|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 22, 2011 18:21:04 GMT
The AGW crowd has an on-going love affair with electric vehicles, so thought I post some info about them. Reality bites again. There's a story in the NYT today that mentions the possiblity of EV's causing brownouts. query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E5DE1039F932A25754C0A9669D8B63Suppose the summer peak load also included plug-in electric cars? The consumption from a charging E.V. can cause a home's load to double, so it's worth considering the potential for electric cars to cause brownouts when more of the cars are eventually on the streets. Also, because E.V.'s are relatively expensive, their ownership is likely to be concentrated in more affluent areas, which means some neighborhoods could feel the power strain more than others.
Some observers see possible trouble ahead. ''In a situation like New York is in right now, charging electric vehicles could add to the burden pretty significantly,'' said Jack Nerad, an executive market analyst at Kelley Blue Book. He said the load would be considerably less if electric cars are charged overnight, ''but there's no guarantee of that.''
Phil Gott, managing director of automotive consulting for IHS Automotive and the author of reports on E.V. adoption, said it's likely that utilities will ''see the added load coming and will add capacity where necessary.'' But, he added, ''If they elect not to take it seriously, then yes, we'll have issues.''
Con Ed, which has called some New York customers during the heat wave and asked them to voluntarily turn off nonessential appliances, says it's not worried about the coming E.V. load. ''We don't foresee a problem because of the small number of vehicles expected over the next few years,'' said Sara Banda, a Con Ed spokeswoman.
Ms. Banda noted that 3,535 Con Ed customers (of over three million) in the five boroughs and Westchester County were without power early on Wednesday afternoon. She said the company has pilot programs under way to ''better understand how charging patterns will impact our system in the future.'' She pointed to an 18-month program in Queens that was, among other things, evaluating E.V. chargers and said that Con Edison re-evaluated its estimate of electric load annually.
A January 2010 report for Mayor Michael Bloomberg's PlaNYC estimates that New York could have tens of thousands of electric vehicles (including plug-in hybrids) by 2015. These include the electric drive Smart and the Chevrolet Volt, both of which have recently announced that New York will be among their early markets.
The PlaNYC report concludes that the expected adoption rate ''should not threaten the stability of the electric grid as long as most chargers are 'smart,'' allowing charging to take place during off-peak hours.'' That's by no means assured, however, because high-tech smart grids are still embryonic in many areas. ============================================ As for specific EV info and batteries this is worth noting: From Battery University: batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/electric_vehicleThe article has a nice table comparing advertised and real world ranges of various EV's as well as much other info. For example; the advertised range of the Chevy Volt with a 16kWh, liquid cooled Li-manganese, 400lb battery pack is 40 miles. The real world range is 28 miles without using the small IC engine. Charging time is 10h at 115VAC. Here's an excerpt. A battery for the electric powertrain currently costs between $1,000 and $1,200 per kWh. According to The Boston Consulting Group (BCG), relief is in sight. BCG claims that the price of Li-ion will fall to $750 per kWh within the next decade. Meanwhile, batteries for consumer electronics are only US$250–400 per kWh. High volume, automated manufacturing, lower safety requirements and shorter calendar life make this low price possible. BCG predicts that Li-ion batteries for the powertrain will eventually match these consumer prices, and the cost of a 15kWh battery will drop to about $6,000 from $16,000.The largest decrease in battery prices is expected to occur between now and 2020, with a more gradual decline thereafter. According to BCG, the anticipated calendar life of the battery will be 10–15 years. E-One Moli Energy, a manufacturer of lithium-ion cells for power tools and electric vehicles, points out that the cost of Li-ion can be reduced to $400 per kWh in high volume, however, the peripheral electronics managing the battery, including heating and cooling, will remain high, essentially doubling the price of a pack. Reductions are also possible here, and E-One Moli Energy predicts that the electronics will only make up 20 percent of the cost of an EV battery in five years. These forecasts are speculative, and other analysts express concern that the carmakers may not be able to achieve the long-term cost target without a major breakthrough in battery technology. They say that the current battery cost is 3 to 5 times too high to appeal to the consumer market.
