TNR BLOGS

May 09, 2008 | 9:33 AM
May 08, 2008 | 8:55 PM
May 08, 2008 | 6:06 PM

May 09, 2008 | 12:12 AM
May 08, 2008 | 5:13 PM
May 08, 2008 | 1:57 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 08, 2008 | 9:12 PM
May 08, 2008 | 3:26 PM
May 08, 2008 | 2:38 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
22.01.2008
Are Plug-Ins Around the Corner?

Over at Salon, Joseph Romm argues that affordable plug-in hybrid cars are only a few years away—even if we don't see a breakthrough in battery technology. That's a bold prediction, but it'd be a huge deal if it panned out. Right now, in terms of weaning the United States off oil—two-thirds of which goes toward transportation—plug-in hybrids are far more promising than liquefied coal (suicidal), corn ethanol (still too destructive), cellulosic ethanol (too far off), or hydrogen fuel-cell cars (way too far off). 

The tantalizing bit here is that, according to one recent Energy Department analysis, we could, in theory, replace 84 percent of existing cars and light trucks—180 million vehicles—with plug-in hybrids without building a single new power plant. (That assumes the plug-ins would charge during off-peak hours and feed back into the grid during the day.) Even if that didn't happen, greenhouse emissions would still drop considerably in a plug-in world, even if the cars were being powered by dirty coal plants, although obviously the green ideal is to have the cars powered by carbon-free sources—nuclear or renewables. As a bonus, by providing distributed energy storage, plug-ins would actually make some intermittent energy sources like wind (which mostly blows at night) more viable.

Anyway, it's one of those grandiose visions that seems to be getting less far-fetched by the day. The city of Austin is already taking a hard look at the idea, as is Israel. The catch, of course, is that plug-ins would require a higher price on carbon and a fair bit of government support to become viable, though probably less support than biofuels need, and presumably less effort than it takes to police the oil supply in the Middle East.

--Bradford Plumer

Posted: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:13 PM with 20 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Bukharin said:

Professor Peretz, from The Spine, calls it "A Good Investment for Israel and Humanity."  Prof. P. is no slouch.  

Bradford Plummer, I'm going to trust your judgement (or rather yha of Mr. Romm), in stating hydrogen-fuel cars are perhaps unrealistic.  Aren't hydrogen-fuel cars precisely what Bush previously babbled on about at one of his state of the union addresses?  If so, this more than ever makes so very much grand sense to me.

January 22, 2008 1:54 PM

Bukharin said:

Professor Peretz, from The Spine, calls it "A Good Investment for Israel and Humanity."  Prof. P. is no slouch.  

Bradford Plummer, I'm going to trust your judgement (or rather that of Mr. Romm), in stating hydrogen-fuel cars are perhaps unrealistic.  Aren't hydrogen-fuel cars precisely that which Bush previously babbled on about at one of his state of the union addresses?  If so, this more than ever makes so very much grand sense to me.

January 22, 2008 1:56 PM

Brad Plumer said:

Yeah, I'm pretty much following what Romm wrote in his last book, The Hype About Hydrogen (well, combined with a disinclination to believe that a series of huge technological breakthroughs are just over the horizon), but I'm certainly not positive of that. Ford has been developing a couple of (deep breath) plug-in-hybrid-hydrogen-fuel-cell vehicles, so who knows?

January 22, 2008 2:00 PM

aeromonas said:

"greenhouse emissions would still drop considerably in a plug-in world, even if the cars were being powered by dirty coal plants"

This statement is likely false.  To demostrate why, I'll have to delve into a bit of organic chemistry.

Coal generates more CO2 per unit of energy generated than pertroleum.  Like diamond, graphite, and chimney soot, coal is essentially pure carbon.  Each carbon atom is bonded to another carbon atom in its crystaline structure: -C-C-C-.  Petroleum is a HYDROcarbon.  In addition to being bonded to 1-3 other carbon atoms (usually 1 or 2), each carbon in gasoline is bonded to 2 or 3 hydrogen atoms: -C-H.  It is the breaking of these C-C and C-H bonds that releases energey when you burn either coal or petroleum, and the way this energy gets released is through the replacement of C-C and C-H bonds with C-O and H-O bonds.  Now for every C combusted, you get a molecule of CO2, and for every H a molecule of H2O, aka water.  Thus when you burn gas--to repeat, a hydrocarbon--a proportion of the energy released goes into the generation of water vapor.  With coal, it all goes to CO2.

