Here’s a wonderful article that gets at an issue I come across constantly: the implication that environmentalism and job growth are opposed to one another.  Considering we have the option to put literally millions of people back to work in renewable energy, energy storage, electric transportation, smart-grid, etc., I’m always stunned when I hear politicians peddling the idea that eco-friendliness must come at the expense of the economy.  

Related posts:

I received the normal pushback on my recent piece praising electric transportation. In response, I make two broad points:

1) We are most definitely headed in the direction of clean energy, electric transportation (including small, urban commuter vehicles, e-bikes, mass transit, car-sharing, etc.), smart-grid, energy storage, and so forth.  For a great number of reasons, we will not be burning coal and driving Hummers in 2050.  One of these reasons is cost: the cost of renewables is falling, and will continue to do so.

My point is that each of these arenas will improve in something close to lockstep: cheaper and cleaner energy/storage and transportation.  There are, of course, important questions about exactly how and when this will occur, and who’s going to make a buck in the process.

2) I call your attention to the variety of externalities of oil, which include war. I recently became aware that there are very scholarly, actuarial-style analyses of the value of a human life; see the discussion below if you think I’m kidding.

I’m not sure how you do this type of thinking without laughing. I just can’t imagine what Socrates, Jesus, or Buddha would say — but I can tell you very specifically what I say: our sending our children to fight and die over oil is an abomination.

The “statistical lives lost” approach to valuing premature mortality estimates the value of a statistical death to be $6.12 million (in 1999 dollars). We assume for this analysis that some of the incidences of premature mortality related to PM exposures occur in a distributed fashion over the five years following exposure (the five-year mortality lag). To take this into account in the valuation of reductions in premature mortalities, we apply an annual five percent discount rate to the value of premature mortalities occurring in future years.

Statistical Lives Lost. The “statistical lives lost” value of $6.12 million represents an intermediate value from a variety of estimates that appear in the economics literature, and is a value that EPA has frequently used. This estimate is the mean of a distribution fitted to the estimates from 26 value-of-life studies identified in the §812 study as “applicable to policy analysis.” The approach and set of selected studies mirrors that of Viscusi (1992) (with the addition of two studies), and uses the same criteria used by Viscusi in his review of value-of-life studies.

The $6.12 million estimate is consistent with Viscusi’s conclusion (updated to 1999 dollars) that “most of the reasonable estimates of the value of life are clustered in the $3.84 to $8.93 million range.” Uncertainty associated with the valuation of premature mortality is expressed through a Weibull distribution with a standard deviation of $4.13 million (IEc 1992, p. 2).

Related posts:

If you’re looking for evidence that the auto companies are resisting the migration to EVs, here’s news from sunny California. It appears that Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota have successfully lobbied the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and members of the California State Legislature to open a gaping loophole in the new zero-emission vehicle mandate. Now, automakers that ‘overcomply’ with the new Federal greenhouse gas (GHG) standards can get away with producing fewer EVs. This sweetheart deal allows an automaker to cut the number of pure electric-drive vehicles by as much as 50% over the 2018 to 2021 timeframe in exchange for just 2 grams per mile GHG overcompliance during that time.

Jay Friedland of Plug-In America, whom I interviewed for my first book (Renewable Energy – Facts and Fantasies) sums it up: This is a bad deal for California and for the United States.

Related posts:

A reader writes in:

Craig, I’m reading your book and really like the point made about gas being double dirty and double inefficient because of the refining process. I just think that the conversation then should also look at the double / extra cost and pollution that the batteries represent. Thoughts?

Here’s the way I would look at that:

1) Batteries are more closely analogous to the gas tank than they are to the gas itself. I.e, they’re the place in which the energy is stored, and they are only minutely consumed as the electro-chemical energy is converted to kinetic energy to power the vehicle, and then recharged from an external source.

2) Car batteries are the single most recycled item on the planet, and that will certainly continue to be the case with electric transportation. Even if that were to change suddenly, there are (by the quick calcs I just did) 2210 cubic miles of  lithium in the top 100 meters of the Earth’s crust, or about 10^13 pounds, sufficient to build lithium-ion batteries for hundreds of billions of electric vehicles.

3) Personally, I think zinc-air is on its way, and zinc is more than four times as abundant in the Earth’s crust as lithium.

4) Having said all this, to your point, there is most certainly an ecological impact of anything we do in terms of energy generation and transportation (other than walking/bicycling). Even energy efficiency normally comes at a cost in terms of insulation, installation equipment, etc.  As I often say: There is no free lunch. Yet, just as the trade-off in installing insulation in our buildings is a no-brainer, the overall “well-to-wheels” comparison between gasoline-powered vehicles and electric transportation is favorable to the latter, and will continue to improve as we bring on more renewables.  Here is the piece I normally recommend to those wishing to know more on the subject: Sherry Boschert’s “The Cleanest Cars: Well-to-Wheels Emissions Comparison.”