On the surface, driving on electricity is cheaper than burning gasoline but today’s low fuel prices, uncertainty about the battery’s service life, along with unknown abuse tolerances and high replacement costs, will reduce the incentive for buyers to switch from a proven concept to an electric vehicle. If a driver wants the 500km range between fill-ups that is achievable with a gasoline-powered car,the battery would need a capacity of 75kWh according toTechnology Roadmaps Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (EV/PHEV). At an estimated $400 price tag per kWh, such a battery would cost over $30,000 and weigh nearly a ton.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 22, 2011 19:28:21 GMT
I've noticed that environmentalists don't seem to see the damage their environmentalism does to the environment.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 22, 2011 19:33:59 GMT
Doggone it, you're going to make me oppose much of what you're posting again . The infrastructure based points are valid, but not insurmountable. I think the biggest impediment it may have to improvement is the way utility companies are run, but it does sound like they are investigating the problem. But take the argument of increased electrical demand (depending on what time of day again), and put in the argument against streaming video across internet connections because it will overload the existing infrastructure. A few years ago, that would be right, but today, the infrastructure has improved with demand, and I'm sure will continue to do so. I think it's a mistake to look at the state of the infrastructure today and conclude based on existing infrastructure that it is impossible. Where electrical cars are now, there is not much doubt in my mind that cross country or long distance driving in electrical cars is not feasible at this point. However; there is still a lot to learn in this area, and most of it won't be learned until more of the models hit the market. Lessons Learned are an ongoing engineering process, and are folded back into the R&D process. Sometimes, the Lessons Learned lead in another direction that we probably would not have gone in if we had not taken the previous step. So the bottom line is that, while I think there are valid points in the articles, current state of the art does not indicate what is possible in the future. I really would like to see electric cars in more consumers' hands. I don't want anybody to be forced to buy them, but I'm certainly all for them having a choice to buy it. I'm interested to see the lessons learned, and resulting developments as they get out of lab conditions and into a broader user base.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 22, 2011 19:51:42 GMT
Doggone it, you're going to make me oppose much of what you're posting again . The infrastructure based points are valid, but not insurmountable. I think the biggest impediment it may have to improvement is the way utility companies are run, but it does sound like they are investigating the problem. But take the argument of increased electrical demand (depending on what time of day again), and put in the argument against streaming video across internet connections because it will overload the existing infrastructure. A few years ago, that would be right, but today, the infrastructure has improved with demand, and I'm sure will continue to do so. I think it's a mistake to look at the state of the infrastructure today and conclude based on existing infrastructure that it is impossible. Where electrical cars are now, there is not much doubt in my mind that cross country or long distance driving in electrical cars is not feasible at this point. However; there is still a lot to learn in this area, and most of it won't be learned until more of the models hit the market. Lessons Learned are an ongoing engineering process, and are folded back into the R&D process. Sometimes, the Lessons Learned lead in another direction that we probably would not have gone in if we had not taken the previous step. So the bottom line is that, while I think there are valid points in the articles, current state of the art does not indicate what is possible in the future. I really would like to see electric cars in more consumers' hands. I don't want anybody to be forced to buy them, but I'm certainly all for them having a choice to buy it. I'm interested to see the lessons learned, and resulting developments as they get out of lab conditions and into a broader user base. I don't consider what you've said to be opposition. On the contrary, I view it much the same. Reality changes; in the energy biz it changes constantly. That is the magic of technology and scientific breakthroughs. But, potential future Reality is not the Reality of today, and those who base their decisions on what might be are often wrong. Perhaps there will be a black swan tomorrow that will supplant all of our current energy technology. Perhaps not. Place your bets, but be prepared to lose. PS: Just so there is no confusion, Reality is when the Probability of an event = 1.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 26, 2011 13:29:07 GMT
Cellulosic ethanol? Not for at least 5 years, and propped up by taxpayers for at least that long. Despite years of research, testing, and some hype, the next-generation ethanol industry is far from the commercial success envisioned by President George W. Bush in 2006, when he pledged so-called cellulosic biofuels would be "practical and competitive" by 2012. Instead the only real alternative to traditional gasoline is ethanol made from corn, a fuel environmentalists say is not green at all because of the energy-intensive nature of modern farming.
Critics say it is a failure of government policy, not science, that the U.S. is still so dependent on corn for its biofuels. Washington has backtracked on cellulosic-ethanol production targets and failed to provide assurances to investors that the sector would be subsidized over the long term.
While there are dozens of pilot and demonstration cellulosic-ethanol projects around the country, the groundwork for the first commercial plants is only now getting under way.
Battered by recession, funding remains scarce for $100-million-plus plants needed for commercial-scale production so cellulosic can compete against cheaper ethanol-based corn.
"The earliest you're going to see efficient cellulosic ethanol is five years," said Richard Brock, president of Brock Associates, an advisory firm in Milwaukee.
For the industry to take off, investors need to be reassured that Congress will extend a cellulosic-production tax credit for several years and cellulosic-output targets will be big enough to encourage blenders to lock in future capacity.
"It would certainly increase volumes at a faster rate than what we've seen in the last couple of years," said Mac Statton, biofuels analyst with the Energy Department's forecasting arm.
Gasoline in the United States is blended with up to 15 percent ethanol, which helps reduce oil imports.
In the short term, however, the cellulosic industry's slow growth will make little difference to either America's addiction to foreign crude oil or the strains on corn supplies that critics claim have pushed up food prices.
Cellulosic-biofuels production was supposed to reach 500 million gallons next year under federal mandates that rise each year until it eventually passes corn-based ethanol output.
