Can hybrids make a difference in the near future?
Posted by Chris Vernon on November 16, 2007 - 11:05am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: automobile, carbon dioxide, hybrids, oil, transportation, united kingdom [list all tags]
I originally wrote this article for The Hybrid Debate.
The Hybrid Debate encourages people to consider how their choice of car affects the world we live in and imagine how mass acceptance of hybrid technology could influence other aspects of our lives.
The aim is to encourage informed analysis and public debate amongst advocates and sceptics of the new technology.
Writers and experts in areas ranging from urban planning to the economy have been asked to kick start the debate by imagining a hybrid future and the implications in their area of expertise.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The future may be bright for hybrids, but it would have to be a very distant future, judging by the evolution of the car to date, and by the deeply ingrained tendencies of British drivers.
Over the past decade there has been little improvement in the efficiency of the UK car fleet. In 1995, our average car could manage 32 miles per UK gallon (mpg) and by 2005 it could manage just 33mpg [1]. This tiny increase was due entirely to the increased proportion of diesel cars in the fleet. Meanwhile, the growth in size of the fleet (and the corresponding growth in total mileage) actually led to a slight increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over the same period.
There have, of course, been improvements in car technology. The engines themselves are more efficient, developing more power from less fuel, and the bodywork is more aerodynamic. However, these improvements have been largely compensated for – some might say squandered – by the increased weight of today’s cars.
So, can hybrid technology really deliver increased fleet efficiency where the natural evolution of traditional cars has failed to deliver?
First of all, it’s important to remember the hybrid is not a new species so much as an evolutionary step. It looks the same, drives the same and uses the same fuel as a traditional car. The addition of batteries and an electric motor simply allows the internal combustion engine to be a little smaller and to be used more efficiently.
As a rule of thumb, today’s hybrid technology can increase the efficiency of a petrol car by around 50%. Coincidentally, this is approximately the same as the difference in efficiency between equivalent petrol and diesel cars. So, whatever today’s petrol-hybrid technology could do for the UK fleet’s CO2 emissions, the same could be achieved by increasing the number of diesels on the road. Only the diesel-hybrid, which has yet to be released, looks likely to raise the bar significantly.
Let’s consider some numbers for a moment. According to the Department for Transport there are 27.8 million cars licensed on UK roads today with 2.2 million new cars licensed each year [2]. This means just under 8% of the fleet is replaced each year. Hybrid registrations, meanwhile, totalled just 9,000 in 2006 – just under half of one per cent of new registrations overall [2].
If hybrid technology (applicable to petrol and diesel) became dramatically more available and popular, would it really make much difference to the overall emissions of the fleet?
Let’s assume a quarter of the UK’s new cars were fitted with hybrid technology. This would be over half a million new hybrids per year, more than twice the current combined UK sales of Toyota and Honda (the only two car companies offering hybrids in the UK) [3]. Let’s further assume these hybrids were 50% more efficient than today’s fleet average. By multiplying the numbers together we only get a 0.7% fleet-wide improvement in efficiency.
Hybrids are a very long way from the 25% take-up assumed in this quick calculation but perhaps the most sobering statistic is that over the last fourteen years, traffic, as measured in vehicle-miles travelled, has been increasing at a rate of 1.2% [4]. Just as increasing car weight squandered the last decade’s engine efficiency improvements, increasing traffic is likely to squander any real efficiency improvements that hybrid technology can deliver.
While hybrids may be able to reduce the rate of increasing emissions, it seems the only way to achieve significant reductions is to drive less.
References:
[1] Department for Transport, Energy and the Environment
[2] Department for Transport, Vehicle licensing statistics: 2006
I feel its a simplistic argument to assume that all will remain the same (renewal of the fleet and current driving behavior) and one will change (number of hybrids purchased). If hybrid growth accelerates then you will see other manufacturers offer hybrids obscenely quickly and as fuel price increases driving behavior will change, also consider the major hurdle for hybrids, cost, will quickly become irrelevant. So predictions based on simple models are fault prone.
Neven MacEwan B.E. E&E
Did you try to calculate the resulting savings with another set of assumptions? It would give your argument a little bit more credibility.
Even doubling the fleet replacement rate and doubling the share of hybrids does very little. Those figures are already quite optimistic.
After doubling, it is perhaps possible to negate all of the effects of normal traffic growth, so absolute car fleet fuel consumption would indeed decrease slightly per annum.
