clarity is a beaitiful thing, and I apologise for misleading you off the start with my statistical error!
. Where I am coming from is that the intermittency must be acknowledged, as must the associated costs of transmission and/or storage. Compared to such costs, innovative things like the Haber process, over cooling of cold storage, over heating of buildings/water, switching from NG heat to electric heat in high wind(cheap electricity) times, charging EV's, if they exist, and all sorts of other "work storage" ideas come into play.
I agree.
The next step is to agree that the costs of these innovations are more than affordable, and that a large buildout of wind is the sensible public policy.
I think we also agree that a stiff carbon tax is the simple, effective public policy tool to get this going. I would quibble that other things, like subsidies for wind, may be the sensible thing while we work to implement carbon taxes.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I think the next step is true time of use pricing everywhere. This enables lots of DSM opportunities, and opportunistic buying, or even storage of electricity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say a large build out of wind is the sensible policy. An appropriate pricing system, with carbon tax, is the sensible policy, and under that wind will likely flourish, as will other renewables, but let them do so on their own merits.
I do not think the government should back wind specifically, as this presumes it to be the best solution, and it is not necessarily so.
It should remove all the barriers to entry, other hidden subsidies etc.
I am also a big fan of distributed (point of use) generation, as this reduces load on transmission networks, and the customer can see when they are producing their own power and adjust their operations accordingly. The off grid house is a perfect example of this. There is lots of potential here, but it seems to have been missed in the rush for large wind farms.
Most solar PV is point of use, but it's too bad it is sooo expensive.
under that wind will likely flourish, as will other renewables, but let them do so on their own merits.
Well, it's very nice that we've come to see that we're in agreement: public policy should encourage renewables like wind, and if we do so they will likely flourish.
-----------------------------------------
Alright, on to smaller details:
The only reasonably priced alternative to wind is nuclear, and that has pretty large subsidies.
Eliminate Price-Anderson (and other forms of limits to liability in other countries), and nuclear would stop in it's tracks. No more would be built. Now, I'm not a stickler for getting rid of subsidies, but it's useful to keep in mind that doing so would kill nuclear. I think we will use nuclear but it has a big problem: it's hard to grow it quickly. That's wind's advantage.
I like solar a lot, and I think it will continue to grow quickly, but wind is about 4x cheaper, so we have to expect to rely on wind much more than solar.
Actually, hydro(small or large) is more cost effective than wind, and more predictable. controllable.
It is geographically limited of course, but so is wind
Hydro is great. Unfortunately, it's total potential capacity seems to be limited to a level well below total potential demand, especially due to concerns about salmon runs, etc.
Wind is certainly differentially geographically distributed, but it's total potential capacity is much, much larger than potential demand.
But we didn't run out of hydro sites, we just stopped building hydro due to environmental arguments (dams are evil) and 'free' market arguments (government is evil).
There's lot's of potential hydro not being used in the U.S.
I'd like to echo the statement about solar hot water, and indeed solar hot water heating. Its cheap, quick, relatively easy, and has the scope to massively change that coal (and thus carbon) wedge.
Start with incentives, then move to requirements - its probably the easiest way for the US to hit real CO2 reduction targets (eg a real 20% by 2020).
Of course it does little for transportation, which is a systemic level issue.
I am wondering how electricity produced by residential solar installations can get fed into these numbers? Although I know how much electricity our PV panels produce, there's no way for my utility company to know--they only know the net amount we sell to them (total produced less our usage.) The utility can certainly see reduced demand from us, but they can't know if that is because we've put in LEDs or are using electricity from our PV panels.
The same is true for our solar hot water heater (as Alan mentions above.) The utility can't know how much energy it generates, they can only see we are using less natural gas. Perhaps this is what increased use of renewables installed at the household level will look like in those aggregate charts--reduced demand?
I know one could argue that this number is currently so small as to be nearly inconsequential, but in my neighborhood, 1 in 10 houses has solar pv or solar hot water installed, and the numbers seem to be growing.
Two other questions--I have read that transmission losses for conventional electricity run around 10 or 15%. I assume that with residential solar PV if we use electricity as it is being generated on our roof we reduce demand not only by this amount, but also by the 10-15% more that would have been lost in transmission to get that electricity to us? And, related to that, if the extra electricity we generate is put into the grid and used by our neighbors, would that also have substantially less transmission losses than electricity generated 50 miles away?
The utility probably makes an estimate based on the installed capacity (which they do know) and the "mean annual solar insolation" for your area, which is the effective hours of full sunshine per day.
As a rough guide, in temperate areas (e.g. Germany) they get a solar insolation of 2.6, which means a panel will produce about 11% of it's rated capacity. Sunny areas like California get much more, up to 4 or even 6 hours/day average.
It is quite possible the utility has bunch of panels on the roof of their office to measure the annual production and then multiplies that by all the systems registered with them - this would probably be accurate to +-10%.
Hot water is a slightly different beast, but yes, they will see your reduced usage, but there is no way to monetise any "excess" hot water production, though your kids can enjoy longer showers, for free(other than the water cost)
As for transmission losses, 10% in the industry standard, and the average distance is hundreds of miles. If you generate at the point of use, you indeed save this 10%, as will your neighbours if they use your excess, which is indeed the case. If you all produce more than you need, as your house sometimes does, then you will reverse the local electricity flow. At the point that the net flow (current) is zero (i.e. generation=demand), there is no incoming, and the transmission loss is zero.
This is why "distributed generation", near the point of use, is a good thing, as you don't need the transmission.
A proposal put forward upthread, to build massive windfarms in the Dakotas to supply the whole country, is exactly the opposite. The Dakotas are about as far away from the major load centers (west, east and southern coasts) as you can get, so you need the most transmission lines, and you will lose the most along the way, and still need backup for when the wind doesn't blow.
Paul,
Thanks for your detailed reply. So in some ways, it sounds as if in the case of solar PV installed at point-of-use, one should consider its basic capacity (in terms of whatever kilowatts it can produce) + 10% to give credit for reduced transmission loss?
I live in San Francisco where the solar insolation varies block to block (as does the climate) but I've no doubt our utility company makes estimates when they are not too busy running mercenary initiatives to prevent local communities from establishing local utility districts. Do you think those estimates for small-scale residential PV system are folded up into the national numbers?
Taomom, I would agree with the +10% credit for displacing imported kWh, but it is not quite true for capacity (kW), a solar is often at zero capacity do needs backup. You always the energy, but you can't really decommission other generation facilities as they are still needed for nighttime and cloudy days.
San Francisco is a place where you need a generation system based on cold, not sunshine!
You can use the NREL calculator here (http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/), which says that most of Ca is 5-6 hours average, but I think SF would be at least 20% less than that.
I can;t imagine why a big utility like PG&E would try to prevent small competition from springing up - that is so not the American way of doing business!
AS for the statistics, the small scale residential is almost certainly in there. If you are a registered net metering customer, they know how much you have, and solar panel sales are tracked also (through incentive schemes etc).
Solar is useful energy, the only problem is that it's just the most expensive way possible to create it, that's all. When you see people in LA getting govt subsidised panels put up so they can still run their A/C day and night you have to question whether it really is a good allocation of scarce gov dollars. In your case you have made many efficiency improvements and so it is good value for money, but that is certainly not always the case.
