The high potential of plug-in hybrids
Posted by Chris Vernon on December 5, 2007 - 10:59am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Demand/Consumption
Tags: automobile, carbon dioxide, hybrids, oil, PHEV, transportation, united kingdom [list all tags]
This article was originally written for The Hybrid Debate.
The hybrid car may be a milestone in the history of personal transportation, but it still burns petrol and releases CO2. In this sense, it’s no different from the Model-T Ford of 1908. True, the technology provides significant efficiency benefits. But it won’t be revolutionary until its next incarnation, the "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" (PHEV), goes mainstream.
In a PHEV, the internal combustion engine (ICE) is further reduced in size; the electric motor and battery pack are scaled up; and a cable is provided, to connect the car to the national grid via wall sockets. With heavy-duty electrical components taking more of the strain, the ICE runs for shorter periods of time, thus improving the car’s efficiency.
The most significant aspect of this development is, arguably, the plug itself, since it has the potential to shift the car’s primary energy source from petrol to electricity. Suddenly, propulsion could be powered by anything from coal, gas and nuclear fission to wind, waves and sunlight. In a world of dwindling fossil fuels, this decoupling of the car from oil could be extremely beneficial, especially to countries such as the UK that are (or are about to become) net oil-importers.
Furthermore, a fleet of PHEVs could lower a country’s carbon emissions by acting as a "back-up battery" for the national grid.
How would this be possible? Well, PHEVs can operate in a mode called "vehicle to grid", under which surplus energy is discharged back into the wall. A national grid system could use this energy to mitigate a variety of problems, including the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources.
The precise nature of this arrangement would be controlled by signals sent along the power lines and interpreted by the car based on your personal preferences. For example, you might insist that your car had to be fully charged by 7am, so that you could drive to work. However, you might also allow it to be used by the grid for load-balancing while you were asleep, or while you left the car plugged into an alternative wall socket at work. It’s conceivable that utility companies would pay you for this service, either as a fixed annual payment or through a significant price differential between electricity taken from the grid and that sold back.
As Professor Andrew Frank (wikipedia) of the University of California, Davis has argued, a nation with significant numbers of hybrid vehicles could increase its "base load" (i.e. its total energy generating capacity) without having to build new power stations. Cars could be charged at night while demand for electricity was low, and discharged during the day while demand for electricity was high. This would reduce the number of peaks and troughs in the energy generation system and thereby lower the cost of electricity for everyone.
At first glance, this idea appears simply to shift the burden of emissions from one source of energy to another. However, power stations and hybrid drive trains are significantly more efficient than small internal combustion engines, and "well to wheels" research suggest Frank’s plan would increase efficiency and reduce pollution.
Ultimately, PHEVs provide a tantalising way to transition away from oil, and ultimately other fossil fuels, towards renewable energy, whilst maintaining all of the benefits that cars provide today.
Previously on The Oil Drum
The Post Peak Car
Can hybrids make a difference in the near future?
Saving 20 million barrels a day. The 100mpg hybrid car should be here, now!
The electric wheel - a breakthrough in car efficiency
*******
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.
As a hybrid owner (Honda Insight) I appreciate the efficiency and the technology involved in this transition to electric powered transportation. However, I remain to be convinced that the vehicle-to-grid idea can work. I would require my vehicle be charged in the morning for the trip to work, and at the end of the work day for the trip home. I just can't see that there would be significant 'surplus' electrical power to pump back into the grid, nor hybrid owners willing to have their vehicles discharged for what would probably amount to pennies in credits.
Might sound good, but I don't think it will work.
What might work along the same line, is home-based battery systems tied to home-based generation systems. Homeowners could size their PV or wind or methane-digester generating systems and battery backup with grid-buffering capabilities. Coupling the storage/buffering system with a generating capacity, to me, makes more sense than using an auto which is only a consumer of energy and not a producer.
There is another piece to the home system--heat. You can use the excess generator heat for water and space heating. With the auto, that heat dissipates into the atmosphere.
