How to Ruin OPEC's Birthday - how to keep OPEC from running our lives for another half century.

[JohnWxy]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/09/how_to_ruin_opecs_birthday?page=full

To weaken OPEC we must change the playing field altogether -- we must force the cartel to compete against not just other oil suppliers, but other fuels and energy sources. We need new vehicles that enable a whole new kind of fuel competition.

A shift from cars powered by oil to cars powered by electricity -- whether plug-in hybrids or pure electric vehicles -- would have tremendous impact on the oil market. Electricity is cheap, clean, scalable, and readily available. Most importantly, 98 percent of U.S. electricity is generated from non-petroleum energy sources such as coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable energy.

But studies project that electric vehicles will not reach a market penetration deep enough to threaten OPEC before 2030, which means that we need near-term solutions as well. One option is a simple technical fix which, according to General Motors, costs just $70 per car: turning every new vehicle sold in the United States into a flex-fuel vehicle. Cars powered by internal combustion engines could run on any combination of gasoline and alcohol fuels such as ethanol and methanol made from coal, natural gas, and biomass. The spot price for methanol from natural gas, currently under $1 a gallon, is competitive on a per-mile basis with gasoline.

Congress could make this happen by imposing an open fuel standard, requiring new vehicles to be flex-fuel-capable. Such a standard would put a virtual cap on the price of oil. Consumers would opt for the most economic fuel on a per-mile cost basis and thus shift to substitute fuels the next time OPEC allows the price of oil to exceed a certain threshold. Because no automaker can give up on the U.S. market, the open fuel standard would become a de facto global standard. Cars sold anywhere in the world would be flex-fuel models, allowing small and developing countries to develop competitive fuel markets and domestic alternative fuel industries, while protecting themselves against economically devastating oil shocks.

An open fuel standard would add just $70 to the cost of a new car, the equivalent of filling up a couple of tanks at the pump. Such minimal investment would enable the United States for the first time to challenge OPEC using the weapon the cartel fears most: competition at the pump. Neglecting to adopt such a standard, and thus maintaining oil's virtual monopoly over transportation fuel and strategic importance, is the best birthday gift the United States could give its least-favorite cartel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...ah, dream on, dream on. We will only realize the sensibleness of this proposal when it's too late to make a difference(in terms of Global Warming, anyway).

[leveymg]

1. Future Flex-fuel vehicle: runs on enriched uranium, coal or corn on the cob. DeLorean?

Don't tell me this guy isn't a shill for the natural gas, ethanol and "clean coal" industries - in other words, the big globally integrated energy giants who want in on federal green conversion subsidies. The very same corporate entities which now dominate gasoline retailing in America.

Tell you what, use the anti-trust laws to break up the horizontally and vertically integrated energy conglomerates, and we might think about mandating flex-fuel equipment on new vehicles.

[txlibdem]

2. Scoff if you will, unbelievers

Mandating that all new vehicles are flex-fuel compatible is the best way to kick start our freedom from foreign oil.

It would be fine with me if we don't get off of oil completely till 2030 as long as we can be free of foreign oil by 2020.

[happyslug]

3. And where do we get the Ethanol and Methanol from?

While the base source of energy can be some crop, we still need to put into the mix some sort of energy to keep the cost down. Ethanol and Methanol can provide power, but the return of energy into each in relation to the energy out, does NOT even come close to Oil and Gasoline. A huge subsidy is provided for Ethanol and Methanol production (including the use of Diesel tractors to plant, grow, harvest and haul the whatever is the base for the Ethanol and Methanol).

Site explaining Ethanol and Methanol from Corn can never exceed 3 units of energy out for every unit of energy put into the production (This excludes the solar energy used by the plant to produce the corn):
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/53735

An oil Drum site saying most Energy gain to energy used to produce the corn ethanol and Methanol is about 1:1 i.e net energy gain is Zero:
http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6760

Here is an estimate from Wikipedia on how much electric generation we would need to replace oil:

Caltech physics professor David Goodstein has stated that
“ ... you would have to build 10,000 of the largest power plants that are feasible by engineering standards in order to replace the 10 terawatts of fossil fuel we're burning today ... that's a staggering amount and if you did that, the known reserves of uranium would last for 10 to 20 years at that burn rate. So, it's at best a bridging technology ... You can use the rest of the uranium to breed plutonium 239 then we'd have at least 100 times as much fuel to use. But that means you're making plutonium, which is an extremely dangerous thing to do in the dangerous world that we live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory#Energy_return_on_energy_investment