On hydro, it's worth noting that there are existing dams in the Western U.S. which have no hydro production currently, to which 20,000MW of cheap hydro could be added.
That is a staggeringly high number - why are these projects not being done? The dam is by far the most expensive part of an hydro system.
Licensing.
This has been another edition of: "Simple Answers to Simple Questions"
I believe Alan Drake said the following:
Hydro electricity is presently the largest renewable electricity source in N America, with 94 GWa (35 GW in US, 50 GW in Canada and 9 GW in Mexico) generated in N America out of the 556 GWa electricity production (18%). In the US, only 35 GWa hydro production (85 GW capacity) of the estimated 300 GWa hydro potential has been developed according to a DOE Idaho National Laboratory study (pdf).
In the US, one third of the undeveloped potential is located in state or federal lands and is presently prohibited from development, one third is in remote regions making development by 2030 more difficult, while of the remaining (100GWa) feasible, non developed potential, 30 GWa is small hydro (1-30MWa) close to towns or electricity lines and roads
reference
...an impressive additional 55 GWa of hydro potential in British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec could be developed by 2030.
Mexico presently has 9.5 GW capacity hydro developed and considerable undeveloped potential especially small hydro, some estimates as much as 300 GWa. Doubling Mexico’s present capacity to 18 GWc would seem possible, giving a N American total of 109 GWa new hydro.
Yep, there is lots of potential for hydro.
Nick, I am impressed that you picked up oin small hydro near towns or electricty lines - that is the area that i think has huge potential. It has always been ignored as small hydro was considered not cost effective, but this is no longer the case.
Of course, it;s an ideal partner for wind,as it resolves the storage issue. Even run of river projects have enough short term storage (days) to make a difference.
But the licensing aspect (in the US) is no trivial matter, as Benamery says. i would not want to have to deal all the insanity in California, and pray that it is easier everywhere else!
Gail
Thanks for the EIA summary. A couple of things:
These results flow from an econometric computer model they use called NEMS.
They plug economic growth in, plus assumptions for efficiency improvement, and future prices for coal, oil, gas and RE prices. Depletion is generally viewed not to be a constraint.
On wind, the DOE 20% vision entails getting 300 GW of wind, up from about 36 today,in the ground by 2030. The wind resource in the US is gargantuan, but much of it is effectively stranded 1,000 miles or more from large urban centers. Transmission isn't a huge part of the cost of getting to 300 GW--but it's probably a huge part of the poltical cost. Nimbyism is color blind, and stopology is one of our great talents now in the U.S.
Installed solar prices have fallen by half in the last decade, very very good news, but we still need one more equivalent decline. Solar today remains very very tiny; as of a few years ago, all US solar PV was less than Glen Canyon Dam.
On the mistating of FF contributions: Alan has a point that by counting coal's thermal contribution (about 10,000 to 11,000 btu/kwh)the EIA overstates its importance. (Note that they do the same for nuclear, however, I belief, in contrast to what Alan suggested higher.)
But coal still provides about 48 or 47 percent of US electricity and 10,000 hopper cars full of it leave the Rockies everyday. Per capita consumption of coal in the US is about 6000 pounds per person per year--that's a lot!, however you want to portray it.
Finally, the EIA has US energy consumption rising by about 15 percent over the next 20 years, during a period when the population will rise about 20 percent, according to forecasts.
In effective, by adding 60 million people, which is nearly 2 Californias, or 2 Canadas, or one UK's worth to the American population, America is still committed to a demographic rocket launch.
Without population growth, the US would have met its Kyoto climate reductions, interestingly enough.
In any case, although the EIA forecasts are often visions in search of reality, it's worth noting that per capita consumption of energy in the US is down 10 percent since 2000, and carbon emissions are off nearly the same amount in the last five years.
What will the future hold? Who the hell knows, but certainly not the EIA.
Hi rudall,
re: "Depletion is generally viewed not to be a constraint."
Can you expand upon this a bit? Viewed...by the people within EIA in particular?
How do they justify this?
re: "it's worth noting that per capita consumption of energy in the US is down 10 percent since 2000,"
How does this (per capita use) compare if we take into account population increase?
Also, how do demographic factors of the population increase enter into it? (Car owners v. bus riders).
I think they assume that with enough investment, depletion is not a problem.
The catch is that funds available for capital are not unlimited. (In many ways, it is an effect of low Energy Return on Investment.) When the world hits peak oil, it effectively means that much greater investment is/was needed, so that extraction of various solid forms of oil could be ramped up. While this is theoretically possible, if you assume the price of oil can rise to an unlimited level (and that buyers can afford much higher oil prices), it really isn't possible in the real world.
Dennis Meadows of "Limits to Growth" fame says that the limitation that will cause the ultimate decline / collapse is inadequate capital--essentially caused by the low net energy return of the newer products.
It is hard to see that we are up against investment constraints, but I think that is the major issue. Maybe that is an issue we should have been quantifying, to make it clearer to the financial community what the real issue is. They cannot believe peak oil is an issue--but I think peak oil is really just another way of saying we hit an inflection point, after which investment to maintain or increase oil production will need to be much higher.
Let's say we have a large of pile sand that needs to be moved from one end of town to the other for some reason.
It's a hot and humid summer day and I ask some people how much they would charge to bag the sand sand and take it by wheel barrow across town to its final destination.
When I tally the amount to do the job I find that I do not have sufficient funds to do it. Oh well!
Next day however there is a massive downpour and the levee up stream is breached.
Suddenly all the financial wizards in town are up to their knees in mud, bagging that sand like their lives depend on it and passing it hand over hand to form a barricade exactly where I wanted all that sand in the first place. And guess what they are doing it for a thank you and a cup of coffee!
Moral of the story is that there are times when the availability or not, of capital, is completely irrelevant to our needs and willingness to accomplish what needs to be done.
We need to cut through the crap and start bagging that sand because the flood waters are rising...Capital or no capital! Either you are part of the solution or you are part of the problem!
It seems that Gail never misses an opportunity to trot out essentially the same graph in one version or another in what strikes me as a relentless campaign to marginalize the future importance of 'renewables'.
I think AlanfromBigEasy is quite justified to vigorously point of the flaws in that graph and the apparent unwillingness to have those flaws even acknowledged. It doesn't matter if it's the EIA's graph or someone else's, if a person continually and knowingly cites erroneous and/or misleading data, then one has to wonder whether that person has an agenda which takes precedence over the objective facts. Besides, these days who can trust much of anything coming out of the EIA, or most federal agencies for that matter?
While on the subject of projections, I think it would be highly amusing to see a projection made by the Pennsylvania Railroad circa 1910 of what the mix of passenger transportation modes would be in the year 2010. I strongly suspect that the rail transport would continue to be far and away the predominant mode and that auto transportation would be but a small fraction of that. Air transportation? Too small to even fit on the graph. The power of myopia.
I have been on both sides of making all sorts of highly speculative technical/economic projections, and I have concluded that anything much further than 5 years out is little better than a pure guess.
The coal thing is a question of perspective, or perhaps semantics, it seems to me. It is complicated by the problem of trying to compare unlike things, as majorian -- or is it x? -- unfailingly reminds us.