You can add to this the inevitable inefficiencies associated with electrical power transmission--depending on the distances involved losses due to electrical resistance in transmission cables can be greater than 50%.  So to overcome this electrical motors would have to be several times more energy efficient than current internal combustion motors to result in a net reduction in greenhouse emissions, that is, if they were being run on electricity generated through the burning of coal.

Of course, the real long term advantage to electric cars is that they are capable of utilizing carbon-free power.  It would be a good thing for us all to drive plug-ins, only we should power those plug-ins not with coal, but sun, wind, tide and, yes, nuclear generated electricity.

January 22, 2008 2:16 PM

Brad Plumer said:

aeromonas--I'm basing this on a recent Carnegie Mellon study, which is described here, though sadly, the actual study seems to password-protected:

>>>>>

Plug-in hybrids look more promising as a pathway for reduction of GHG emissions. Even if coal electricity without CCS is used, plug-in hybrids could lead to a GHG emissions reduction of almost 25%. This demonstrates the worst case for plug-in hybrids, as GHGs would be further reduced with a low-carbon electricity portfolio.

It is important to note however, that this analysis does not include the emissions from manufacturing the storage battery used in plug-in hybrids. If GHG emissions from lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrids are included, total annual GHGs from plug-ins would increase by about 800-1,500 pounds of CO2 equivalents, depending if a twelve or eight-year vehicle life is assumed (Samaras and Meisterling 2007). Battery technologies are difficult to predict, but even when emissions from current battery production are included, plug-in hybrids result in substantially lower emissions than CTL pathways.

>>>>>>

In either case, though, I agree that it'd be infinitely preferable not to build any more coal plants.

January 22, 2008 2:22 PM

mschol17 said:

50% losses in electrical transmission lines?  Can you provide a reference?

January 22, 2008 2:29 PM

blackton said:

I am looking forward to the day I run my car on soylent green. Talk about a renewable biofuel.

Or maybe we should all go Flintstone's style, lighten cars and cut a hole in the floorboard.

As a little kid I used to think we would be approaching Jetson style by now, one of the disappointments of age.

January 22, 2008 2:35 PM

aeromonas said:

My (big) bad.

NOT 50% losses.  Not even close.  

I was working from memory--always a mistake--and in this case my memory appears to have been invented.

Nationally it appears that power transmission losses are about 7-8%.

Whoops.  Mea culpa.

January 22, 2008 2:40 PM

jet said:

"losses in cables can be greater than 50%"

50%.?  Even over a distance, the amount of heat that would generate would do some serious damage to the cables via I^2R losses.

Here's line to a 1995 DOE PDF that states that in the US losses for the entire grid are around 7.2% per year.  Now, line losses account for 60% of that loss, the other 40% from transformers.  Maybe a misreading of the breakdown led to the 50% number.

Here's the link:

climatetechnology.gov/.../tech-options-1-3-2.pdf

January 22, 2008 2:47 PM

jet said:

aeromonas,

S**t happens.  I can see misreading that breakdown in the pdf link I provided in a quick read myself.

January 22, 2008 2:49 PM

jet said:

Oh crud, one of my posts disappeared - maybe because I used the S word with two *'s to fill in the middle letters.

Anyway aeromonas,  as  I posted before the censor bug wiped my post out:

Crud happens.  It's easy to see how a quick read of the loss source breakdown in the pdf I posted could get misread.

January 22, 2008 2:55 PM

cspencef said:

Quoth blackton:

"As a little kid I used to think we would be approaching Jetson style by now, one of the disappointments of age."

www.youtube.com/watch

links, if it works (I am so incompetent in such things), to an IBM software commercial from 2000, in which Avery Brooks laments the lack of flying cars, in his own signature style -- "I was PROMised flying CARS!  I don't see ANY flying CARS!"  

