PHEVs 16.4% - 26.4% GHG reductions by 2030 - Electric Power Research Institute study

[JohnWxy]

The Electric Power Research Institute conducted a study of potential GHG emissions reductions obtainable with PHEVs. They concluded:

"PHEVs have lower GHG emissions ... than either the conventional or the hybrid vehicles, ranging from a 40% to 65% improvement over the conventional vehicle to a 7% to 46% improvement over the hybrid electric vehicle."


THis estimate is actually for 2050 and includes scenarios with very low emissions for electricity (which is reasonable for 2050). I wanted to see what the estimated aggregate reductions to GHGs be for 2030 would be. The EPRI study also includes a projection for PHEV market penetration for 2030 of about 40% - 41%


If you apply the GHG reduction estimates for 2050 time frame (40% to 65%) to the 2030 market penetration percentage you get an aggregate GHG reduction for PHEVs in 2030 of 16.4% to 26.4%. If you average the upper and lower bounds of this range you get a figure for GHG emissions reduction of 21.5% for PHEVs.

COMPUTING THE GROWTH OF AGGREGATE GHG EMISSIONS FROM PHEVs FROM 2010 - 2030:

I entered the midpoint of the range (40% - 65% = 52.5%) for the GHG reduction estimate (for PHEVs compared to conventional ICE powered cars) into a spreadsheet computing the growth of the numbesr of PHEVs on the road to achieve 41% penetration by 2030. The spreadsheet shows the aggregate GHG emissions each year as sales and the number of PHEVs on the road grows. The spreadsheet can be seen here:
http://sites.google.com/site/truthisstrangerthanfictionx/PHEV_Emissions_Reductions_2030.xls

If you want to see what using the high end of the emissions reduction estimate (65% reduction) produces enter 65 in Cell K15 (when you enter this cell a naviagation box will appear and it will try to take you to the EPRI study. Just click on "cancel" and you will stay on the spreadsheet and you can then enter a value in cell K15). The resultant value for aggregate GHG reductions in 2030 is 26.7% (given a GHG reductions per car of 65%).


As you can see the aggregate GHG reductions build rather slowly. This is why we need to do those things that will reduce GHGs in a shorter time frame because, as Global Warming is accelerating, if we do not do more to reduce GHG emissions in the near term the reductions achievable with PHEVs (and electrics) in 20 years will actually not matter. The warming will be proceeding much too fast by then for us to reign it in just using the reductions achievable with electric cars. IF we do those things that will achieve greater reductins sooner then we will be able to add to those gains with reductions from electric cars and possibly save the planet from uncontrolled Global Warming.


This study by the Electric Power Research Institute was first mentioned in another (link below) thread but I thought it was important enough to warrant it's own thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=216302&mesg_id=218555

[tabatha]

1. That was quite a conversation in the previous thread.

Reducing GHG emissions as fast as possible should be the highest priority.
I am really concerned about feedback mechanisms getting out of hand.

[JohnWxy]

4. Right. Many people say the "know" global warmng is real but they still have not

grasped the menaing of the fact that it is accelerating. This means that if we don't do something more than we currently are and right away (not 20 years from now) the gains that electric cars will make in 20 years will be wasted because they will not be enough to reign in global warming by then.

HOpefully this link will work. It shows how the GHG reductions from PHEVs mount slowly over the coming 20 years (assuming a 39% annual growth in sales). As you can see appreciable reductions only start to occur in the last three or four years of that 20 year span (from 2027 on).

http://sites.google.com/site/truthisstrangerthanfictionx/PHEV_Emissions_Reductions_2030.xls?attredirects=0

Global warning is accelerating and predicting that acceleration is a guessing game:

One concern is the Permafrost: The permafromt is defrosting. As it defrosts the decaying plant matter releases methane, a gas 23 times as potent as a global warming molecule than CO2.( http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090702/thawing-permafrost-could-emit-massive-amounts-greenhouse-gases )

A study published this week shows that the amount of carbon locked in the Arctic permafrost is more than double previous estimates. Additionally, other research shows that the permafrost is thawing, meaning this enormous amount of carbon could be released into the atmosphere as the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.

The thawing of the permafrost is especially dangerous because it could cause a domino effect of more warming that, for now, cannot be checked by human engineering or policy.

