Electricity is about to become a major partner with alternative liquid fuels in replacing oil.
Open Access Article Originally Published: January 02, 2007
Mr. Woolsey's opinion piece was originally published in the Wall Street Journal. He graciously granted EV World permission to reprint it.
An oil and security task force of the Council on Foreign Relations recently opined that "[t]he voices that espouse 'energy independence' are doing the nation a disservice by focusing on a goal that is unachievable over the foreseeable future . . ." Others have also said, essentially, that other nations will control our transportation fuel -- get used to it. Yet House Democrats have announced a push for "energy independence in 10 years," and last month General Motors joined Toyota and perhaps other auto makers in a race to produce plug-in hybrid vehicles, hugely reducing the demand for oil. Who's right -- those who drive toward independence or those who shrug?
Bet on major progress toward independence, spurred by market forces and a portfolio of rapidly developing oil-replacing technologies.
In recent years a number of alternatives to conventional oil have come to the fore -- oil sands, oil shale, coal-to-diesel and coal-to-methanol technologies. But their acceptability to a new Congress, quite possibly the next president, and a public increasingly concerned about global warming will depend on their demonstrating affordable and effective methods of sequestering the carbon they produce or otherwise avoiding carbon emissions.
Ethanol's appeal rose a few years ago when it became clear that genetically modified biocatalysts could break down the cellulose in biomass and thus enable ethanol's production from a wide range of plant life. This means that, compared with corn, little fossil fuel is needed during biomass cultivation and land use presents much less of a problem. Indeed two years ago the National Energy Policy Commission (NEPC), making reasonable assumptions about improved vehicle efficiency and biomass yields over the next 20 years, estimated that just 7% of U.S. farmland (the amount now in the Soil Bank) could produce enough biomass to provide half the fuel needed by U.S. passenger vehicles, and that production costs for cellulosic ethanol were headed downward toward around 70 cents per gallon. Further, conversion of only a portion of industrial, municipal and animal wastes -- using thermal processes now coming into commercial operation -- appears to be able to yield an additional several million barrels a day of diesel or, with some processes, methanol.
But in spite of the technological promise of alternative liquid fuels, skeptics rightly point out that it will take time to build production facilities and learn the practicalities of operating biorefineries and shifting industry from hydrocarbons to carbohydrates. Most of all there is a sense of investor caution, driven by memories of the mid-'80s and the late '90s when sharp drops in oil prices, driven in part by increased production from Saudi reserves, bankrupted such undertakings as the Synfuels Corporation. Also, industry support for moving away from oil dependence has long been weak outside agribusiness, and consumers see little immediate savings from using alternative liquid fuels.
All this is likely to change decisively, because electricity is about to become a major partner with alternative liquid fuels in replacing oil.
The change is being driven by innovations in the batteries that now power modern electronics. If hybrid gasoline-electric cars are provided with advanced batteries (GM's announcement said its choice would be lithium-ion) having improved energy and power density -- variants of the ones in our computers and cell phones -- dozens of vehicle prototypes are now demonstrating that these "plug-in hybrids" can more than double hybrids' overall (gasoline) mileage. With a plug-in, charging your car overnight from an ordinary 110-volt socket in your garage lets you drive 20 miles or more on the electricity stored in the topped-up battery before the car lapses into its normal hybrid mode. If you forget to charge or exceed 20 miles, no problem, you then just have a regular hybrid with the insurance of liquid fuel in the tank. And during those 20 all-electric miles you will be driving at a cost of between a penny and three cents a mile instead of the current 10-cent-a-mile cost of gasoline.
Utilities are rapidly becoming quite interested in plug-ins because of the substantial benefit to them of being able to sell off-peak power at night. Because off-peak nighttime charging uses unutilized capacity, DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimates that adopting plug-ins will not create a need for new base load electricity generation plants until plug-ins constitute over 84% of the country's 220 million passenger vehicles. Further, those plug-ins that are left connected to an electrical socket after being fully charged (most U.S. cars are parked over 20 hours a day) can substitute for expensive natural gas by providing electricity from their batteries back to the grid: "spinning" reserves to help deal with power outages and regulation of the grid's voltage and amperage.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 10010 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
20 comments so far...
03-Jan-2007
43672
| |
Jim and Lewis. Very interesting discussion. In addition to solar and wind power, hydrogen can also be cleanly produced from off-peak hydro-electricity (night-time). However, it is still marginal since hydro-power is only 10% of USA total electric production.
The future of Lithium ion batteries in EV's appears good considering that their efficiency seems to double every 10 years. According to Tesla web site, the current autonomy is 250 miles. But what is it in cold climate ?
Posted by: Luke Falardeau
|
|
03-Jan-2007
43675
| |
Plug-in hybrids, will be a difficult trade-off.
