Bashing Electric Vehicles and Renewable Energy
Considering the externalities of fossil fuels — from lung disease, to environmental damage, to empowering terrorism, to a crushing national debt – there sure are a bunch of people bashing electric vehicles and renewable energy.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. comments on this phenomenon in a recent article:
It’s now become de rigueur among the radical right wing rhetoricians to characterize any government support of America’s green energy sector as wasteful, fruitless, and scandalous. They greeted with glee the collapse of the government supported solar company, Solyndra, America’s first major casualty in our race with China to dominate the “new energy” economy. With Solyndra dying on the battlefield — its marketplace choking on inexpensive Chinese solar panels — the right wing’s response was to hoist the white flag and declare defeat in the war for global cleantech leadership. That brand of “Can’t Do” cowardice is a boon to the carbon and nuclear power incumbents who fund so much of the right wing’s activities — but it’s bad for America.
Kennedy is certainly correct that we are surrounded by vocal right-wing opponents to clean energy and electric transportation, though some of their arguments are incredibly poor. Here’s an excerpt from a recent Brittney Barrett article:
Are Electric Cars Headed to the Green Graveyard with Solar Energy?
Some are likening the electric car revolution to the lack of take off for solar energy. Bolstered by government support, subsidies and green jobs initiative being pushed by the Obama administration, solar and other types of alternative energy were lauded as the future of energy production. Higher costs, that proved stubborn to fall as a result of a tepid public embrace, kept shares of most solar companies from thriving. Nearly all people and businesses in the United States continue to run on fossil fuels as alternative energies have proven too pricey. The inability to compete fiscally has outweighed their appeal to the environment and the tax benefits offered by the U.S. government.
What a strange way to analyze the situation. The price of solar was $65/Watt when Jimmy Carter installed PV on the White House roof; now it’s under $2, headed for $1 and below, which, even in the absence of subsidies, will represent an attractively short payback period for any business or consumer with an electric bill.
In terms of electric vehicles, doesn’t Ms. Barrett understand that the first EV made by an established auto company in the modern era was delivered earlier this very year? Doesn’t it seem a bit premature to suggest the death of the entire industry?
Nissan was the first, but every car company that expects to be around in a few years has an active – and long-range — EV strategy. Keep in mind that enterprises like these work on commitments to a future that extends at least five years.
Here’s another tidbit for Brittney: China invested $34 billion in solar this year, 26 times what the U.S. did.
The clean energy economy is happening all around us. The only question is: Does the U.S. want to play, or sit on the sidelines?
The irony of all this is that staying out of clean energy is not at all aligned with the national interest; in fact, it’s decidedly anti-American. And the most disgusting part is that this behavior is driven essentially by corruption, i.e., by the influence of the enormous wealth and power of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries on government, leaving the U.S. noncompetitive in an arena that is clearly becoming critically important in 21st Century global commerce.
That’s pretty shameful stuff.
Cause,
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=e01#moneytocongress
And effect,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicle_impacts/cars_pickups_and_suvs/subsidizing-big-oil.html
Craig,
Both the alternative energy movement and the radical right tend to commit the same crime when it comes to discussing alternative energy. Namely, they attempt to lump all alternative energy together and say “it’s all good” or “it’s all bad”.
The truth is obvious: there are some really bad ideas being heavily funded that have little to no chance of ever making a significant impact, while there are also some very good technologies that pay their investment back quickly and could serve to significantly lower pollution levels while not impacting lifestyle.
Any sane person or movement should desire to support some technologies while defunding the ones that are clearly wasteful and/or hopeless. I’m afraid in this case you are guilty of lumping everything together, and trying to defend EV’s by touting the merits of solar and wind.
EV’s will, as I have explained in the past without rebuttal, dramatically increase emissions – both of CO2 and of the aerosol pollutants that cause lung cancer. The simple fact of the matter is EV’s offer a less convenient form of transportation and are prohibitively expensive, so were it not for a ridiculous $7500/vehicle subsidy they would not sell even to the zealots. Such a technology cannot ever scale up to a point where it could make a significant impact, and that’s a good thing – as that would result in more pollution overall.
Boy Glenn….How do I start?
EV’s are a great idea! They are a great idea because they decrease the total amount of energy used. This is due to the electric motor being so much more efficient than the internal combustion engine. If this were not so modern factories would still be using steam or internal combustion for manufacturing. If burning oil was a better solution we would all still have gas lamps in our homes.
I will grant you that EV’s are currently more expensive than ICE cars, but they are produced currently in much lower volumes. They haven’t had the decades of cost reductions that the ICE has benefitted from either.
The internal combustion engine has many, many parts while the electric motor has but two, a rotor and a stator…you will never sell me on the idea it takes more energy to produce these two parts than it does to produce the many that go into an ICE…if we calculate for the same volumes.
In fact it should be cheaper to produce electric cars than gas cars.
Here is a recent volume breakdown for gearboxes I recieved:
Annual Volume Unit Price
1,000 $2,000
5,000 $1,650
10,000 $1,200
50,000 $950
100,000 $750
This is from a major manufacturer already servicing the auto industry. Similar percentage breakdowns would be experienced by electric motors in these volumes.
I can buy a DIY conversion kit currently (without batteries and gearbox for under $5000 in volumes of one…..
http://www.kta-ev.com/Deluxe_Kit_15BJ10_p/15bj-deluxe.htm
And you can’t argue the battery cost much longer either…
http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/01/06/deutsche-bank-li-ion-battery-cost-forecast-per-kwh/
If you wish to argue subsidies…let’s attach true costs to electricity (From domestic sources-our current predominant mix) as a fuel and gasoline as a fuel derived from imported oil (secured by the might of the us military) and don’t forget to add in the health effects and relative medical costs…..
David,
A motor is not an engine. They don’t do the same thing, and thus cannot be compared in terms of efficiency. The motor uses electricity, which is a carrier of energy that was originally converted from coal or natural gas. The ICE in the vehicle directly converts fossil energy to mechanical energy.
In order to correctly compare the two, you have to include the efficiency of the coal power plant (~31%), then include the line losses (8-10%), the battery charging losses (~10-20%), the battery “leakage” (~1%), the battery discharge losses (~8%), and THEN the ~90-95% efficiency of the motor. There is no ICE engine made within the last decade that comes close to the horrible inefficiencies of EV’s. Nor is there an ICE vehicle that pollutes more than a similarly-sized EV (please note the caveat “similarly sized” and don’t compare the Hummer II with the Nissan Leaf).
The health effects and medical costs associated with the coal industry are several times that associated with the petroleum industry – even though coal results in far less consumed energy. I’m not sure why you referenced health effects if your intent is to substitute oil with coal.
David,
“”A motor is not an engine. They don’t do the same thing, and thus cannot be compared in terms of efficiency. The motor uses electricity, which is a carrier of energy that was originally converted from coal or natural gas. The ICE in the vehicle directly converts fossil energy to mechanical energy.””
http://www.stanford.edu/group/greendorm/participate/cee124/TeslaReading.pdf
Stanford University..with input from General Motors
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/339.pdf
Argonne National Labs with input from General Motors
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/629.PDF
Argonne National Labs with input from General Motors
http://www.europia20years.eu/uploads/ModuleXtender/Newsandevents/4/5-John_Cooper-The_perspective_of_the_Oil_Industry_on_future_of_oil_in_transport.pdf
From BP
“”In order to correctly compare the two, you have to include the efficiency of the coal power plant (~31%), then include the line losses (8-10%), the battery charging losses (~10-20%), the battery “leakage” (~1%), the battery discharge losses (~8%), and THEN the ~90-95% efficiency of the motor. There is no ICE engine made within the last decade that comes close to the horrible inefficiencies of EV’s. Nor is there an ICE vehicle that pollutes more than a similarly-sized EV (please note the caveat “similarly sized” and don’t compare the Hummer II with the Nissan Leaf).””
So the Oil companies, Car manufacturers, National labratories……all have it wrong? And you are right?
