Electric Commercial Vehicles - A Few More Thoughts

A few days ago, I posted an article about electric commercial vehicles by Alan Searchwell from Kingston, Jamaica (known as islandboy). After I posted the article, I discovered that the version I posted wasn't the final version, and didn't include some important discussion related to commercial electric vehicles. This post includes the additional thoughts that were inadvertently omitted.

Electric Vehicle Pros and Cons

Battery powered electric vehicles have restricted range. Overcoming the range restriction carries significant penalties in terms of battery pack size, weight and/or cost. For commercial vehicles, the range limits are not an insurmountable problem as a large percentage of delivery vehicles operate on fixed routes and schedules so their use and charging cycles can be planned with more certainty than an individual's personal transportation. In addition, larger commercial vehicles tend to have more space that can accommodate larger battery packs without impacting the cargo or passenger areas. Smaller delivery vehicles tend to do shorter range trips so smaller battery pack sizes offering limited range are not a big issue. In any case, routes can be planned so that vehicles return to base long before they run out of juice and the fleet operation bases can be equipped with high power, fast charging stations or battery swap stations if fast turnaround times are more important than the cost of spare battery packs. In some cases the loading bays at destinations could be equipped with fast charging stations so that batteries could be topped up for the onward or return trip while the vehicle is being loaded or unloaded. School buses, airport shuttles and other passenger moving operations that frequently move people on routes that are less than 50 miles round trip also present opportunities.

Although Electric drive systems attract a higher initial capital cost of at least 30% more than a similar conventional vehicle, they should be able to gain some serious traction in the commercial vehicle market since electric drive in commercial vehicles results in significantly lower operating costs in the form of reduced fueling costs and lower maintenance costs. The only parts that can really wear out in an electric motor are the two motor shaft bearings. One only need look at electric motors used in industry and commerce for an indication of how much maintenance will be required there. For battery electric vehicles, the only oil changes that are required relate to transmissions and final drives. These oil changes are less frequent than the oil changes required by an ICE.

If regenerative braking is used, the vehicles are able to go more than twice as far between brake lining replacements. In series hybrids, clutches and complex transmissions are not required, so drive train maintenance can be greatly reduced while the ICE used to generate power is usually set up to operate under optimum conditions, extending service intervals and the useful life of the engine.

What Should We Be Doing Next?

The fact is that while electric drive systems are being produced by the hundreds, internal combustion engines and their related transmissions are being produced by the hundreds of thousands. Component costs will not come down as long as this relatively minuscule number of electrically driven vehicles are being manufactured and sold. It is the classic cache 22. For prices to come down volumes must go up--but for volumes to go up, prices must come down. In this situation, something must happen tip the scales and make the new technology irresistible, like the fuel price shocks of 2008.

In this post shock recessionary climate, fuel prices have plummeted. The new, more efficient, but initially more expensive technology has lost its luster, resulting in buyers returning to the safe haven of buying what they've always bought. It is still quite remarkable that many of the electrically driven commercial vehicles have sold in the numbers that they have. The high sales figures lend credence to the thinking that the long term savings from their use are quite significant. According to Electrorides' numbers, it would appear that electric commercial vehicles are not hard to justify in terms of the savings compared to the additional cost of going electric.

If we wait for the next fuel price spike to stimulate demand for electric vehicles, several of the key players may fail and disappear in the meantime. Tax incentives, purchase rebates, increased fuel taxes are all tools governments can use to stimulate demand during hard times. If, as many readers of The Oil Drum believe, we are perilously close to if not past the peak of world oil production, we are going to need alternatives to the almost exclusively fossil fuel powered transportation infrastructure that exists today. Hopefully the stimulus packages being devised around the world will help to provide an opportunity to this nascent industry, so that it will survive and provide a basis for a new generation of trucks and buses that will provide both a reliable and cost effective option for the transportation needs of industry and commerce as we enter a post peak world.

There is also a green PR factor, at least for consumer companies like CocaCola it can be considered to be a form of advertising. It probably also improves employee morale, and possibly loyalty. None of these intangible factors are easy to value on the bottom line, but a smart executive will seek them amyway.

Clearly and sadly a lot of producers of alternatives are now suffering from the 'low' oilprices. Mass production of EV's with lithium batteries can be hampered by peak lithium, so it seems. I've read several articles about this problem, one said maximum production could be only 6 million cars/year. Wikipedia refers to an article that says that there is enough lithium for 2 billion cars and that the necessary increase (13 times higher then now) in mining lithium would be possible.
Toyota decided to keep on producing their Prius without lithium batteries because they are aware of peak lithium (being aware of PO decided them to come with the Prius), reported an other article. What are other car companies doing regarding their EV development ? Are most focussing on lithium or some also on NiZn batteries ?
Who knows more about this potential problem and the reaction from car makers?

Lithium is reasonably abundant, and reasonably widely distributed: it's mostly produced now in S. America, but China is expanding production, and there are substantial sources elsewhere. It can be recycled efficiently.

It's rather like uranium: in the short run there could be boom-bust cycles of supply expansion and shortfalls, but in the medium-term there aren't really resource limits.

There was a widely read analysis a couple of years ago that raised questions, but those questions have been answered pretty thoroughly. The amount used by each battery isn't that great:
One estimate is that most lithium chemistries require around 3+lb/kWh of lithium carbonate, so for a 16KWH Volt type battery we would need about 50 lbs of lithium carbonate.

If you want a more detailed general discussion this is good, and for some debate go here.

Thanks nick! Glad to see someone on this board speak the truth on lithium abundance!

Abundance (in oil terms URR) isn't the problem ... just like oil, seafish, phosphorus and every other thing we consume the problem is the 'low hanging fruit' is picked first so the resource gets ever more expensive to produce over time.

The flow rate of lithium production is likely to become ever more expensive over time since the producers have to make a profit ... so, the problem is the consumers affording the price (at the moment lithium use in car batteries is for most of the population of the earth completely unaffordable!).

Just like oil the abundance has NOTHING to do with the amount mined on a daily basis - abundance just tells you the maximum amount available, not the amount affordable.

Just like everything else mined, production of lithium will peak due to lack of affordability at some stage.

Here is what looks like a current price for lithium carbonate.

Lithium carbonate prices doubled in the past four years to $US5500/tonne

Those who can't afford the $125 for the lithium in a Volt's battery won't be able to afford any car.

Improvements in mining technology usually roughly offset the additional costs for minerals that would occur due to the declining quality of available ores. If that doesn't work out then lithium from seawater would still be sort of affordable for batteries (with recycling). The peak in lithium will probably occur when we just don't want any more.

It isn't the vital lithium but the total lithium battery assembly that are unaffordable ... if you can't afford the battery you can't afford the lithium ... same result ... and if you think the Volt's batteries are only going to cost $125 you will get a big surprise!

At the moment $125 for the lithium in a Volt battery is unaffordable for the vast majority of the people on Earth since to be of any use it has to be part of an expensive battery, you can't have one without the other ... and so is the Volt itself! Such expensive vehicles are not the future of private transport for any but a very small, rich, minority - neither are ICE powered vehicle of similar price.

Do you know what log normal distribution means?

Heres a hint: it means lithium will never be too expensive.

Here's another hint: hydrocarbons aren't log normal distributed.

The developing market for EVs of all sorts will help allocate the lithium. Rich people's play toys first in line of course.

eBikes will require small amounts of lithium, slightly more for eScooters, I do not see production of either severely impacted by periodic lithium shortages.

One and two seat EVs will likely get first access to lithium vs. 4+ seat EVs (price allocation). That optional second battery pack for extended range will "cost too much" for some.

In other words, price allocation of a scarce resource will work reasonably well. The connection between lithium production and EV production is elastic.

And I agree with the boom/bust cycle of lithium production and costs. Medium term, it will "work out".