My point is we can NOT continue to use the level of energy we have been using. We have to use it more conservatively. We WILL probably NEVER produce the electric power to replace the gasoline cars of today, thus we will have to return to a 1930 or 1920 level of car ownership i.e. only one out of 20 people have a car, the rest of us go by foot or train. We will have to move closer to where we go to school and work. People do NOT want to accept this, so they are hoping electric cars can replace gasoline cars one to one, but once you look into the cost of production of electricity, while possible, will be extremely hard to achieve. The best solution is to abandon the Automobile except as an emergency or heavy hauler vehicle. In both situation people will pay a premium for the service over and above what they will pay to be able to drive. The numbers are NOT there without massive reduction in the level of use of Motor Transport and that requires a rejection of the Suburban model used in the US since the 1920s. We have to return to a more Urban/Rural division where most people live close to a distribution point so they can get what they need and provide services that are needed. In rural areas I see a return to traditional farms as oil based farming becomes unprofitable given the high price of Oil. Electric drives will help, but not much,

Remember electricity has two source of loss of energy beside the actual use of electricity. The first is the generation of the Electricity. The Second is the storage of electrical power in Batteries, Fuel Cell or other electric storage devices. Old Style batteries had a 75% loss rare when it came to storage (it took 100 watts to put electric energy into a battery so to be able to get 25 watts of power out of the Battery). Lithium promises to do a better job then 25%, but the claims it can equal 95% output to input are stated (making it the equal to Flywheels when it comes to electrical storage).

The real killer is HOW much energy is in Oil, according to the following list 46 mg/KG as compared to a Lithium Ion battery which can STORE only .46 MG/KG, that is a factor of 100, a huge difference in energy that can (or is) being stored per kilogram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#cite_note-11

The problem is oil is so rich in energy per gram, it will be hard to find something as rich to replace it with. Uranium, technically, has way more energy, but Uranium needs extensive processing to be a used, unlike oil where, with minimal processing, it is ready to be used. Thus except for the Nuclear fission and Fusion elements NOTHING exceeds oil when it comes to energy storage. Hydrogen can exceed Oil, but unless kept in an air state, Hydrogen will leak out of any container at about 1% per day. Oil will stay in a Container designed to hold it almost forever. That is why Oil has been and will continue to be used. It is cheap source of energy until demand for it exceeds what the world can supply. Nothing comes close.

[Kringle]

5. oil costs 10X as much as coal

that is why there is a big push
to build them

the Chevy Volt goes
40 miles per charge,
before it needs to run its gas engine.

why should I care about the
energy density of this or that

[happyslug]

6. Energy Density shows how much energy is in oil compare to other sources

To beat out oil in energy density, you have to go to nuclear material. No one is talking about Nuclear cars so the options are Oil operated cars or Electric Operated cars. In simple terms to propel a car with electric drive takes 10 times the energy storage then with Oil.

In the Prius, which does NOT use Lithium batteries as will the Volt, the batteries take up almost 10 times the space as the Gasoline in the Gas Take AND last only about 30 minutes before the gasoline engine has to be turned on to charge the batteries up again. Now the inefficiency of the Gasoline Engine and the Inefficiency of batteries come into play with the Prius and the Volt. AS a general rule these inefficiencies are opposite in a hybrid and thus when used together you have a much more efficient car (When the engine is producing excess power, that excess power is saved via charging the batteries, when the batteries can NOT provide the needed power, the gasoline engine is engaged to provide the additional power).

Thus together, Gasoline engines and Batteries improve fuel efficiency to a wide extent (But a bigger gain can be achieved by just downgrading the engine, as VW did with the Lupo, and other manufactures have done in Europe with various "City Cars", cars not capable of 50 mph do to having a small engine, a small engine that provides all the power needed 90% of the time, but no excess power for acceleration when needed). The City Cars provide much of the same savings as the Prius does, do to having a much smaller diesel or gasoline engine, at a much reduced cost.

Now, the Volt offers to do better then the Prius, given its lithium batteries, thus the 40 miles before charging as opposed to the 20 or so miles of the Prius.