David,
With respect to Stanford, there’s nothing in there that disagrees with what I said… they just choose to use a complete fairy-tale grid in which all spare fossil capacity is the most efficient combined cycle natural gas generation possible, and all marginal natural gas is drawn from non-associated shallow reservoirs…
In other words, they are analyzing the best possible case for EV’s, and finding them more efficient than the average case ICE’s. While intellectually dishonest, that report isn’t wrong.
The national labs and BP reports ARE wrong. I don’t care if the Pope and the Dali Lama both say otherwise. The researchers at the national labs should know better and should be ashamed of themselves… the researchers at BP probably don’t care.
Back to Stanford, I choose to analyze real-world scenarios… and in the real world most of the energy used to power an EV will be coal, with the balance being natural gas. The average coal plant has an efficiency of 31%, and the average natural gas plant has an efficiency of ~45%, though the average “peaker” plant has lower efficiency – and these are the natural gas sources that will augment coal in the powering of marginal EV demand. In the real world, within 10 years shale gas will be the largest source for natural gas, which is more energy intense than associated or non-associated gas, and is far more carbon intense as there is as much as 30% CO2 mixed with the natural gas that must be separated prior to distribution.
Glenn: I know you hold this position, but I don’t see how you came to this conclusion, as it flies in the teeth of the numerous studies on the subject. e.g., http://images.pluginamerica.org/EmissionsSummary.pdf. It also ignores many of the externalities of oil, which many consider to be even more important, as I discuss here: http://2greenenergy.com/electric-vehicle-adoption-curve-2/17498/.
Craig,
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 cost 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.
We can discuss what the impact of EV’s might be like in 30-40 years… but that won’t reflect the impact of a vehicle purchased within this decade, nor will it reflect a vehicle purchased next decade.
Thanks, Glenn. I’m anxious to read your comments to this: http://2greenenergy.com/electric-vehicles-tough-realities/17553/.
It took the Catholic Church nearly 500 years to effect a change of heart for Copernicus however it finally acknowledged that he is correct. I find it difficult to believe in our purportedly “enlightened” world that more of our public isn’t seeing the light. Remain staunch in our advocacy of alternative energies and welcome the opportunities to act as ambassadors for the green revolution. It is every bit as important now as it was for our nation in the 1700’s.
I’m with you all the way. And good for you; you’re a Jeopardy watcher, I’ll bet. (“Copernicus” was the answer to last night’s Final Jeopardy.)
The preponderance of “anti-renewable anything” is underwritten by Big Oil & Coal and the individuals who buy their story. Horse & buggy suppliers probably plied the same BS when the automobile first arrived.
Renewable energy will dominate the world by the latter half of this century. America will be a leader – but not THE leader – due to disingenuous politics and technical short sightedness.
The trend is real and accelerating and most American welcome it.
I’m sorry, am I missing something, does it matter what America thinks and does? Assuming no doomsday America is not going to be more than at best an equal partner in a world centred on Asia.
Speaking from the UK you seem to have an inflated sense of your importance as a society, as we did with the Empire and are still wont to do on occassion.
The Solar PV, Electric Vehicles and Utility Scale Wind industries are unstoppable forces that are ramping up production levels and dramatically reducing costs at a pace similar to the introdution of the production line motor car. Only computers and electronics have enjoyed a faster pace of development.
The US can be involved as a developer or a consumer, that’s the choice. No-one really cares what the politicians say or do, they are not scientists and engineers where the work really gets done, and they are invariably wrong about everything. Be involved or walk away.
Alternative energy investments, financed by the government are also right wing business people´s businesses that take advantage of the subsidies to do business, it´s not left wing people doing business, it´s just business; the politics are aside in a business. The ill investments in shady business inventments is politically motivated. Let´s not forget that.
I would love to have some “help” with a few millions myself to lift my business too, wouldn´t everybody?
I find Robert Jr.”s comments a bit rash themselves; he is pointing a finger at a small group yet addressing the entire conservative faction thus making the “bashing” inclusive. This is not the case, rather the conservatives want to include “all aspects of energy development” as a way to avoid buying energy over seas; at least this is the message I get when listening to conservative politicians.
I hear very few if any conservatives stating that pollution is acceptable; rather their stance is develop what we have at home including green energy but don’t sell the farm to achieve the end goal; its going to take time.