The EIA are saying, we mine this much coal each year. That it is (nearly) all delivered to power stations and converted to electricity at horrible efficiencies, is not part of their story.
Alan says, the useful energy we get from the coal is much less. And so it is. But that is a different story, which I encourage Alan to re-post.
I'm interested in the resource extraction effort implied by the EIA projections, so the graph as it is is fine by me. (Thanks Gail!)
I find the EIA's projection unlikely. Growth in coal consumption is most likely to come as coal-seam gas. Gas power stations are cheap, and in-situ gasification of coal is cheapish (the Aussies are doing it and exporting the gas) and it could use unminable coal, expanding reserves. But I would lump coal-seam gas together with the other gas.
The big story here, though, is the sunny projection for "liquid" growth. Not going to happen. Renewables and efficiency gains like this are far more likely. Misquoting Bruce Sterling: the future is already here. It's just not widely distributed yet.
There is a lot of unminable coal. If this is really true, it might be possible that in Europe, where they are up against a fall off in North Sea gas production, they could convert some unminable coal to gas. I am sure from a CO2 perspective this wouldn't be good, but it might solve their natural gas shortage, for at least several years.
China is another place with huge power needs and unminable coal. If I remember correctly, China was trying to figure out how to burn it in place, but if they could turn it to gas, that might work equally well for their purposes.
Do you have any links related to this?
Gail, Dave Summers covered this in one of his Tech Talks, about two months ago, I think.
Hi Joule,
Interesting points, when I re-phrase them slightly.
re: "in what strikes me as a relentless campaign to marginalize the future importance of 'renewables'."
To shift from attributing motives to attempting to articulate a concern Gail might have: What is that concern?
(Gail?)
What I see as a significant question is has to do with what we might call a "top level" analysis:
In changing from an LTF-based structure to "something else", presumably electricity (delivery) based, there are important questions I (personally) haven't seen addressed in a systematic way:
1) What is the dependency/interdependency of the delivery system, eg. electrical grid, upon oil in relation to the end use (EVs, manufacturing,etc.)?
For example, what about the role of heavy equipment that requires diesel fuel - in order to maintain roads...in order to maintain the grid?
How can this dependency be described - for starters? Then, how do we deal with it in terms of planning for a scenario with much less available oil? No oil?
2) What is required for this change-over (LTF to electrical-based system), in terms of oil, financial cost, or any other terms?
3) And so forth. These are significant questions that fall under the subject of whether or not an industrial economy can be maintained, and if so, how.
For me, it helps to try to state the questions.
re: "I have concluded that anything much further than 5 years out is little better than a pure guess."
1) Well, we know "peak oil" means something, regardless of the many ways in which the exact details might play out. This is important information.
Here's where I'll mention the idea of the NAS taking a look at global oil supplies, including impacts (of decline) and policy options. www.oildepletion.wordpress.com.
The idea is to tackle the questions - and contributions - Gail and Alan put forward.
I agree. After reading this thread, I'm fascinated by the conflicting viewpoints, of glass half empty and half full in relation to renewables. I'd like to see both points of view offered up with graphs and supporting data.
I am also of the opinion that the EIA projections are erroneous, from the standpoint of oil supply in future decades. If the projections of a descent from a peak plateau occur in the next several years as suggested by many on TOD, then are their graphs relevant?
Anyway, I'd like to see an article posted here on TOD by Alan with his graphs, etc. as a counter point to Gail's. It would be very interesting to compare the two and then we can discuss the differences and draw our own conclusions.
Hi Joule,
I have never done any forecasting work of any kind but I have made a habit of reading all the contrarian literature I can find , and I believe you are absolutely correct when you say anything much further out than five years is no better than a guess.
Projections or predictions might hold fairly well simply because of technical considerations of skilled labor supply problems, construction time frames, and so forth, out to a decade or more, for instance nuclear power.
But the ability and WILLINGNESS of people to change their ways has been grossly underestimated by most observers.I personally know dozens of fairly prosperous middleaged or elderly people who drove full size cars and trucks nearly all their lives.
A few of them are still buying full size trucks but when I see them on the road they are usually driving a midsize or smaller car nowadays.The trucks don't get used on a daily basis for errands or commuting anymore,as was the case most of my life.It's not because they can't actually afford a bigger car, or gas for the truck in the large majority of the individual cases.
As individuals, they downsized when smaller cars and trucks became common enough that driving one was no longer perceived as a display of poverty or a miserly disposition.
I believe the growth of solar domestic hot water in particular will take off exponentially before too long-probably within your five years.
Joe Sixpack will head for the wagon as soon as a few installations have been made in his nieghborhood by people he looks upon as the trendsetters and all he has to do is call one of the contractors who will soon be as common as the window and siding contractors are today.
Of course a reasonable line of credit at a fair rate of interest is going to be critical.Hopefully something can be worked out in this respect so people won't be dependent on twenty percent plastic in this case at least.
I don't generally see the govt as the answer to small scale problems because govt programs are so clunky and cumbersome and expensive to administer;but if a law were passed allowing an installation to be made as an "add on" to existing mortgages without all the tape....
I believe it would be reasonable to require mortgage lenders to make five or ten percent of the value of a house available for conservation upgrades at a rate just a little higher than the mortgage itself, particularly if the mortgage is paid down to a significant extent.
The local building code would necessarily apply of course, and it would have to include performance and durability standards;but building codes and such standards are already in near universal use and the expansion would not amount to much,just another few pages added to the plumbing and roofing sections.
BAU wow.
A real DOG of a forecast, EIA.
Conventional oil to rise, unconventional oil to rise a bit(even some oil shale!), bio fuels up a bit.
Liquids to reach 112 mbpd in 2035(Mike Lynch is giggling), 13 mbpd(12% of total) unconventional (BUZZ..WRONG)
Lets see..27 Gb/yr x 25 years = 675 Gb.
Funnily they expect big things from non-existent 'green diesel'/algae oil versus ethanol because you can't transport ethanol by in oil pipelines.
A little more coal plus a chunk of CTL(stupid) to keep Massey Energy profitable.
No natural gas for light vehicles
US GHGs will continue to rise(Who cares!).
Good news(Fig. 39)--increases due to efficiency and idiotically to a vast reduction in energy intensity(by more de-industrialization, we aren't there already?).
They didn't even bother modeling a big renewable push.
What we need are some re-FIRE-ments over at the brain dead DOE,
starting with that Nobel Prize winning would-be petroleum engineer.
Worst.Projection.Ever.
Wind energy has been growing significantly since 2005, worldwide and in the US. If you look at previous EIA reports, every one of them was underestimating wind energy, and also underestimating oil prices- a complimentary component of overestimating oil production rates.
The recent NREL study gave the high quality onshore US wind energy capacity as about 10 times current consumption, and that does not even count offshore capacity (also huge) the moderate wind speed capacity (also huge). And Canada's wind resource is about as large as that of the U.S., especially in the Maritimes/ and Quebec.
For most of the U.S. Wind power becomes base load electricity, and pumped hydro in the U.S. And Canada becomes peak power. This is how really significant quantities of renewable electricity can be made in the next pair of decades.