Example. Suppose you want ten miles,in electric mode. Suppose a miracle occurs, and the cost
of the batts is only one thousand USD, per
KWH of capacity that lasts the life of the car.
Three KWH would do it, ten miles --> thirty cents of electricity, to avoid eighty cents of gasoline,
saving fifty cents. Payback is 6 thousand trips
of 10 miles. On top of that, you are adding weigth
that will reduce hiway mileage.
Posted by: Menwith M
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43303
| |
I came to the conclusion a few years ago that hydrogen is a dead end and that plug-in hybrids are the way to go. It is nice to see that we are heading towards a consensus on this. What we have to guard against is the possibility that oil prices moderate and everybody but the true believers lose interest in plug-ins and any other alternative fuel technology.
Posted by: Ken Quinty
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43310
| |
Ken, Agreed. My fear is that public enthusiasm for plug-ins will immediately wane if OPEC stabilizes oil prices. The public is far too adaptable to higher gas prices. I'm still amazed by the number of gas-guzzling Hummers and other large SUVs still lumbering around California streets.
My wife was recently driving our family's Civic when a Hummer 'tire-rubbed' our car's left side behind the door. The Hummer driver said he couldn't see the Civic. The vehicle size differential is a real problem. The driver admitted that he doesn't need such a large vehicle - it's just because he likes it.
Posted by: Evan Harston
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43329
| |
If you ever have the chance watch the documentary called "Who Killed The Electric Car". Electric technology has worked and because of the big oil company's control over the government they were distroyed. At least they are back with the hybrid technology, it's a start towards a cleaner environment. I am by no means a "tree hugger" but after watching this DVD I will be buying a electric/hybrid vehicle. Every little bit helps.
Posted by: Troy Hicke
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43335
| |
Woolsey is the man - Woolsey for president 2008. We need some forward looking leadership in Washington that see that it is in our best interest to be energy independent. PHEVs are the solution. Huge subsidies on batteries and penalties on vehicles that are not plug-in hybrids would be a good start. Then mandate that all passenger vehicles must get at least 30 miles on electric alone. National security, economic security, the end of terrorism's biggest source of income and drastically lowering pollution all in one package. If the government is covering most of the cost of the batteries - PHEVs would be way cheaper to the average consumer. A few cuts in defense spending would easily finance PHEV batteries and result in a much bigger national security/defense payoff.
Posted by: Eric Andersen
|
|
04-Jan-2007
43833
| |
I'm not sure it is helpful to continue to fight the battle to compare and contrast Hydrogen FCEVs versus PHEV's or BEV's. There is no silver bullet to drastically reduce carbon emissions over the next 20 years. The Europian City group (called CITILEC) was getting the lobby effort right when they started a petition last year to lobby support for electrification including all of FCEV's, HEV's, PHEV's and BEV's. It might be valuable to compare full lifecyle assesments of these technologies to consider the best region to apply the technology, but not to make either/or decisions. In the end the real competition is with ICE's. The Auto OEM's should be able to support each of these technology solutions and will have plans to do so if a sustained pressure is applied, and false expectations are set with the public in an effort to drive stock prices
Posted by: N B
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43352
| |
Ken,
I'm going to have to argue that hydrogen is not a dead end. It is a long term solution. Its the cleanest energy source that can be refilled in a vehicle quickly, and fuel cells can generate electricity with it at about twice the efficiency of existing ICEs. Once you have your plug-ins driving the majority of miles with baseload electricity, the next logical step is to improve the efficiency of the backup generator and this is where your H2 fuel cell will excel.
Posted by: Brett Holmberg
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43365
| |
Brett, the problem with hydrogen is that it is not an 'energy source' but an energy transporter. When you think of the hydrogen economy, you probably picture a huge solar panel array connected to an electrolysis plant that creates clean, pollution-free hydrogen because a lot of popular magazines that write about the impending hydrogen economy make graphics to that effect. Unfortunately, the truth is that the most cost effective way to create hydrogen (and therefore the way it will be done) is to chemically process OIL into hydrogen, CO2, and all the same exhaust that used to come out of your cars tailpipe. So the hydrogen economy just shifts where the pollution and oil are in the equations while causing the same harm to our environment and deepening our dependence on oil. Using electricity at least gives us a chance to diversify our energy sources and lessen our environmental impact. No one outside of the oil industry or fuel cell research communities supports hydrogen.
Posted by: Louis Helm
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43385
| |
96% of all the hydrogen now used comes from fossil fuels. It would ideal to have it come from renewable but so far it doesn't.
Even with that and the fact hydrogen is just a fuel carrier we need every source we can use to store and run clean. Hydrogen can be a part of that that will grow.
Excess wind power at off peak times would be great to produce H2 and store it. Iceland is using it's vast resource of geo-thermal to make hydrogen. It does hae a place.