Being in the hydro and storage industry has opened my eyes and the reality is a large faction of liberals don’t want any energy development if that development has any effect on the environment including wind and solar and this attitude is very profound when one wants to develop “run of river” projects.
As for EV’s, only the folks who have money can afford them and yet its the liberal faction in Washington DC who want to tax that group. The “spread the wealth” idea comes off as punishment for those who earned their dollars by being hard workers or innovative investors.There also seems to be a lack of common sense among our leaders in DC, they would rather spend their time bashing each other or wasting time “digging dirt” on those across the aisle than addressing the problem. The all of the above approach is the only way we’re going to reduce pollution and become energy independent. To continue to poke a dirty stick in an open wound – by both sides – is getting a bit tiresome and the media is as guilty, if not more so, than the politicians.
There are many problems and costs to overcome before electric vehicles can be any sort of reasonable substitute to replace those using gas and diesel. There are considerably higher costs which limit the ease of transition along with the large amount of rare metals needed for battery manufacturing. I would suggest reading this good summation of what is currently the situation:
http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2011/11/electric_vehicles_ineptitude_apathy_and_piles_of_taxpayer_money_1.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AlternativeEnergyStocks+%28AltEnergyStocks.com%29
Craig,
A zero energy house (ZEH) that energizes itself and a form of transporation and vice versa,saves a household $560,771 in the course of a 30 year mortgage when compounded. The collective technologies are “on-the-shelf”.
A Silicon Valley VC group has been invited to temporarily assembly the major components of a ZEH in a matter of minutes employing ten fiber composite panels. The six roof panels are fused with PV’s in a factory environment.
The building envelop is insect, water and fire resistant. Mass-produced, the buiding envelop cost is in the area of $10 sf of floor area. Assembly will be by franchised teams composed of military veterans on a national scale.
The foregoing is a 21st century version of architect Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Usonian” concept of the 1930’s. Wright stated “Form and function must be joined as one…harmonizing with Nature.”
As to PV costs, Sun Electric is a 40 year distributor of PV’s with wharehouses in CA, AZ and FL. Presently, new PV’s are offered for 50 cents per watt!
Also, roofing as we know since antiquity will be permanently and seamlessly replaced by a LEED rated composite that also fuses PV’s to this substrate. There are no adhesives nor mechanical fasteners required.
The “roofer” as we know, will be extinct in a global clean energy revolution. Again, military veterans will compose the domestic franchised teams applying this technology under a federal act signed recently. 850,000 veterans are out of work.
Walter,
Sounds really nice. Do you have any links on this info? I’d like to look further into it. Is this technology available to us average Joes?
Change is inevitable but very frightening. Renewable Energy will come, faster and faster as the years pass and the “Fossile Fuel” companies embrace Wind, Geothermal, Hydro, and Solar PV in large scale development. Because there is less and less “Fossile Fuel” available to economically recover and process. It is Money and Profitability which will change the world. When large scale Alternative Energy is more efficient than pumping Oil or digging out coal. Then “Clean energy sources will be the profit generators for the Energy companies and the profits will continue to enrich the same stockholders as today or their decendents, 20 or 30 years from now.
Our solar industry doubled in 2010 and will probably double this year. Solar, the fastest-growing US industry employed over 100,000 workers and created over 6,700 net new jobs since August, 2010, despite losses at Solyndra and others. Fast-emerging new technologies weed-out inefficient firms. American ingenuity and agressiveness will solve wind and solar intermittency by integrating with geothermal, hydro and tidal power utilizing improved energy storage in a modernized grid. We can and we must switch quickly to clean renewables.
Yep, I am going to agree that we cant group renewables or anything together, as a reference to viability. all applications are unique, as with people. I could use some black or white people comments and make an example. every install on its own merit, as with people. The media sucks would be a classic example, as true as it is, it is a myth. Just like Solar, this or that. True, a KWH brought to us by a subsidized fuel like all fuels are, is dependent on the subsidies if it is cheaper… look into the market manipulations from this, hell the Oil industry is dumping on the economy making a false value for a baseline in power supply, and gouging at the same time! relative to where you view from
I may seem to be babbling, but I am reflecting the convoluted arena we occupy.