Finally, with regards to biofuels, why does everyone think that current oil and gas prices will stay the same - odds are they will keep rising. They went up 14%/yr for the last decade - doubling every 5 years. While biofuels may not be economically viable at gasoline retailing at $3/gal, at $6/gal to $12/gal it's a different story. And that will also change the amount of fuel consumed. And those already obsolete EIA graphs.
Niobium41
The reason why we question whether oil prices can keep going up is because the world goes into recession, every time the prices get high. This is a link to Steven Chu's presentation that mentions this issue. He is one who worries a great deal about a high energy price.
I see oil prices being more or less equivalent (perhaps with an adjustment) to the reciprocal of Energy Return on Investment (EROI). If EROI is high, then oil prices are low. If EROI is low, than oil prices are high.
Assuming that oil prices can rise indefinitely essentially assumes that EROI, no matter how low, is acceptable for world economies. I think we are hitting the point where EROIs are borderline too low to society to function with its current level of infrastructure, which is the reason for all of our recession.
I also think that when renewables require subsidies, it should be a tip off that when their full costs are considered, their EROIs are probably too low as well.
I don't think high oil prices caused any recessions. Collapsing bubbles collapsing, and the implications of the misallocation of resources during the bubble, cause recessions. High oil prices were a symptom of the bubble. Those bubbles were / are a symptom of a very unhealthy financial system which is only going to get worse until the final bubble collapses within a few years and everything is reset. Then will will start off from scratch again when new currencies are put in place. Assuming these new currencies will not be fiat paper money, then these absurd bubbles we have been experiencing (and are currently in) won't happen to such an extent (the bubbles have essentially been a result of 10 X the word's money supply having nowhere to go and racing all over the world from one bubble to the next). Oil prices will rise more reasonably with worldwide demand, which will also steadily increase as economic recovery happens after maybe 10 years of depression. This means that after the mother of all bubbles bursts in the next few years, demand for oil from the western world will drop dramatically, but there will still be significant demand from the developing world, especially China, since it will now have all this productive capacity for producing stuff that the western world will no longer be able to afford, so it will simply consume it itself! The complete transition of power from the US to China will be complete, and it only took 3 decades to do it!
The reason why we question whether oil prices can keep going up is because the world goes into recession, every time the prices get high. This is a link to Steven Chu's presentation that mentions this issue. He is one who worries a great deal about a high energy price.
I see oil prices being more or less equivalent (perhaps with an adjustment) to the reciprocal of Energy Return on Investment (EROI). If EROI is high, then oil prices are low. If EROI is low, then oil prices are high.
Assuming that oil prices can rise indefinitely essentially assumes that EROI, no matter how low, is acceptable for world economies. I think we are hitting the point where EROIs are borderline too low for society to function with its current level of infrastructure, which is the reason for all of our recession.
I also think that when renewables require subsidies, it should be a tip off that when their full costs are considered, their EROIs are probably too low as well.
Nice to see that even the pro's sometimes double post.
On the last point, again (and again, and again....), all energy types have and have had subsidies.
In the case of oil, these are just phenomenally massive--unless you think that none of our military involvement in middle east has anything to do with oil.
But presumably you know this.
So I am left wondering, what exactly is your problem with renewables? Why do you so often misrepresent them in a negative way? I have my reasons for being suspicious about placing too much emphasis on renewables; I'm just wondering what drives lead you to have such a vendetta against them.
(double post!!)
Thinking about it, Alan's complaint about coal's abysmal conversion efficiency to electricity is, ironically, one possible reason to be a bit
more optimistic about the oil future.
Here's why: the conversion of petroleum to what we might call "passenger-pound-miles" or more simply "passenger miles" is arguably less efficient
that coal power.
A number of folks have calculated that only a few percent of the energy in petroleum actually moves the driver rather than her steel carapace.
Of course, I wish I had had a steel carapace when I fell off my bike today, but that's another story.
This whole topic is disaggregated by a prof called Robert Ayres, whose math may be impenentrable, but whose writing about the critical importance of efficient end use is seminal.
P.S. bravisimo performance on the top kill coverage TOD gang... been trying to explain 13,000 psi to people. Maybe others can help me out:
air pressure at sea level: 14
car tire: 30
nail gun: 80
house plumging: typically lot less than 100
bicycle road bike, Lance Armstrong: 150 perhaps
a couple of other metrics I'm curious about: human blood pressure?
the psi impact of a .22, if that can be calculated...
in short, 13,000 is beyond the ken
Medical gas cylinders...2200 psi
Oxygen cylinder at fault in Qantas emergency: ATSB
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/30/2319138.htm
Robert Redford's "Last Castle" used an "E" cylinder for a homemade rocket; they used pipe for the launcher, and broke the valve stem off.
"normal" BP whoops blood pressure is 120/80 mm Hg.
120 mm Hg translates to about 2.5 psi (roughly 50 mm Hg to 1 psi), so even a very high diastolic BP would extremely rarely exceed, lets say, 250 mm Hg or about 5 psi.
Yes, I never like graphs like the first one, they are very misleading since some energy is for transportation and some is for electricity and they all have different efficiency conversion rates. It's putting apples and oranges on the same graph.
A couple things that don't seem to be accounted for:
- by switching the majority of the vehicle fleet over to electric cars, the amount of energy in natural gas and electricity otherwise wasted in the inefficient crude oil refining process, would power all the EV's to go half as far as the gasoline powered cars they replace. In essence, half of the driving done would be for FREE, compared with gasoline! And since EV's would be mostly charged overnight when demand is low, little or no new electrical generating infrastructure would be need, only a network of high capacity quick charge stations. This is on the delivery end, not generation.
- the other big issue not considered is that the US will soon be entering a major economic depression due to its runaway debt (the US consumes, but doesn't produce much). The US dollar will become worthless within 5 years and a new currency instituted in its place, at much less value. This will be followed by a prolonged depression. Therefore, few people will even be able to afford to drive. This will drop energy consumption by a large factor!
Switching freight from trucks to electrified double stack container rail trades 20 BTUs of refined diesel for one BTU of electricity.
One of my pet ideas.
Alan
I agree, railways are one of the easiest things to convert to electric. I have explained that converting passenger vehicles to electric means you can go half as far as gasoline would take you "for free" because of the savings in the oil refining process, but I wonder what this ratio is with trucks and trains.
NH, please see my response up thread about cars - you did not "explain" it, you merely "stated" it, and the benefits are not nearly as great as you stated.
But let's have a look at what it is for trains.
According to the American Association of Railroads (http://www.aar.org/Environment/Environment.aspx) the Class 1 railroads average 480 miles per gallon for each ton of freight.
#2 Diesel fuel has 136MJ/gallon. Diesel trains run at fairly high cycle efficiency, as they are normally moving at fairly constant speed. Their engines are 40% peak efficient, but we'll use 35%. There are losses through the diesel-electric drive system, so we'll take it down to 30% net efficiency (a car on hwy cycle gets 20%, though a diesel car gets about 30%)
So the train is using 0.3*136=40.8MJ of tractive energy per ton per 480 miles.
Now, we get 10% of the original 136MJ from refining, or 13.6MJ, generate at 60% in CCGT, and 10% transmission loss for 54%*13.6=7.34 MJ
We'll assume the electric drivetrain is 90% efficient, but it doesn't use any "fuel" to idle, so let's use 95%, and we have 7.0MJ of tractive energy.
