I am in rural Oklahoma with dial-up access currently indicating 50.6 Kbps, but I wanted to get this out there. Odograph pointed this PHEV story out yesterday, but now Vinod Khosla has dropped by and left his comments in the story:
Vinod Khosla blows his credibility dissing plug-ins
Khosla’s comments (which I broke into paragraphs and corrected a couple of typos):
First, bloggers jump the gun without understanding the details of what one is saying. My paper on Biofuels Pathways (www.khoslaventures.com/resources.html ) explains the details.
The key question is how many people will pay $5000 more for a basic hybrid car that reduces carbon emissions by 25% (about the same as corn ethanol by the way) versus a flex-fuel car that costs no more and can reduce emissions by 75% or more when run on cellulosic biofuels?
A plug-in hybrid would cost $15000 more for the average buy and may reduce carbon emissions by a larger percentage today depending upon the location and source of your electricity (how much fossil fuel is used in your power grid). That might reach 100% reduction when we have all renewable power in a region and all cars are fully plug-in, but when might that happen?
Even if we could get 50% of the cars in the US to be hybrids, reducing emissions by an immaterial 10-15%, could we get people in India and China, the fastest growing car markets, to ante up this much additional money when the biggest thrust in volume cars in India is to reduce the cost of the whole car to $2500?
When can we get enough cars on the road? Battery costs will decline and performance increase but once one gets inside the technology one understands that the upside with known chemistries is limited to maybe 2-4x change in cost/performance – not nearly enough to change the hybrid or plug-in hybrid cost dynamic.
Having said that we are investing in batteries to try and enable breakthroughs that might change this. Other technologists are doing the same but the outcomes look very uncertain. We will need 50-80% of the car buyers to pay for these new technology automobiles to make a material difference.
When will that happen and at what cost point in the US? In the world? Add 10-15 years after new car sales to reach these percentages and you have a “low carbon fleet”! long term I still believe we can reach this laudable goals but probably not in the next decade or even two!
The only thing I will comment on at the moment is the assertion that a flex-fuel car run on cellulosic biofuels would reduce emissions by “75% or more.” That’s a projection, but one that nobody in the world has demonstrated. It is based on a number of assumptions that I believe will prove to be invalid once commercial production is underway. Yet it is stated here as a fact. I say that none of the cellulosic plants currently being built will reduce emissions by anywhere near 75%. There are multiple problems yet to be solved, some of which I discuss in the following essays:
Cellulosic Ethanol Reality Check
The Logistics Problem of Cellulosic Ethanol
Cellulosic Ethanol vs. Biomass Gasification
Of course if one is willing to hand-wave away these sorts of problems without extending the same courtesy to PHEVs, then over course cellulosic ethanol vehicles are going to look better.
“Plug-in hybrid” and “cellulosic ethanol” are not mutually exclusive. By definition, the hybrid has an IC engine, which needs to run on something.
Seems to me that the advantage of capturing/reusing braking energy is so strong, at least for start/stop driving, that it is bound to be implemented on a large scale in some form. IC with a pneumatic/hydraulic system might be an option, as might flywheels, but hybrid electric seems most likely. And once you’ve got that, why not take the next step, make the battery bigger and add a charger?
A more direct way to link me would be as odograph.
Odograph,
Done. Now linked to your blog.
RR
I am puzzled by some people’s hostility to PHEVs. They can run on any fuel, but will largely be powered by grids, which are easier to clean up than millions upon millions of cars.
Price? More expensive, but with monthly payments and fuel savings, I think this is not a barrier. I have always thought PHEVs should first be introduced as luxury cars — you pay for the priviledge of snubbing gasoline stations and those smelly, time-consuming fill-ups.
PHEVs are close to commercial reality. My guess is that batteries will ultimately become good enough for most daily commutes.
As RR has pointed out, our electrical grid can handle PHEVs, and additional demands could certainly be met through renewables, such as wind, solar, geothermal and even nukes. Jeez, clean coal is an option.
Meanwhile, as RR has pointed out, there are real problems with producing enough ethanol. Maybe cellulosics will save the day, and I hope so. I hope the E3 plant ultimately works. I hope for a lot of things. But hoping and what will really work are two different things
This is unfortunate. PHEVs and battery technology come closer to Khosla’s venture capital experience than cellulosic ethanol. But it is his money, he is free to squander it where he wants. I’d suggest he take a couple of gallons of E85, pour it on a pile of 100’s and light the whole thing on fire. It would save him a lot of time.
The problem isn’t technical alone, in the US we have a corporate farm subsidy program that pretends to be an energy policy – the ethanol tax exemption. If our politicians were really interested in ethanol as a fuel, the exemption would apply to ANY route to producing it. As it stands to qualify the EtOH must be made from fermented corn, and produced “neat” and denatured. That is with all the water removed and a bit of methanol or other substance added to make it undrinkable.
Khosla needs to explain how he will convince congress to either eliminate the current ethanol program, or extend subsidies to cellulosic ethanol. It appears that the program is intended to favor only a few. As we’ve discussed before, the large energy companies could make ethanol as a co-product. We don’t need fancy bugs to break down cellulose and lignins when we have heat and pressure and chemical processes which could do the job.
I blame presidential politics and the Iowa caucus. Every 4 years would-be presidents must worship at the corn altar (and kiss the feet of ADM) if they hope to be elected. So the person with the biggest bully-pulpit in the world can’t call ethanol and farm subsidies what they really are.
As it stands to qualify the EtOH must be made from fermented corn, and produced “neat” and denatured.
Is that true?
I ask because Mr. Khosla’s Range Fuels will be using gasification followed by alcoholization (for lack of a better term) to produce mixed alcohols (including some ethanol).
If your statement is right, they would not qualify for a subsidy.
Sensible energy policy, indeed! OPEC must be laughing their heads off. And just watch the politicians congratulating themselves for passing the visionary Energy Bill of 2007. What a bunch of jellyfish!
A Carrot to Change the Energy Picture – Fuel-free Cars may Generate Both Electricity and Cash!
A revolutionary breakthrough by Magnetic Power Inc., called GENIE™ (Generating Electricity by Nondestructive Interference of Energy) will make possible the elimination of the need for batteries of every variety. GENIE generators are expected to replace the need to plug-in a plug-in hybrid. 2 kW is all the power that can be taken from a typical wall socket. A pair of 1 kW GENIE generators are expected to demonstrate a compact, inexpensive, capability to end the need to plug-in, prior to the end of 2008.
If the development of GENIE generators is put on a 24/7 footing, it may be possible to provide 100 kW systems that will fit in the space of a typical gas tank, on a prototype basis in perhaps two years. If that occurs, since no fuel or battery recharge is required, automobile manufacturers may conclude that engines are likely to become obsolete. Consumer purchasing patterns could begin to reflect a new reality, with the market deciding most future cars must be totally electric, since they will never need any variety of fuel.
The economics are likely to prove compelling. Until now, car ownership has been an expense. Vehicle to Grid power has been explored in a modest way for hybrids. Plug-in hybrids, equipped with a two way plug, can feed power to the local utility while parked, which is 95% of the time for the average vehicle. Professor Willet Kempton, at the University of Delaware, has stated the car’s owner could earn up to $4,000 every year.
GENIE powered cars are expected to be capable of generating at least 75 kW and perhaps 100 kW in the volume of a typical fuel tank. In the case of luxury cars, trucks and buses, it seems 150 kW will prove practical. Technology already exists that, using inductive electronics, can wirelessly couple up to 150 kW to the grid from parked vehicles. No plug connection will be required.
A large plug installed in a hybrid car can allow 240 volts to be accommodated. A 240 volt range connection cable can carry 50 amperes. That would provide a maximum of 12 kW to the utility. If that 12 kW can annually pay the vehicle owner $4,000, imagine what the income might be with an inductively coupled 75 kW or larger GENIE generator. If the price per kW is the same as that used in the University of Delaware analysis, we could be considering payments totaling $25,000, or more, per year.
When a substantial number of vehicles powered by GENIE generators fill a parking garage, it will have become a multi-megawatt power plant.
Doubtless, when millions of cars and trucks are selling power to the grid, the price per kilowatt paid will gradually decline. However, it still seems likely that the cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power whenever needed. The parked cars, trucks and buses, each become decentralized power plants – a rapid, cost-effective alternative to the many tough and costly environmental challenges of constructing new coal burning and nuclear power generation facilities.
Your local power company as well as vehicle manufacturers have a unique opportunity to lead the nation and the world into a dramatic reduction in the need for oil. Future wars over energy supply might be avoided.
Lastly, by demonstrating leadership, the emission of greenhouse gases can be reversed by citizen action.
GENIE is an extremely tasty carrot. It can sharply reduce any need to seek sticks.
Phone: 707 829-9391
The key question is how many people will pay $5000 more for a basic hybrid car that reduces carbon emissions by 25% (about the same as corn ethanol by the way) versus a flex-fuel car that costs no more and can reduce emissions by 75% or more when run on cellulosic biofuels?
Robert correct identifies one of the questionable assumptions: the relative GHG reduction benefits of biofuels. But there are at least two others.
One is the cost premium associated with a PHEV, and the potential to reduce that cost. Current hybrids are essentially a conventional car with a battery-electric acceleration assistance and energy recovery system. Such a car is naturally more expensive than a conventional IC vehicle, because it’s basically a full IC system, plus a battery/motor/generator system. Costs can reasonably be extrapolated from conventional vehicles on that basis.
A full-fledged series PHEV, on the other hand, is essentially an electric car with a small generator on board. If the drivetrain is all electric, it can be vastly simplified. Such cars will probably cost more initially, as with all new things, but I don’t think you can extrapolate from current automotive costs to say that such cars will always be more expensive.
The other assumption (or simple omission) relates to the cost of fuel. Even if biofuels can get to the point where they fulfill the claims made by their proponents and can be competitive without subsidies, they will probably still be priced roughly on par with gasoline/diesel. Whereas electricity is very cheap as a transportation fuel. So if you’re a short-haul commuter, the difference between a flex-fuel vehicle and a PHEV could easily amount to $100-$200/month or more in fuel costs. That should drive some people towards PHEVs, even if they are more expensive initially.
So, question for the community: Does promoting perpetual motion/free energy schemes here qualify as trolling, or as spam? Or both?
It’s spam, but may serve a purpose. I started to just delete it, but perhaps Mr. Goldes would like to defend the idea? Would you be up for answering a few questions from readers regarding the idea?
Cheers, Robert
I stand corrected. It appears that congress amended the ethanol tax credit to apply to any source, except natural gas, oil, coal, and peat. So it does not have to be made solely of corn.
Big energy companies like Shell have their own gasifier technologies. They could just as easily do what Range Fuels proposes. Someone would complain about Shell needing the subisidies and credits.
If we are going to preserve some sort of mobility, I agree that electricity is the answer. Not only PHEVs, but even air cars or something else that ultimately “recharges” using electricity.
I’ve predicted that farmers will be looking for the same organic inputs that biofuel producers want for their feedstock.
Manure use can lower fertilizer bill
http://www.glasgowdailytimes.com/agnews/local_story_361184458.html
This is just the start. Farmers will increasingly fall back on organic inputs. Rising world food prices will also put more heat on large-scale biofuel operations.
Also this:
Congress Makes Move to Secure Fertilizer
http://www.farmfutures.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=CD26BEDECA4A4946A1283CC7786AEB5A&nm=News&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=B447B466188B4DF9B826E7A60588986E
At first glance, this would seem to be aimed at controlling ammonium nitrate since it can be used in explosives. But this has little or nothing to do with terrorism, and a lot to do with controlling fertilizer. Somebody sees how serious the situation is.
So electricity is the answer, not large-scale biofuel operations and flex-fuel cars.
As far as perpetual motion and “free energy” schemes go, I welcome any demonstration of such. I am sick of hearing that “Big Oil” is murdering free energy gurus to keep it secret. You can look on the web and find simple-looking “free energy machines.” Well, if it’s so simple (like the Orbo?), why not make a bunch of them in your garage and spring them on the world in a marketing blitz? The cat would be out of the bag. But the real problem seems to be that there is no cat to let out of the bag. Just a lot of hot air.
over at gristmill, it gets worse
I stand corrected. It appears that congress amended the ethanol tax credit to apply to any source, except natural gas, oil, coal, and peat. So it does not have to be made solely of corn.
King, does it have to be ethanol, though? That would still be pretty dumb, but not surprising…
If we are going to preserve some sort of mobility, I agree that electricity is the answer.
That seems a bit premature. It is an open question where battery technology will go in the next few years.
Liquid fuels on the other hand, is established. In the worst case, we are going to be using liquid fuels for many more years, even as it gets increasingly expensive. And who knows, 2 years from now, we may celebrate a new technology that supplies renewable diesel at “only” $150/bbl…
over at gristmill, it gets worse
You know, despite my disagreements with Khosla, I do believe he is promoting biofuels out of a sense of concern for the environment rather than to make a lot of money. I just believe he is going about things in the wrong way, and we will end up wasting a lot of time and money as a result.
Cheers, RR
I just believe he is going about things in the wrong way, and we will end up wasting a lot of time and money as a result.
There is a huge difference between an entrepreneur wasting his own money by betting on the wrong technology and a politician wasting Other People’s Money by doing the same. The first is just business, the second is a tragedy.
Alternate energy is heading for the same limited future as agriculture — mired in politics, dependent on subsidies, with ignorant bureaucrats making all the important decisions. (The US is bad in this regard, but hardly holds a candle to true insanity such as the EU Common Agricultural Policy).