However, one must factor in various real life issue:
- lorries, trucks and other non-personnel fleet (availability of hybrids, annual replacement rate)
- availability of hybrid car capacity
- subsequent increase in electricity power generation (via coal probably) for PHEVs
As such - it is painfully obvious that significant annual motor fuel savings are probably not easy to implement through mere hybrid fleet replacement in a short period of time (<20 years)*.
Of course, this is not to say PHEV/Hybrids can't be part of the answer, but nobody should delude themselves into thinking that it is _the_ answer.
* doubling hybrid share and fleet replacement would still give a fuel consumption halving time of c. 44 years with current yearly vehicle mile growth.
For those not familiar with these funny local units, 32 miles per Imperial gallon is about 11.3km/L (8.8 L/100km); in US funny local units: 26.6 US liquid gallons/mile.
As fuel prices increase, I think hybrids will do OK in the US where diesel cars are largely off the radar screen. In Europe I think hybrids will continue to be largely ignored as Diesel appears to be a far more robust technology.
So, just by using imperial gallons, we in the USA could improve mileage figures by 20%. Couple that with a switch to celsius scale and we'll lick global warming too. :-)
I think the US will continue to lick the boot of the combined auto-oil monopoly as they continue to claim that "we are not ready for a small efficient diesel" while scores of empowered left wing do-good ignoramusses will continue to wring their hands in horror at the thought of all that black smoke, thus further sealing the doom of small diesel and diesel hybrid in America.
Accordingly, Americans...convinced that there is no other choices except gasoline and very large diesel trucks, will continue to toss chair after chair into the fireplace and party like it's 1999, while sniffing haughtily at "those cheese eating Euros and their funny, smelly cars".
Everything's going according to plan.
Now if the state and local governments would just get busy and round up all thos dirtbags who are building their own
small diesels and running them on homemade bio, and fine them into oblivion, we could easily envision a Pol Pot style future where ANY thought of leaving the gasoline gold standard whatsoever means a trip to the killing fields.
Yes. Whatever we do, save the automobile. No, no. You go on. I'll stay and save our beloved automobile to live on and pollute, to strangle the planet.
Our mission to cover the entire planet in concrete and macadam must not be stopped!!!
The last thing we need is to use our last remaining drops of cheap energy to help us get out of the technology dead-end. NO!! Those drops must go into the autos. God help us if we were to have to use our own paltry limbs to heave our fat asses around the block.
Yes, we can just keep making autos and that will save us. More autos = more saving.
Follow me carefully and check my logic: All we have to do is build more automobiles and we will cure pollution, we will cut population, we will beautify the planet. Hell, if we keep building automobiles, the truth is God will create more fossil fuel for us!!! God will create more land!!! The invisible sky-being of your choice will repopulate the oceans with large fish!!! He/She will drape His/Her hair between us and the sun and stop global warming!!!!!
We will be awash in fresh water!!! Hunger will disappear!!! Population growth will spontaneously slow, decrease and reach sustainable levels all without war, famine, or disease!!!!!
Yes!! We should start an immense "Manhattan" style project to make at least two cars per person on the planet. That is obviously the solution!!!!
Yes!!! Once we are all, each and every one of us, sitting in our vehicles waving sheepishly at each other, then we will have reached the pinnacle of our evolution.
All hail the human Dodo.
http://www.populistamerica.com/stop_calling_me_a_doomer
Cherenkov,
If you want to get someone's attention.. whisper.
You have some good points to share, but you render them inaudible with this mass of exclamation marks and repetition.
Shhh...
Bob
Clerk at Bloodbath and Beyond:
"I'm sorry Mr. Simpson, but there's a 3-day waiting period to purchase a handgun."
Homer
"But I'm angry NOW!.."
Perhaps a jug of locally produced sarconal would create a softer haze. It works for me. Gave up my brandy habit and now that's my substance of choice. :)
The mass market hybrids we have from Honda and Toyota are based on spark ignition engines, as the main market in the US has historically been hostile to diesels. Mating the hybrid technology to a small diesel would maximise the fuel saving, and Peugeot Citroen have shown prototypes.
I cannot see any of this making much of a difference - behavioural changes are the only thing which will radically cut fuel use, in my opinion.
One of the earliest posts I wrote on TOD U.S. some year and a half ago was called "confluence", and discussed the hybrid and the direction that hybrid technology was going. I have repeated it all or in part multiple times on U.S. TOD as the technology moved in exactly the direction I discussed, and at an every increasing rate of acceleration.