This is one sixth of the amount available from the gallon of diesel.
Or, alternatively if we have 1.1 gallons of crude, we can refine to diesel and get 480 ton miles, or burn to electricity and get 7/40.8*11*480 = 905 ton miles per gallon.
So we get just under double the distance from oil to electric as we do oil to diesel. This is suprisingly close to the ratio for oil to gasoline (hybrid) car as to oil to electric car. The reason here is that there are additional losses in the battery storage for the car, and the battery car is heavier than its gasoline counterpart.
The problem with electrifying trains is that you have to electrify a lot of lines (huge capital cost), but if it is done cleverly, in conjunction with electrical trunk transmission lines, there can be other benefits captured, as Alan has explained in a previous essay on TOD (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301)
Unfortunately, this plane requires not only lots of capital, but lots of co-operation, and I suspect that is why it has not been able to leave the station, yet.
It's nearly as good just to switch from diesel truck to diesel train.
and then just co fuel the diesel locomotive with CNG
Yep. You could run 85% natural gas without even changing the loco engines.
How hard would that be?
You just call these guys and get them to do it for you, the development work was done long ago;
http://www.energyconversions.com/products.htm
They work on EMD diesels, which are the ones used in many locomotives, and other large equipment.
You then need a CNG or LNg tender to pull behind the locomotive, but that is no problem.
The beauty of this system is that the engine can still be run on 100% diesel, or anything up to 85% NG.
This is how I would do hwy trucks too.
People seem to be dumping on Gail, and I'm not sure that it is warranted. Please consider this perspective. The graphs that Gail has posted can, typically, be considered to be data and analysis. The data is labeled 'history' and the analysis is labeled 'projection(s)'. Gail does not endorse the analysis although she did make comments that suggested skepticism.
I think the value of Gail's efforts to make the EIA's projections and analysis known lies in the fact that these are likely to significantly influence energy policy in the US. It may be a hard pill to swallow, but the analysis of a genius on TOD will be much less influential than the politically contrived analysis and projections that are published by the EIA. Whether you consider what comes out of the EIA to be part of the problem or part of the solution, it is still very much a part of the energy future of the US, and as such should be understood.
This is my first post, so please be gentle with your criticisms :o)
Mitch
I wonder what kind of calculations the EIA is doing to draw all these lines on a graph. There are detailed humps and bumps in the crude oil graphs 20 years from now. How on earth would we know how the economy will look like at that time and what money is available to pay for might be very expensive oil.
Lower offshore growing until 2035? Oil from shallow water is definitely declining. What kind of hurricanes will we have with global warming?
I put some oil production graphs with MMS data here:
30/5/2010
GOM oil after the US peak
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=1508
Similarly with coal. What is the remaining absorption capacity of the atmosphere for CO2? If all that coal is burnt, we'll get more and more storms:
8/12/2009
James Hansen: Storms of My Grandchildren
http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/?p=767
The US snow storms earlier this year were linked to the Arctic summer sea ice melt
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/heat.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/impacts.html
This is an interesting lecture on the earth's history and the role of CO2 (AGU meeting 2009)
CO2 atmosphere thermostat
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
I recommend to save it to disk. You may want to replay it. It gets very scientific
Yes I agree Matt, economic factors are going to be a big part of this. Oil is going to get much more expensive and it seems inevitable that Americans will have much less money to spend, so it will be inevitable that US oil consumption will drop dramatically. There simply isn't enough oil produced domestically and they won't have the money to buy it overseas anymore, so Americans will soon have to do what everyone else in the world has thus far been forced to do -- live within their means!!! It should be quite interesting to see how this transforms the structure of American cities and suburbs. It will likely happen very quickly once the crunch happens. Here is a video from economist Jeff Rubin of Canada talking about these issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg
The question being discussed is about either renewables in the form of wind and solar or fossil fuels to keep some semblance of BAU. There is another option, forget BAU and quickly begin the descent to a far far simpler lifestyle. Mules, horse and donkeys are biological beings that can have true exponential growth given enough food because they are self replicating machines that use solar power in the form of grass etc. Windmills and solar panels are not self replicating. Coal and oil are not self replicating. If we take baby steps back we will loose valuable time. We need blacksmiths and glass blowers, weavers and people who can make wagons from wood.
Infeasible because of lack of will. Likely the baby step back to electricity from solar and wind will prove infeasible for the same reason. But we don't know that we can ever make a solar panel or windmill without fossil fuels but we do know that horses and donkeys will make babies if they have a good pasture. We do know that living that life is possible and per stories from our past even good.
Oxi, just to split a hair here, we DO know that we can build a windmill without FF's. The Dutch started building them in the 13th century, using stone/brick towers, wooden sails and even wooden shafts and gears!
You can read an excellent article on the history (and future) of them here;
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/10/history-of-industrial-windmills.html
Not everything has to be high tech, but we have actually created some useful knowledge over the centuries, though we seem to be in danger of losing it.
And to split one more hair, there was at least one PV plant that was run on solar power (sorry, I don't have the link, but someone else probably does).
Well, I'll split your hair, here. A PV plant can be powered by its own panels for sure, but the raw material inputs cannot. It takes a lot of energy to mine and refine silicon, and the metals used (copper, indium, gallium, arsenic, etc) and the electronic components for inverters etc, and they all must be transported to the pv plant, and the resulting panels must be transported to the point of use. Each of these trips can easily be half a world long!
A wooden wind turbine can be built almost anywhere, from local wood, and using a simple generator, instead of complicated electronics. And they can even be built at large scale;
http://www.ekopolitan.com/tech/wind-timber-tower-builds-100-meter-turbin...
You can build the wings (blades) in wood too, this was done 70 years ago, and out performed all of its contemporaries;
http://www.2worldwar2.com/mosquito.htm
So I would say wind has far more realistic potential to be self-renewable than PV.
As I said, it was a hairsplitting point, not necessary a practical one. When I was growing up, there were still lots of wooden windmills across the prairie used to pump water. They seem to have all been taken down now.
It's too bad most of them have gone. My father in Australia actually restores old windmills, we have had wind powered water on our farms since I was knee high to a grasshopper!
Still, some people are trying to build new wooden windmills;
http://www.otherpower.com/woodmill.html
and some really nice looking blades here;
http://69.175.14.181/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22_30&products_id=156
The old windmills (or even new ones) pumping water are an ideal use for wind power, as you have "storage" and the "instantaneous demand" is not an issue.
I suspect you underestimate what we can achieve.
Renewables can and will give us a higher EROEI than FF's.
We can electrify the materials manufacturing.
The only problem then becomes the materials themselves, which are primarily petrochemicals. These are materials with carbon chains. I believe we should still use petrochemicals, but to a sustainable level. This can be achieved by cutting the use of oil for transportation. Note the world is using under 20 mbpd for petrochemicals at the moment.
Thus, use renewables for manufacturing and transportation and heating. Use petro for materials.
I get confused by these graphs.