Anyway, the point was HOW do you provide the fuel needed to run the gasoline engine when oil is in short supply? Furthermore can we produce the electric power needed to charge electric cars? Now most cars will be charged at night instead of during peak usage of electricity (Which tends to be doing the day) thus will balance out some of the electricity lost through non use at night (For example, they are utilities in the US who at night and other non-peak usage periods, pump water uphill to fill in lakes so that that water can be used to run generators during peak electricity use periods. Sounds odd, but it is the most efficient way to "store" electrical generated power (The fastest generators to turn on are the hydro electric so saved for peak periods).

Now, some saving can occur if electric cars are charged on off peak periods, but that will increase the "base load" of electric generation, thus providing less leeway during peak electric use periods. In the short term with minimal number of electric Cars NOT much of a problem, but once electric cars (NOT hybrids, but plug in electrics) start to be used in sizable numbers it will affect the electric grid. Sooner or later the grid will have to be expanded by this new use and expanded on an extent that can be as high as 10 times the PRESENT electric generation capability. Where are we going to get the power for this increase? Hydro-electric dams are maxed out (Through hydro generation on flowing rivers appears doable now with new technology), Coal powered plants? Natural Gas Powered Plants? Wind and Solar may provide some, no does NOT promise to even replace existing plants let alone produce the additional electric power needed.

That leaves Fission and Fusion. Both are a good source of power (I am ignoring the negatives of both) but Fusion is still a hope for technology while Fission has its own limitation given what is required to build a Fission plant (Please ignore the 20 year warning in the cite I gave, that is based on known sources of uranium, uranium being an element can be found anywhere on the earth, unlike oil which is plant based AND can not be found below 20,000 feet, at 20,000 feet the heat of the earth converts oil to natural gas, we could drive to 20,000 feet by 1938 so this is old technology).

As I look at it, massive conservation is the key, much more then converting to electric cars. That conservation includes moving closer to where you work, shop and go to school. If all three is within walking distance then they is less need for a car, and the less a car is used the better we will be able to match electric generation with our transportation and other needs for electricity.

[kristopher]

9. a car with electric drive takes 10 times the energy storage then with Oil = FALSE

Your statements are usually fairly well researched and I enjoy reading them, but you have many of the fundamental issues involved in electric cars totally wrong.

The energy density of petroleum is important, but it isn't the only quality that we need to be concerned with when we evaluate its uses. In fact, in spite of its energy density, the path we follow to convert that stored energy into actual power that is performing work is very, very wasteful as almost all of that stored energy is wasted as heat (approx 85%).

You are also in error about the actual meaning and significance of "baseload" electricity.

[happyslug]

15. I was ignoring those points, to respond to the issue of density

Yes, internal combustion engines are NO where near 100% efficient, most reports put it in the 15-20% range. At the same time Electrical engines also have efficiency problems (Through no where near the loss of Internal Combustion engines). Through some test engines have gone as high as 52% efficient.

See for report on 51% efficiency, but note it is for top efficiency NOT what we get from engines in vehicles today:
http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm

Electric Motors are 78-95% efficient:
http://www.psnh.com/Business/SmallBusiness/Motor.asp

Just pointing out that even electric Motors lose energy other then energy used to operate the motor.

Hybrids were popular around 1900 but replaced by Gasoline engines by 1910. Two things drove this movement, first was the ease of refueling gasoline cars, all you had to do was refill the gas tank. Electric Batteries had to be recharged and that could take hours around 1900 (and even today, through some fast chargers have been proposed). The second factor was the sheer power a gasoline engine could provide. Electric Engines could outdo gasoline and diesel engines IF THEY HAVE A CONSTANT SOURCE OF ELECTRICAL POWER. That can be done in the form of overhead wires, or in the case of "Diesel" trains, but Diesel generators providing the electrical power. In an vehicle the size of the passenger car, the extra cost of batteries, electric motors to do the actual propulsion AND a Gasoline engine to provide the additional electric power when needed made such hybrids to expensive compared to Gasoline cars. Do to that expense, gasoline cars replaced the Hybrids by 1910 (Through some electric cars survived till after WWI, the problem after WWI, was the Automobile industry recognized its two largest markets at that time period. The First was upper Middle Class City and Suburban livers who used their cars to get to their jobs in the inner cities. Electric cars could provide this service (but of this latter). The second groups were rural farmers WHO DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ELECTRICITY and thus electric cars did NOT appear to them. Given these two markets, the car industry opt for Gasoline internal Combustion engines.