"We now estimate the deposits contain over 1.5 trillion tons of frozen carbon, about twice as much carbon as contained in the atmosphere", said Dr. Charles Tarnocai, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, and lead author of the study, published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles.
~~
~~
It’s possible that, once started, one or both of these feedback systems could continue by themselves – even if human greenhouse gas emissions were to be significantly reduced or eliminated, Romanovsky says. Alone, the permafrost could contribute to the atmosphere an amount of greenhouse gases comparable to the amount humans have emitted, and possibly more.

The point is if Global Warming is allowed to get too far along it may get to a point that it won't matter how much GHG reductions we achieve - they may NOT BE ENOUGH to reign in Global Warming.

Global Warming could get to a point where it will be feeding on itself. If that occurs we have passed the "event horizon" of Global Warming.

[kristopher]

2. How does your spreadsheet account for diversion of funds?

There is a trade off when money is diverted from technologies designed to achieve maximum GHG reductions over time and get us to zero carbon emissions as rapidly as possible.

That diversion of funds means in the period from 2030-2050 there will be far MORE emissions than there would be if we pursued the maximum trajectory.

Does your spreadsheet account for that?

How much more CO2 do we ultimately belch forth by following your prescription of impatience?

You are calling for giving corn farmers and ethanol producers a significant portion of the funds that would otherwise go to building renewable, carbon free system that would depends on the storage offered by electric vehicles. Does your spreadsheet address the effect that fewer EVs will have on the pace of renewable deployment because of reduced storage being available?

When you tally all of that up, does it justify they policy you are advocating or is the policy you are advocating really just a smokescreen to feed public funds to the pigs in the corn farmers and the ethanol industry?

[JohnWxy]

3. As stated at link provided the use of Ethanol by bringing down the price of gasoline will free up

money which could fund the very expensive research we are committing to, to make the necessary technology of electric cars and better batteries a reality (in a period of time). As stated at link: ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=213521&mesg_id=220201 ) in 2008 ethanol saved us consevatively about $62 billion dollars in lower gasoline costs. The concept of the Elasticity of Demand/Supply for any commodity is unniversally recognized by rational people and economists. This is how supplying some of our fuel needs with ethanol brings down the price of gasoline.

THe use of ethanol will actually then free up moneys to help fund the enormous investment we are committed to making to make electric vehiclesa and better batteries a reality. We need this technology but let's not kid ourselves this technology will not by itself reduce CO2 emissions to zero for transportation sector until we have a completely GHG emissions power sector.

Using the spreadsheet I mentiioned, even if you enter a 90% per car GHG reduction factor for PHEVs it would still only get you an aggregate reduction of GHGs of 37% by 2030 (given a 41% market penetration of PHEVs). We will need other technologies to increase GHG reductions in 2030.

BUT THE IMPORTANT FACT HERE IS IF WE DO NOT GET SOME MORE APPRECIABLE REDUCTIONS OF GHGs STARTING IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE ACCELERATED SO MUCH BY 2030 THAT THE 37% REDUCTIN WILL NOT EVEN MATTER. IT WILL BE ALL OVER BY THEN. WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO REIGN IN GLOBAL WARMING BY THEN (UNLESS PERHAPS WE COULD ACHIEVE 90% REDUCTION OF GHG EMISSIONS (FOR ALL SECTORS) - IN 2030 ...NOT A LIKELY POSSIBILITY.).

YOU STATED: "You are calling for giving corn farmers and ethanol producers a significant portion of the funds that would otherwise go to building renewable, carbon free system that would depends on the storage offered by electric vehicles."

First of all, the excise tax credit goes NOT TO FARMERS but to FUEL BLENDERS. AS I HAVE SHOWN ABOVE ETHANOL BEING IN THE MARKET SAVES US MORE THAN IT COSTS IN TERMS OF THE EXCISE TAX CREDIT (about $57 billon more saved in gasoline costs over the Blenders Excies Tax credit in 2008). The excise tax credit is not permanent. In 2009 is drops to $.45 per blended gallon. In the future it will be adjusted downward as market conditions deem it appropriate. It is meant as an aid to get the domestic ethanol industry started.

So, there will be no money taken from developing electric technologies rather more will be available if we use more ethanol (increasing supply by importing from Brazil and other countries who could contribute to the supply).