Best Hopes for Markets,

Alan

If lithium gets too pricey, batteries will be "prematurely recycled" from parked cars without the owner's permission. A bit like copper plumbing during the copper price spike.

Alan

That would require a hoist, for most plug-ins - the Volt and vehicles complying with the standards being developed for Better Place will have their battery installed from below.

"One and two seat EVs will likely get first access to lithium vs. 4+ seat EVs (price allocation). "

At $2.75/lb, that's only $137.50, or 3.4% of the likely Volt battery cost of $4k (wholesale in 2-4 years). A doubling in the price of lithium would only increase the cost of a $30K vehicle (after $7,500 credit) by $137.50. GM is assembling their battery from cells made by LG Chem, the largest li-ion cell producer in the world - I suspect LG is pretty good at getting long-term contracts for their supplies.

However, at $275/lb the ratios change.

And, yes, in a post-Peak OIl world with mining bottlemnecks (also affected by oil), a hundred fold price explosion/spike is within the realm of reasonable possibility.

Alan

Alan, I know how strongly you feel about advocating for rail. I agree with you - rail is good, and we need to support it strongly.

On the other hand, you're being really unrealistic in your criticism of EV/HEV/PHEVs. And, that's important, because we can make a difference in PO and AGW, but we need to do everything, especially electric vehicles, because they can make the fastest difference. Even now, we build 20 times as many vehicles per year as we do homes, and we can replace 50% in 6 years (effectively, because new cars are used more than old ones).

We only have 10-20 years to prevent catastrophic climate change - we need to build out wind ASAP to replace coal, and electric vehicles powered by that wind. Rail is good, but it can't be the top (and certainly not the only) priority - it's not fast enough.

Now, let's argue about small details.

"mining bottlemnecks (also affected by oil), "

Much mining is done with electrical equipment, and that switch would accelerate if oil prices rose again. In the meantime, if diesel triples in cost (and we've seen recently that's all the increase that's possible), and fuel accounts for 15% of mining costs, then mining costs would increase by 30%, battery costs would rise by 1%, and EV/PHEV costs would rise by .2%.

Rail is not fast enough

The United States of America# built subways in all of it's largest cities and streetcar lines in 500 cities, towns and villages in just 20 years.

# 1897-1916, when the USA had 3% to 4% of today's GDP, "limited access" to advanced technology, 1/3rd (roughly) the population of today and a population that was approaching less than half rural.

OTOH, the USA trashed virtually EVERY bit of prime commercial property (called "downtowns") and many well built, established, well located residential and mixed use neighborhoods (called "inner cities") in just twenty years, roughly 1950-1970.

We did it before, we *CAN* do it again !

Best Hopes for Mature Technology,

Alan

PS: Becasue of it's great energy efficiency (trade say 20 BTUs oil for 1 BTU electricity), Rail should be the first priority and the ONLY transportation priority until it is being built "fast enough" (for Urban Rail, about $60 billion/yr).

"The United States of America# built subways in all of it's largest cities and streetcar lines in 500 cities, towns and villages in just 20 years."

This seems to exaggerate what was done a bit. What % of rail infrastructure that existed in 1940 (very roughly rail's peak) was built in this period? What % of the US's Vehicle Miles Travelled was served by the rail built in this 20 year period? Was it high, even as early as 1917? What % of the VMT in it's service areas does it serve now?

"the USA trashed virtually EVERY bit of prime commercial property (called "downtowns") and many well built, established, well located residential and mixed use neighborhoods (called "inner cities") in just twenty years, roughly 1950-1970."

This also seems to exaggerate a bit. What % of overall commercial and residential property was actually demolished or vacant in 1970? Even if we restrict this to urban commercial and residential property, was the % that was actually demolished or vacant very high?

Also, don't you agree that was a waste? If so, what economic grounds exist for it now, when insulation, heat pumps & EV/PHEVs (and wind turbines to power them) would be 10% of the cost?

"great energy efficiency (trade say 20 BTUs oil for 1 BTU electricity"

Rail alone won't do that. That requires building a great deal of Transit Oriented Development, at an enormous cost, and (at an annual construction rate of only about .5% of inventory, currently) over a very long time.

"for Urban Rail, about $60 billion/yr"

I certainly agree with you that we should make that investment.

Let me repeat: I agree with you that we should make that investment.

OTOH, I differ on the idea that's enough, or even enough to make a really big dent. What % reduction in light vehicle fuel consumption would that achieve? As much as 15%, with great luck? Don't we need much more than that?

"The United States of America# built subways in all of it's largest cities and streetcar lines in 500 cities, towns and villages in just 20 years."

This seems to exaggerate what was done a bit.

It underestimates what was done !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_town_tramway_systems_in_the_United_...

The gentleman who compiled the list, Leroy Demery, said that the twenty years of "Peak Streetcar Building" saw over 500 systems built. Interurban's are not included in the count, and "500" deletes any "grey" systems (is it streetcar, is it interurban ?) . In a MUCH poorer and considerably smaller USA.

BTW, Urban Rail peaked roughly mid-1920s, not 1940.

More Later,

Alan

New Orleans peaked with 222 miles of streetcar lines and

""It underestimates what was done !"

Well, I have no doubt that quite a bit was done. OTOH, that list has 1,077 towns with tram/trolley systems. If 500 were built during that 20 year period, that's only 46% of the total.

And again, I refer you to my questions about how much of the transportation market these tram/trolley systems served: if half the population was rural, then probably only 1/3 of the populations was in areas served by all trams, and of course, only part of their transportation needs were provided by these trams.

Essentially all of it by non-oil transportation. Walking, bicycling and streetcars were the people transportation; horses & mules for urban freight till gasoline transport got large enough. Very few of even the rich stabled horses at home, a few hacks for hire.

All historical records, pictures & accounts show that streetcars were the dominant transportation system (I think it was Melbourne that used over 1,000 streetcars to move over a million people on a major holiday to two attractions opposite each other. Marvelous logistics, headways of 50 seconds between groups of streetcars, etc.

New Orleans had 8 parallel tracks on part of Canal Street (later rationalized to four for the entire length of the CBD).

New Orleans installed the St. Charles Streetcar Line in 1834/1835, so it is not included as one of the "500"; but we vastly expanded our system from 1897 to 1916.

Actually, as I noted, my claim of 500 streetcars in 20 years UNDERSTATES what was done. By a nation without access to advanced technology, 1/3rd (roughly) the population, and 3% to 4% of ther GDP (adjusted for inflation)..

Also, in the period 1950 to 1970 virtually every downtown area was seriously stressed, with declining real estate values, and the vast majority of inner city neighborhoods declined dramatically (this was when "inner city" took on a negative meaning").

New Urbanists and urban geographers agree, with some quibbles (1948 to 1973 for example) with those dates as the "sea change" for the USA.

Alan

"Essentially all of it by non-oil transportation."

Well, in 1897, I should think. Less so in 1916, as car sales took off.

"Walking, bicycling and streetcars were the people transportation"

In urban areas that's fairly true, though there were a lot of horses. But urban areas were only half of the country, and the 500 tram/trolley systems you're talking about probably 20% of the country: again, that list has 1,077 towns with tram/trolley systems. If 500 were built during that 20 year period, that's only 46% of the total. Also, these were surface street systems, and the larger ones were incremental upgrades to horse and steam systems: the stock was probably replaced incrementally.

"virtually every downtown area was seriously stressed, with declining real estate values, and the vast majority of inner city neighborhoods declined dramatically "

Yes, but what % were demolished or vacant, and stayed that way? Do we have real #'s?

you're talking about probably 20% of the country:

More than that. My father remembers the interurban that came by the farm. The "500" I quoted was a conservative # and specifically excludes interurbans, which served both towns and rural areas.

And

If 500 were built during that 20 year period, that's only 46% of the total.