Side note: Upper Middle Class car owners if they had teen age sons, would often leave such teenagers operate the car during the time the father was working. This solved the problem of parking the car. What such teenagers would do is go to the Streetcar stops and offers rides to people waiting for a streetcar. It was fast money for them and the Streetcar owners complained about the lost business. Thus almost every state started to regulate cabs at that time period to force such teenagers from making money on just jitney service. In the Gasoline-Electric fight, Electric cars were less able to perform this function, they needed to be charged, but gasoline engines only needed their tank filled. This provided another indicative to Upper Middle Class families to buy a gasoline car instead of an electric one. Please note, this stop occurring in the 1930s do to fears that someone might jump the teenagers AND increase enforcement of the new Taxi regulations AND people who had lost their jobs and had a car took up the jitney business forcing most of the teens out of the business, but that was AFTER the last of the Electric cars were no longer being produced.

AS to base-load, it has various definitions. I used the word Base-load as what the electric company MUST generate just to keep the generators needed to provide power 24 hours a day. During the night the demand for electricity drops, often to a point that the electric generators are producing more power then is needed. On the other hand, such generators NEED time to start up if additional power is needed later on. Thus many plants are producing electricity at 2:00 am, NOT do to the demand at 2:00 am but the demand at 6:00 am when people start to wake up.

Certain plants takes DAYS to such down and to start up again. Nuclear are the longest to shut down and start up. Now to a degree you can increase and decrease electric generations but they are limits. Thus to make sure you have enough power at 2:00 PM, nuclear plants must be producing power at 2:00 AM. Coal plants are NOT that much more efficient when it comes to shutting down and opening up. Often takes days. Thus most "base-load" tends to be Coal and Nuclear plants. These are the Cheapest to operate, even if so much power is lost do to the fact both plants have to operate even at times when demand is lacking.

Now the most efficient plant when it comes to starting up and shutting down are the Hydro-electric plants. All you need to do with such plants is open up or close the water gates from the Water behind a dam AND the generators. Natural gas plants are not quite as quick to turn off or on, but can be, through often operate at night at a very low level do to the ease to increase electric power if the plant is already in operations. Most NON-baseline power is provided by Hydro or Natural gas plants do to the relative ease to turn them on or off. Hydro is actual cheaper then Nuclear and Coal, but kept in reserved for peak periods. Natural Gas is more expensive then all three, but a good way to get additional power if needed.

Solar and Wind provide some power, but insufficient today (Through that may increase sometime in the near Future). I mention electric generation via free flowing rivers, which by its nature be a "base load" provider given the constant nature of the water flow and thus the constant production of electrical power (Again this is experimental at the present time, almost no such electrical production at the present time, but offers a huge potential of electrical power in the future, AND would be available 24 hours a day from many rivers).

Solar and Wind can provide power when the sun is up and the win in blowing. If it is nighttime AND no wind, it can NOT provide electrical power. On the other hand, at the times when most people want electrical power the sun is UP, and when the wind is blowing that is often when people want electrical power. Thus both are compatible with how people live today. Furthermore any excess electricity generated can be stored just like excess electricity is stored today, i.e. batteries, other electrical storage devices AND in the form of water pumped up behind dams that could be used later to produce electricity when needed.

Can Solar and wind be "base load", yes and in many ways it is today, i.e. produced when needed. Both can also produce power at times when it is NOT needed. Thus it both have the attributes of "base load". On the other hand both can provide additional power when needed by simply turning them on (or off when the power is NOT needed).

In many ways Solar and Wind show the problem with the term "Base load". "Base load" is what is needed at the bottom of every demand for electricity curve. It can be Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, and even Hydro power. "Peak Load" is that part of the electric power usage curve where the demand for electricity is at its peak. Again that can be Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, and even Hydro power, as can be the electrical source in those period between the base and the peak. The combination varies clear across the country, some areas exporting hydro power when it is needed (the Pacific Northwest to California for example), but otherwise keeping it back till it is needed locally.

Thus "Base load" is a term of accounting that points to what is needed at the bottom and gives electrical producers an idea of what they MUST produce at ALL times. "Peak Loads" occurs when demand is at its greatest and is used by Producers to determine HOW much TOTAL electrical generation capacity the electrical provider MST be able to supply.