All I could say then, and all I can think now, is "tell me about it, Captain Sisko."

But I suppose they'd be hell on carbon emissions...

January 22, 2008 3:41 PM

Bukharin said:

blackton said:

I am looking forward to the day I run my car on soylent green.

Christ Almighty!  I'll vote for you (twice) blackton!

January 22, 2008 4:00 PM

Bukharin said:

blackton said:

.

Or maybe we should all go Flintstone's style, lighten cars and cut a hole in the floorboard.

That is the benchmark.  The differential between Conservatives and the Democratic party.  

A conservative thinks he’s viewing a documentary when watching the Flinstones, Dinosaurs and humans living side by side, whereas a liberal knows it’s a cartoon.

January 22, 2008 4:11 PM

blackton said:

thank you Bukharin, and might I add that is a pretty damn funny quip yourself about the Flintstones.

January 22, 2008 4:29 PM

jet said:

Bukharin, I'll second blacton (Flintstones and conservatives)

January 22, 2008 5:25 PM

Political Animal said:

PLUG-IN HYBRIDS....Sure, plug-in hybrids are a bridge technology. But it's an awfully long bridge, so I'm a big fan anyway. Brad Plumer explains why in 500 words or less here. Joseph Romm has the longer version here....

January 22, 2008 6:40 PM

CRS9TNR said:

Where to start?

Romm claims his UltraCap Hybrid will save $ 9,000 within 4 years are current gas prices.  He also states that most cars drive less than 40 miles a day which is failry reasonable, so presumably this is what he uses in his calculations.  Well if you drive 40 miles a day you are using about 2 gallons a day.  To save $ 9,000 in a year at $ 3.50/gal you would need to save 12.5 gallons/week.

So we have a technology that will save 90% of the gas we use.  Which evil enterprise is stopping this technolgy?  Government?  Oil Industry Profiteers?

And this is required because we are heading towards  irreversible climate catastrophe soon.  No general date is mentioned, but it's coming.  And you can't argue with this.

And the cost of gas will go up over the next 20 years, and Hybrids will get better, so you better hurry up and get one while that old Internal Combustion just stands still.  His piece would have a little more credibility if he discussed new diesels and direct injection technologies for IC Engines.  My bet is that IC Engines will improve by abour 30% over the next 10 year, making it even hard for Hybrids to cost justify.

Now I am sure UltraCaps are a neat idea and will be part of a broad approach to hybrid powertrians.  But they are not the magic bullet presented here.  If you read between the lines, all this company has is an idea.  They do not have manufacturing capability, they do not have an idea of the costs, and they have no customers.  But if someone gave them $ 1000 million, wow, they could change the world.

Won't happen.  A few salient points that are largely dismissed outside of Detroit.  First, no one and I mean no one is investing in Manufacturing in America.  Costs are too high and returns are too low.  A new product like this requires local production so that a larger audience can understand it and a group of customers could understand it and make it the standard.  Second point is the problems of patents.  With trademarked names in the piece, AFS Trnity was trying to get their product mentioned in the trade papers.  This gives them a legitimate claim in patent court if anyone develops a similar product.  However, so many patents are generated every year that the automakers can't determine what is patented and what isn't.  While AFS Trinity is doing what's right for them, there are about 50-100 other technologies required for hybrids that will be locked up in patents until someone pulls them all together and works out the plan.

Lastly there is the practical manner of the customer buying the car.  You can get a good gas car for roughly $200-300 per month.  Why would you double the payment for something that you don't know anything about.

Oh that's right!  The first million buyers get to share about a trillion dollars in subsidies.  Washington will give us our money back.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid boys.

January 22, 2008 9:41 PM

ChanRobt said:

Plug-ins only help if we're willing to generate the electricity with nukes.  Otherwise you're burning coal or oil to make the juice.  

It may be somewhat more efficient to centrally generate the energy, but you're still burning fossil fuels.

If even the French produce more 80% of their electricty with nukes, what's our problem?

January 23, 2008 12:12 PM

Environment and Energy said:

The New York Times had a good, concise editorial yesterday on the global surge in food prices: Last week

April 11, 2008 4:24 PM