I suppose one could say that the only exception to the “no free lunch” rule is conservation.  We all need simply to use less energy.  

But is energy conservation a popular position?  Not exactly.  For international readers who may not follow our recent history, we had a U.S. president who presented this message in his first term in the late 1970s.  He lost his bid for re-election by a margin of 49 to 489 electoral votes – almost exactly 1 to 10.   Taking you back another century, our General Custer didn’t fare much worse at the Little Bighorn.  

Related posts:

Certainly, re-inventing the way we live and move about will be important to our survival as a species. Great ideas include mixed-use development, greater reliance on mass transit, and car-sharing. But to the degree to which we stay within the passenger vehicle paradigm, it’s hard not to be intrigued with concepts for extremely light, small, affordable, battery electric vehicles, like the EMCycle that I’ve been promoting.

Here’s a related concept from San Francisco-based “LIT Motors” that my friend and colleague Bill Moore of EV World came across.

Related posts:

Case in point: this trip back East for Christmas, where I carved out an hour and a half to meet with the CEO of Momentum Dynamics, less than an hour’s drive from my family’s home in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

Momentum Dynamics offers breakthrough technology in inductive (versus conductive) charging. For those scratching their heads here, we find this concept implemented in today’s electric toothbrushes, which are charged miraculously by merely replacing the brush – sans metal contacts — back into its base unit. Unbeknownst to the user, it sits there next to a modulating magnetic field that induces an electric current to flow into a conductive circuit within the toothbrush, recharging the battery.

Without doubt, inductive charging offers some advantages – especially relevant to certain applications of electric transportation. Take the taxicab as a perfect example. At first glance, we might conclude that taxis are not particularly good candidates for electrification, since they travel a huge range over a period of, say, 8 or 10 consecutive hours. But now realize that most taxis queue up regularly at predictable places, like airports. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if, without physically plugging in, a taxi could recharge as it waited for its next passenger to emerge from baggage claim?

EVWorld editor Bill Moore believes that inductive charging will eventually win the day, and, with all the issues of safety and convenience, I have to agree that he’s right. Those wishing to follow the matter should look at SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) standard J2954. Perhaps the first thing to notice is that the standard is still evolving, meaning that many decisions remain to be made. Yet all the big players in electric transportation seem to be making this a huge priority, so don’t be surprised to see inductive charging in your automotive future.

Related posts:

My good friend Bill Moore is not only a terrific writer, but a man of great compassion for humanity. I thought I’d post his holiday message for those who may not have seen it. As I wrote back, “That is absolutely lovely, Bill. On behalf of all seven billion of us, thanks for being a voice of reason and compassion in a world some believe to be headed the other way.”

Dear Friend and Colleague,

Judy and I extend to you and your loved ones our warmest regards as 2011 comes to an end and a new year begins, one that is filled with as much promise as uncertainty. The year now fading saw the first tentative sales of three pioneering electric-drive cars from GM, Nissan and Mitsubishi, as well as the emergence of the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements. These events would seem to suggest the beginning of a shift — albeit an unsteady one — not only in how we power our vehicles, but more significantly, how many of us are starting to see the world and our place in it: that we aren’t alone in our desire for a safer, cleaner, more equitable global society, and that we can do something about it when we work together.

Curiously, if you research the origins of many of the customs of Christmas, you’ll find them adopted from Roman and Greek celebrations, the centerpiece of which was the temporary end of slavery for a few days, where master and servant briefly became equals; and a few fortunate souls were granted their freedom, which was marked by a cap not unlike that worn by French revolutionaries of the 18th century and later in caricature by Santa Claus. One source claimed the Saturnalia of ancient Rome — held the week starting December 17th and during which gifts were exchanged — was meant to recall a long lost ‘golden age.’ I would argue that golden age lies not behind us, but yet ahead. It is the destination towards which we all yearn, each in our own fashion.

From EV World’s perspective, it is a world were “all cars are green, bicycles rule, and public transit is fast, frequent and fun… a world where cities aren’t just smart, but they are intelligent and nurturing places to live…” You may recognize this as the introduction to our podcasts for more than a decade. When I wrote those words, I was dreaming of that future ‘golden age.’ I am pleased to report that 2011 nudged us a bit closer in that direction; and I believe 2012 will continue the momentum.

May the holidays and new year bring you all joy, good health, and the great satisfaction of having made a difference.

Bill & Judy Moore
Papillion, Nebraska
Christmas 2011

Related posts:

The adoption curve for electric vehicles is largely based on consumer attitude for the subject, which itself is for the most part formed by word of mouth: what people hear from others, and what they see around them. It is for that reason that I take great delight when I see news of large corporate fleets switching to electric transportation. Frito-Lay is the 7th largest fleet in the U.S., and will soon be deploying 176 electric delivery trucks in Orlando, FL. Good stuff.