When I use the term "Base Load" I was using it to reflect the above. The increase use of electrical power in the form of charging electric cars would increase the electrical usage at times when it is low today. If properly timed, such charging of plug in electrical cars would increase the demand for power at times when it is NOT used today, but then when the car is unplugs, released such electrical power for other purposes. Thus electrical cars COULD (but may not) if their charging is timed rights, even out the electrical usage throughout the day so that usage is more even all day and it would be easier to get electrical generators to work at their greatest efficiencies.

Just comment on why I used the terms I did. Often disputes are NOT on differences in terms, but their definitions. This seems to be part of the problem here, people may be using "Base Load" in a different sense then I am. Hopefully this resolved this dispute for by defining what I mean by using the term "Base load" hopefully explains my previous thread.

[JohnWxy]

10. Oak Ridge National Laboratory concluded we can meet 33% of our transportation fuel needs

with plant sources for ethanol(including cellulosic ethanol).

Note this is based on Heat content equivalency (i.e. assuming 35% worse mpg for ethanol compared to gasoline). But in using the MIT designed Ethanol Enabled Direct Injection engine (EDIE) you can get 30% BETTER mpg using only 5% Ethanol (the other 95% of fuel would be gasoline).

What this means is if every car on the road was powered by this engine a volume of Ethanol representing 5% of the fuel supply would be directly injected in these engines, yielding a 30% increase in miles per gallon. A 30% increase in mpg equates to a 23% reduction in fuel consumption. NOw, after using Ethanol for direct injection (5% of the fuel supply) you still have 28% left (of the 33% - from ORNL study) to substitute for gasoline directly.

1 - .23 = .77 fuel requirement after 30% gain in mpg from EDIEs. This required Ethanol volume equivalent to 5% of fuel supply.

.77 - .28 = .49 (.28 = the amount of ethanol, as % of fuel supply left for blending with gasoline) This shows that the demand for gasoline would be 49% of what it would be without the EDIE being used. This is a 51% reduction in the demand for gasoline.

The marginal cost of the Ethanol Direct Injection engine is about $1,000 to $1,500. So rapid and wide acceptance is very feasible. This engine can be employed in hybrids and extended range vehicles (Plug-ins) to produce even greater reductions in gasoline consumption.

Note, ethanol can be made from cellulosic sources and even waste material.

See: Anything to Ethanol - Coskata

This supply would be added to the 33% of the fuel supply, from ethanol, estimated by ORNL.

[happyslug]

16. Several big ifs are in that calculations, first is that we ignore the use of oil to harvest the crop

First lets look at the price of oil today. At about $70 a barrel (42 Gallons to a Barrel), that comes to about $1.67 cents a gallon. Processing, Transportation and Refining makes up the difference (and least NOT for get taxes, in my home state of Pennsylvania that is 50.7 cents a gallon, combined State and Federal Taxes). The local Sheetz Gasoline station is selling it at $2.69 a gallon, if we assume 51 cents in taxes, that leaves $2.18

At $70 a barrel, or $1.67 a Gallon ($70/42 Gallons in a Barrel of Oil) is what it cost to buy the oil in the open market, and given $2.69 a gallon selling price of which 51 cents is taxes, that leaves 51 cents for Processing, Transportation and Refining of the oil.

Furthermore, it is claimed, but NOT by the company, that it can produce oil at a Dollar a gallon. I suspect the reason the COMPANY does NOT used that figure is that the $1 reflects the cost of the PROCESS NOT the the cost of the whatever it uses as a feed stock. i.e. WHAT is converted to oil (or ethanol or methanol etc) cost a dollar a gallon to be CONVERTED, the cost of the feedstock, including getting it to the plant, would be extra.

This is further suggested by the terms (Used in the Article below the $1 a gallon comment), that the company can produce ethanol and sell it at a profit IF Oil is above $65 a Barrel AND whatever feed stock is less then $50 a ton. Remember that price is based on the fact such fuel is NOT taxed i.e. in my home state has a 51 cents subsidy (The combined state and federal gasoline tax). $65 divided by 42 gallons in a barrel of oil equals $1.54. Thus it may be $1 to convert with an additional 54 cents for the cost of the feed stock. While Processing and Refining will NOT be huge additional cost, transportation and distribution will remain.