Posted by: jim stACk
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43410
| |
Great discussion! Real consideration needs to be given to nuclear power as base load source of electricity for two reasons. First, it can charge up our plug in hybrids at night without emitting greenhouse gas. Secondly, nuclear will probably work out to be the most efficient hydrogen generating technology using high temperature electrolysis or thermochemical splitting of water. Ultimately, when spent nuclear fuel is completely reprocessed and reused we will have an efficient and non-poluting energy generating system, along with biomass, wind and solar.
Posted by: Philip Carlson
|
|
02-Jan-2007
43415
| |
Great Discussion! Nuclear power offers great advantages as base load electrical generator in that we can charge up our plug in hybrids at night without emitting greenhouse gas. In addition probably the most efficient way to generate large quantities of hydrogen efficiently is by high temperature electrolysis or thermochemicaal splitting of water, using heat and electricity from nuclear reactors. Closed fuel cycle nuclear combined with the renewable technologies mentioned is the way to go!
Posted by: Philip Carlson
|
|
03-Jan-2007
43461
| |
This is great article, but what is missing is,
discussion of battery life, in hybrids
or pure EVs. The reason that the batteries in
the Toyota Prius lasts the life of the car,
is that the batts are bareky used. That won't be
the case in a plug-in hybrid, where you need
70 percent of the batts' capacity to go ten miles.
Off topic but, have we heard from Altair Nano
lately?
Posted by: Menwith M
|
|
03-Jan-2007
43490
| |
Re: Jim - 'Even with [the fact that hydrogen is made from oil] and the fact hydrogen is just a fuel carrier we need every source we can use'?
So you accept that hydrogen is an arbitrary, intermediate product of the resource we hope to replace yet still want to produce it?
You should read the Tesla Motors blog. They have written a lot about the hype that is hydrogen and the relative efficiency of electricity as an energy carrier.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=12
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog1/?p=25
Posted by: Louis Helm
|
|
03-Jan-2007
43498
| |
Menwith's point about battery life in hybrids is a good one and points out that plug-in hybrids may be more challenging than they seem. In order to preserve battery life, the gas engine will have to come on when the battery has been depleted to about 40% capacity. That means that a plug-in with a range of 40 miles will need a battery with a gross capacity of about 20KWh. Even if the cost of a Li Ion battery can be reduced to $500/KWh, that means your car will have $10,000 worth of battery in it (not to mention that it will weigh about 450 lbs.). Just imagine what progress we could make in battery development if we could divert the cost of one year in Iraq ($80 Billion) to that cause.
Posted by: Ken Quinty
|
|
03-Jan-2007
43524
| |
I'm not yet convinced that depth of discharge has a significant effect on the cycle life of NiMh's. The RAV4EV's stellar battery life to date is just one example. I now have a Prius battery pack on the bench and running life cycle tests. I'm not exactly sure how much use this battery pack has seen but I developed a baseline capacity before running the tests. I am leaning toward cycle life on these NiMh's to be more a function of max discharge or C rate as well as what voltage at what temperature is set to determine the upper voltage/current charge limits. Cell balance appears to be critical. Time will tell the tale.
Posted by: larry elliott
|
|
03-Jan-2007
43567
| |
Great article and the time for PHEV is now as the next step to alternatives to gasoline. But Mr. Woolsley's article oversimplifies the vehicle to grid issue. Getting the enery from a vehicle battery to the grid is a lot more complicated than just plugging in a battery charger.
Posted by: Mike K
|
|
03-Jan-2007
43594
| |
Nice to see Prof. Andy Frank's picture. His plug-in hybrid technology is a little different than just adding batteries to a Prius. His scheme makes a lot more sense to me. But it has not seemed to generate much interest. Have people looked into it, and found some problems? Or do they just not know much about it?
Posted by: paul peterson
|
|
09-Jan-2007
44325
| |
To Menwith,
Suppose you decide that you would rather save a few bucks and not go with a plug-in hybrid. That decision can be translated into more funding for middle-east extremists, and more pollution added to the already fast approaching global warming catastrophe. I would much rather spend a bit more(and I have) and deal with these greater problems. People with your extremely narrow viewpoint are part of the problem we are having with making a change for the better.
Posted by: Eric Andersen
|
|
06-Jan-2007
43872
| |
Reasonable people can disagree. I'm against hydrogen for the same reason I'm against the ICE. Hydrogen is great if we're disappointed by the slow progress we're making at releasing every carbon atom from every remaining source of fossil fuel on the planet. With hydrogen, we can not only deplete all the oil but once that's gone, all the coal as well all the natural gas. I agree that hydrogen will eventually be produced with solar or some other clean form of energy, but only once all fossil fuel resources are gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
Posted by: Louis Helm
|
|