So the units are BTU, which is just a unit of energy much like Joules or kWh. Basically, measurable in electronic terms as the potential energy you have if you have some amount of Coulombs of charge lying at some potential. But are they using electronic terms or not, as some of these fuels are being combusted to produce steam to drive a turbine, an inefficient process. But for wind, I would imagine the BTUs must represent the actual energy that is useful for electricity minus the transmission losses? What about for coal, do they mean the electricity produced or the raw fuel itself, and how the heck do they put a number on the raw fuel itself if it's the latter. How about for liquid fuels, is it the useful work performed by a combustion engine, but every engine is different. So again, how do they put a number on that one? This is all very confusing. I bet wind and hydropower are downplayed big time if I'm right in that they are just using some sort of enthalpy of formation or subjective number for their instrinsic energy density for the liquid or solid or gas FFs, no ?
What about for coal, do they mean the electricity produced or the raw fuel itself
They mean the raw fuel, AKA primary energy.
and how the heck do they put a number on the raw fuel itself if it's the latter.
Just burn it, and see how much heat it puts out.
I bet wind and hydropower are downplayed big time
Correct: coal primary energy is compared to wind turbine outputs. This distorts the numbers by about 3 to 1.
No, EIA imputes an 'equivalent' fossil fuel loss factor to wind and hydro and thus compares a hypothetical 'primary' energy of wind and hydro to the actual primary energy input of coal and gas. Thus, for instance Hydro is listed as contributing 2.4Quads, which is 6% of the 40 Quad primary input to electricity. Of course, in actuality that is about the share of hydro in the output electricity, and the physical input is far less.
Hmm. The calculation for hydro does look about right. EIA typically did this the wrong way in the past, unlike BP's format.
OTOH, this whole thing is pretty silly. I mean, their reference case assumes that the wind power PTC is dropped in 2013, and that wind just stops completely after that. Wow.
The US had 35GW of wind capacity at the end of 2009, and their reference projection for 2015 for wind (Table A16 on page 139) is only 64GW of capacity, and for 2035 is only 71GW of capacity!!
---------------------------------
Now, the EIA would argue that the reference case isn't intended to be the main projection, just a "reference" for the status quo. On the one hand, that's not consistent with what they do - they tend to primarily present the reference case. OTOH, if that is the case, why is Gail using it??
I have no quibble with the idea that EIA's wind projections are flawed. One need do no more than look to their past projections to see that they have nary a clue in this regard.
I have posted some things previously over the past few months, in particular here, outlining how the US could transition to a 25 quad renewables-only economy over the course of the next 50-75 years or so. I'm pretty confident that the scenario I've mapped out is feasible and realistic. Maybe we could go a little higher, and maybe nuclear, NG and coal will deplete downward at a slow enough rate to buy us a little extra cushion, but I am not at all confident that we could produce with renewables only anything close to the almost 100 quads that the US presently consumes, or even half that. I am not at all sure that a major ramp up of nuclear beyond just maintaining present capacity net of decommissionings is even desirable, let alone feasible.
To my way of thinking, then, 25 quads - or about 1/4 of what we presently consume - should be the long term target. We need to be thinking seriously about how we can get our energy consumption down to that level over the next few decades.
When you look at energy usage on a per-capita basis globally, it is hard to argue that we truly NEED to consume more energy than this. A lot of the excess is just waste, or discretionary frivolity that we could just as well do without. However, honesty requires admitting that to cut back by that much means that some of the cutting will really hurt.
How do we get there? Obviously, a big part of it is going to have to be in transportation; it accounts for about 39% of the total energy going into end uses. (Note: I work off of figures from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.) We've discussed a lot of that here already, and most of us could recite a pretty good list of a dozen or more major initiatives that need to be undertaken in order to substantially reduce the amount of energy that goes into transportation. We need to get to work on all of these. Unfortunately, one of the biggest savings is going to have to just be staying where we are and not traveling around so much. In a 25 quad economy, we're going to have to learn to content ourselves with not leaving home nearly as much as we have been accustomed to. We simply can't cut back our total energy use by 75% without cutting our transportation energy use by at least 75%, and probably a bit more than that.
The industrial sector accounts for another 33% of energy end use, so we'll need to achieve a lot of savings there, though if we can achieve more than a 75% reduction in transportation energy savings then that can "buy" us a slightly smaller cutback in the industrial sector. A big part of it is going to have to be stopping the production of useless and non-necessary stuff. The industrial sector has already achieved a lot of efficiency gains, because it is profitable to save energy. There is a little more that can be achieved through efficiency, but a lot of the saving is going to have to come through simple downscaling of the material basis of our economy.
Everyone thinks about the residential sector when it comes to energy efficiency, and there is plenty of room for improvement there. However, at only 16% of our total energy end use, the potential of the residential sector to contribute to the magnitude of energy consumption reductions required is going to be considerably less than some might realize. Also, while sealing and insulating the building envelope and installing energy-efficient lighting and appliances will help, a lot of the savings are going to have to come from just being hotter in the summer and colder in the winter, and being more crowded and enjoying less personal privacy as more people concentrate in fewer and smaller homes.
The commercial sector accounts for only 12% of energy end use, so the potential for savings there are limited. Nevertheless, I suspect that a disproportionate amount of energy savings will come from the commercial sector. The US is absurdly overbuilt when it comes to retail space. Given that "recreational shopping" is unlikely to continue to be an affordable activity for most people, we can expect to see massive store closures, vacancies, CRE foreclosures, and demolitions or repurposing. Such will also be the fate, to only a minor extent less, for office space as well. There may also be big cutbacks and downsizings and failures in governmental, educational, and other institutional facilities as well. The commercial sector probably will be declining by more than 3/4 over the next half century or so.
IMHO, I simply refuse to be impressed or take seriously any national energy "plan" that doesn't come at least somewhat close to this rather draconian scenario that I have just outlined.
WNC,
You are making the same mistake Gail makes by focusing on replacing FF energy(QUADS) with electricity(QUADS).
Just replacing FF generation of electricity by coal(22QUADS) with nuclear or renewablwes is going to save 15QUADS( because coal fired generation is so inefficient) Similarly replacing the 40QUADS of oil used for transportation will only require about 10QUADS of electrical energy for EV's.
The DOE estimates about 400GW of hydro potentail in US, an Canada has another 150GW; only <10% is presently being used( I cited this work in a post about 2 years ago on TOD.)
Wind and hydro capacity more than enough to replace all FF used at present( in terms of work not QUADS), but may take 30 years to build.
There certainly are efficiency gains to be achieved from electricity generation. Per the Lawrence Livermore flowchart, these carry over to the four end-use sectors, and these gains will have to account for part of the savings we'll need to reduce down to 25 quads.
It is true, also, that while all energy can be converted to equivalent quads (or any other measure), that doesn't mean that all forms are interchangeable. In particular, there is going to be a big mismatch between future renewables, which mostly are in the form of electricity, and existing uses, which predominantly are in the form of the heat from combustion. This suggests to me that it is not merely a matter of replacing FFs with renewables, we will have to substantially change out our whole way of doing things to a profound extent.
My 25 quad scenario does include about 1/3 of the total coming from biomass. I am assuming that it will not be feasible or desirable to try to go to a 100% all-electric economy, so we'll still need something to burn at least for some end uses. I am well aware of the downsides and controversies surrounding biomass energy. On the other hand, it already constitutes one of our largest sources of renewable energy, and I am assuming a relatively modest doubling of that over the next half century or so. It seems to me that we could do at least that without either starving ourselves or destroying our ecosystems, although some serious adjustments in how we do things will be necessary (like eating considerably less feedlot-produced meat, for example).