But no cellulosic production is expected this year and it may grow to only a few million gallons next year.
Because the cellulosic industry is not able to meet the production goals mandated by Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to lower them.
That's what the agency did this month for the third straight year when it proposed lowering the original half-billion-gallon target for 2012 to between 3.6 million and 15.7 million gallons. EPA issues the final target in November.
The Energy Department doesn't expect cellulosic output to reach its first 1 billion gallons until 2018. Congress, under its mandates, wants 7 billion gallons that year.
The industry has made great progress in bringing down the production costs of cellulosic ethanol from $5 to $6 a gallon a decade ago to as low as $2.50. However, the first cellulosic plants are expensive to build and will add to that $2.50 cost, putting cellulosic slightly above corn ethanol's cost.
Government help for commercial-scale plants Coskata was given a $250 million federal loan guarantee in January to build a 55-million-gallon-a-year plant in Alabama to process wood biomass into ethanol. POET, the world's biggest ethanol producer, was awarded a $105 million loan guarantee this month for a plant in Iowa to produce 25 million gallons of ethanol from corn cobs starting in 2013.
Other companies aiming to produce big volumes of cellulosic ethanol or provide enzymes that break down cellulose feedstocks are DuPont's Genencor, Abengoa Bioenergy, Qteros, and Novozymes A/S.
About $1.5 billion in venture capital poured into the cellulosic industry to help fund initial pilot projects over the last decade, according to the Advanced Ethanol Coalition that lobbies for the industry.
As cellulosic producers move to large-scale operations, venture capital investors are reluctant to bet on the expensive $150 million plants, said Brooke Coleman, who heads the coalition.
"The venture capital guys will spend $20 million or $30 million on you in the start-up phase," he said. "They don't build plants and like to get in and get out in five years."
It is the big banks, oil firms, and major energy companies that will help finance the new commercial-scale plants, but many are scared off by the uncertainty over the $1.01 tax credit and changes in production goals.
Analysts argue that with oil prices high, it should be easier for cellulosic biofuels to attract investors, but incentives from Congress are a big question mark.
A draft bill unveiled in the Senate would extend the $1.01 per gallon tax credit for three years and add ethanol made from algae to the list of cellulosic biofuels eligible to get it. Extending the credit for cellulosic ethanol is part of a compromise for Congress to end a 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit for corn ethanol, which is exceeding its production targets.
But with lawmakers looking to cut government spending, cellulosic producers may be lucky to get a one-year extension.
"How the hell do you extend a tax credit for a multi-year period, when there's no money in the Treasury," said Christine Tezak, energy analyst at Robert W. Baird.
All the uncertainties, however, hurt the industry. Refineries that blend the fuel don't have a reason to sign long-term contracts with biofuels producers, which would encourage investment in new plants and boost output.
"There's no incentive for anybody on the consuming side to ring up a cellulosic guy and say: 'Hey, I'd like to take care of my renewable fuel standard obligations for the next five years, so I need to secure not only present but future production capacity with you,'" said Tezak.
Read more: news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20083222-54/cellulosic-ethanol-industry-struggles-to-take-off/#ixzz1TDYXyMBt
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 28, 2011 21:14:36 GMT
Yet another Green Dream bites the dust. Bicycle sharing. A few million dollars down the tubes. Wanna bet these taxpayer provided bikes end up in pawn shops? As noted the road to hell is paved with the bricks of good intentions. Here's an idea: BUY YOUR OWN DAMN BIKE AND KEEP IT LOCKED UP! www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/27/finding-fewer-bikes-while-sharing-human-connection/?page=all#pagebreakAs downtown is consumed by the evening rush, 13 bicycles stand shiny and red, awaiting riders that will careen from the downtown offices of L Street Northwest to houses, apartments and restaurants. They slingshot freed workers past crowded bus shelters and weave between stalled traffic as drivers curse with envy.But by shortly after 6, the Capital Bikeshare station at 19th and L streets Northwest is empty, and it stays that way. The first 13 who had the breeziest exodus from this epicenter of downtown are also the only ones.
This summer, the city’s innovative bike-sharing program has been crippled by its own success when it comes to commuting during rush hour, with bike racks completely empty — or just as often, completely full, making it impossible to drop off a bike.