Greg Chick
In human terms, the momentum of any particular process or paradigm is close to unassailable, i.e. we keep doing what we have been doing. That said, there will always be those individuals and / or organizations, somewhere, that for their own reasons follow the path less walked. Whoever and wherever they are, it will ultimately result in the creation of a course shift that others perceive and then begin to slowly follow. It is unfortunate that this is generational, or even multi-generational in nature.
Our individual opinions on what the USA will do or not do, can I suppose, be entertaining conversation, but I give little credence to that conversation being intrinsic to the changes we will see. In energy conservation terms – Control what you can and ignore the rest.
It is strange that the American “Capitalitalists” are so vocal in their condemnation of government support for development and new technology. Without government support we would not have ever reached the Pacific. The government essentially gave away the land that was unsettled by Europeans. Starting with the Pennsylvania “Walking Purchase” we stole a continent from the Native Americans and allowed the Europeans to settle the land for next to nothing if they would develop their tract within a 5 or 10 year period. The Land Grant Colleges and the lands given to the Central Pacific and the Southern Pacific railroads for every mile of track they laid. Then of course there is the vast amount of money invested into nuclear energy by the Federal Government during and after WWII. Tax give aways to all types of industries. The list goes on. Really, they ought to shut-up and jump on the band wagon.
Of course both foreign and domestic forces have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Our nation will soon be a paper economic tiger. Much like the British became prior to and during WWI. We will be a “has been” economy within the next twenty years. I have been saying this for years and I believe it won’t take long to prove me right.
Jim “Casandra” Becker
From $65/W to $1/W. When will it end? At $1/W installed, we are at parity with coal. Probably within 5 years.
The real impact is for those countries and communities who can’t afford the infrastructure for electricty today. Solar can power cell phones, computers, internet, and TVs for less than $10K and more power and storage capability can be added incrementally. Think of the impact of adding 3 billion students/workers/consumers to the world economy.
What’s the cost for solar thermal installed? While it’s not a showstopper at the current low percentage, at some point, renewables are going to have to provide either baseload or at least dispatchable power.
I do see that there’s some work on PV(?) systems that can take advantage of the sun’s heat as well as it’s light.
Very good debate. Solar power will over power coal in near future.
While most forms of alternative energy are being discussed on this forum one that is truly low cost with a payback in under a year is a solar cooker. I have been using solar cookers for several years now and my electric bill has been going down. You can build a solar cooker for very little getting plans off of the internet or there are companies that will gladly sell you their version of one. If more people used the sun to cook with we could reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Craig,
Once again, I congratulate you for initiating debate.
Unfortunately, most ‘green’ advocates are very passionate, but lack logistical understanding.
This debate seems to attract three kinds of audience. The first,wish to maintain the status quo and deny any need for change. The second, hold very unrealistic expectations and revel in conspiracy theories. Any failure in logistics must be the fault of evil corporations or oil companies propaganda!
The third, try to analyse the complex dynamics and reach a rational understanding.
There is no giant oil company conspiracy! (This would only make sense if the problem for Oil companies was to sell more oil, instead of finding enough oil to sell.)
Oil depletion, is real! Not the doomsday predictions of the ranters, but real enough that civilisation must start to prepare for the end of the ‘Age of Oil’.
Solar technology has (so far) proved disappointing everywhere, even in the PRC, where funds are being diverted away from solar to bio-fuel research.
EV technology has improved in dramatically, although energy storage capacity is still limited, hybrids are slowly achieving market dominance. Battery (energy storage) technology is being researched with unprecedented funding.
Chevron’s Geo-thermal technology has started to become a viable industry, and new nuclear technology is making Electricity production far more economically viable.
On the other hand the bio-fuel industry is beginning a possible resurgence. The Virent process, sponsored by Shell/Honda/Cargils, solves half the bio-fuel conundrum, if Cargill or rival Nestle/BP can solve the feedstock issue, Bio-gasoline will become the 21st centuries dominant energy source.
The Oil companies and other corporations with vested interests, including the PRC’s PLA, are devoting huge investment resources into this technology.
We live in interesting times.