If alternate energy is ever going to grow up and support the entire human race, everybody involved needs to start by rejecting subsidies & their attached political strings.
Optimist — As I noted in a previous post, I am familiar with battery technology because I have been translating technical documents on battery development for a long time. It’s a long uphill slog, but I think good progress will be made in energy storage (there are promising developments in nanotechnology). A bigger problem is where to get the electricity.
And I agree that liquid fuels will be around for a long time to come. As far as biofuels go, I am on the record as being in favor of small-scale, localized biofuel production and consumption. But I think electricity will eventually play a bigger role in transportation, so we should get started on it ASAP.
This isn’t a rebuttal — I just want to clarify my position.
Ha Mark Goldes spams RR !
OTOH, I think it’s fair to remind everyone that we DON”T have a unified physics theory.
RBM
On Khosla:
As I said in the first Grist thread, I’m fine with anyone following their dreams. I just also, at the same time, think we should cut out all energy production subsidies.
I’d love to have all the would-be revolutionaries, geniuses, and tycoons compete in a level market.
And so I am somewhat rankled at Khosla’s attempts to play the system. It reinforces a system that is not good.
… other than that, more power to him.
Odograph wrote:
“I … think we should cut out all energy production subsidies. … I’d love to have all the would-be revolutionaries, geniuses, and tycoons compete in a level market.”
In the words of the song, I second that emotion.
Ricefarmer wrote:
“A bigger problem is where to get the electricity.”
Not a true technolgical problem. If we really can develop good large-scale energy storage technology, then we can run all existing power plants at steady maximum-efficiency rates and use energy storage to handle diurnal demand swings. This will boost the effective installed electric generating capacity substantially.
When we need more electricity than that, we have the resources to scale-up nuclear power dramatically, and it is economic today — ar at least would be in a reasonable regulatory environment. And the dirty little secret is that no energy supply system is tenable in an unreasonable regulatory environment — just look at the screams in the UK whenever specific locations are proposed for wind turbines.
Robert, list
In 1995, after 4 years of work, I commuted to work in a scratch built electric vehicle, that I constructed with a collegaue in my spare time.
It had a maximum range of 62 miles – we drove it fromLondon to Milton Keynes on a single charge during an EV rally, or if you wanted a bit of performance it would do 85mph.
It used a dc traction motor, a mosfet power controller and conventional flooded lead acid batteries rated at 120V 100Ah.
We measured the energy input as taken from the ac outlet, and after several months of commuting an 11 mile trip, we had measured the mean energy consumption as 260Wh/mile.
Batteries and electric drive trains have improved a bit since 1995 but there is still little evidence of a practical commuter EV on the market.
We then wanted to do a hybrid version, using a 2 cylinder 600cc Kubota diesel engine to provide the IC power. Unfortunately my “real world” job got in the way and the hybrid project was shelved.
Twelve years later, I have been dabbling with combined heat and power for my property. I have a slow speed diesel generator running on waste vegetable oil, which can provide 3kW of electricity and 6kW of hot water to heat and power the house. Veg oil consumption is 1.3 litres per hour.
A battery bank and inverter system allows a further peak load of 5kW to be drawn by the household.
This begs the question, I have all the components of a hybrid vehicle, assembled, less the drive train, in my shed, providing my home energy, and it would not be too difficult a conceptual step to repackage this equipment into a vehicle that would become a “Tethered Hybrid”.
A tethered hybrid is similat to a PHEV, but with the extra facility of being able to extract the coolant and exhaust heat from the IC engine. It is linked to the house systems via an umbilical that contains an import/export power cable, coolant flow and return pipes and a control signal cable.
This umbilical, although it sounds bulky could be packaged into a quick connect,co-axial design and be no more unwieldy than an lpg filling nozzle.
It is by all intentions a mobile, grid tied CHP system which runs on renewable or waste vegetable oil.
It allows the 60% of IC engine waste heat to be utilised by the household outside the normal commuting hours. The heavily silenced IC engine would provide heat and power for the household as a byproduct of charging the battery pack at night ready for daily usage.
A thermal store in the house would allow the heat released from the engine to be stored for later usage, when the car was not tethered.
Primary modes of operation.
Grid to battery
Battery to grid
Coolant to house
Battery to house
Battery + IC generator to house
IC generator to house
IC generator to battery
IC generator to traction
IC gen + battery to traction
There are other modes, including regenerative braking etc.
A population of these all drawing from the grid in a central co-ordinated manner would allow significant load balancing for thermal power stations.