|
|
|
Post by cybertiger on Jul 29, 2011 11:28:23 GMT
If you actually read the rest of the article it makes it quite clear that despite it's problems the bike sharing scheme is a resounding success.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 29, 2011 13:12:28 GMT
Whereas any time you need a taxi, there are always loads around
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 29, 2011 15:16:36 GMT
If you actually read the rest of the article it makes it quite clear that despite it's problems the bike sharing scheme is a resounding success. I read the story. It doesn't really give evidence of success or failure. It's basically just a feature story, and not really a news story at all. I find the mission of the program to be contained in the first sentence of this paragraph: It appears that people are using the system, but what we don't know is whether it has actually accomplished its goal. For instance, are the people just not buying and riding their own bikes now and using the program bikes instead? Has it actually removed any cars, or given people who otherwise might have taken a longer walk or Metro car an alternative? That's what's missing from the story, and without it, the story doesn't really show evidence of success or failure. It appears to be a convenience for some, though. Even so, there are very few American cities where I think this type of program would have any type of success. Washington DC, San Francisco, maybe Chicago, and maybe a few others. But in one of those that I'm very familiar with (San Francisco) people do often walk a mile or more in trips like from the 4th and King Caltrain station to the businesses on Market Street. I used to walk that one often myself. You can see the foot/scooter/bike/skateboard traffic there every day. Anyway, I think it is a feel-good story for some, but I don't think it really gives evidence of success or failure against its stated goal.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 29, 2011 16:54:01 GMT
The hills are a bit steep in SF. All the bikes would end up at the bottoms of the hills because noone would be bothered to cycle to the tops.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jul 29, 2011 20:43:25 GMT
The hills are a bit steep in SF. All the bikes would end up at the bottoms of the hills because noone would be bothered to cycle to the tops. And of course there is the weather to contend with. Don't see many bikers pedaling their asses in a snowstorm. Or even in the rain. or when it's 95+ or wearing a suit, or carrying 50 lbs of grocerys, etc. etc. Strictly a fair weather thing for a very small minority in very limited locales at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 30, 2011 4:59:41 GMT
Curious, that's one of the reasons I said there are only a few cities ... the layout was another. I was thinking of the layout of downtown Chicago when I said that, but it is another of those cities where the weather sucks 11 months out of the year. In San Francisco, many people ride bikes already. I actually think a similar program was either tried, or may still be in place. But so many people ride their bikes, use inline skates (pretty funny to see a woman in a dress in inline skates ... but it is San Francisco ), skateboard, scooter, and many of us just walked. Most of the downtown area is actually flat in San Francisco. (I rode in the city up and across the Golden Gate Bridge on weekends sometimes, and the hills were part of the reason I rode there ... the views were another big reason ). My current area, many people working at companies like Microsoft (which provide showers) bike pretty long distances, again because temps are mild. They know it rains all winter, but they deal with that. Cities like Dallas, or a Kansas City not only are not really laid out to be friendly to bikes, but you're going to freeze your butt off in the winter, and sweat through your clothes in the summer, and I'll have to agree there that not many will use it.
|
|
|
Post by cybertiger on Jul 31, 2011 14:01:58 GMT
I read the story. It doesn't really give evidence of success or failure. It's basically just a feature story, and not really a news story at all. How much evidence of success do you want? These are all direct quotes from the article. How the hell do you define successful then?
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 31, 2011 14:25:50 GMT
How much evidence of success do you want? These are all direct quotes from the article. How the hell do you define successful then? From my post you're responding to: I find the mission of the program to be contained in the first sentence of this paragraph: It appears that people are using the system, but what we don't know is whether it has actually accomplished its goal. For instance, are the people just not buying and riding their own bikes now and using the program bikes instead? Has it actually removed any cars, or given people who otherwise might have taken a longer walk or Metro car an alternative? That's what's missing from the story, and without it, the story doesn't really show evidence of success or failure. It appears to be a convenience for some, though. So from your quotes: 150,000 trips - interesting, but not in the goal Doubling that - interesting, but not in the goal 6,000 - 15,000 annual users - interesting, but not in the goal Planned expansion and planning board grants - interesting, but not related to the goal at all. Those are numbers without full context. To define success as per the stated goal, we need to answer where those riders came from, or what they would have done without this program. Have they just eliminated the need for people to ride their own bike? Walk? Metro? Taxi? Car? When that is explored and answered, then we'll be closer to defining success against their stated goal. Is that clear enough on how the hell I'd define success with that program's stated goal?
|
|
|
Post by cybertiger on Jul 31, 2011 14:29:14 GMT
The hills are a bit steep in SF. All the bikes would end up at the bottoms of the hills because noone would be bothered to cycle to the tops. You Americans and your funny attitudes. The city area of San Francisco is mostly flat. Even if your statement is partially true it's easily balanced by using vans to transport bicycles to the more popular source stations (which still reduces traffic, because lets face it nobody in SF uses public transport because there isn't any except Caltrain). The hills aren't that steep. I imagine the chief problem to bike share schemes in the US is one single thing: American attitudes to going anywhere using any mode of transport other than their car, and lack of respect for anyone who thinks differently. A secondary problem is that you can't actually walk/cycle to many places due to lack of under/over passes around your freeways, but this is easily fixed with a little investment. It'll be interesting to see whether they're successful: www.sfmta.com/cms/bshare/indxbishare.htm
|
|