I am assuming only a modest 0.5 - 1.5 quad increase in hydropower, and that mostly from Canada. Maybe more is possible, but keep in mind that GCC is likely to largely dry up the southwest, taking a lot of installed capacity off line. A lot of new hydropower development is going to have to go to just replacing that. I am assuming four doublings of present wind power capacity, up to at least 8 quads, or about a third of the total energy needed. More may be theoretically possible, but then we run into a difficult question: do we really want to put more than a third of our "eggs" in the wind power "basket"? I am assuming that maintaining a diverse mix is a safer strategy. My scenario also takes account of the assumption that the US economy will likely be in long-term decline, making financing of the renewables buildout very difficult and severely limiting how much we can do. I am also thinking about the need to maintain and replace the installed capacity down the road, and that there ultimately needs to be a match between the industrial and financial capacity of the economy and the renewable energy infrastructure that sustains it. I am pretty confident that a 25 quad renewables-only infrastructure can be sustained by a US economy that is even only 1/4 the present size in terms of GDP per capita, but I am far less confident that such an economy could fully sustain a larger infrastructure.
I hate seeing biomass included as a type of "renewable" energy. Not only is it polluting and increases CO2, but the removal of slash from deforested land is detrimental to regrowth.
There is more to biomass than just slash. It can come from crop residues, municipal waste, sewage sludge, cow manure AND managed forests and energy crops.
But slash by itself is definitely renewable, you can grow more of it. The fact that some forestry (and farming) practices are bad for their soils is an issue for foresters and farmers, but the products are, fundamentally, renewable.
As for slash itself, what is normally done post logging, is to put into large slash piles and then burn it. This is a worse result as the burn is not clean (lots of smoke and particulate) and the pile leaves a lot of ash concentrated in a small area, leaving that patch of ground sterile.
You can chip the slash and spread it, but this has its own problems too, as it prevents the growth of natural germinating seedlings. Natures way is to have a fire and clear it all, leaving the bare ground, and then all sorts of plants re-grow, some seeds are only activated by fire. We should tweak this model a little and use the slash for energy, but ensure the ash is returned and spread on the soil from whence it came.
Logged land that has been "disturbed" can regenerate remarkably quickly, as long as the disturbance is done in a way to minimise soil erosion.
Trees also make great energy crops - farmers tend to grow them as a monoculture, but you can get equally good yields with mixed forest. They can be grown on marginal land and require far less input (machinery, fuel) than normal crops - you just can;t eat them, that's all.
Biomass does not increase CO2. That CO2 would have entered the atmosphere eventually anyways as the biomass decomposes or burns. The only time biomass has a net contribution of CO2 is if a forest is cleared and not replanted. Or if you need to burn lots of oil in the machinery needed to get the biomass out.
There can be an enormous time lag involved before the books balance on co2 and renewables.I have seen figures of up to a hundred and fifty years to breakeven when forest is cleared for crops for biofuels production.
Since there appears to be little prospect of declining demand for food, it follows that any large scale growth of biofuels will certainly result in the clearing of forests, or at the very least the loss of agricultural and forest productivity.
Stover and slash are not a free lunch;the removal of the same involves a substantial ecological and economic cost over any extended period.
Good point about the time lag. I was thinking more along the lines of beetle killed wood in BC that would otherwise go up in smoke. And in Alberta when they say they plant new forests over the land after they have finished mining the tar sands, well it will take over a hundred years to get a forest of size comparable to before, and buy this time global warming will have already been a done deal.
CO2 has such an enormous time constant for removal from the atmosphere that any perturbations are important. At equilibrium, everything is hunky-dory, yet we are far from steady-state as the man-made FF contributions have put us well into catch-up mode.
And we have a lot of that beetle killed wood here in BC, somewhere in the order of a billion tons of standing, dead, wood, that is fast becoming useless for lumber. If we don;t get to it before nature does, there will be quite some forest fires!
The time lag is not quite as long as you might think. It is over a hundred years to get to the "mature" forest stage, where the early plants (alders, etc) have now been crowded out by firs and cedars and pines. But the standing carbon bounces back much faster, in the order of 2-5 decades, depending on the soil, climate, etc.
The area of the oilsands does not have large volumes of standing wood, the forests are smaller trees (very cold there), and the rehabilitation programs catch it up pretty quickly.
To get a round trip carbon cycle for tree farming (for biomass) you can get a "crop" in 7-15 years, depending on the trees you use. If you are growing for lumber, you want trees to grow slowly (30-50yrs), but for biomass you want fast growth,and if your crop rotation is 10yrs, that is also the carbon cycle.
Yes, you take out more from the original (old growth) cut, which is usually for lumber (in BC anyway), so the lumber is actually sequestered carbon.
It's the tropical rainforests where they slash and burn that real problem is, as then you have wasted all of it.
There are so many areas of abandoned land that can be planted to to trees for biomass fuel production that it is not funny. there was a study done years ago on the amount of acreage owned by the US interstate hwys, and one state highway system (texas, I think), and a truly staggering amount of wood could be grown on the highway fringes.
I did once work out that a railroad, with 60' of useable land area on its right of way, could grow 30 tons of trees (dry matter) per year per mile. Enough fuel to carry 20,000 tons of cargo (200 railcars) each day along that line. And many branch lines carry less than that..
Lots of potential in those trees...
But of course the very point of those rr and hwy right of ways is to NOT have trees that might fall across the thoroughfare. Unless you are planning to mothball all rr's and hwys (probably a good idea for the latter), you are not going to be able to grow trees of any size right next to them.
Plus, of course, trees are mighty painful things to run into.
if you are tree farming, then you only have young trees, as you are cutting them every 7 years. Some trees, like willow, you can cut every year (and round bale the wood) and they re-grow from the stump.
The idea is to keep them smallish and fast growing. These are most unlikely to blow over, and if you run into them, they break, and slow you down, in the same way as the barrels of sand at freeway exits.
Some of the the hwy sections near Bakersfield, Ca, have huge eucalypts growing along the fences, the result of planting programs from long ago. I would no let them get anything like this big.
Having trees along the sides also acts as a windbreak, reducing crosswinds, and low angle sun glare. It is also an ideal growing envirnoment as there is more water than normal (road runoff) and localised higher levels of CO2!
I am certainly not proposing growing sawlog sized trees. The ROW's do present an opportunity though. My brother grows lucerne (alfalfa) along the ROW in front of his farm (in Australia). Dept of highway is fine with it as it less fire risk than dry natural grasses.
Interesting. Has tree farming on ROW been tried anywhere? What do you think Depts of Transportation would say?
The ROW tree farming was tried decades ago (50's, I think) and given up as not cost effective - trees were plentiful, energy was cheap. Today is the reverse on both counts, and is worth another look.
A light duty branch railway (less than 10,000 tons/day) could power itself with biomass fuel grown on its ROW (if not in a desert), either by gasifier fed locomotives, or biomass supplied electricity.
An alternative would be to just lease the rights to the ROW land,with appropriate conditions, and let private operators /farmers do it. Pay them the credit for ROW maintenance avoided, too.