A mis-use of statistics. New Orleans was not one of the "500", yet they significantly expanded their pre-existing system during "Peak Streetcar Building". A brief review of the list shows few new systems after 1917.

And as I have stated already, by "500" number was an undercount. Upon reflection, saying "about 1,000 American cities, towns and villages built new or expanded existing streetcar systems and/or electrified interurbans from 1897 to 1916" is a defensible statement.

Yes, but what % were demolished or vacant, and stayed that way?

After downtowns hit their nadir (1975 ?), and quite a few redevelopment efforts were made, quite a few downtowns were "revitalized", typically with much lower value uses. Such repurposing of Suburbia seems quite unlikely to me.

Last time I was in Baton Rouge, downtown was still a ghost town, with a few office buildings holding on. My hometown, Tuscaloosa, found a few low end uses (brew-pub, low end retail) for some of the downtown, but the upper floors were typically vacant.

The US did abandon their downtowns almost universally (hard to think of an exception), but the inherent value of downtowns (well built, centrally located) allowed a new purpose to be found. Unlikely that a new purpose will be found for much of Suburbia.

The moral/point I am making is that DRAMATIC changes in transportation and Urban form HAVE BEEN MADE in the USA in just 20 years. I use these historic examples to frame what can be done in the future.

Setting an inferior goal, which is in itself difficult to sustain (EVs to preserve Suburbia) only sets the stage for another shift to a more sustainable future. I see this as a very bad strategy, when we could make the transition instead directly to a more sustainable future.

I realize that massive shifts, such as we will make post-Peak Oil, are not simple and tidy, but will go in all directions. To the extent that public policy can focus this shift, *ALL* efforts should be devoted to the best possible shift, until a point of saturation is reached. Then some resources can be diverted to to less good "solutions"; and I consider EVs and preserving Suburbia to be "less good solutions".

Best Hopes for Maximizing the Best Solutions,

Alan

PS: There are several GEMs in my neighborhood already. Lithium batteries not required and 25 mph top speed usable in a TOD environment.

PPS: Our personal lives affect people views. I live in a rare "Old Urbanism" environment, and can easily imagine it without cars. I suspect that you have a hard time imaging a world without cars. Thsu you see Urban Rail as peripheral, and I see it as the core, supplemented by bicycles, with EV trucks, etc. as peripheral.

"More than that. My father remembers the interurban that came by the farm. The "500" I quoted was a conservative # and specifically excludes interurbans, which served both towns and rural areas."

But how many people were served conveniently by interurbans? By 1919 there were about 15,500 miles of interurbans, while there were 200,000 miles of main highways.

"New Orleans was not one of the "500", yet they significantly expanded their pre-existing system during "Peak Streetcar Building". "

But, again, what % of the system's ridership was that?

"Upon reflection, saying "about 1,000 American cities, towns and villages built new or expanded existing streetcar systems and/or electrified interurbans from 1897 to 1916" is a defensible statement."

Defensible, but a little misleading. "expanded" doesn't tell us much about volume. For instance, by 1900 Boston had replaced the last of it's horse-drawn cars - technically, Boston falls into this group, and yet Boston had almost finished the transition.

Such a statement ("1,000 American cities...") sounds impressive, but, again, these weren't subways - they were largely conversions of existing systems, with the additional infrastructure of surface street rails, and we don't know how many people were served - were the new systems in smaller towns? How much expansion in larger towns happened during this period?

"After downtowns hit their nadir..."

These are Commercial examples, not residential, and not quantitative. It would be helpful to have numbers. And again, if this is an accurate picture, do we want to repeat this waste?

"I use these historic examples to frame what can be done in the future."

And that's why I'm questioning them. The statement gives the impression that we can use rail to dramatically and cost-effectively reduce oil consumption in 20 years, and that's misleading.

"Setting an inferior goal, which is in itself difficult to sustain (EVs to preserve Suburbia) "

You'v never shown that, because it's really not true. There aren't any FF inputs to suburbia that couldn't be replaced much more cheaply than moving to urban housing. Further, there isn't that much difference between urban and suburban inputs: we saw earlier that existing single family homes are more energy efficient than multi-family housing.

"To the extent that public policy can focus this shift, *ALL* efforts should be devoted to the best possible shift, until a point of saturation is reached. "

If you insist on that, then you have to go with PHEV/EV's, which are cheaper and faster.

" I live in a rare "Old Urbanism" environment, and can easily imagine it without cars. I suspect that you have a hard time imaging a world without cars."

Not at all. I live in a neighborhood that was built before the age of cars, I take rail to work, I use car-sharing whenever I can, and I only drive about 2,000 miles per year in private cars (less than half of that alone). I share your enthusiasm for rail - I just don't understand your dislike of cars, and really don't understand why you're so unrealistic about the interaction between PO and AGW and rail/PHEV/EVs.

The statement gives the impression that we can use rail to dramatically and cost-effectively reduce oil consumption in 20 years, and that's misleading.

It is not misleading, it is the best long term choice, and surprisingly affordable. More so that a multi-decade (more than two) for a EV conversion).

The statistics you seek for modal share were generally simply not kept during that day and age. Even to get the rail/truck ton-mile split during WW II (90%/10%) I had to got to a man that was there, 1st Lt. Ed Tennyson of the US Army Transportation Command (assigned to the USA).

Various city by city stats survive, but that is Leroy Demery's area of expertise.

BTW: Boston built their first subway (using streetcar rolling stock) in 1897, and various other subways later. (Blue, Red, Orange). They were not "built out" for Urban Rail by 1900, not even close.

As I noted in my original statement, "subways were built in all of the largest cities" during 1897-1916. Boston is one of the "largest cities".

More later (you write long, multi-point posts).

Alan

"it is the best long term choice"

It's certainly a good idea, but we're not living in the long-term: we need solutions in the next 10-20 years.

"surprisingly affordable"

Not as a single solution: to get the same reduction in oil and CO2 emissions, in the same timeframe, would be much more expensive than a PHEV/EV conversion.

"The statistics you seek for modal share were generally simply not kept..."

Then you have to be somewhat restrained about what you claim for it. If you don't have the data...well, as we'll see in a later post,you can often go very, very wrong.

" Boston built their first subway (using streetcar rolling stock) in 1897, and various other subways later"

A fair point - certainly, subways are part of what you're talking about. OTOH, what I was talking about was tram/trolley, and I believe Boston had finished replacing it's horse-drawn cars by 1900. That tells us something about the other 1,000 cities, most of which didn't have subways.

"you write long, multi-point posts"

Yeah, this kind of thread gets difficult to follow, doesn't it? I may well miss something...

we saw earlier that existing single family homes are more energy efficient than multi-family housing.

BS !!

Contrary to common sense and physics. I forgot what examples you found but they were "unconvincing". I SIMPLY DO NOT ACCEPT such falsity.

Duplex efficiency > SFR due to shared wall. 4 plex > duplex due to more shared walls.

Other people have quoted studies that Subruban electric & gas bills are double Urban bills, which accord well with common sense.

BTW: In an oil crisis a very well developed efficient Non-Oil Transportation system can allow a society to function on a few % of the oil they once used (-88% for Switzerland 1936 to 1945 from memory, and the 1936 oil use #s were depressed by the well developed efficient Non-Oil Transportation system).

Alan

"Contrary to common sense and physics. I forgot what examples you found but they were "unconvincing". I SIMPLY DO NOT ACCEPT such falsity."

My, oh my, oh my.

This is an extremely good example of where strongly felt intuition ("common sense") can lead you badly astray. As I noted above, we need data, and the data in this case is very different.

So, is urban housing more efficient?

No.

Here's the data:
Residential Energy Consumption Survey http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/contents.html
2005 Residential Energy Consumption Survey--Detailed Tables http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/c&e/detailed_tables2005c&e.html
Average Consumption, British Thermal Units (Btu) per Household (US9)http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/c&e/pdf/tableus9.pdf
Housing Unit Characteristics and Energy Usage Indicators (US1:Part 1)http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/c&e/pdf/tableus9.pdf

Total BTU's
Type of Housing Unit Single-Family Detached. 108.3
Single-Family Attached 91.7
Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings 84.5
Apartments in 5 or More Unit Buildings 53.8

Floorspace/ Household (sqft)
Type of Housing Unit Single-Family Detached. 2,720
Single-Family Attached 1,941
Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings 1,090
Apartments in 5 or More Unit Buildings 872

BTU's/ thousand SF
Type of Housing Unit
Single-Family Detached. 39.816
Single-Family Attached 47.244
Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings 77.523
Apartments in 5 or More Unit Buildings 61.697

We see that Single-Family Detached are most efficient, followed by Single-Family Attached (townhouses), then Apartments in 5 or More Unit Buildings, and at the bottom are Apartments in 2-4 Unit Buildings!

We see that apartments only manage to use somewhat less energy by being much, much smaller on average.

Why is this? This is likely due primarily to the fact that heat loss and gain are much more affected by windows than by outside wall exposure, and apartments and condo's maximize the outside exposure and window area for all rooms.

Also, here's something somewhat on point: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_mid-atl.html

"Typically, an older housing unit will consume more energy for space heating than a newer housing unit. (Although newer homes tend to be larger than older homes, their average energy use per square foot is lower.)

We can guess that much multi-unit housing is much older, and has the old problem of a landlord/tenant split in responsibility. "apartments and condominiums that are individually metered and for which the tenant pays their own heat and hot water use significantly less energy than those that are bulk metered and for which these services are provided at no additional charge -- perhaps in the order of 15 to 25% (e.g., http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Stratacon-Inc-593630.html). Unmetered consumption can also vary widely by tenant, and it's generally believed that 30 per cent of residents will be responsible for 50 per cent of a building's overall energy requirements." (quoted from http://www.theoildrum.com/user/hereinhalifax).

Probably it's much less efficient by design (single pane windows with R value of .04, very low wall insulation, old furnaces, etc).

What should we do?

Well, it's fairly straightforward. We should stop worrying about whether the suburbs are viable, or whether we should all "localize", and concentrate on the basics: insulation, pluggin air leaks, better windows, higher efficiency lighting and appliances, heat pumps for heating and A/C, and a host of smaller, inexpensive improvements.

Well, that's existing housing. What about new housing?

We nee much, much better "green" design for new homes. For instance, there's every indication that PassivHaus type design can almost eliminate energy consumption for new homes, at very little additional cost.

An Energy Star certified home would reduce energy consumption by 15% over a conventional home. A LEED certified home would reduce consumption significantly depending on the level of LEED certification and the points that the builder chooses to focus on. There are several levels of LEED certification, and the credits can be applied across any number of areas (energy consumption, water reuse, materials resources, etc.).

A DOE ‘zero-energy’ home would reduce consumption by 70%.

The Passive House Standard home is +90% more efficient than a new conventional home, without relying on PV solar arrays and passive solar space heating. See http://campfire.theoildrum.com/node/4946#more

Now, one might ask if energy use per sq ft is the proper was to measure efficiency . IOW, am I suggesting that if SUVs were as efficient on a per pound basis, it would be a good idea to buy one?

No. Here's why:

1) Energy-related design is much more important than building type. Efficient single family homes are available, plug-in SUV's aren't.

2) SUV's and homes are different in another way: homes last 10-20x as long, and we build about 6% as many per year (625K homes per year vs 10M light vehicles). We scrap old SUV's, but we rarely demolish old homes. Even during the white flight of the 50's & 60's, the houses from which people fled weren't abandoned - someone else moved in. If the middle class were to flee the suburbs, the same thing would happen, except the new occupants would have much less money for energy efficiency.

3)Choosing a more efficient vehicle is trivial, while moving homes is a very expensive proposition. Urban condos can be more expensive than suburban homes, even while they're half the sq ft. It's much, much cheaper to make an existing home energy efficient than to move.

4) It's worth noting that different housing types have a different number of occupants: single family homes use less energy per person than townhomes or 2-4 unit apt buildings, and only slightly more than apts. SUV's, on the other hand, don't.

5) SUV's have other problems: they're make the roads much more dangerous, while not improving the safety of their occupants.

6) OTOH, it's true for SUV's as well that design is more important. A plug-in SUV really wouldn't be a big environmental problem (windpower is very cheap to build, should we choose: a one-time payment of $1,500 would pay for the wind capacity needed to power even a very big SUV forever).

The fact is, housing is currently overbuilt. We have more homes than we need, and we're not going to be building a whole lot for a while. We need to primarily pay attention to retrofits.

Energy-related design is much more important than building type. This is true both for existing units, and newly built: conventionally designed existing multi-units aren't more efficient (in fact, they're less), and new single families can be made just as efficient or more.

If you build an apartment building with units having, say, 1800 sq ft with the same techniques as you build a single family home, isn't it true that any of the apartment units are going to consume less energy than the single family home?

Not really - that's too simplistic.

1st, the physics also works against you. You can't put all of the windows on the south side; in a large building you can't use solar for water or PV (some Passive House designs go to net zero energy with solar, which couldn't be done with an apt bldg); you won't have space for ground-based heat pumps (which likely means wasteful resistance heating, or fossil fuels, though air-based heat pumps will be useful in some cases); after a certain point A/C is working mainly to move internally generated heat, not external heat, so no further savings are possible; using earthen berms (or any large inexpensive structural element) for heat buffers will tend to be impossible.

2nd, The Passive House standard sets a maximum, which an architect will design against, so energy consumption will be the same. In particular, exterior windows will be maximized until they hit the limit.

3rd, apts have several common elements that must be taken into consideration. For example, the lighting in hall corridors, stairwells, lobby and other public areas will likely operate twenty-fours hours a day, as will the elevator(s) if the building is so equipped. If there's underground parking, this garage area will be continuously illuminated and perhaps heated during the winter months. There may be any number of ventilation fans that also run 24/7 and even ice melting cables embedded in the sidewalks and parking ramps to keep them free of ice and snow. Most of us would be positively shocked if we were to view the billing records of some of these buildings -- I can tell you I've nearly fallen out of my chair on more than one occasion (this paragraph quoted from http://www.theoildrum.com/user/hereinhalifax).

4th, even if you did manage to reduce further with apts, the absolute difference is going to be so small as to not matter. The Passive House standard is about 3 KWH/SF for heating and cooling, so a 1,800 SF single family will use only 5,400 KWH. If an apt saves 20% beyond that, that's only 960 KWH, or about $100. That could be supplied cleanly by about a onetime expenditure of $700 for wind turbines. For $100 savings we're going to go with apts over another form of housing??

Urban condos can be more expensive than suburban homes, even while they're half the sq ft. It's much, much cheaper to make an existing home energy efficient than to move. I don't know why people waste a lot of thought on very expensive, painful, slow solutions like moving people into different housing, when much cheaper and faster solutions are available.

I've been asked - Shouldn't we replace our housing, to relocalize and improve housing energy efficiency?

No, that would be a very expensive solution. We have very roughly 110M units of residential space. To replace 50%, at a ridiculously conservative $100K each (assuming only 1,000 SF/unit, $100/SF, not including supporting rail or other infrastructure(!) and the demolition of the surplus housing), would cost $5.5B and only eliminate a fraction of our energy consumption (an optimistic estimate would be 50% - your estimate for 12 years out was only 6%). The same money (and sense of political urgency) could build enough wind power to replace all of our coal and gas generation, power all of our transportation and heat pumps for all of our homes, and eliminate 80% of our oil consumption and 90% of CO2.

Didn't we do it before, in the 20 years after 1950?

In 1950 we had an enormous backlog of needed construction - not much happened during the Depression, or WWII. Much of the construction was not replacement, much of the abandoned property was very poor deep rural (some Southern, due to the great migration North). Today we're coming off of a very big construction bubble, with excess property everywhere: suburban and city.

We added much housing, but we didn't lose a big % of the old. We're only building 625K units per year now - to replace as much as 50% of our existing housing in 20 years we'd have to get above 2.75M (a rate we've never reached at peak building rates), figure out how to finance them when residential construction is at the very bottom of anyone's lending list these days, in dense areas that require a great deal more planning and supporting infrastructure (including a lot of rail, most of which would take a decade itself for planning and construction). That's highly unrealistic.

Flight to the suburbs had the wind of cheap, greenfield land at it's back. Flight to the city would have the very big headwind of much more expensive, complicated infill housing in front of it (even if all suburban building codes were made more expensive, or urban codes relaxed). It would also face enormous opposition from the existing residents, who wouldn't be eager to double the density of their neighborhoods and lose many of their homes. It would require the demolition of a lot of existing urban/near urban SFH's and low-rise housing, to be replaced on the same site by townhouses and medium and high rises - this would require local permissions that would be impossible without a WWII-like emergency and no other alternatives, when such alternatives are obviously available, faster and more energy and cost-effective.

So, to summarize: we won't change our settlement patterns and building practices to require less energy so that less dense energy sources like solar and wind suffice?

That will take decades, and provide only marginal gains, relative to what we need.

Building out wind (and solar, etc) would be much, much cheaper and faster: compare 100M residential units at $200K each and only 625K units being built per year, vs 200,000 5MW wind turbines at $10M each.

Rebuilding the residential units would cost $20T and take many decades, while the wind would cost $2T and could be done in 10 years.

Nick,
That's worthy of being written up as an article "The urban suburban energy myths"

Thanks!

I've considered offering some of the articles I've written and placed on my website (this is one of them, actually, that came from an extended discussion with Will Stewart on another TOD post), but I don't have the time to answer the zillions of replies that an article would get (especially one like this, that goes strongly against the intuitions of many people on TOD). Posting it as a comment, and having a dialogue with just a few people, seems much more digestible, so I haven't pursued it.

OTOH, if someone from TOD wants to use it (or something else from my site) - what the heck, I'd be fine with it.

What % reduction in light vehicle fuel consumption would that achieve? As much as 15%, with great luck? Don't we need much more than that?

Looking at DC Metro, in a cheap oil world, "saturated" Urban Rail could almost double ridership again. But that is saturated with $25 oil (all economically worthwhile projects @ $25, 15 specifically identified).

The vast majority of US Urban areas could see efficient Non-Oil Transportation (NOT EVs since they are not efficient) take half or more of VMT by either substitution or reduced required VMT (EVs keep sprawl going IMO). And TOD housing will use far less energy to heat, cool, streetlight, pump water to, etc.

My SWAG guess, from personal observation (I was APPALLED as a child) was 50+% of downtown sq ft was vacant as a national average. Lower if NYC, Chicago, Philly and Boston were subtracted.

Alan

Alan

"by either substitution or reduced required VMT (EVs keep sprawl going IMO). And TOD housing will use far less "

Again, that requires TOD housing. That requires building a great deal at an enormous cost, and (at an annual construction rate of only about .5% of inventory, currently) over a very long time.

"My SWAG guess, from personal observation (I was APPALLED as a child) was 50+% of downtown sq ft was vacant as a national average. Lower if NYC, Chicago, Philly and Boston were subtracted."

That's a SWAG. It's a helpful indicator of what to look for, but we need real #'s. Also, how long were they vacant?

Again, if accurate, don't you agree that was a waste? If so, what economic grounds exist to do it again, when insulation, heat pumps & EV/PHEVs (and wind turbines to power them) would be 10% of the cost?

Nick and Alan,
You may be missing each others key points. Alan is correct in saying that it's possible for an economy to build massive transportation infrastructure in 20 years, we have seen it in canals, railroads(across country), streetcars, and tollways for cars. To some extent these were investment bubbles similar to the dot com boom.

What people are talking about is not returning to street-cars(trams) but expanding bus, light rail and heavy rail transport. Any of this infrastructure is very expensive and slow to develop. Wash DC Metro case in point, Sydney Australia has been extending metro at massive cost(>100Million/km). Nick's point is that we probably cannot build this fast enough unless we have a WWII urgency. We can however replace the 250 million ICE vehicles in 20 years( we do this anyway), with PHEV and EV's keeping most other infrastructure except reducing the number service stations( we are doing this also).

I think Alan's point is that we should rip up some streets and go back to street-cars, at least in the higher density core regions of cities and towns with >100,000 population. This seems to me to be a lower cost solution, trams were removed by the private car lobby, they seem to work, they probably need a massive infusion of funding that is probably not going to come from private capital( the second time)

The Madrid Metro is an example (also several in China) of building a massive Metro expansion quickly and economically, largely in 25 years (note no "Peak Oil" to stimulate building). The last of the major projects.

MetroSur, one of the largest ever civil engineering projects in Europe, opened on 11 April 2003. It includes 41 km (25 mi) of tunnel and 28 new stations, including an interchange station and an additional station on Line 10, which connects it to the city centre and stations linking to the local train network. Its construction began in June 2000 and the whole loop was completed in less than three years. It connects Getafe, Móstoles, Alcorcón, Fuenlabrada, and Leganés, five towns located in the area south of Madrid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Metro

the entire cost of the 1999-2003 metro development programme amounted to [euro]3.16 billion. These projects, incorporating Metrosur and the Line 10 extension, included planning, civil works, electrical and mechanical installations, interchanges, maintenance facilities, and rolling stock at an average cost of [euro]42 million/km.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_5_43/ai_102286983/

Even without WWII urgency, massive projects can be built in a timely fashion.

Best Hopes for Operating with the speed and efficiency of Spanish and French bureaucrats,

Alan

Alan,
"one of the largest ever civil engineering projects in Europe, "

that was my point.($AUD1=0.40euro ie $100M/km), compared with street-cars(trams)??

Madrid is a city of between 4 and 5 million (from memory) and such costs for long term (century+) high efficiency transportation are affordable.

Austin Texas (metro population just over 1 million) just spent $6 billion on new toll roads in about a decade.

So PLEASE do not claim that society cannot afford such expenses.

There is now a good set of theories that allocate what forms of Urban Rail works best in different circumstances. (I think Manhattan could use a set of E-W streetcars that feed the various subway stations for example, BUT Manhattan needs the 2nd Avenue subway more).

Urban Rail is certainly not a "one size fits all" solution.

Alan

"So PLEASE do not claim that society cannot afford such expenses."

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that. I'm really very puzzled by the idea that we'll have trouble affording the investments that will be needed.

Thanks, Neil.

I agree - street cars would be nice, though I'm not clear if there would be an advantage over electric buses. Both would have additional capital costs, and eliminate fuel. E-buses might be quieter and more flexible, and easier to install.

"You may be missing each others key points."

Alan and I agree on the value of rail - we just disagree on whether it (and urban localization) is the only viable solution. I feel that we need both rail and PHEV/EVs, and that PHEV/EVs will be much faster and effective at dealing with PO and AGW. He argues that a massive and expensive rail and relocation project is necessary. I point out that he only claims a relatively small reduction in oil consumption from this plan (I saw one estimate by Alan of 6%, which Alan said was intended to be highly conservative - I asked for another, and thought he made one in this thread, but now I can't find it), while spending much less than 50% of the required investment could get us to 95% reduction with PHEV/EVs in the same time period. Alan, correct me if I'm wrong...