That's why I suggested domestic cogenerators to charge batteries for (PH)EVs. You can multiply the benefits that way.
The ultimate V2G grid will have noncontact charge/discharge ports at every stop sign and every red light.
As you brake, excess energy is moved to an on-board flywheel.
When you reach the stop sign and under-road, noncontact charge/discharge port, your flywheel energy is discharged into the grid. When you are ready to accelerate, the grid pumps energy back into your on-board flywheel. That energy could be coming from the cars and trucks braking at the very same intersection or at other intersections.
Maybe we need to stop counting pennies and start accounting for how we will save the (habitable) planet.
_________________
The planet will sustain itself fine, just not as a habitable habitat for those pesky human critters perhaps.
A better (and simpler) method is the 'Regen' facility provided by all AC EV equipment (and some DC equipment). Regen captures the energy in braking and stores it in the on-board batteries. Regen extends the range of an EV by as much as 40% (in slow-moving traffic. Typically, it's less than 10%).
I agree I don't think it will work due to battery life time reduction costs. That is, the charge discharge cycles are increased through the grid connection. So the consumer(car owner) will have to replace the battery more often than a separate dedicated example. Now, if we could plug that car into a PV or wind gen apparatus, that would be even better.
But only time will tell.
Regards,
OCB
Oilcanboyd,
One good point by you,
One (I believe) misunderstood point.
First your good point. Yes indeed we can couple PV-generated and Wind-generated electrical power to the vehicle from an under-the-street contactless connection point. Excellent point.
Accordingly, after the car/truck stops at a red light and over a contactless connection point, we can download the PV-generated and Wind-generated electrical power into the car/truck just as the light turns from red to green. The downloaded energy is used for acceleration of the car/truck out of its stopped mode.
I suspect that the plug-in hybrid won't add that mcuh to the equation. In the end it will mean more coal burning as we are not going to solar ourselves out of this. In fact an energy audit on solar is overdue. Solar's cost suggest that it has the same problem as ethanol. I have a friend who is buying a 3kw solar PV system. The true cost is $30 a watt.
$30/Watt is the purchase cost, not the lifetime operating cost.
At current electricity prices, a PV panel with a 'lifetime' rating of 30 years (where lifetime = 80% of original rating) might just pay itself off, financially, but I'm willing to bet that electricity prices won't be staying anywhere near current levels.
It depends on a number of factors. I'm deploying hundreds of peak KW of PV in West Africa with an economic payback of 3-5 years. The payback is calculated against using diesel generators - the only viable alternative for rural, off grid electricity.
$30/watt isn't even the purchase cost.
"The true cost is $30 a watt."
Wow! Your friend is really over paying. Most people are paying well under $10/watt. And, of course, that cost will go down quickly in time, as supply catches up with demand. New PV cells are costing $.50 - $2.50, and still falling. Much of the $7-8 that people are paying is a scarcity premium and inefficient installation.
We could solar ourselves out of this with third generation photovoltaics -- extremely thin film solar cells printed using printing press technology. Nanosolar and others are building the production infrastructure right now. A single new plant will produce 430 MW of generating capacity per year at 33 cents per watt production cost.
I think plug in hybrids and a grid based transportation infrastructure is a fantastic idea. Certainly, owners won't get rich selling credits back to power companies. But it may pay for lunch a couple of times a week. Furthermore, the overall reduced costs and availability of energy would have amazing benefits to overall society.
The post says "Ultimately, PHEVs provide a tantalising way to transition away from oil, and ultimately other fossil fuels, towards renewable energy, whilst maintaining all of the benefits that cars provide today." The transition would take at least a decade as cars have an average life of 10 years. When Peak Oil hits, the price tag on PHEVs will go sky high (it takes oil energy to make them), and the folks with the SUVs won't be able to trade them in, as their trade-in value will be very low. PHEVs use electric energy, from mainly coal, not renewables. There is doubt that PV solar has an EROEI above 1.0 when ALL energy inputs are counted: mining, personnel transport for ALL operations for solar, processing of ores, silicon, glass, bauxite transport and smelting, materials transport, buildings where the PV panels are made, lighting/heating/AC for those buildings, and maintenance of everything over the lifetime of solar panels and infrastructure. And if there is a net energy gain, it is spread out over a very long period of time. Why waste fossil fuel energy to make solar panels and infrastructure, as well as electric cars that use oil/natural gas energy to build and waste the liquid fuels that we need for food planting, harvesting and transportation. The proponents of solar must study the real EROEI and how much oil, natural gas, and coal energy will be consumed in the process, and report on this before more good energy is wasted to get bad energy (ie electric power). The solar dream is one of trillions of dollars in investment and that much in oil, natural gas, and coal, all 3 of which are peaking.
As Chris Shaw notes,
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3837
oil gives alternatives the illusion of providing net energy. Let's deal with this before wasting a lot of valuable fossil fuels. As Shaw notes, let's keep our eyes on the donut, and not on the hole.
cjwirth said,
"The proponents of solar must study the real EROEI and how much oil, natural gas, and coal energy will be consumed in the process, and report on this before more good energy is wasted to get bad energy (ie electric power)."
Fair enough, if the proponents of oil will live by exactly the same counting method, and not discount the free ride that a century of investment and "sunk cost" has provided them. The research and development hours in how to utilize oil has been in the lifetimes!
What good would oil be without internal combustion engines, gas turbine engines, Diesel engines? Even small developments have revolutionized the consumption oil. The internal combustion engine was not practical until De Dion invented the spark advance, to allow the ignition to advance as engine speed advanced. The electric starter motor was THE device that gave the gasoline engine the jump on steam and electric cars in the early 20th century.
Who has ever billed the hours, the metals, the research involved in even the small advances against oil? And this is just on the ability to consume the stuff. How many lifetimes in man hours have been invested on the oil production side?
In many areas, solar PV and well designed solar concentrating mirror systems are already near grid parity with gas and coal based systems. But how can that be? There should be so many Btu's of oil in a solar panel that it could not dream of getting anywhere near grid parity, ever. Does this mean that the oil and gas companies are somehow secretly subsidising the solar panels by giving them energy?
The EROEI argument is an important one with any energy development, old or new.
But it must be said that the EROEI arguments are complex, and easily tortured to give up the results desired. Just look at the EROEI debate surrounding ethanol, in which well educated people can come to wildly different conclusions.
I have seen no educated persons come to the conclusion you toss out that the EROEI of solar is barely over 1 to 1!
We would need to see some very, very well vetted numbers to back that one up.
Somehow, what we see everyday is denied by such "black hole" math. The fact is that there are millions of kilowatts pouring down on our head, all over the world, everyday. If it is cloudy here, it is not there, and when it is night here, it is not there. The sun in the long view is the single most predictable source of energy we can dream of. Millions of species have had to rely on it for millions of years to get where we are.
It makes me think of the fellow who said of wind, "Show me an empire built on wind power, just show me!" To which he was pointed out a British sailing ship of the colonial/empirialist period...What would the empire have been without the wind powered ships that colonised the world? The wind simply had to be used in the right way, at the right speed, on the right scale, to extract the power to create an empire.
So it is with the sun. Hopefully we do not desire an "empire". Only a cleaner, more efficient world. Would anyone argue that we can stay with the status quo forever?
RC
The British Empire was powered by wood, then coal, then oil. The means used to power the ships was only a small part of it. At one point they barely had enough wood left to build the ships.
They were "billed against", paid by, the people who bought the cars. Such subsidy as government gave automakers to do that research was a small deduction from its enormous motor fuel tax revenues.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
"There is doubt that PV solar has an EROEI above 1.0 when ALL energy inputs are counted:.."
CJ, this point of yours is becoming increasingly fatuous. Make your ACTUAL claim in this regard. Either use 'There IS doubt..' and Show us who is saying this and how they got there, or if it's YOUR doubt, then take responsibility for it and say "I doubt..." and make your case.
http://www.nrel.gov/pv/thin_film/docs/20theuropvscbarcelona4cv114_raugei...
"The topic of this paper is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of modern CdTe PV modules."
"The performance of the analysed CdTe system is also compared to other examples of advanced PV systems based on
different technologies (CIS and mc-Si), which were also part of the PVACCEPT project."
"3 THE METHOD
"The analysis is consistent with ISO norms 14040 and
updates on Life Cycle Assessment, and makes use of an
in-house developed multi-criteria impact assessment
approach named SUMMA [5].
In this approach, the Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) is
followed by the parallel application of the following
environmental impact and thermodynamic performance
evaluation methods:
• Material Flow Accounting [6, 7, 8]. This method
looks at material resource depletion. The chosen
indicator is the Material Input Per Service
(abiotic), which is a proxy for the total amount
of abiotic matter (minerals, fuels, etc.) that was
directly or indirectly required to provide the
necessary inputs to the manufacturing process,
expressed per unit of delivered service [kWh].
• Embodied Energy Analysis [9, 10]. This method
accounts for the total amount of fossil fuel
energy that is exploited by the process. The
chosen indicator in this case is the Energy Pay-
Back Time, calculated as:
GER[kWhel/m2]/(Insulation[kWh/(m2*yr)]*η.
Best,
Bob Fiske
If one uses a 'black box' type of approach to energy production, it may well be true that PV is < 1. Envision a 'black box'(BB) system that delivers electrical energy on demand in the way it is now required by our society. If the energy producing portion of the BB is only PV, then an adequate storage (batteries, pumped storage, etc) and transmission system would be required to even out the load (provide base load). IMO this would almost certainly cause PV alone to be < 1 EROEI because of the energy required for the capital expenditure of building the infrastructure and the ongoing energy required for maintaining it. It might even be true with wind that in such a scenario the EROEI would be < 1.
The more practical approach, obviously, is to include in the hypothetical BB a mix of energy producing strategies which would complement each other. It seems like the current dilemma is that we don't have a quickly scalable method of energy production that is suitable for base load. In fact I would guess that a large percentage of the debate on this board involves this very fact.
A question along these lines for someone more knowledgable about base-load issues: I've read that nuclear is not ideally suited for quickly switchable base load purposes (combining it with variable PV/wind sources). I've also read that hydro is ideally suited. Why is this so? Why isn't it possible to switch power output regardless of the generation method?
Thermal inertia.
Thermal power plants take a lot of time until the boiler is heated up, and then there is a huge thermal loss if it needs to be cooled down. For nuclear there is the additional problem of "Xenon poisoning" - if output is decreased rapidly, the build up of Xenon isotopes prevents the reaction to be quickly resumed at later time. However this is not unsolvable problem and in France some of the nukes are operated in demand following mode.
Hydro is ideally suited to complement renewables, as there is not thermal inertia and it can vary quickly between zero to max output. Unfortunately hydro resources are limited and in US only 5% of electricity is from hydro power.
"If we use Black Box .."
Which we would only use if we want to extend the debate for a period as long as this hypothetical computation.
Clearly that would be unproductive. The Devil's Advocate can always claim the high ground AND remain irresponsible for the results at the same time.
In other words, that's a big IF..
Snarky comment deleted..
Bob
Yes, this is my claim, but others have the same concern, such as the Energybulletin.net primer: "It's worth noting briefly that any EROEI study is complex and different methods of accounting can come up with vastly different results, so any net energy study might be viewed with some suspicion. We may not know with total certainty the usefulness of any renewable energy technologies until the hidden fossil fuel energy subsidies are finally removed."
And Chris Shaw who knows some stuff has some doubts:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5964
The question is the EROEI when ALL energy inputs are counted: mining, personnel transport for ALL operations for solar, processing of ores, silicon, glass, bauxite transport and smelting, materials transport, buildings where the PV panels are made, lighting/heating/AC for those buildings, and maintenance of everything over the lifetime of solar panels and infrastructure. And if there is a net energy gain, it is spread out over a very long period of time. Also, who needs this energy when it uses up the energy we need to produce and transport food?
When global oil production peaks (now it appears), the cost of solar will skyrocket and no one will be able to buy solar (that is happening now), and the capital costs will also skyrocket. So we have what we have now, regardless of what some people hope for.
When the recession hits, we will have plenty of spare electric power for awhile, and it won't do much good. It doesn't move cars, trucks, and tractors, and fertilize crops.
"When the recession hits, we will have plenty of spare electric power for awhile, and it won't do much good. It doesn't move cars, trucks, and tractors, and fertilize crops."
It could be refining Silicon and Making Glass, which of course would be employing people caught in a recession.
Electric Tractors are being proven regularly now, and they LIKE the weight of Lead Batteries, have fabulous torque at low speeds and don't need to go anywhere at HIGH speeds or cover mileage far from (Grid, Wind and Solar) recharging sources. Minimal Maintenance, low-complexity.
http://www.renewables.com/Permaculture/ElectricTractor.htm
video of electric Farmall Cub in Maine..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R26RdfqGvUE
I do agree, by the way, that Solar Prices will likely rise soon. The question is not dollars, but EROEI and the advantages of the technology, in deciding whether it is worth producing.
Regards,
Bob
There is quite a difference in the size of the tractors posted and real combines of 250 to 450 hp. What happens in the early AM and late afternoon, and on cloudy days, and there are heating and AC. How many minutes before the batteries run down and have to be recharged, and how long does that take, and how long on a cloudy day? And where do the petrochemicals come from, the fertilizer, and the pumping for irritation?
CJ,
I don't see how one couldn't scale up this kind of equipment to a considerable degree.. there are bigger electric motors, bigger batteries. The well known dual use for farmlands to site Wind Turbines seems to be applicable here. It's also not inconceivable to have fields set up with power rails perhaps, so your equipment is juiced directly from the grid or your own stationary supplies, tractors running along long and narrower stretches like a dog on a run. How about circular distribution, mirroring the irrigation 'carousels' or whatever they call them? Build those with Electricity and Water disto..
It would also be well to remember that we are looking towards having more and smaller farmers back in the mix, as organically grown foods reaches farther into the mainstream, and the 'Bigger they are, harder they fall' aphorism starts to be a memorable phrase in our culture again.
When the Sun is not out and the Wind hasn't blown for days, but you have to get the crops in, you'll be charging your batteries at a premium from the grid, or you'll be using up that precious BioDiesel that also has to heat your farmhouse all winter, so like every farmer everywhere, you are praying for the Weather to smile on you and let you get your work done. You make hay while the Sun shines.. and you just spend extra when it doesn't. But at least you have a source or two that are delivered free to your farm when they're delivered at all. It's just another crop to harvest.
As for all the other problems of farming.. fertilizer, irrigation, etc? What is your point really? Clearly, there isn't enough, and our available energy as well as our populations will be 'adjusting' to this new reality. But while we're here, we will be hungry, and we will be looking for useful, working tools to handle each of these problems. The electric motor is a fantastic workhorse, and it beats the ICE in simplicity and low-maintenance hands down. By advocating for it, I am not in any way suggesting that it will 'Save us all' or support the WHOLE system as it now stands.. it is a good and durable tool, and it will be in the mix in a million ways, powered by a whole range of sustainable and non-sustainable sources. It will already work for small farmers, and can probably work for large farms, too. I don't have room in my shop to build you a Battery-powered 450hp combine and answer your questions. I'm sorry if the options ahead are expensive or scarce. Welcome to the Serengeti, don't give up.
"fertilizer, irrigation, etc? What is your point really? Clearly, there isn't enough, "
Fertilizer is easy to produce with electricity and water (electrolysis) - about 4% of worldwide hydrogen production is produced that way even now. That will be a practical use for surplus night time electricity (as opposed to hydrogen production for direct use in vehicles).