I will not waste my time repeating that post and once again casting pearls before swine, but simply outline the principle points that I made then:
-The "hybrid" as we see it being sold and put on the road today was NEVER seen as the final solution to the energy/carbon problem in transportation. It was an intermediate step, and the only way to get batteries, controllers, and electric motors into highway use to develop them for the step to come.
-Diesel automobiles are a good alternative (I own two of them myself) in creating higher efficiency, but it leads to nowhere as far as improved technology goes. It will always be a strictly fossil fuel option. Bio fuel is already being seen as a catastrophic dead end, in that we now have prime farmland being used to produce fuel, if not inhumane, at least very risky given the food needs of the world, and the risk of massive deforestation in attempt to grow fuel crops, creating irreversible damage to the world.
-The hybrid car option leads directly to the "grid based" option. A hybrid car needs only better batteries and plug capability to become a grid based transportation device, thus bringing huge gains in efficiency, and bringing, for the first time, all the energy producing technologies into direct competition with oil. Thus, solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, coal, propane even recaptured methane can be all be used in the transportation mix. This is a revolution that would have been completely impossible without the intermediate step of the current hybrid drive cars.
-The Japanese seem to have understood this revolution from a much earlier time than the U.S. or the Europeans, who still seem to be completely unable to grasp the nature of this revolution. The Japanese auto industry simply placed themselves in the lead, even though the hybrid in it's current generation was not a huge leap forward, but the only bridge to the real leap forward, and now time is on their side.
The one great American exception has ben Felix Kramer and the Calcars group
http://www.calcars.org , which will go into the history books as one of the great pioneers in transportation history.
-The coming grid based transportation system is a huge threat to the status quo. Thus, it has suffered under a level of slander and attack almost unheard of in modern industry. However, the attacks are losing their sting, as more and more people are beginning to grasp the real nature of the coming huge change in transportation energy use, and the great possibilities it brings.
-The one group that shows signs of grasping what is about to happen are the energy producers, both the national oil companies, such as Aramco, and the private ones, such as ExxonMobil, BP and Chevron among others. These companies are becoming more and more frightened of spending billions on oil exploration and production development, all to supply a massive increase in demand that may not be there in 5 to 10 years. The risk to the oil industry is great, and growing.
Lastly, again: It is astounding that intelligent people and organizations simply cannot grasp the possible magnitute of what is about to occur. There are hedge funds, mutual funds, companies and individual investors who are tying billions of dollars to the believe that oil demand will only grow, and oil prices will only rise. I beg them to use caution. The financial collapse if this does not occur could be massive.
In America, and I assume this is true in Europe, almost all oil consumed (with some small statistical exception) is used in transportation. A revolution in transport energy means a revolution in the energy industry, and in energy finance. It will change the whole economy to it's core.
Thank you, Roger Conner Jr.
RC
Roger, I agree that today's hybrid isn't the final solution. I see it as the stepping stone, the R&D platform that is facilitating the development of the electric drive train. That has to be the final solution as it increases efficiency significantly and decouples the car from oil by enabling any primary energy source to be used via electricity.
Most electric power is generated from burning coal, natural gas, and oil. Their is gigantic inefficiency in converting these precious fossil fuels to electricity and then more energy lost in power transmission lines. Thus, electric cars are not efficient and 1/2 the energy comes from dirty coal burning -- CO2, mercury, sulfur, and carbon particulates.
Electric motors are so much more efficient than internal combustion engines that they are cleaner overall -- even when accounting for dirty coal plants and transmission losses. See the report Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Electric Power Research Institute.
From the ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT report (page 2): "The 'well-to-wheels' analysis accounted for emissions from the generation of electricity to charge PHEV batteries and from the production, distribution and consumption of gasoline and diesel motor fuels." This means that the greenhouse gas emissions from coal mining, processing, and transportation are not counted for EVs. The same is true for electric power generated from natural gas and oil (the emissions for drilling, production, and distribution are not counted). This compromises the study and the credibility of the NRDC. The EPRI is a biased source. This casts doubt on the entire study. More important than green house gases are sulfur dioxide (acid rain), mercury (ocean/fish contamiation), and particulate contaminants from coal burning (1/2 of electric power generation. And, this analysis excludes the ecological damage from coal mining (land, forests, habitats, rivers, farmlands).
You're simply wrong.
The key is that while generating electricity from fossil fuels is inefficient, running a car on fossil fuels is so much more inefficient that electric cars come out far ahead even under the worst of assumptions.
Comparing a 1999 Ford Ranger to an electric version, the latter is more energy efficient and less polluting by a factor of two, even assuming 100% of its electricity comes from coal. Take any electric vehicle and a similar regular vehicle, do the math, and you'll come to the same conclusion.
20% of electric power is lost in transmission and 25% is lost in the chemical reaction in the battery. In addition, coal (source for 1/2 of the electric power generation) consumes much diesel in mining, transportation, and processing. Because we are concerned about energy consumption, these must be considered when comparing efficiencies.
thatsitImout
I remember that comment and agree on all counts except your belief that the multinational oil companies grasp whats happening and thats why they are not conducting the necessary exploration. I think that they cant access most promissing areas of the world because once a country gets oil production through them the country has its internal politics subject to being controlled by the US military. Look at all the assinations and coups conducted against nations who try to change out of that system. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are the two national leaders most at risk for trying to break away, and our feud with Iran is a relic of the troubles of the Iranians trying to break away, and also the war in Iraq. So, its much better for any less developed country to just not lease to the multinationals than risk that. Better poverty than slavery.
The multinationals can't make money on smaller fields because of their exhorbitant overhead. Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell et al have just about drilled up the shallow prospects in the 12% of the world where they can operate, so they are doing stock buy-backs rather than just accumulating cash.
I doubt the multinationals will be in E & P much longer except by participating in with smaller companies. If the smaller company finds a super giant they will then buy the company. So if you want to invest in that type of exploration buy stock in companies like Anadarko or Devon that are still exploring.
At any rate, it looks the same as if they were threatened by hybrids and the changeover to electric cars. I don't think its anything but coincidental timing. On stuff where the multinationals do feel threatened like global warming they are a lot more heavy handed Bob Ebersole
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. Take any fuel and it will turn the wheels of an auto or train with greater efficiency and less pollution when burned in a modern power plant to power an electric vehicle (EV). This is true for gasoline, diesel, switchgrass, etc.
The question is not, Will we move to the grid?, but how fast. Even if we were shipping only electric vehicles today, it would take 10-15 years to replace the existing fleet -- too little, too late. This does not mean that we should not proceed ahead with all haste too implement EV's and to move the power sources of the grid over to renewables. It does mean that we need a bridge source of power for our existing fleet.
Natural gas, which is predicted to peak about 15 years after oil (see http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/27/61031/618) is the ideal bridge fuel. It generates less than 2/3 the CO2 per BTU of gasoline or diesel and costs about 1/3. If we are to use natural gas as a bridge transportation fuel, then we should conserve it by discouraging its use for power generation. Interestingly, Cummins Diesel already offers an LNG conversion kit for diesel engines which includes a cryogenic tank. CNG conversion kits are also available. When the first oil shortages hit, this may be the first lever we pull to keep our fleet on the road.
Grid based hybrid cars? With the primary energy coming from where? Coal fired power plants? Nuclear?
Our first job is to REPLACE all existing coal fired power plants with renewable energies or to equip them with geo-sequestration of CO2. 1 GW coal plant will require the CONTINUOUS sequestration of 150 kb/d liquid CO2 into safe sediment rocks. The reader might want to calculate what liquid processing capacity would be needed in his/her State and compare that to the capacity of the existing oil industry.
By 2013, the Arctic sea ice will be gone in summer.
Causes of Changes in Arctic Sea Ice; by Wieslaw Maslowski (Naval Postgraduate School)
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslows...
Then one of the world's airconditioners will be gone and the warming Arctic ocean will endanger the Greenland ice sheet with 5 m sea level rise in there. During meltwater pulse 1A sea levels rose 1 m every 20 years.
That event will smash all your grid connected hybrid and/or electric car dreams.
Yes, we have to electrify our land transport system but because of the coming clean energy crisis and the slow build up of renewable energy capacity there will only be enough power to run electric rail, not electric cars.
And those in the low density suburbs, they have to bike or walk to the nearest station.
With oil production 30% less by 2020 and 50% less by 2030 as predicted in this study:
EWG Outlook 2007
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Oilreport_10-20...
we'll be lucky if mass production of cars can survive the year 2020.
hanks for posting links to the blog Hybrid debate! Its very interesting.
The whole world has an energy security problem. A speedboat full of plasic explosive run in to a tanker in the Straight of Hormuz would possibly shut down 30%-40% of the oil available as imports to the world . All governments would be forced to ration and prices would be insane. In a rationing system any vehicle that gets 50% additional mileage for the same amount of fuel would be invaluable for anyone who has to have petrol for their work Bob Ebersole
Plugin hybrids and pure EVs will make much more of a difference than existing hybrids.