In California distribution cost runs around 25 cents. I suspect that is nationwide, given the same site gives 30-60 cents as the range for refining oil.

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.html

Thus to make a good comparison we have to take the price of Gasoline, less taxes, less distribution cost, and compare it to the $1.54 above. Today my local Sheetz had gasoline at $2.69, less 51 cents in States Taxes, that leaves $2.18. If we assume 25 cents distribution costs, that comes to $1.93 per gallon at about $70 a gallon. Is $1.54 cheaper then $1.93? yes, but that is if oil is $70 a gallon. If Gasoline is $65 or less we are looking at $1.54 a gallon plus 25 cents refining costs. At $60 a barrel, we are looking at $1.42 plus 25 cents refining costs. This implies that actual cost is higher then $1.54 a gallon for this process, but not by much.

This may be a good investment if the price of oil goes up, but all expectations is oil to holds in price in the range of $60-70 a Barrel with the most likely alternative is a DROP in price (Near terms only, i.e. next one to two years, Five or more years expectations is for increase ups and down in price, $100 one month, $30 six months later, and back to $100 six months afterward). Good investment BUT you have to stay for the long haul, i.e. Five or more years, with times in between when this plant will shut down do to an inability to sell what it can produce (Price would be to high).

[Kringle]

17. your numbers are BS

refinery margin is typically 8 bucks,
per barrel

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=CRK321M1:IND
what is this?

how much does a barrel of product cost,
more than a barrel of crude.

the product, 2/3 gas, 1/3 fuel oil,

[kestrel91316]

4. I'm saying "fuck OPEC" as loud as I can - still happily car-free in Los Angeles.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Wnat's wrong with electric vehicles?

Flex carbon fuels are fine for a decade-or-less changeover, but I think the future will bring electric vehicles that will evolve AWAY from what we now consider to be cars. Liquids will probably be reserved for air transport.

--d!

[Dogmudgeon]

8. "Wnat" -- ?

On, snit!

Looks like tne extender fell off my lower-case "H" key.

Now I nave to take it to tne repair snop to get it fixed.

(sign)

--c!

[JohnWxy]

11. The author of article cited indicates the amount of time for electrics to make an appreciable impact

on gasoline usage will probably be (accordingto most estimates) about two decades. To many people this means we need to do other things to bring down the demand for gasoline that can have an impact quicker. He is not saying let's not develop electric cars. Just that we need to do what ever we can to get a quicker impact until electrics start having a significant impact.

He is mostly thinking of the energy (and economic ) security issue, but the same concern applies to getting GHGs down sooner rather than later.


..BTW, far be it from me to mock anybody for typos!!

[kristopher]

12. .

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

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

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[JohnWxy]

13. Jacobson not taken seriously by researchers in energy technologies, and he does not give a timeframe

for the adoption of electic cars in his survey article.


The reader is advised the survey article referred to with a dot ".", states no time-frames for adoption of various energy production and ground transportation scenarios. Consequently it is of limited relevance to thlis thread. But Jacobson is not of much relevance to anything anyway.

Jacobson is not taken seriuosly by actual researchers in the field. In the article referred to,
Jacobson's defines Four categories of Energy production plus energy consumption for transportation:

"The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP),
wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS)
technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric
and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the
problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs),
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85."

His categories are:

Tier 1 wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 CSP-BEVs, geo-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 corn- and cellulosic-E85.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL THE CATEGORIES ARE COMPARED IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON TOTAL U.S. GHG EMMISSIONS AND OTHER RESOURCE CONSUMPTION - FOR BOTH THE ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION SECTOR AND THE LAND TRANSPORTATION LIGHT VEHICLE SECTOR COMBINED.

HOWEVER, NOTE THAT TIER 4 DOES NOT INCLUDE REDUCTIONS IN ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION SECTOR WHILE THE OTHER THREE CATEGORIES DO INCLUDE VARIOUS ADVANCED ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES. Jacobson is comparing 4 categories three of which include advanced power generation technologies with dramatic reductions in GHG emissions and other resource savings to one (Tier 4) which only includes the impacts of starch and cellulosic based ethanol used in the transportation sector with no change to present day electric power generation. THis, as anybody can see, is not a comparison that makes any sense. This is why no legitimate researchers take Jacobson seriously.