Related posts:

Glenn Doty is an extremely senior scientist who studies the macro-world of energy, and doesn’t like what he sees regarding electric transportation. He writes:

While I have tremendous respect for you and the work that you are doing, I have very little respect for the people who compiled that study that you referenced.

The simple truth is that you cannot claim “grid mix” for a new marginal increase in grid demand. If you plug in a new toy (EV), they can’t do a rain dance to get additional energy from the hydropower dam… nor will they amp up the local nuclear reactor to provide more power… The only possible source for the energy going into NEW demand will be what is currently SPARE capacity – that’s natural gas and coal.

The difference between gas and coal is cost. Coal costs less. So if you plug in a vehicle every night and charge it over 8 hours or so, that represents a constant and predictable nightly increase in demand… the power company WILL respond by tamping down their coal power plants a little less each night. That’s just the reality of the current grid.

I respond:

Glenn:

Thanks. But don’t you think there is merit to these ideas?

1) In some ways (e.g., national security) replacing oil is actually more important than replacing coal. As I wrote the other day, “There is nothing more patriotic the typical American can do than cut his use of oil, which is currently driving the country further into debt each day, while empowering our sworn enemies.” Certainly James Woolsey, whom I interviewed for my first book believes this to be the case, and provides a great deal of back-up for his belief that I find quite compelling.  You’ll recall that Woolsey ran the U.S.  Central Intelligence Agency for four years; it’s hard to imagine anyone in a better position to make this call.

2) Coal plants dump power to ground every night, as they can’t ramp to follow load effectively. In fact, the more you force coal plants to ramp, according to Dr. Marie Corio, arguably the world’s foremost expert on the subject, the more you screw them up (my words, not hers). Bringing EVs online provides a home for this off-peak power, and, maybe even more importantly, for the enormous amount of wind that is curtailed or sold at unattractive prices.

3) Smart-grid will represent a huge boon to energy savings generally, and EVs/V2G (vehicle to grid) have the potential to play an important role here in empowering smart-grid.

4) Whatever the grid-mix is today, it’s only going to get cleaner as time goes by. The long-term trajectory for EVs, in which we replace the one billion cars and trucks on our roads (worldwide), will require several decades, as it will demand consumer acceptance, OEMs scaling their operations, costs coming down, and the build-out of the charging infrastructure. At the same time, we’ll be bringing on more renewables – of a blend no one can possibly predict – though almost certainly dominated by solar and wind.

Of course, all this may not happen as I’ve outlined here, which is why I’m such a big supporter of the work you folks are doing with synthetic fuels. In fact, I’ve written a great deal about your fantastic efforts at WindFuels.

Thanks for being a part of the dialog, Glenn.

Related posts:

In response to my recent piece on electric vehicles, a few readers sent me  John Peterson’s position on the subject. Thanks, but I’m already quite familiar with it.  John’s a brilliant, honest, and levelheaded guy; in fact, I plan to visit him in Switzerland when I’m in Europe next spring. Having said this, I disagree with him here.

For starters, the concept that EVs are overhyped and destined to failure because “Cheap Beats Cool” does not ring true of the auto market generally. Since the dawn of the automobile, and certainly since World War II, cars may be about sex, or about the wish to appear affluent, but they certainly aren’t about getting around as inexpensively as possible; “cheap” really isn’t the motivating force here.

If John lived in the U.S., he’d see what we all do here: Porsches, Mercedes and BMWs pulling into the parking lots of law offices and movie studios. He’d see Chevy selling Corvettes to young people, and Cadillac selling the Escalade to people who feel the need to drive something the size of a studio apartment. But what happens when “green” becomes “cool?” It’s anybody’s guess, but mine is that the OEMs won’t be able to build EVs fast enough.

Another few items to consider here:

1) It’s true we won’t have $800/barrel oil – or even $300/barrel oil — but keep in mind that we actually have found and extracted most of the easiest to reach crude in the Earth’s crust. Barring a deep and enduring global recession, we will have to deal with the additional costs, both financial and ecological, of getting fuels from unconventional sources.

2) There are scenarios in which “We The People” force the oil companies to pay for some of the externalities of what they’re doing: creating lung disease, supporting terrorism, causing long-term environmental damage, prosecuting never-ending wars, and pushing the U.S. ever closer to bankruptcy.  Even John would admit that it’s at least conceivable that we as a country could start to question the validity of borrowing an incremental billion dollars a day and sending that wealth offshore to empower our enemies.  If any of the above happen at a significant level, you’ll have EVs so fast you won’t know what hit you.

3) Lithium-ion is only one set of battery chemistries; I’m betting that zinc-air represents a far superior solution.

4) There are 25 million multi-car families in the U.S. alone, where one car essentially never exceeds the 100-mile range of a Nissan LEAF. Charging infrastructure, though it will evolve over time, is not the huge gating factor it’s sometimes misunderstood to be.

In any case, I have tons of respect for John, but I’m betting he’s wrong here.

Related posts: