For Hybrid Cars, a Hybrid Invention - Green Blog - NYTimes.com

This is an interesting new tech story about a way to make hybrid vehicles with a combination of batteries and capacitors. Read on for a description of the latter and how it could be an improvement over a battery-only hybrid.

NYTimes.com: "Capacitors store only small amounts of electricity, but they can accept it or deliver it very quickly without damaging themselves. By contrast, lithium ion batteries, the kind now favored for cars, can store large amounts but have trouble delivering it fast enough to allow good acceleration. What is more, they don’t capture energy very well, a problem in electric cars. Electric cars are designed so that when a driver hits the brake pedal, the electric motors switch functions and become generators, converting momentum back into current. But the current flows very fast.

Engineers refer to these two qualities – the ability to store energy, and the ability to deliver it quickly, as energy and power. Lithium ion has good energy storage but poor power; capacitors are the opposite.

So AFS Trinity marries lithium ion and capacitors."

It's no cash cow, but a hybrid car still has its benefits

This guy has a full-blown economic and financial analysis of the benefits and costs of hybrid cars. His conclusion? It's not worth it yet.

While I applaud his extensive effort, he leaves a few things out...including several government incentives, such as the $3,150 federal tax credit starting next year, and a bevy of state financial incentives. Several states also allow hybrid drivers access to HOV lanes even when driving solo and Boston is considering offering free meter parking downtown.

Omninerd also leaves out one big thing: used cars. Given the ridiculous premium on a new car that depreciates as soon as it leaves the lot, what about the financial benefits of switching from a 1999 Accord (to use his example) to a 2004 Toyota Prius? It may not be a big personal cash cow, but a hybrid car is one way to help the environment and pay a little less at the pump.

Hydrogen vehicles - fair and balanced

The original post linked to a fairly biased article (reflecting to some extent my own skepticism) and we've seen the reply from Curly. So what's the real scoop on hydrogen for automobiles?

How it works
Hydrogen would most likely supply a fuel cell, basically generating electricity to power a vehicle. A fuel cell is like a battery that carries a recharging source (hydrogen, in this case), so it's range can potentially be greater than simply a battery powered car.

The efficiency problem
The primary means of getting hydrogen - which does not occur naturally - is to use electrolysis to separate water into H and O2 (many proponents believe nuclear power will supply the electricity). This process is only about 30% efficient, so 70% of the electricity used is lost in the process. If that electricity instead went right into a battery for an electric-driven car, we don't lose that energy. Zfacts has a nice illustration of this:

Here are two ways to drive on wind power.
1. Wind => electricity => Battery => motor turns wheels
2. Wind => electricity => hydrogen => Fuel Cell => motor turns wheels

Hydrogen just adds an extra step. And if you've seen Who Killed the Electric Car, you know that we can already produce an electric vehicle to serve most American drivers.

The supply problem
As noted, hydrogen doesn't naturally occur in a harvestable form (unlike oil - our primary vehicle fuel). Hydrogen must be extracted electrically (from water) or chemically (from natural gas). The latter means pointless dependence on fossil fuels, so let's focus on the electrical derivation. A lot of people note that we can eventually electrolize water to get hydrogen using renewably-generated electricity. But less than 10% of U.S. power generation capacity is currently renewable (and only a quarter of that is non-hydro). That's not counting the additional electricity we'll need to generate to make hydrogen.

On the other hand, an electric car can be powered off the existing grid. In fact, some studies have shown that it would be possible to convert almost every American car to electric without having to substantially expand electric generating capacity by simply charging cars during off-peak hours (at night). From Celsias:

A new study for the Department of Energy finds that “off-peak” electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 84 percent of the country’s 220 million vehicles if they were plug-in hybrid electrics.

To be fair, a plug-in hybrid still has a backup combustion engine. But the gasoline reductions are still dramatic:

According to EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), half the cars on U.S. roads are driven 25 miles a day or less. Consequently, a plug-in hybrid with a 25-mile all electric range could eliminate gasoline use in the daily commute of tens of millions of Americans.

The Size/Weight Problem
From Zfacts again, the problem with hydrogen fuel cells compared to conventional batteries:

The advantages of fuel cells might be that they hydrogen tank and fuel cell combination needed to drive 300 miles could be smaller cheaper and lighter than a battery pack needed to drive 300 miles. Right now, it's the other way around. (emphasis mine)

And every pound needed to move the car uses more energy.