Very true.
If just 10% of U.S. drivers use hybrid plugins or EVs the power grid for North America will fail. I would guess the same applies to Europe. Phillip Schewe, author of “The Grid: A Journey Through the Heart of Our Electrified World,” writes that the nation’s power infrastructure is “the most complex machine ever made.” In “Lights Out: The Electricity Crisis, the Global Economy, and What It Means To You,” author Jason Makansi emphasizes that “very few people on this planet truly appreciate how difficult it is to control the flow of electricity.” A 2007 report of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) concluded that peak power demand in the U.S. would increase 18% over the next decade and that new power supply sources would not meet that demand. NERC also noted concerns with natural gas disruptions and supplies, insufficient capacity for peak power demand during hot summers (due to air conditioning), incapacity in the transmission infrastructure, and a 40% loss of engineers and supervisors in 2009 due to retirements. According to Railton Frith and Paul H. Gilbert, power failures have the potential of paralyzing the nation for weeks or months. If power failures occur in winter, millions of people in the U.S. and Canada could die of exposure. When the grid fails, virtually everything fails: heating systems, transportation of food (electricity pumps gasoline and diesel), communications, and hospitals (after emergency diesel runs out), etc. Sources:
ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/pubs/LTRA2007.pdf
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Blackouts_America_Cyber...
http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=125...
There is no question that a lot needs to be done to ensure the long term reliability of the electric grid. But where's the evidence that "If just 10% of U.S. drivers use hybrid plugins or EVs the power grid for North America will fail"?
As NERC pointed out in their latest Winter Reliability Assessment, most of North America is summer peaking. In other words, the system is scaled to power AC and refrigeration during the hottest days of summer. That leaves a lot of idle capacity the rest of the time -- enough to power 84 percent of U.S. vehicles. Smart meters can dynamically adjust cost signals so that recharging is shifted to off-peak periods.
It would not be a sudden failure. Load from plug-ins would increase gradually, allowing infrastructure to adapt, load-shedding to be scheduled, pricing plans to encourage people to charge at appropriate times, etc. Undoubtedly adaptation will be difficult, but plug-ins alone are not going to cause grid failure.
Plug in hybrids charge primarily at night, during off-peak hours. The grid has quite a bit of spare capacity at night and it will only get to be more as more wind generators are added.
The liquid fuel option keeps us from putting all eggs in one basket. On the other hand, it seems like the "grid" could be more effectively used for transportation energy. Various strategies could be employed to keep people from charging their batteries at peak hours, thus evening out load on the grid.
"If just 10% of U.S. drivers use hybrid plugins or EVs the power grid for North America will fail."
That's false, and when charged overnight, plug-in hybrids replacing 75% of the current light-vehicle fleet could be charged without adding any new power plants.
source:
M. Kinter-Meyer, et.al., Impact Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles on Electric Utiliies and US Regional Power Grids, http://www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combine...
At peak times, the shaky grid is on the brink of failure; there are no improvements in sight; and the future for the grid looks worse, as indicated by NERC (see my post above). EVs and plug-in hybrids have short ranges and they will be charging at all times of the day. There is no way to control this. Charging more per KWH for daytime charging won't work either, it's hard to control the behavior of individuals. Because the grid is now at the brink of failure, and getting worse everyday, it won't take much to make it fail. I'll stick with my 10% estimate. Before you get those EVs and plugins on the road, you might get the grid fixed. The consequences of not doing so could mean the deaths of millions of people (see my discussion of grid failure consequences above). You can't rely on the government to fix the grid, that is left to the marketplace. The testimony of Paul Gilbert (at the website below) is compelling, especially when one thinks about winter in the U.S. and Canada. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Blackouts_America_Cyber...
I agree with you, with one exception. A PHEV in the hands of the average commuter will be discharged most of the time, and running on engine as an HEV.
Most people have no idea of the condition of the US electric grid. Other areas have different issues, but I do not see too many places that can stand the addition of that much load. Especially if the loads are not in fixed locations.
"Charging more per KWH for daytime charging won't work either, it's hard to control the behavior of individuals."
No true. Illinois now has real-time pricing and customers are responding. If you had to pay 30 cents per kWh at peak versus 3 cents overnight, you'd think twice about when you charged your car.