Could well be. There are also forms of permaculture and more labor-intensive, but less oil input-intensive ways to farm that will become more and more appealing as we get crunched.
I suspect one of CJ's big objections is that there's just not enough TIME to put these things in place.. but with all this 'surplus population', we at least have a massive potential labor pool, if we point ourselves in the right directions. We don't have a word like Miracle without there having been a few of them before. You can't bank on it, of course, but these things have happened before, when the chips were down, when it got bad enough that MOST of the people had to look reality in the face and say SH!T, this is really happening, we gotta get our butts in gear!
I guess we'll see..
Damn! I'm having to beat my own solar drum here!
Nanosolar -- third generation thin film.
Production cost -- 33 cents per watt.
Single plant can manufacture 430 MW capacity today.
Winner of the 2007 Popular science innovation award.
Very well financed.
It's true that cars have long 'half-lives', but you don't need to build a whole new car if you want an EV (or PHEV). Any existing vehicle with a body in good order is a suitable candidate for a convertion. Pull the engine, petrol tank, exhaust, ancililaries (including much of the wiring loom, as much of the wiring in a modern vehicle is purely for the Engine Management Systems), and replace them with a 50-kilo electric motor, 30 kilo Inverter (for AC, Controller for DC), and a 100 kilo Lithium (preferably LiFePO4) battery pack.
A number of us are getting very impatient with your repetitions of tendentious and downright false claims like this:
No, there is no such doubt. The error bar on the projected time to recover invested energy is nowhere near the projected lifespan of today's panels (or the established lifespan of existing ones). The time to recover invested energy is calculated at ~1 year for thin-film Si, ~2 years for crystalline Si; warranties for crystalline Si are running 25 years and useful life is probably closer to 50.
Let me restate this in 3 words: YOU ARE WRONG.
It's not a waste, and there is a very obvious reason to do it: to prevent the collapse you claim is coming.
Or should I say, the collapse which you cannot admit may be prevented without destroying your business model? I quote from your site:
All for a fee, of course. And all totally wasted expense if it turns out not to be necessary... as it would be if PV and solar thermal and wind and nukes and biomass let people chug along just fine more or less where they are.
You're still morally superior to the penny-stock pump-and-dump spam scammers, but you're heading their way.
Cheers Engineer Poet!
Is thin film Si equivalent to the new thin film solar cells being produced by in Europe and the US using printing technology rather than the standard 'glass box' production scheme?
Also, I'm a bit leering when people start quoting 'set in stone' EROI figures. These things wouldn't be produced if they didn't make a buck. In my opinion, if you can make a profit it's a pretty clear sign there's excess energy involved. It's a pretty crude 'finger in the wind' way of estimation. But in my experience it tends to be pretty accurate.
To my knowledge the least efficient solar technology produced EROI at three years. With solar able to produce energy for decades and decades it would seem that long run EROI on even the least efficient solar systems was still very strong even when compared to fossil fuels. It's a bit different way of looking at things than the instant gratification analysis that tends to happen these days.
Best wishes in any case!
I don't think you can draw a simple equivalence (or lack thereof) there. So far as silicon requirements go, thin-film and the 100-micron String Ribbon process (not yet commercialized AFAIK) both take huge chunks out of the PV material requirements and costs. Does this get down to the same level as CdTe or CIGS? I don't know, but I'll bet that it depends strongly on the volume of production; silicon scales a lot better.
Unless, of course, there are also subsidies involved (coughethanolcough).
Anything to soften a decline or plateau in oil production is welcome in my opinion and I think PHEVs have a lot of potential in this regard. The only thing that really concerns me is whether there is enough lithium out there and if not whether an alternative battery chemistry can become viable. If GM (volt) and others produce high numbers of EVs/PHEVs before a real oil crunch hits then things will be somewhat better than they would be otherwise. Also, solar PV is not the only renewable energy source out there.
Using oil to manufacture new vehicles will not soften the decline, rather it will accelerate it.