Failing the Energy IQ Test

[IDemo]

By Randy Udall and Steve Andrews

America is failing its energy IQ test and its time we start hitting the books, argue the co-founders of ASPO USA

History suggests that energy is an IQ test that Americans tend to fail. In response to the Oil Crises of the 1970s, the United States wasted billions in a futile effort to jumpstart oil shale and other synfuels. Then federal automotive fuel-efficiency standards and flush production from newly discovered giant fields in Mexico, Alaska and the North Sea bailed us out. By 1985 oil prices had dropped to $10 a barrel and American energy policy went back to its default position, “stuck on stupid.”

With respect to today’s twin crises — accelerating climate change and an imminent peak in world oil production — our margin for error is far smaller. Consider our predicament: There are now 2.4 billion more people on the planet than there were in 1975. In the intervening three decades, we have used roughly 650 billion barrels of oil. Indeed, half the oil humans have used has been consumed since 1980. Although China has gone mad for cars and the world’s automobiles now consume four times more energy, in the form of fuel, than people consume in the form of food, this time there are few virgin giant fields waiting in the wings.

Global oil production has been rising for 150 years. In the 60 years since the end of World War II, it has risen eightfold. Here in the United States, we have built an entire civilization around inexpensive petroleum. Cheap oil, natural gas and electricity have governed our land-use patterns, automotive designs, architecture, agricultural systems and even our cast of mind.

Today a typical American travels the distance to the Moon every 20 years and consumes his or her body weight in petroleum each week. Human beings have always craved perpetual motion, and oil, for a moment, granted our wish to live like gods.

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1244

[4dsc]

1. Most people are still in denial

And heck with their IQ most people have nver heard about peak oil and those that have, most are still in denial..

[IDemo]

2. I'm surprised EV World let this one slip without comment:

Under "our immediate strategy for averting the worst impacts of peak oil?: Switch fuels substantially from liquids to electricity. Plug-in hybrids offer enormous potential and merit rapid R&D. Any fuel-switching effort requires a major push toward renewable energy; otherwise moving cars onto the grid will simply accelerate climate change."

It has been shown that replacing a large percentage of internal combustion vehicles with electric powered ones, even using today's grid mix, would reduce greenhouse gas outputs from transportation overall.

[Kolesar]

3. Yes, that is how I understand it

I expect that in a scarce-petro world, drivers will have to accept buying a car that has a 50 or 100 mile range and do overnight recharges. Vacationing will become a thing of the past. So be it.

[GliderGuider]

4. CO2 and electric cars

Here's an article containing a set of calculations I did on the CO2 produced by moving cars onto the grid Electric Cars and Carbon Dioxide

My conclusion for the situation in the United States is:

Simply switching to electric cars in most places in the United States at this time won't help save the planet from global warming.

But it's not all bad news. If the electrical grid evolves to include higher proportions of wind power, tidal power and possibly more nuclear, the CO2 advantage of electric cars will improve. And of course as Peak Oil looms over the horizon in the next few years, there will be distinct cost and mobility advantages to driving electric. There is a caveat, though. Regarding the impact of Peak Oil, one of the most commonly voiced concerns is that as oil supply declines we may turn to more coal-fired electricity. If that happens, driving an electric car recharged from the grid becomes much less attractive.

[IDemo]

5. Your methodology appears ok to me,

But there are a few who would seem to disagree with your results.

Such as: the California Air Resources Board, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Argonne National Laboratory, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE).

Just a couple of points. The Wiki article you reference uses 'BEV's with NiMH batteries' to get its figure of 0.2–0.3 kWh/km. The Tesla and most other current production EV's are using Li-ion batteries and improved battery charging/motor control circuitry. Tesla claims to require only 0.11 KWh/km, and I'm assuming any other vehicle using the AC Propulsion drive system (such as the TZero and Venturi Fétish) would get similar results. If that's accurate, it would about halve your CO2 output per mile number. While not all EV's on the road can claim that kind of efficiency, production vehicles will only tend towards greater efficiency overall in coming years. ICE vehicles, though progress has been made in recent years, can't begin to approach EV's in the "tank to wheel" department, and won't anytime soon.

Also, the comparison of emissions from ICE and EV's should cover a period of time or mileage that will be reflective of the vehicle's lifetime CO2 output, rather than its output when new.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that tailpipe emissions increase
25 percent for every 10,000 miles traveled. As gasoline cars age, their engines, catalytic
converters, and other emission control devices become less efficient. The cleanest a
gasoline car ever will be is the day it rolls off the assembly line.

The deterioration of emission control systems on ICE vehicles can increase emissions
up to 90 percent.

--- recharging the electric vehicles using coal-fired
power plants would result in carbon-dioxide emissions 17 to 22
percent less than those of the corresponding gasoline versions.



With today's national electrical power mix—which includes both
nuclear and hydro capacity—EV emissions would be 46 to 49 percent
less; if recharged by natural gas power plants—the likely
source in many locations—48 to 52 percent less; if recharged by nuclear,
hydro, or solar plants, carbon-dioxide emissions would fall
to virtually zero. As these simple estimates suggest, no matter
what the mix of generating plants, in city driving using battery powered
versions of these paired vehicles, EVs would bring carbon-
dioxide emissions down far below what they would be with
gasoline-powered vehicles.

Twenty million EVs, each with 100,000 miles on the odometer, would reduce CO2 emissions in this country by 500 million tons without building more power plants.

In a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs are
significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity
generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000
pounds for ICE vehicles. See Table 3.



CO2 emissions are also significantly lower. Over the course of 100,000 miles, CO2
emissions from EVs are projected to be 10 tons versus 35 tons for ICE vehicles.
Many EV critics remain skeptical of such findings because California’s mix of power
plants is relatively clean compared to that in the rest of the country. However, in Arizona
where 67 percent of power plants are coal-fired, a study concluded that EVs would reduce
greenhouse gases such as CO2 by 71 percent.

Similar comparisons to those in California and Arizona can be found in the
Northeastern part of the country where the majority of power plants are coal-fired.
A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs in the
Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile organic compounds (VOC)
by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as much as 60 percent.