Where is real-time pricing on the web? Start with www.thewattspot.com
I'm not arguing that the grid isn't in trouble. My key point, let me say again, my key point, is that electicity is a fundamental carrier of energy. And when oil, gas, and coal disappear, we will still need to get energy (from wind and solar and other) from one point to another, and put it to work for the things we do now with FFs.
There will never be enough biofuel even for 10% of the vehicles without large effects on the food supply. Electricity from renewables is, is, the long-term solution. Getting there from here will be painful, we'll squander lives along the way, but that's where we're going.
Hi John, when oil disappears the other energies will also disappear. See pages 30 to 40 of: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
Hi Cliff - As much has been written about what the post-peak oil future will look like, I'll pass on your rather broad statement.
I did look through your paper. Its a nice summary but should be put through some self critique process, I suggest. Is there new insight, data, or conclusion you find that is not contained in the many articles, posts, and books now available on PO? Or is this a summary of the status of current thinking on PO and it's implications?
One bone to pick: You cite on pg 16 (Word format) an UCS report from 2003 that you claim
The Union of Concerned Scientists (an organization of scientists and citizens who promote renewable energy sources and conservation) concluded in “Renewing Where We Live” (2003) that with a maximum effort, the U.S. could “achieve 20% of electric supply from renewables” (including hydroelectric power).
First, the 2003 report is no longer available so one must look to later reports by UCS. Second, USC was refering to achieving 20% by 2020, not saying that more renewables can not be utilized. This is a key source to start your section on why alternatives will not be found or suffice.
OTOH, A 2007 report by ACORE (American Council On Renewable Energy), concludes 50% of current US electricity can be obtained from renewables by 2025 if the right policies can be put in place. Again that's not a limit but a scenaro.
Acore also suggests 40% of tranportation fuel can be replaced with renewable fuels by 2025. Here is where I argue we should not do that but rather electrify transportation.
From a CNN article when the report was published:
"We still have elected officials who believe renewable energy cannot power this country, and I think that is incorrect," ACORE president Michael Eckhart said on a conference call. "We can deliver huge amounts of energy in an environmentally sustainable way."
ACORE's projections differ sharply with those of the U.S. government and most major oil companies, who say renewables will continue to account for between 5 to 10 percent of the country's energy use by 2030.
Now why would the oil companies say renewables could only be 5-10%? So right at this moment in the US the most productive thing one could do is focus on the current energy bill that the Congress wants to pass this year.
ACORE is a biased source and CNN is a news organization. The Union of Concerned Scientists is an MIT group of scientists who favor solar energy development, but deal with the realities of siting and funding the enormous infrastructure and capital costs for solar energy development. Read their report http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy_basics/increasing-re...
and you will see the challenges solar energy faces.
The development of solar energy faces insurmountable obstacles: Oil, natural gas, and coal are used for mining bauxite (for aluminum), iron ore, and silicon, and for rail transport, 18 wheelers, gigantic mining/earth movers, transportation of everything, including for workers for the 1000 steps that go into the design, manufacture, distribution, installation of solar panels, and maintenance for panels and power lines...and for manufacturing and transporting all of the above. The EIOR for solar must include all of this. Chris Shaw
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3837
is right, oil gives solar the illusion of providing much energy. According to reliable studies, wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, shale oil, oil sands, and coal GTL are limited/peaked, see pages 16 to 40
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
where these studies are reviewed. In The Wall Street Journal 5 November 2007: "The cost of solar-powered cells has been pushed up in the past few years by a tight supply of silicon, the main raw material in such cells." Why? The price of oil: from $25 in2003 to $100 in 2007; coal: 2X in 4 years; uranium: 7X in 4 years. These increases are minuscule compared to the years ahead. The solar energy economy would take many trillions of Euros and decades to construct and require an enormous expenditure of oil, natural gas, and coal. Do we want to do that now?. As we all know, Peak Oil is here, so too are Peak Natural Gas and Peak Coal. We are out of time.
My report is up-to-date and has been read carefully by some 20 peak oilers. Some readers are concerned with UCS's assessment of solar energy development. There is a big difference between what is technically feasible and what is possible in reality.
"Union of Concerned Scientists is an MIT group of scientists"
I'm a member, cj.
Since an EV is so much cheaper to run (at today's electricity prices) than an ICEV, even 30 cents per KWH would be no deterrent to the soccer mom who "needs" to recharge the thing since Johnny "needs" to be saved from the unthinkable (riding the school bus).