In Bakersfield, (and probably many other cities) Cal Trans actually irrigates gardens on the ROW's, using potable drinking water (which has a huge embodied energy in Ca)! Instead plant deep rooted trees, and save the water and time and energy spent of maintaining gardens! I could see the sprinklers on in the middle of windy days, just wasting water. Grow trees, and you have a wind break.
They do some of this (plant and water trees) to keep sand from drifting across the tracks in the Mojave. Of course, the pumping energy in that climate is a lot more than the biomass would be.
I've been trying to decide if their biofuels estimate is insanely optimistic or not. I did the exercise a few years ago of figuring out how much ethanol we could get from corn, and it maxed out at about 21%. It doesn't consume all of the corn -- there's corn oil and protein left over, for instance -- but I don't see much point in engineering any US vehicle to run on 85% ethanol. But the graph looks like something more like a 10% prediction. That's still a lot, I think -- it may be healthier to feed cattle on corn that has had the sugar stripped from it (I've heard this), but that's a heck of a lot of calories stripped along with the sugar.
And there is, of course, peak farmland to worry about, as well as fertilizer runoff, erosion, etc.
If you assume peak oil, or getting serious about global warming, it's hard to see how "cars" avoid changing in radical ways. I assume this has a lot to do with all the investment in technology (e.g., ultracapacitors, algae biofuel) that might preserve cars in more or less their current form -- if anyone wins, they probably win big, because we surely do love our cars (can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em).
D2C,
While you are correct in that there is a limit to the amount of (corn) ethanol, or even cellulosic, if they ever get it sorted, can be produced, there is actually a good reason to make an ethanol, or alcohol (ethanol and/or methanol) vehicle. And that reason is that both alcohols can be superior automotive fuels, in an engine that is optimised for their use. Basically, this means a high compression, engine, about 20:1 (same as a diesel) and then diesel like efficiencies of 40-43% are obtained. In fact, in tests done using a converted Jetta diesel engine, the engine got better efficiency on both ethanol and methanol than on diesel! (http://www.methanol.org/pdfFrame.cfm?pdf=2002-01-2743.pdf look at figures 1,2, and 4).
This same high compression engine can also run on natural gas, and many industrial diesels do.
In fact, gasoline is about the worst fuel you can use, with peak efficiencies at 30-33%, its just that it has always been the cheapest engine and fuel.
So an alcohol + NG flex fuel engine would get diesel like efficiency, without the super expensive high pressure injection, and without the NOx problems and the need for urea emission control systems - a much better solution!
I like methanol because it is a better fuel and can be produced from any carbonaceous feedstock - NG, coal, biomass of any sort, sewage sludge, municipal waste etc.
The current crop of flex fuel engines can run ethanol, methanol and/or gasoline in any combination, but the ability to run gasoline limits them to low compression, and thus really inhibits the ultimate potential of engines to run on alcohols. Indy cars ran on methanol for decades (mainly for safety reasons, but they do get more power per cubic inch) until recently changing to ethanol for marketing reasons (which is less safe, in a fire).
But I can;t see such a change happening here soon, though China is getting into methanol in a big way - they are now the world's largest producer, and use a lot for vehicle fuel...
the ability to run gasoline limits them to low compression
I've always been puzzled by that. Why couldn't compression be electronically varied depending on the fuel mixture?
"Why couldn't compression be electronically varied depending on the fuel mixture?"
The ability to do this exists now, but you then have a different problem, because the internal volume of the engine is a 'maximum" - you can use less, but not more. . If I have a 2L engine, running at 20:1 compression, and then need to back it off to 10:1, the only way to do this is to admit half the air in the first place, which also means (roughly) half the power and torque, so your engine will way underperform on gasoline.
Present dual fuel; gasoline/NG vehicles have compression of 10:1, and they way underperform on NG, as they are running at a gasoline optimised state.
To truly get equivalent performance, you would need to have the 2L swept volume, and vary the headspace, doubling it to get your 10:1 instead of 20:1. This could probably be done in some way, but would likely be mechanically complicated, still the idea should not be dismissed out of hand.
Truly making an engine run well, at similar output, on all fuels, is a daunting task!
The gas turbine comes closest, but is unsuitable for car use, even in a series hybrid configuration, as it is inefficient at small scale.
Gail
I can help you answer this question for California, one of the states in the USA with fairly extensive biomass resources, considering its grand endowment of forests and farmland.
I have archived a report by the California Energy Commission which claims that California's Potential Feedstock Energy in Biomass = 507 Trillion Btu/year (pdf, page 12).
Against a total consumption of over 10 Quads, this 5% (maximum, before even considering conversion losses) leaves us with no choice but to look for other ways to meet our energy needs in the Golden State.
Take an extremely optimistic view that 40% of this biomass could be turned into liquid fuel, then how far will that 40% of 5% = 2% of current energy supply take us, before "her daddy takes the T-Bird away?"
Oh... Guess what? After that 40% conversion, we have to run that fuel through an engine at less than 20% efficiency, and then move less than 200 lbs of people in a vehicle that weighs 2 tons (5% people, 95% metal).
Let's put all these pieces together. Take a perfectly good chunk of forest or farmland at 100% ...
Please remind me that our generation of brilliant scientists and engineers, many of them from California, brought us into the 21st century on the greatest wave of innovation ever. Then please explain why we must spoil our natural resources to operate equipment at less than 1% efficiency to get from point A to point B.
Isn't it time for us to figure out a way that's more efficient?
What the US Government (the EIA) is Forecasting with Respect to US Oil Production and Renewable Energy
Having an ideal solution is pointless if it cannot be implemented. I have read many interesting posts associated with this article that deal with the methodological errors in the EIA forecasts and solutions that might mitigate the coming energy crisis, but all of these posts overlook the most important aspect of this article. The forecasts made by the EIA are going to significantly affect government energy policy, and the lifestyle choices of the American people. The perceptions of the American people regarding energy availability, and the political forces that shape US energy policy, are the two MOST important factors in determining which plans for future energy use will attract wide acceptance, and thus have some chance of being implemented.
The combination of a widespread ignorance of the reality of the world energy situation, with a continued infatuation with a lifestyle that requires a prodigious level of personal energy use, ensures that the American people continue on a path that might best be described as societal suicide. Any deviation from this path would increase the life expectancy of American society. Thought directed towards how to create such a deviation would be far more useful than the type of debate that has been, for the most part, associated with this article. The importance of the EIA forecasts lies not in the methodological errors in the EIA analysis, but rather in how these forecasts will shape government policy and American lifestyle choices.
Gail, I'm disappointed that you didn't acknowledge that this report is highly unrealistic about renewables.
Their reference case assumes that the wind power PTC is dropped in 2013, and that wind just stops completely after that. The US had 35GW of wind capacity at the end of 2009, and their reference projection for 2015 for wind (Table A16 on page 139) is only 64GW of capacity, and for 2035 is only 71GW of capacity!!
---------------------------------
Now, the EIA would argue that the reference case isn't intended to be the main projection, just a "reference" for the status quo. On the one hand, that's not consistent with what they do - they tend to primarily present the reference case. OTOH, if that is the case, why is this post using it??