Electric Trolley Buses

Operate off dual wires (one wire is a return, rail returns via rails), so no battery to haul around. They usually can run at low speed (no a/c) with an auxiliary generator. They use dynamic braking and feed back into line.

ETBs use 4x to 5x the electricity of a streetcar (rubber tires on asphalt vs. steel on steel)

ETBs last 12 to 15 years (vs. 30+ years for streetcars, I use 86 y/o streetcars).

ROW for ETBs costs more to maintain (buses chew up streets on busy routes, New Orleans puts a concrete pad at each bus stop on asphalt streets).

ETBs attract 3% more riders than regular FF buses; rail 20 to 50% more riders.

ETBs carry fewer riders than most streetcars.

ETBs create no TOD

ETBs are quite inferior operationally compared to streetcars, but MUCH better than battery buses. A useful niche solution IMO.

Alan

I saw a news clip about the gas crisis in the Ukraine this last winter that, showed one of these for a split second and was intrigued. I had never seen one before and prior to seeing it, didn't know they existed so, I didn't include them in my article. They certainly present an interesting opportunity for a phased return to streetcars.

As a side note, there are street car rails hidden under the asphalt on some of the streets here. I remember seeing them when I was a child but they have all long since been ripped out or covered over. So yes, street cars were even used in Kingston Jamaica back in the day! A little time with google brought up this newspaper article and this fascinating history of The Tramways of Kingston, Jamaica, complete with pictures, from an amazing web site on Electric Transport In Latin America

It seems that the automobile and oil industries' denigration of their competition was global and complete. We now have the benefit of ubiquitous personal motorized transportation but, for how much longer?

Alan from the islands

"ETBs use 4x to 5x the electricity of a streetcar (rubber tires on asphalt vs. steel on steel)"

Are you sure? That seems high, given that we're talking about a lot of starts & stops, and regenerative braking isn't perfectly efficient. Also, that's a matter of design: tires can be made much more efficient. I can imagine transit authorities buying the cheapest tires in an era where electricity is a very minor part of operating cost. While electricity costs aren't likely to rise dramatically, I suspect that an alert transit authority would find that more efficient tires would pay for themselves.

"ETBs last 12 to 15 years (vs. 30+ years for streetcars"

Well, that's a matter of design, isn't it? Why should ETB's live shorter lives?

"ROW for ETBs costs more to maintain"

Sure, and there'll be tires to replace.

"ETBs attract 3% more riders than regular FF buses; rail 20 to 50% more riders."

Really? Why?

"ETBs carry fewer riders than most streetcars."

Smaller cars? Isn't that just a design choice?

"ETBs create no TOD"

They don't seem permanent enough for people to build around them?

Finally, what about 1) the cost and time delays of building surface street rail, 2) the need for dedicated lanes or delays because the trolleys can't move outside their planned paths and 3) the noise of steel on steel? Noise pollution is a real problem.

while spending much less than 50% of the required investment could get us to 95% reduction with PHEV/EVs in the same time period. Alan, correct me if I'm wrong...

Considering that personal transportation by car & SUV takes slightly less than half of US oil consumption, I think that stat is WAY wrong.

And EVs/PHEVs are *NOT* going to reduce even the personal transportation #'s by 95%. Much less in 20 years. You are hypothesizing vehicles that do not exist (100% of new car sales in 2010 are Prius (HIGHLY unlikely), will not get the USA even close to that goal).

You are building a case on hypothesized technology and incredible buying preferences, among other weaknesses.

Since you are arguing for paper tech (with whatever favorable attributes you like), you can create #s that appeal but do not stand up to reality.

I make a more restrained case, with more conservative, but realistic assumptions, and you claim that your case is better.

The delta is in the methodology of analysis between us, not the superiority of EVs and Suburbia.

Build out Urban Rail ASAP, and just wait on the market place to develop and sell EVFs & PHEVs (say 10% of market in 2014, way past Peak Oil). Stop subsidizing Suburbia. let it decay a natural death, and fifteen or twenty years from now revisit the case.

Alan

In a post-Peak Oil world, a massive building of Urban Rail, coupled with TOD (much more energy efficient, and better built) and a shrinkage of retail space will conserve more energy and cost less than BAU with PHEVs and EVs; and be built more quickly.

Alan

Alan,
I would agree that streetcars are more efficient than trolly buses, and infrastructure( rail or overheat wires) is probably the same, but both much less than even light rail.

If all US and Australian cities had as good a light rail system as Paris, we are still going to need a large private passenger car fleet. Sydney( 4 million) is struggling to complete a few km a year of new rail, probably need >200km additional.
I see streetcars reducing private vehicles somewhat, over light rail, the advantage is that roads now go where people want to go rather than rail built 80 years ago. We probably need all 3 plus buses being electric. The main failing of buses is not having dedicated lanes although that is now being done in Sydney to speed up bus traffic.

The cost of private vehicle replacement is minor because these vehicles have to be replaced anyway after 15-20 years.

What is the top safe speed of streetcars? could they compete with major express-way traffic or would you need light rail?
If gasoline becomes very expensive speed limits may be reduced so much that streetcar speeds may seem better than express-way traffic jams. The key is having feeder lines at each end so commuters can quickly arrive at destinations with short waits between transfers.

What is the top safe speed of streetcars?

With different gearing, the Canal streetcars (built for the Canal Streetcar Line in New Orleans) are certainly good for 50 mph. Testing would likely improve that to 60 and perhaps 65 mph.

From the Head Engineer at Brookville, the maker of the trucks.

they use a significantly improved PCC truck.

Limited time ATM,

Alan

"Considering that personal transportation by car & SUV takes slightly less than half of US oil consumption, I think that stat is WAY wrong."

Well, I'm not suggesting that either PHEV/EVs or rail can help replace New England oil-fired home heating. No, I was only talking about the 45% of our oil consumption that light vehicles consume.

"And EVs/PHEVs are *NOT* going to reduce even the personal transportation #'s by 95%. "

Uhhhmm, sure it could. An EV uses zero oil. A serial PHEV-40 uses only 10% as much as the average light vehicle.

"Much less in 20 years. "

No, I don't think it's likely, unfortunately, just as I don't think we're going to build nearly as much rail as we should. But, we could if we spend anything like the budget that a 100% rail solution would require.

"You are hypothesizing vehicles that do not exist "

Sure, they do. The Chevy Volt exists right now, and will go on sale in about 1.5 years. GM is building it's future around it - it's real.

"You are building a case on hypothesized technology"

No, it exists right now. Heck, it's existed for 100 years (1st serial hybrid invented in 1904 by Ferdinand Porsche), and has been redeveloped many times since (any half-way sensible engineer will think of adding an on-board generator to an EV to solve the range problem) - it was just a matter of commercializing it.

" incredible buying preferences"

Well, it will be very popular. OTOH, in the absence of high gas prices the kind of really fast growth we need will certainly need government intervention, though of a kind infinitely less aggressive than required by relocalization.

"I make a more restrained case, with more conservative, but realistic assumptions, and you claim that your case is better."

I'm trying to compare like to like. The kind of budget and government intervention that would be required to reduce VMT by 50% in 20 years could easily reduce VMT by 95% using PHEV/EVs. Heck, a PHEV/EV strategy could get 80% with 1% of the multi-trillion budget that an all-rail strategy would need ($60B for 20 years = $1.2T, and 55M residential units at $200K each = $11T , for a total of $12.2T). All we need to do is expand serial PHEV-40's to 90% of the market in 10 years, and in another 10 years 90% of VMT would come from PHEV-40's. Given that a Prius is priced at about $4k less than the average US light vehicle, and a PHEV-40 in large volume would cost perhaps $5K more than a Prius, we're only talking about another $150B for 150M vehicles, and a net cost close to zero, given 75% lower fuel and electricity costs, and lower maintenance costs. Now, I'm not saying that's likely, but it's far faster, cheaper and closer to political possibility than a 100% rail solution.