Also, note that all the conclusions Jacobson makes regarding Ethanol's GHG emissions and resource usage are restatements of fables re ethanol produced by Searchinger and Patzek - two individuals known for producing counterfeit conclusions from pseudo-studies of 'questionable' methodologies. Searchinger is a lawyer by training. Tad Patzek was once a petroleum Engineer for Shell Oil.

the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has criticized Jacobson in the past. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=250942


The point of the article referred to in OP is that because of the time required to adopt Electric cars is going to be considerable (perhaps two decades) until electric cars can make a appreciable impact on gasoline consumption we need (teh author asserts) to deploy those technologies available to us which will produce reductions in gasoline consumption quicker than electrics. THe author is not opposed to developing electric cars. He just thinks we need to do other things which will produce reductions of gasoline consumption sooner than it will take to get appreciable reductions from electric cars.

[kristopher]

14. Riiiiiight......

Study: Shifting the world to 100% clean, renewable energy by 2030 – here are the numbers

Wind, water and solar energy resources are sufficiently available to provide all the world's energy. Converting to electricity and hydrogen powered by these sources would reduce world power demand by 30 percent, thereby avoiding 13,000 coal power plants. Materials and costs are not limitations to these conversions, but politics may be, say Stanford and UC researchers who have mapped out a blueprint for powering the world.

BY LOUIS BERGERON

Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.

To make clear the extent of those hurdles – and how they could be overcome – they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.

The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power – making a massive commitment to them – and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.

The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.

With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.

Data from U.S. Energy Information Administration

Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.

They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity – either for direct use or hydrogen production – the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.

In order to convert to wind, water and solar, the world would have to build wind turbines; solar photovoltaic and concentrated solar arrays; and geothermal, tidal, wave and hydroelectric power sources to generate the electricity, as well as transmission lines to carry it to the users, but the long-run net savings would more than equal the costs, according to Jacobson and Delucchi's analysis.

"If you make this transition to renewables and electricity, then you eliminate the need for 13,000 new or existing coal plants," Jacobson said. "Just by changing our infrastructure we have less power demand."

Jacobson and Delucchi chose to use wind, water and solar energy options based on a quantitative evaluation Jacobson did last year of about a dozen of the different alternative energy options that were getting the most attention in public and political discussions and in the media. He compared their potential for producing energy, how secure an energy source each was, and their impacts on human health and the environment.

Best overall energy sources

He determined that the best overall energy sources were wind, water and solar options. His results were published in Energy and Environmental Science.

The Scientific American article provides a quantification of global solar and wind resources based on new research by Jacobson and Delucchi.

Analyzing only on-land locations with a high potential for producing power, they found that even if wind were the only method used to generate power, the potential for wind energy production is 5 to 15 times greater than what is needed to power the entire world. For solar energy, the comparable calculation found that solar could produce about 30 times the amount needed.

If the world built just enough wind and solar installations to meet the projected demand for the scenario outlined in the article, an area smaller than the borough of Manhattan would be sufficient for the wind turbines themselves. Allowing for the required amount of space between the turbines boosts the needed acreage up to 1 percent of Earth's land area, but the spaces between could be used for crops or grazing. The various non-rooftop solar power installations would need about a third of 1 percent of the world's land, so altogether about 1.3 percent of the land surface would suffice.

The study further provides examples of how a combination of renewable energy sources could be used to meet hour-by-hour power demand, addressing the commonly asked question, given the inherent variability of wind speed and sunshine, can these sources consistently produce enough power? The answer is yes.

Expanding the transmission grid would be critical for the shift to the sustainable energy sources that Jacobson and Delucchi propose. New transmission lines would have to be laid to carry power from new wind farms and solar power plants to users, and more transmission lines will be needed to handle the overall increase in the quantity of electric power being generated.

The researchers also determined that the availability of certain materials that are needed for some of the current technologies, such as lithium for lithium-ion batteries, or platinum for fuel cells, are not currently barriers to building a large-scale renewable infrastructure. But efforts will be needed to ensure that such materials are recycled and potential alternative materials are explored.

Finally, they conclude that perhaps the most significant barrier to the implementation of their plan is the competing energy industries that currently dominate political lobbying for available financial resources. But the technologies being promoted by the dominant energy industries are not renewable and even the cleanest of them emit significantly more carbon and air pollution than wind, water and sun resources, say Jacobson and Delucchi.