NOte you said "that would otherwise go to building renewable, carbon free system that would depends on the storage offered by electric vehicles." The Carbon Free technology you speak of will not be achieved by 2030. It MAY be achieved in 2050. In 2030 electric cars MAY achieve a 21% GHG reduction (vs ICE powered cars) and it may get up to 27% reductions - based on the EPRI study findings as a guide. A carbon FREE PHEV requires electric power generation being entirely GHG emsiions free. This might be achievec by 2050 (40 years off).

Keep in mind to get a 41% market penetration of PHEVs by 2030 you would have to achieve a yearly growth in sales of PHEVs of 39% every year. This will be quite a feat to achieve. Nobody really knows if this is possible or how likely it is to be achieved. (that is, these estimates of sales growth have large error bands around them and the 39% sales growth is likely NOT in the middle of the range - that is it's probably at the TOP of the forecasted possible sales growth range.)

What this means is there is an equal probability of the sales being lower but without a full accounting of how they arrived at the sales growth estimate we do not know the exact range (or the Error of the Estimates) and therefore cannot compute the low end or the middle of the range of the estimate). IF you used for example a 25% annual sales growth you would not get to 415 market penetration by 2030 but somthing a good deal less.

[kristopher]

5. Right, it will "free up funds"

IF the study were legitimate - which it most definitely isn't - you'd still have to go through the process of collecting those "funds" as taxes and then getting the Congress to agree to use those taxes to increase the budget of other renewable energy development.

John your arguments are bogus bullshit and you have NOTHING to show for years of sucking up 80%+ of our renewable energy spending except increased dependence on foreign oil and a fat bottom line for agribusiness giants like ADM.

How does your spreadsheet account for diversion of fund? Your screeds are spectacularly bad at addressing that issue.

There is a trade off when money is diverted from technologies designed to achieve maximum GHG reductions over time and get us to zero carbon emissions as rapidly as possible.

That diversion of funds means in the period from 2030-2050 there will be far MORE emissions than there would be if we pursued the maximum trajectory.

Does your spreadsheet account for that?

How much more CO2 do we ultimately belch forth by following your prescription of impatience?

You are calling for giving corn farmers and ethanol producers a significant portion of the funds that would otherwise go to building renewable, carbon free system that would depends on the storage offered by electric vehicles. Does your spreadsheet address the effect that fewer EVs will have on the pace of renewable deployment because of reduced storage being available?

When you tally all of that up, does it justify they policy you are advocating or is the policy you are advocating really just a smokescreen to feed public funds to the pigs in the corn farmers and the ethanol industry?

Some words on the validity of your claimed savings http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=213521&mesg_id=220304

[JohnWxy]

6. "Oil prices would be at least 15% higher than they are, if not for today's output of ethanol.”- F.B.

http://blog.cleanfuelsdc.org/2008/05/a-very-memorial.html


"the billions of gallons of ethanol are moderating oil prices by "easing energy bottlenecks, Oil prices would be at least 15% higher than they are, if not for today's output of ethanol.” -- Francisco Blanch, head of global commodity research at Merrill Lynch.

You are correct until the money is obtained by the government it can't be spent researching electric cars. But the Government is going to have to tax us for the money to invest in electric cars with or without the savings to all of us who drive due to ethanol's impact on gasoline prices. But if we save money on gasoline that CAN be used by the nation to support research on electric cars which will be heavily supported by the Government this is certainly better than NOT enjoying those savings.

Of course, some of the cost to the Government for PHEVs will be in the form of tax revenues foregone with the tax incentives for the purchase of PHEVs ($7,500 per vehicle? ..not sure if that has been set yet).

[JohnWxy]

7. Jacobson projects CO2 reductions for PHEVs (100% of fleet) = 31% - 33% with Clean Electricity

for charging the PHEVs. That is zero emissions electric power. I haven't found any projections for when 100% replacement of ICE vehicles with PHEVs is supposed to be possible in Jacobson survey article: "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security"


Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security - Jacobson

below are Jacobson's projections for CO2 emissions reductions if "all
(small and large) onroad vehicles" were replaced with BEVs.

(Note: BEVs connotes Battery Electric Vehicles)


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, (page 158)





"Running 100% of vehicles on electricity
provided by wind, on the other hand, could reduce US carbon by
32.5–32.7% since wind turbines are 99.2–99.8% carbon free over
a 30 yr lifetime and the maximum reduction possible from the
vehicle sector is 32.73%...Running BEVs on electricity provided by
solar-PV can reduce carbon by 31–32.3%."


for BEVs charged with CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) electric power,
the estimated reduction of CO2 emissions with 100% replacement of vehicles: 17.7% to 26.4%
(see Figure 2. page 158)


Do you think he looked at the Electric Power Research Institutes projecions?