This is not rocket science – all the components are off the shelf.
Ricefarmer wrote:
“A bigger problem is where to get the electricity.”
Thats not really a problem.
1. We already have enough excess power plant capacity for almost the entire US carfleet.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
2. Even if it were all coal it would be like driving a hybrid in emissions.
(Which only half the grid is coal. and as the cars get older, the grid will get greener.)
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
3. We aren’t running out of energy any time soon.
http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
My favorites are:
A. Efficiency: (Always first)
B. Geothermal
C. SolarThermal
D. Building Integrated Thinfilm Solar
Hello Everyone,
The following article is quite bizarre and would be easily dismissed except that it is published by ASPO-USA and featured prominently on ASPO-USA’s website. The article indicates in an egregious manner that ASPO is very much an oil industry organization.
The following sentence should tell you everything you need to know about the character and motives of ASPO:
“Somehow, the reality of drilling a hole thousands of feet into the earth invokes some deep primal instincts. We are in a 21st century quest for fire. The reality is that our civilization is kept alive by millions of holes in the earth drilled by men and iron.”
Drilling for oil is some sort of spiritual exercise for these people:
Gods of the Rotary Table
Written by Charlie Brister
Monday, 24 December 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2t9qm5
(Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USA’s positions; they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators.)
Recently I heard a story about a drill crew in a distant land that performed a ritual on a rig floor. They poured the blood of a sacrificed goat down the hole to appease the “gods”. Perhaps they thought that this would help get the drillstring free allowing them to drill ahead without further problems. You’d think that us Westerners would scoff at such desperation, but I knew exactly how that crew felt. Somehow it seems that some projects are at the mercy of the “Gods of the Rotary Table”, as we sometimes say. Some wells can make even the most scientifically minded somewhat superstitious. It’s almost as though the gods are like those of the Greeks that often taunted and toyed with their hapless humans. If we were ancient Greeks, the drilling god would be Hades, god of the underworld provoking us with stuck pipe, loss of circulation, blowouts and the occasional sacrifice of life on the rig floor. We call these “wells from hell” for a reason.
There is the story of the Russian Rig that picked up the sound of screaming souls in the earth at 45,000 feet where the claim is that they drilled into hell itself. Maybe they did hear screams; the earth holds secrets that our mind wants to conjure, even if it is the screams of the damned. Most of us who work in this industry are used to being damned, so those screams were probably just the cries of rig hands screaming in the underworld for a crew change.
There are petroleum geologists who have a “spiritual” view of a hole in the ground, of sorts. At the outset of the founding of geology as a science, the message in the rocks contrasted with religious traditions and the great battle between evolution and creation began. Maybe it is their godless reputation that makes geologists’ word less respected by the doubters of Peak Oil. The better petroleum geologists did not get into this business because of the money… their journey started as children looking at rocks in wonder. The great mystery of the rocks is what drives most that I have met. Their view of this earth and the forces that shaped it is still the best tool for finding petroleum.
To geologists, a drilling rig is a time machine. Spudding into recent sediment and continuing through layers of rock, then identifying index fossils that have been given ages based on carbon dating. If you drill deep enough you eventually hit “basement” rock –Precambrian Granite, where evidence of life forms diminish and eventually cease. It is in this basement rock that some would have us believe that a virtual unlimited supply of petroleum exits. This oil came without needing life to form- “abiotic” oil. All we have to do is drill deeper. Could there be “abiotic” petroleum? Only the gods of the rotary table know. I say this because the existence of such hydrocarbons would be purely a matter of faith until confirmed by a drill bit.
Somehow, the reality of drilling a hole thousands of feet into the earth invokes some deep primal instincts. We are in a 21st century quest for fire. The reality is that our civilization is kept alive by millions of holes in the earth drilled by men and iron. Those who have accepted the concept of Peak Oil understand the staggering challenge that we face, as limits come into focus. To some, technology has become the new god that will provide the solutions. Without doubt, our technology will be important. However, oil drilling is not a virtual reality business. It is exactly the opposite. Oil drilling is a matter of using tons of iron in a reality that is about as stark as it gets. Even in this technological age, drillers become superstitious as they try to comprehend the forces at work against them. The concept of abiotic hydrocarbons strikes me as being a new superstition that brings comfort to those who refuse to face the reality of a world that will change. Those faithful to the concept of abiotic oil will pray to the “Gods of the Rotary Table” for salvation.
Charlie Brister is a Directional Driller presently working in the Rocky Mountains. He has 30 years combined experience in oil exploration, solar technology and power generation.
***
Those who wonder about ASPO-USA’s priorities will discover the following sentence in ASPO’s mission statement:
“Since no nation will be able to resolve its energy challenges without due consideration for the energy needs of other nations, we encourage international cooperation in the development, production and consumption of our planet’s energy resources.”
What I gather from the above is that ASPO really does want humankind to develop, produce and consume the world’s oil resources. ASPO very likely would like for humans to consume the oil resources as quickly as possible, too, since anything less would reduce the oil industry’s profits.
I’ll take it for granted that ASPO is active in Global Warming Denial for exactly the same reasons that ExxonMobil has spent so many millions in their lies & disinformation campaign. ASPO’s goals differ very little from that of the oil industry in this regard. It is easy to understand why … ASPO was initially conceived as an organization serving the interests of the oil industry.
Those who want to read ASPO’s Mission statement are encouraged to do so:
Mission Statement
http://tinyurl.com/2ljgcn
ASPO-USA encourages prudent energy management, constructive community transformation, and cooperative initiatives in an era of depleting petroleum resources.
Our tools are qualitative analysis based on facts, a preference for independent action, and the confidence we can make a difference. Our methods include a comprehensive program of public education, a positive endorsement of practical solutions, and an honest attempt to encourage competing parties to cooperate for their mutual benefit.
APSO-USA welcomes participants from all walks of life, income levels and ideological belief. We are united by our concern for the potential cultural, economic and ecological impacts of petroleum depletion. Prudent energy resource management must include conservation and efficiency, ecologically responsible energy production and consumption, and the development of alternative energy resources. Petroleum depletion will inevitably force extensive cultural change. Of particular interest is the development of a constructive response within our state, municipal and county infrastructure, the implementation of a pragmatic federal agenda, and the formation of productive partnerships between private and public organizations. Since no nation will be able to resolve its energy challenges without due consideration for the energy needs of other nations, we encourage international cooperation in the development, production and consumption of our planet’s energy resources.
***
Please tell me, people, would you trust your planet to these people? Would you trust the future survival of humankind to the oil industry?
Those who are so gullible as to believe anything at all that ASPO-USA has to say about Global Warming might as well accept all of the tabacco industry’s lies about the harmlessness of smoking.
ASPO-USA is not a scientific organization. ASPO-USA is not an authoritative source on Climate Change. ASPO-USA is not a trustworthy source in regard to the dangers of pollution.
ASPO-USA’s only realm of competence is Peak Oil, and in this regard ASPO has a dismal history of failed predictions. ASPO-USA is excellent at one and only one task: Representing and advocating on behalf of the oil industry.
ASPO is correct in warning about the approach of Peak Oil. Unfortunately, ASPO doesn’t want Americans (or anyone else) to break their addiction to oil. Peak Oil is a threat which ASPO primarily wants to solve by drilling for more oil and the reduction of environmental regulations.
ASPO is also an organization which has publicly advocated genocide:
http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/07/oil-and-people.html
I cannot have much faith, hope or love for an oil industry organization which has advocated genocide, denies Global Warming, and desires that humankind burn all of the world’s remaining fossil fuel resources (except maybe coal … wink, wink!).
Sincerely,
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Robert, List
Two corn farmers drive 60 miles into town each with a bushel of corn to sell.
One in a flex fuel pick-up, the other in an EV.
One stops at the ethanol plant because he’s out of gasoline, so he hands over his corn and swaps it for 2.8 gallons of ethanol in exchange.
The other needs a recharge so goes to the coal fired power plant, which has been upgraded to burn biomass. He is allowed to recharge his car from all the electricity produced by the corn.
Which one is more likely to get home?
Well the car thats going to get the most range is the one cofiring biomass.
Why because the thermodynamics work out a lot better for
solid biomass -> electricity -> electric engine
solid biomass -> liquid biofuel -> gasoline engine
Especially when you consider that it takes about enough corn to feed 1 person for a year to fill up your car’s tank once.
_
But then again, where is all this imaginary biomass going to be coming from anyways?
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/perlack
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
What about mild hybrids? Not so much $15,000 premium (!) and leverage factor is very sweet (stop/start, carwash-effect during Burger King drive-thrus and inner city traffic). Most of my travel can be handled with 5 mile-recharges.
– Syn Diesel
This post a little OT, but points up something very key: Thailand’s economy is growing, but also using less, not more, fossil oil every year.
Here is the abbreviated story from the Bangkok Post:
GDP growth to drive 2008 consumption
YUTHANA PRAIWAN
Total energy consumption in Thailand will rise by 4.2% next year, based on the National Economic and Social Development Board’s forecast that gross domestic product would grow by 4-5%. An estimated 1.673 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boed) would be consumed next year, up 4.2% from 1.605 boed, according to Viraphol Jirapraditkul, director-general of the Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO).
Crude prices would be in the range of US$83 to $88 a barrel in Dubai, the regional benchmark, up from $68.03 to $72.19 this year. Brent would trade at between $87 to $92 a barrel next year, compared to $61.52 to $65.73 this year.
The EPPO also projects that the consumption of natural gas would grow more rapidly next year, by 6.8% to 659,000 boed from 617,000 boed in 2007.
The consumption of coal, the other main substitute for oil alongside natural gas, would also rise by 1.4% to 288,000 boed from 284,000 boed in 2007.
Mr Viraphol said total oil consumption next year would drop by 0.5% to 659,000 barrels a day from 662,000 barrels, as it would be replaced by alternative fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel and compressed natural gas (CNG).
These alternative fuels have been gaining strong support from the government, resulting in rapid development of facilities, giving motorists and the transport sector more convenient access to these cheaper and cleaner fuels.
Oil consumption has dropped for three consecutive years, from 2.3% in 2005 and 2006 to 1.6% in 2007.
…..
This is why I believe we are already at Peak Demand. Whole nations, such as Thailand, most of Europe, and even the Stupid States of America, are using less, not more, oil each year.
Total world consumption rose just 0.7 percent in 2006, according to BP stats. 2007, i am wagering, will be a wash. 2008 will see minute declines in global demand.
If this price regime is maintained, this will be an accelerating trend.
That raises the $64 billion question: What will happen to oil prices. The average marginal cost of oil production is under $10, and under $5 in the Mideast. But demand is falling.
My guess is that somewhere out there we are setting up for a big price dump. It may be fast, or it may be gradual, over several years.
In some ways, this is bad news. Consumption will start going up again, and we will not move to cleaner and domestic sources of energy.
This post a little OT, but points up something very key: Thailand’s economy is growing, but also using less, not more, fossil oil every year.
Here is the abbreviated story from the Bangkok Post:
GDP growth to drive 2008 consumption
YUTHANA PRAIWAN
Total energy consumption in Thailand will rise by 4.2% next year, based on the National Economic and Social Development Board’s forecast that gross domestic product would grow by 4-5%. An estimated 1.673 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boed) would be consumed next year, up 4.2% from 1.605 boed, according to Viraphol Jirapraditkul, director-general of the Energy Policy and Planning Office (EPPO).
Crude prices would be in the range of US$83 to $88 a barrel in Dubai, the regional benchmark, up from $68.03 to $72.19 this year. Brent would trade at between $87 to $92 a barrel next year, compared to $61.52 to $65.73 this year.
The EPPO also projects that the consumption of natural gas would grow more rapidly next year, by 6.8% to 659,000 boed from 617,000 boed in 2007.
The consumption of coal, the other main substitute for oil alongside natural gas, would also rise by 1.4% to 288,000 boed from 284,000 boed in 2007.
Mr Viraphol said total oil consumption next year would drop by 0.5% to 659,000 barrels a day from 662,000 barrels, as it would be replaced by alternative fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel and compressed natural gas (CNG).
These alternative fuels have been gaining strong support from the government, resulting in rapid development of facilities, giving motorists and the transport sector more convenient access to these cheaper and cleaner fuels.
Oil consumption has dropped for three consecutive years, from 2.3% in 2005 and 2006 to 1.6% in 2007.
…..
This is why I believe we are already at Peak Demand. Whole nations, such as Thailand, most of Europe, and even the Stupid States of America, are using less, not more, oil each year.
Total world consumption rose just 0.7 percent in 2006, according to BP stats. 2007, i am wagering, will be a wash. 2008 will see minute declines in global demand.
If this price regime is maintained, this will be an accelerating trend.
That raises the $64 billion question: What will happen to oil prices. The average marginal cost of oil production is under $10, and under $5 in the Mideast. But demand is falling.
My guess is that somewhere out there we are setting up for a big price dump. It may be fast, or it may be gradual, over several years.
In some ways, this is bad news. Consumption will start going up again, and we will not move to cleaner and domestic sources of energy.
Thailand primarily is cutting their oil use by switching to CNG.
(Same goes for Pakistan, India, and Iran)
One stops at the ethanol plant because he’s out of gasoline, so he hands over his corn and swaps it for 2.8 gallons of ethanol in exchange
The ethanol plant doesn’t run on pixie dust. The farmer must also hand over 140k BTUs of natural gas (or coal, etc.). Note that the 2.8 gallons of ethanol output contain only 240k BTUs, so he’s given up $4 worth of corn for the energy equivalent of less than a gallon of gas.
Thailand primarily is cutting their oil use by switching to CNG.
There is a message there — Compressed Natural Gas is cheaper as a fuel than gasoline, and it is about as cheap to make a spark ignition internal combustion engine which runs on CNG as gasoline. So nature takes it course, and CNG grows faster than gasoline in Thailand. One depletable fossil fuel source replacing another.
The message — the way for alternate energy sources to succeed is to be cheaper & better than fossils. Indeed, that is the only way that alternate energy will ever succeed.
Subsidies and mandates are the real enemies of alternate energy — propping up established failures instead of encouraging research to find real successes.
If alternate energy is ever going to grow up and support the entire human race, everybody involved needs to start by rejecting subsidies & their attached political strings.
It seems fossil fuels managed to “grow up and support the entire human race” without rejecting subsidies.
We don’t live in an idealized libertarian paradise. We live in the real world where energy is highly politicized and subsidized. We subsidize coal producers with free permits to lop off mountain tops and clog streams. We subsidize oil consumption with $100++ billion per year in mid-east military expenditures. We subsidize all fossil fuels with free permits to inject sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. We subsidize nuclear with multi-billion dollar grants.
It’s naive to think wind, solar, etc, can compete against such highly subsidized and entrenched competition, and it’s disingenuous to claim subsidies somehow disqualify alternative energy sources from consideration.
We subsidize coal producers … We subsidize oil consumption … We subsidize all fossil fuels … We subsidize nuclear …
As William Jefferson Clinton might have said, depends on the definition of “subsidy”, doesn’t it?
Oil, gas, coal, even nuclear all earn revenues and pay taxes. Politicians use those taxes for many things, some of which are deemed to be “subsidies” by those with different political axes to grind.
But overall, fossil fuels are net tax contributors — solar, wind are not. So we end up with alternate energy sources chasing subsidies instead of pursuing success.
We will know that alternate energy has finally arrived when politicians are bellowing about taxing Big Wind and Big Sun.
Why because the thermodynamics work out a lot better for
1. solid biomass -> electricity -> electric engine
2. solid biomass -> liquid biofuel -> gasoline engine
Ah, Prof. Thermodynamics! Please explain why 1. is superior to 2. in terms of the underlying thermodynamic principles.
Also remember that liquid biofuel can be stored pretty much indefinately, unlike electricity.
1. solid biomass -> electricity -> electric engine
2. solid biomass -> liquid biofuel -> gasoline engine
Ah, Prof. Thermodynamics! Please explain why 1. is superior to 2. in terms of the underlying thermodynamic principles.
Robert could do a much better job, I’m sure but one primary issue is that internal combustion engines in cars have to run at multiple speeds and loads.
Consequences of this design, as opposed to high-temperature centralized power plants with multiple recovery loops, leads to lower energy.
In practice, getting liquid fuel from biomass usually (e.g. corn fermentation) often requires adding water, and then spending excess energy to get it out again.
The primary advantage of liquid fuels is range and compactness for the user, not overall efficiency.
Here, this technology has been much better than batteries for cars.
As RR has pointed out, our electrical grid can handle PHEVs, and additional demands could certainly be met through renewables, such as wind, solar, geothermal and even nukes.
Agree, 100%.
Jeez, clean coal is an option.
What clean coal? Is there any single operating coal plant which sequesters its greenhouse emissions?
Or even a prototype mid-scale proof of principle?
I mean existing in physical reality, not Powerpoint.
To me it seems almost as imaginary as Steorn’s perpetual motion machines.
By constrast, if you write a big enough check you will get a few thousand megawatts of almost no CO2 emitting electricity in 4 years.
…but one primary issue is that internal combustion engines in cars have to run at multiple speeds and loads.
This problem can be overcome by using a continuously variable transmission.
In practice, getting liquid fuel from biomass usually (e.g. corn fermentation) often requires adding water, and then spending excess energy to get it out again.
Liquid fuels does not mean ethanol. Gasification of waste products is more the line I was thinking.
The primary advantage of liquid fuels is range and compactness for the user, not overall efficiency.
Significant advantages, and not going away anytime soon.
But my original question had to do with the underlying thermodynamics, which you did not address at all. The statement said … the thermodynamics work out a lot better for … What thermodynamic principle am I missing here? How is an electrical motor superior to an ICE in terms of the thermodynamics?
GCC has a article on PHEV-vs-fuel comparisons.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/argonne-assesse.html
– Syn Diesel