"Build out Urban Rail ASAP, and just wait on the market place to develop and sell EVFs & PHEVs (say 10% of market in 2014, way past Peak Oil). Stop subsidizing Suburbia. "

Well, if we just priced fuel properly (with, ideally, a combination of carbon taxes and aggressive cap and trade), PHEV/EVs wouldn't need a subsidy. We also agree on the need to stop subsidizing light vehicles and surface streets, and on the need to stop penalizing rail with property taxes, etc.

"fifteen or twenty years from now revisit the case."

I know what you mean - regrettably, I have to say that I think we need to move faster than that.

I wish I had more statistics, but the growth of Suburbai has not been a focus of mine.

The current building rate is abnormally low, TOD housing (even if well built & energy efficient) requires significantly fewer resources/unit than more McMansions (remember new roads, fire stations, sewer lines, etc for more sprawl, as well as the house itself). So your quote of "0.5%" is not particularly relevant.

Adding more people to existing structures is a very low resource means of moving to TOD. Reversing the 1000% growth in per capita retail footage will also help.

I simply do not buy the argument that we do not have the resources to build energy efficient, well built TOD housing at a fairly rapid rate. Trees will continue to grow regardless (ATM growth > harvest).

Existing Exurbia and outer Suburbia will likely be inhabited till major repairs are required, so there will not be much waste. (The waste was building energy inefficient homes with 30 and then just 20 years till major repairs will be required, not in their abandonment post-peak Oil).

Alan

Adding more people to existing structures is a very low resource means of moving to TOD.

Bound to be resisted, and uneconomical for quite some time; if suburbia has vacancies, people will find it very cheap to live there until it becomes untenable.  Until that happens, capital for investment in TOD will be scarce because rents will be too low to supply a return.

I have discovered that I can get wood chips in ton quantities for the asking; my little corner of suburbia produces quite a bit.  I am investigating ways to turn green wood chips into a useful fuel supply, which will require drying it and making it both more dense and more consistent.  The wood pellet mills for which I have seen diagrams use a process that requires sawdust, but maybe there's something out there.

Bound to be resisted, and uneconomical for quite some time;

Huh ?!

Zoning is what prevents this natural evolution in many cases today. A US with reduced consumption (see current recession) will have many people wanting to reduce their consumption of housing.

A large # of warehouses have already been converted into housing (New Orleans & "The Pearl" in Portland as two of several examples. Office building and old hotels are other prime targets for > housing. Excess retail after that.

And I live in a neighborhood with MANY houses that have been subdivided.

Economic today, demand today.

Alan

"A US with reduced consumption (see current recession) will have many people wanting to reduce their consumption of housing."

Possibly - but why would they move closer in to expensive central cities*, if they're trying to save money? Why wouldn't this happen in exurbs, instead? Much cheaper, and far more comfortable for two families to share a 3,000 sq ft exurban single family, than to share a 1,800 sq ft condo/townhouse in the city...

*"The Pearl District is an area of former warehouses, light industrial and railroad classification yards in Portland, Oregon now noted for its art galleries, upscale businesses and residences....The increasing density has attracted a mix of restaurants, brewpubs, shops, and art galleries, though in some cases pioneering tenants have been priced out of the area. " per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_District

"The current building rate is abnormally low, TOD housing (even if well built & energy efficient) requires significantly fewer resources/unit than more McMansions (remember new roads, fire stations, sewer lines, etc for more sprawl, as well as the house itself). So your quote of "0.5%" is not particularly relevant."

Please see my extended comment above.

"Existing Exurbia and outer Suburbia will likely be inhabited till major repairs are required...just 20 years"

Well, I don't think a new roof or water heater is going to make anybody move to twice-as-expensive urban housing.

But, even assuming they will, this timetable means there won't be a large TOD effect in the next 20 years, right?

when insulation, heat pumps & EV/PHEVs (and wind turbines to power them) would be 10% of the cost?

It would be much sooner (and better) to build those wind turbines, install those heat pumps, add insulation, build EVs for occasional use, etc. for TOD than Suburbia.

They simply work better (generally#) in TOD than they do in McMansions. And quantity X will go further in TOD than in Suburbia.

# An argument can be made (which I do not buy) that geothermal heat pumps work better in Suburbia. EVs, insulation, etc. certainly work better in TOD.

Best Hopes for Energy Efficient Living,

Alan

Please see my extended comment above.

Lithium could relatively easily be replaced by sodium in lightweight battery chemistries. Sodium is chemically very similar, though far heavier than lithium it isn't anything like as heavy as lead or nickel.

e.g.
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v6/n10/abs/nmat2007.html

Lithium is reasonably abundant, and reasonably widely distributed: it's mostly produced now in S. America, but China is expanding production, and there are substantial sources elsewhere. It can be recycled efficiently.

Now they are depleting the big mines with high a concentration of lithium. Maybe there is some other low hanging fruit in the world. With time you get the same problem as with oil. Smaller 'fields', lower concentration of lithium and harder to get to, so lower 'flow rates'. It can be recycled but to get enough every year you need a lot of useless batteries every year.

The problem with chargetime can be solved by stations where you change the battery for a charged one.
I heard that they are developing lithiumbatteries for laptops that can be charged in seconds. For sure the chargetime of car batteries will be less in the future. When sodium can replace lithium there will be no problem with scarcety.

Sodium is the active material in sodium nickel chloride batteries (but they require nickel also).

The limit of lithium scarcity is the concentration in seawater.  It would take a lot of work to deplete the supply in seawater, because all of the lithium from recycling losses will wind up washing back into the oceans (along with the natural flow from weathering).

I am heading outside in a bit to finish replacing the brushes on my Zap Xebra PK's electric motor. I will also need to re-attach a spring clip to hold one of the brushes in place.

I rode cargo trikes with trailers -- Human Powered Vehicles -- for about nine years for my "Sustainable Household Helper" business -- handyman work, Earth-Friendly house cleaning, and also some care for elderly clients and one family whose infant has now grown into a toddler.

After a few years of daily rides with loads of 200 to 400 pounds and up, my knees and hips were a bit stressed. Now, at 50, I am using this little electric utility vehicle.

The electric vehicle is more expensive and complicated to own, operate, and maintain.

With a Zap Xebra, a person needs to be willing to learn to be a mechanic, or else pay someone else to troubleshoot and repair. These vehicles are imported from China a hundred or two hundred at a time, and sell for about $12,500 each. A dealer in Portland, Oregon is going out of business, and is selling them for something like $3,900 each just to clear them out.

The Zap company has had plenty of problems with poor and even unethical management -- just like GM, Chrysler, and the Big Bankster-Prankster Political Industrial Complex. But Zap is a tiny company without billions of dollars sloshing around -- even so, they have managed to put out an electric vehicle that works pretty well as an in-town errand vehicle.

As I noted, the quality is poor and the price is too high for what you get -- if they were made in the USA by the tens of thousands with tight quality control, they would be a superb little urban run-about for many businesses and even for many short personal errands.

But no one in the USA is coming close to this. The GEM car I test drove one December had no doors at all, and only goes 25 mph, and also is set up as a glorified golf cart.

To get a Gemcar that compared with a Zap Xebra PK, I would have to pay about $20,000 -- and still no locks on the cheap little doors! Rather than pay $20,000 on that, I could buy a new Prius.

Of course, Chrysler-Jeep does not want to sell GEMcars! They had huge SUVs on the lot plastered with SALE signs and all kinds of offers of free financing and just about any other enticement one could think of.

GM and all do not want a different paradigm -- which will be small, cheap, easily maintained urban vehicles that just sip the energy. They still want to sell people a car with all the bells and whistles, but GreenWash, GreenWash, GreenWash the same old pricey pig-in-a-poke that no one will be able to afford.