Note that Jacobson states (on pg 155) that:

"The lifecycle emissions of a coal power plant,
excluding direct emissions but including coal mining, transport,
and plant construction/decommissioning, range from 175–290 g
CO2e kWh1.49 Without CCS, the direct emissions from coalfired
power plants worldwide are around 790–1020 g CO2e
kWh1. The CO2 direct emission reduction efficiency due to CCS
is 85–90%.32 This results in a net lifecycle plus direct emission rate
for coal-CCS of about 255–440 g CO2e kWh1,"




So if my in-my-head calculations are right this means that for CCS electric
power Jacobson assumes it is about one third as polluting as todays coal fired electricity.

oF course if we are looking out to the year 2030 100% clean, zero emissions electricity
is not very likely and the CCS electricity efficiency (1/3rd of today's coal power) isn't
likely by 2030 either.

But, perhaps by 2030 we will be using 10% to 15% less coal to generate elecric power so go ahead and use the CCS estimate for a
2030 emissions reduction figure for 100% PHEVs. Of course, EPRI projected 41% penetration by 2030 so you would have
to factor the 17.7% to 26.4% by .41 yielding numbers less than half those for the CCS numbers in Jacobson's survey article.

That's just using Jacobson's numbers factored for reasonable expectations of emissions for electric power in 2030 and for EPRI's projected 41% penetration of PHEVs for 2030.

[kristopher]

8. That's 31-33% of TOTAL US emissions; ethanol has potential to RAISE them by 9%

It is worth noting that the percentage numbers he used are based on the fact that the personal transportation SECTOR produces about 32% of TOTAL US carbon emissions. Eliminating all carbon emissions from that sector will therefore reduce the *TOTAL* of US emissions by that same amount. All of the percentages given are part of total emissions, not sector emissions.

The full quote provides relevant data on ethanol you omitted. There may be some slight variation since this is from a prepublication version of the paper:

Converting to corn-E85 could cause either no change in or increase CO2 emissions by up to 9.1% with 30% E85 penetration (Appendix, I37).

Converting to cellulosic-E85 could change CO2 emissions by +4.9 to -4.9% relative to gasoline with 30% penetration (Appendix, J16).

Running 100% of vehicles on electricity provided by wind, on the other hand, could reduce U.S. carbon by 32.5-32.7% since wind turbines are 99.2-99.8% carbon free over a 30-year lifetime and the maximum reduction possible from the vehicle sector is 32.73%.

Using HFCVs, where the hydrogen is produced by wind electrolysis, could reduce U.S. CO2 by about 31.9-32.6%, slightly less than using wind-BEVs since more energy is required to manufacture the additional turbines needed for wind-HFCVs.

Running BEVs on electricity provided by solar-PV can reduce carbon by 31-32.3%.

Nuclear-BEVs could reduce U.S. carbon by 28.0-31.4%.

Of the electric power sources, coal-CCS producing vehicles results in the least emission reduction due to the lifecycle, leakage, and opportunity-cost emissions of coal-CCS.

[JohnWxy]

9. You are quoting Jacoabson/Searchinger - might as well be quoting from Alice in Wonderland.

Jacobson's second "study" used ethanol "conclusions" from widely panned Searchinger "study".

[kristopher]

10. I forgot you only recognize the product of corn state universities..

[JohnWxy]

11. I rely on legitimate research (e.g. Argonne Natl Laboratory, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Agriculture,)

also University of Nebraska research published in Yale's highly respected Journal of Industrial Ecology (called by Bruce Dale the "Gold Standard" in the field) all of which have demonstrated with scientific analysis that starch based ethanol is an efficient and practical approach to reducing GHG emissions from ICE powered vehicles.


I rely on legitimate research. Criticism of the Searchinger "study" assumptions on ethanol used by Jacobson are from all over academia and government:



"Indeed if you wished to put US ethanol production in the worst possible light, assuming the worst possible set
of production conditions guaranteed to give the worst possible ILUC effects, then the assumptions chosen would
not be far from those actually presented (without argument or discussion of alternatives) in the Searchinger et al.
paper. This, together with the fact that the paper is not replicable, since the models and parameters used are
not accessible, places a question mark over the refereeing procedures used for this paper by the journal Science.
A paper that seeks to place a procedure in the worst possible light, and refrains from allowing others to check
its results, is perhaps better described as ideology than as science."