If the world allows carbon- and air pollution-emitting energy sources to play a substantial role in the future energy mix, Jacobson said, global temperatures and health problems will only continue to increase.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.html

[JohnWxy]

18. A press release from the Stanford News Service - who employs Louis Bergeron. What does this prove?

Louis Bergeron Stanford News Service: [phone].

So what does a press release prove? MOre bullshit paraded as something meaningful by the king of disinformation.


This does not address anything I said. Now, in Bergeron's bit of advertising he says:

" Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.

They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity – either for direct use or hydrogen production – the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix."

Is this supposed to be your point with regard to a timeframe for when electric cars will likely be able to make a significant impact on our GHG emissions from cars???


Louis doesn't say J&D even said this was likely or even possible. Converting to 100% renewables in 20 years is not considered by all sensible people to be within the realm of possibility. We will not replace all coal fired plants in 20 years and we will not replace all cars on the road with electrics in 20 years either - and of course, the article you pasted does not say that.

( ....again you impress us with your commend of the incoherent argument.)


The advertizing piece you have sited in no way contradicts, or even addresses what I said:

Jacobson is not taken seriuosly by actual researchers in the field. In the article referred to,
Jacobson's defines Four categories of Energy production plus energy consumption for transportation:

"The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP),
wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS)
technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric
and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the
problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs),
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85."

His categories are:

Tier 1 wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 CSP-BEVs, geo-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 corn- and cellulosic-E85.

PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL THE CATEGORIES ARE COMPARED IN TERMS OF IMPACT ON TOTAL U.S. GHG EMMISSIONS AND OTHER RESOURCE CONSUMPTION - FOR BOTH THE ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION SECTOR AND THE LAND TRANSPORTATION LIGHT VEHICLE SECTOR COMBINED.

HOWEVER, NOTE THAT TIER 4 ("corn- and cellulosic-E85") DOES NOT INCLUDE REDUCTIONS IN ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION SECTOR WHILE THE OTHER THREE CATEGORIES DO INCLUDE VARIOUS ADVANCED ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES. Jacobson is comparing 4 categories three of which include advanced power generation technologies with dramatic reductions in GHG emissions and other resource savings to one (Tier 4) which only includes the impacts of starch and cellulosic based ethanol used in the transportation sector - with no change to present day electric power generation.

This, as anybody can see, is a nonsensical comparison and blatantly fraudulent argumentation. This is why no legitimate researchers take Jacobson seriously.


Also, note that all the conclusions Jacobson makes regarding Ethanol's GHG emissions and resource usage are restatements of fables re ethanol produced by Searchinger and Patzek - two individuals known for producing counterfeit conclusions from pseudo-studies of 'questionable' methodologies. Searchinger is a lawyer by training. Tad Patzek was once a petroleum Engineer for Shell Oil.

the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has criticized Jacobson in the past. See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


The point of the article referred to in OP is that because of the time required to adopt Electric cars is going to be considerable (perhaps two decades) until electric cars can make a appreciable impact on gasoline consumption we need (teh author asserts) to deploy those technologies available to us which will produce reductions in gasoline consumption quicker than electrics.

THe author is not opposed to developing electric cars. He just thinks we need to do other things which will produce reductions of gasoline consumption sooner than it will take to get appreciable reductions from electric cars.

[JohnWxy]

19. Credibility of New Stanford Univ Energy Research Tainted - Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights

This article discusses another of Jacobson "research" efforts.


http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=213521&mesg_id=220677


SANTA MONICA, Calif., April 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A widely reported study sounding an alarm against using ethanol to replace gasoline is the most recent example of Stanford University's energy research credibility being undercut by the school's ties to ExxonMobil Corp., the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR) said today.

Mark Z. Jacobson, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, found that "a blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage." His paper published in the online edition of Environmental Science and Technology said the research, based on computer models, was partly funded by NASA. The model is controversial because it assumes full conversion to ethanol use rather than partial.

......NOte to reader, nobody is projecting that we can replace ALL the gasoline we burn with ethanol. The well known study by Oak Ridge National Laboratory concluded that we could replace about one third of our demand for gasoline with ethanol - using a lot of cellulosic sources plus starch based ethanol.

Assuming 100% of gasollne replaced with ethanol is not realistic and get's you results of doubtful value.