We'll all be too busy paying more dollars to the Bankster-Pranksters to be able to address the real issue -- the Great Environmental Depression, the Great Global Eco-Cide that is the bigger crime behind the Bankster-Prankster crimes.

But anyway, my little electric vehicle sure is fun when it runs, and I feel like I am still doing my bit -- I can't control others, just my decisions. Oh, and I'm also building up a new cargo trike this summer -- yay! Maybe make it a Hybrid -- human-electric?

Recommended reading about the early days of the auto industry, including the aborted push for EVs: Edwin Black's Internal Combustion. You'll look upon the management of the Big Three quite fondly after reading about the decades of ceaseless stabs to the back that went down in the Victorian era. Hope we don't face that kind of conniving this time!

Back in to fix lunch -- RE: your comment, Dude -- you know that corporate management in the USA is as pure as the driven snow.

Corporations do not do what is best, they are mismanaged in order to benefit whomever has wrestled the power to extract dollars from them and leave an empty, bankrupt husk behind.

Commercial and non-commercial transportation has "evolved" to be absurdly destructive and vulnerable to disruption at many levels.

I expect that we will see some movement toward sustainable options, but it is unlikely that any efforts will help us survive the bottleneck of the next couple of decades.

Still, we do what we can do -- at least for many that is the only course of action that brings any serenity at all in a world run by criminal psychopaths wedded to True Believers-in-Absurdities.

Corporations do not do what is best, they are mismanaged in order to benefit whomever has wrestled the power to extract dollars from them and leave an empty, bankrupt husk behind.

Commercial and non-commercial transportation has "evolved" to be absurdly destructive and vulnerable to disruption at many levels.

Starting decades ago though Toyota was thinking ahead and took some smart decisions considering PO and peak lithium.

The transit system I was with had maintenance costs that were about 10% of the operations budget. While capital costs were covered by the state and federal government operations had to come from local revenue therefore the price of a new bus was some one else's problem. If a significant fraction of the bus fleet could be BEVs it would have a big impact on operating costs. Roughly half of the fleet was used only during peak hours on runs of under 50 miles with a 6 hour lull during the day when recharging could happen.

I wonder if anyone is really paying attention to the metals that will be used in the manufacturing of batteries. The metals that will supposedly be used to make these batteries are not abundant. In fact, most metal sources are peaking like crude oil, and our local, freindly, neighborhood suppliers (other countries) are not going to let us have their supplies, when they will want to use the metals for their own use in making batteries. Batteries will also be very expensive to replace when they wear out. I still can't see anyone being happy with the recharge rates that will be required. Most batteries require 7-8 hours of recharge times. The recharge times are dictated by the physics of the battery and no one is going to change the laws of physics, no matter how hard they try. I scoff at the notion that we are going to use batteries to power semi trucks for long hauls. Maybe for local deliveries from the trains who will be doing most of the long haul travel. Get Real People.

"I wonder if anyone is really paying attention to the metals that will be used in the manufacturing of batteries. "

That question is addressed by a comment above.

Most batteries require 7-8 hours of recharge times. The recharge times are dictated by the physics of the battery

And there are now plenty of batteries with 7-8 minute recharge times, some claiming 0 to 80% in 60 seconds.

I like to sleep for 7 hours a day, so a 7h recharge time will be fine for me.

If you can afford a big enough battery to let you run all day without recharging, more power to ya (pun intended).

If not, an 8-minute hiatus is bound to cramp your style a lot less than 7 hours.

What 8kWh in 8 minutes, (I think I smell burning wires), 60KVA is some load( no its the local transformer that just blew, someone else must have plugged in at the same time). If we start having 8 min re-charging we are going to have to do a massive grid upgrade down to the local 400KVA transformer.

The major advantage of a PHEV is that you can re-charge at home or at work where you have several hours at least. Fast charges would be good for long trips, but even then you have to stop for meals etc, if in such a hurry use petrol or fly or take a train.

most people will not be needing to travel more than 40miles at one time during normal working days or weekends.

My house has 220 V 300 A service, so that's 66 kVa right there.  Commercial charging businesses and such (which is where you'd actually have these things) would have much heftier feeds.

People on highway and even semi-local trips could benefit from fast charging.  Wherever you stop, top off the battery.  If gasoline is $5/gallon, even a Volt's 50 MPG on the sustainer is 10¢/mile; if you can get an 8 kWh top-off at every rest area for $1.60 (20¢/kWh for the convenience), that would take you the next 40 miles for just 4¢/mile.  Very much worth it.

The beauty of the PHEV is that it doesn't need this infrastructure, but it benefits from it and feeds its growth.  It removes the chicken/egg problem, and once the charger network is dense enough pure EVs become practical over extended ranges.  Not even Shai Agassi has that fixed yet.

For a highway re-charge with with a dedicated service that would be OK, but would have to have an expensive dedicated service. A lot of interstate service stations have six to ten people re-fueling at once, so say 6-10/minute, so would need to accommodate 50-80 people charging, 3,000-4,800KVA.
If only a small percent of PHEV owners start drawing 60KVA at home all of the suburban electrical systems will have to be re-built. Our local 400KVA transformer services about 100 homes, so the electric supply would have to assume sometimes (once a year) ten people will be charging within that 8 minute period( perhaps Easter morning just before going off to a local church service or 10pm Christmas eve). Re-charging from work at 1500 W will cause enough problems, requiring a smart grid to prevent overload at 9am. The real value of PHEV charging overnight is that virtually no additional infrastructure is needed, in fact it will strengthen a grid using wind energy.

What is anyone's interest in non-battery electric vehicles?

Roadways that directly power the vehicle traveling on them, that is.

What is anyone's interest in non-battery electric vehicles?

I discussed electric trolley buses above, As for gadgetbahn, forget it. A waste of time, money and resources.

Alan

Here's another terminal tractor.

"Capacity of Texas has introduced a Pluggable Hybrid Electric Terminal Tractor (PHETT). The PHETT is a charge-sustaining series hybrid that utilizes a 40 hp constant rate generator to supply power, reducing fuel consumption by 60% and audible db by 30%."

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/04/phett-20090414.html#more

From the pics, this looks very similar to the Balgon unit at the Port of LA. Some body is obviously sourcing something from some body. Quite likely Balgon is getting gliders (motorless cabs and chassis) from Capacity of Texas and installing their own drive trains. That Capacity of Texas has seen it fit to come up with their own electric drive hybrid, indicates the strength of the Balgon solution.

This brings me to another upside of electric vehicle adoption. If they work as well or better than advertised, they could embarrass traditional vehicle manufacturers into coming up with their own electric drive solutions. There are several indications of this already beginning to happen. For example, Ford outsourcing the manufacturing of the battery electric Transit connect to Smith EV who already market a vehicle built on a Transit Connect glider in the UK and BMW using AC Propulsion to outfit their test fleet of 500 electric Minis, Ac Propulsion being the people who partly inspired the Tesla Roadster and who's technology is licensed to Tesla.

I have a feeling that Porsche is a little uneasy about the performance of their premium brand sports cars in relation to the upstart Tesla and that Tesla's second offering is starting to make some people in Stuttgart and Munich glance nervously over their shoulders. If some event were to make EVs more desirable and spur sales of EVs and series hybrids at the expense of exotics and luxury cars, we could witness a mad scramble to get on the bandwagon. God forbid that one day Ferrari might make an EV! In a post peak world, EVs could prove to be a disruptive technology and if you're late to get on the bandwagon you could go the way of the typewriter. Yeah, some folks still use em but, when last did YOU see one being used?
Here's hoping for a snowbvall effect!

Alan from the islands

Along those lines: "Jaguar Announces Plans To Build Extended Range XJ Hybrid Electric Car Similar to the Volt"

http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/12/jaguar-announces-plans-to-build-extended-r...