Prof Roger Sylvester-Bradley -Gallagher Review


"A fundamental problem raised by several respondents arises from Searchinger’s
inaccurate assumption (see 6 above) of ‘pound for pound’ displacement of corn.
Allowing for the higher protein of DDGS, and also for land to replace the oil
foregone (we assumed oil palm); we calculate that Searchinger’s assumption about
doubles the land required to substitute for US corn-ethanol.Ensus (ES15)
conclude the assumption trebles the result, but they do not account for the ‘lost’ oil
from the displaced soya."


"It should be clarified what has been assumed in Searchinger’s approach about the
inter-changeability of maize, rice, wheat & barley etc. It is puzzling that
there is 23 Mha of unused arable land in Eastern Europe & the former Soviet Union
(Riddle 2008), yet the predicted response in these parts is for cropping to decrease!"


Dept of Energy criticisms of Searchinger's methodology

The Searchinger study contains some unrealistic assumptions and obsolete data. The key issues are as follows:

• The study assumes a corn ethanol production scenario of 30 billion gallons per year by 2015, which is double the amount
established by EISA (see Figure 1). To meet the new RFS, after 15 billion gallons, biofuels must come from feedstocks other
than grain, and primarily be produced from cellulosic feedstocks, such as agricultural wastes and forest residues.

• The study relies on a worst-case scenario by assuming that land use and deforestation in 2015 will mirror that which
occurred in the 1990s. Better land management practices and avoided deforestation credits, if adopted, could reduce
deforestation rates. In fact, deforestation rates have slowed down over the past decade.

• The assumption that corn exports will decline by 62 percent is contradicted by historical trends. As Figure 2 shows,
U.S. corn exports have remained fairly constant at around 2 billion bushels per year throughout the entire growth phase
of the ethanol industry. Specifically, the 2007 exports represent a 14% increase compared to 2006 level, while US corn
ethanol production has reached close to six billion gallons that same year.

• The premise that dramatic land use will result from U.S. corn ethanol use production is flawed. US corn production for
food and feed has increased by 1 percent per year for the past two decades. Moreover, Figure 3 shows the increase in
protein-rich U.S. Distiller Dry Grains (DDGS) exports, which are growing significantly as U.S. corn ethanol production
expands. DDGS export growth will be a growing contributor to the global food supply.2

• One scenario analyzed in the study incorrectly assumes the conversion of US corn cropland to switchgrass. No farmer
would convert corn acreage to switchgrass as the value of corn will most likely exceed that of a non-food crop.
Furthermore, a DOE/Oak Ridge National Laboratory study found that more than 1 billion tons of biomass resources are
available in this country (Figure 4) without displacing corn cropland.
(more)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.issues.org/25.3/kline.html">Oak Ridge National Laboratory - Kline et al

In another line of critique, some argue that the potential benefits of biofuel might be offset by indirect effects.

But large uncertainties and postulations underlie the debate about the indirect land-use effects of biofuels on

tropical deforestation, the critical implication being that use of U.S. farmland for energy crops necessarily

causes new land-clearing elsewhere. Concerns are particularly strong about the loss of tropical forests and natural

grasslands. The basic argument is that biofuel production in the United States sets in motion a necessary scenario

of deforestation.


According to this argument, if U.S. farm production is used for fuel instead of food, food prices rise and

farmers in developing countries respond by growing more food. This response requires clearing new land and burning

native vegetation and, hence, releasing carbon. This “induced deforestation” hypothesis is based on questionable

data and modeling assumptions about available land and yields, rather than on empirical evidence.

(more0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legitimate research by the Argonne National Laboratory, the Dept of Agriculture and the Dept. of Energy establishes that starch based ethanol is an efficient and practical way to reduce GHg emissions by ICE powered cars. EPA researcy shows that use of Combined Heat and Power would increase GHG reductions for ethanol vs gasoline another 50% (to about 78% reduction) vs gasoline.

The most current research on the efficiency of the current ethanol industry shows that on average ethanol decreases GGHG emissions vs gasoline by on average, 51%. THis study was published in Yale's peer reviewed Journal of Industrial Ecology - a very highly regarded journal - (called the Gold Standard by Prof Bruce Dale, Michigan State University).