The Infrastructure Problem
As Curly noted, hydrogen filling stations are the chicken/egg problem. Do you build thousands of stations first and then wait for cars to show? Or do you get a critical mass of cars? Such investments aren't cheap in any case. This study estimated it would cost between $100 and $500 billion to create the fueling infrastructure.

Contrast that with electricity, which is already present at every existing filling station in the country.

Summary
There are two major reasons why I'm a hydrogen opponent:
1) It takes resources away from readily available solutions to consumption of foreign oil and carbon emissions. Plug-in electric and then all-electric vehicles can be powered off existing electric capacity and the technology is already commercial.
2) It's outrageously expensive/wasteful. Even if we only need to convert 8-10% of filling stations to hydrogen to get critical mass, it would eventually require that we convert all stations. That's a big waste when we already have electricity everywhere. We also lose energy converting water to hydrogen with electricity, when we could use the electricity directly.

But really, let's keep subsidizing oil

Imagine a world where Americans are no longer dependent on foreign oil. Where our energy supplies are domestic and secure from terrorists and undemocratic governments. Where new energy technology liberates us from the wackiness of today’s energy debate.

Are you thinking of hydrogen fuel cells? Super-efficient solar power? Nuclear fusion?

Sorry. Think three field-tested and inexpensive technologies. By combining hybrid car technology, flexible fuel engines, and pluggable electric motors, America can achieve cleaner, safer, and more secure energy. Thomas Friedman’s new energy policy of geo-green means less influence peddling in the Middle East and the end of false tradeoffs like radioactive waste for energy independence. Instead, we’ll be saying: “as Toyota goes, so goes America.”

Hybrid engines already enable us to get 50-70 miles per gallon of gas. Add in a plug so that the hybrid’s battery can charge overnight and you can drive 20 miles (a distance less than half of Americans drive each day) without using any gas. Throw in flexible fuel technology (an upgrade of around $100 allowing a car to use a fuel mix of only 20% gasoline) and you can now get 500 miles per gallon of gas. That’s 20 times more fuel efficiency than the average American car.

Basically, being geo-green means recognizing that energy independence does not depend on cutting edge technology (hydrogen fuel cells), reviving old technology (nuclear fission) or paying $5 a gallon for gas. Instead, it takes a few upgrades under the hood.

How fast could geo-green work? Check this out:

Warning! Nerdy math ahead.

Cut gasoline use by one-fourth... We currently import half our oil. 2/3 of our oil is used for transportation. If we cut oil use in transportation by 1/4, we will achieve oil independence.

...by getting enough 500mpg vehicles to market... There are 221 million autos in the United States averaging 24mpg (pdf link). To quadruple efficiency to an average 96mpg, we’d need 33 million of these 500mpg cars. Since Americans buy 17 million new cars a year, it would only take 2 years to achieve oil independence if we required these technologies in every car.

...and get energy independence for $170 billion. Assuming the US government paid for upgrades for every new vehicle sold, it’d cost $170 billion. That’s less than we’ve spent on the Iraq War so far, without the 15,000 casualties to US armed forces.

With higher gas prices, a hybrid pays off

You can make back the hybrid price premium in gasoline savings within a year, depending on your driving habits.

Co-opting green

At the Los Angeles Auto Show this year, the Chevy Tahoe hybrid won the "green car of the year" award. The irony?

The Chevy Tahoe gets 20 miles to the gallon. Outside, several plug-in hybrid Toyota Priuses were featured: with capability to get over 100 miles per gallon.

Nice try, Tahoe.

Plug-in hybrids can reduce pollution, too

The tireless folks at Energista have struck energy information gold again, reviewing two new reports at the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The more interesting (to me) is the report analyzing the air pollution impact of converting Minnesota's vehicle fleet to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).

PHEVs are an existing-technology route to gaining oil independence by shifting fuel use to electricity. When combined with a flexible fuel engine capable of using E85 or biodiesel, a car could get over 100 miles per gallon of fuel and more than 500 miles per gallon of gasoline.

I examined this technology in a past post and concluded that for $170 billion, the United States could achieve oil independence in two years, assuming a price premium of $5000 for a hybrid engine and $100 to make it flex-fuel compatible.

The Minnesota report shows that for almost all criteria air pollutants, a fleet of PHEVs would reduce pollution compared to regular cars (the exception being sulfur dioxide, due to most Minnesota electricity coming from coal). However, with Minnesota already committed to 25% renewable electricity by 2025, these figures can only improve.

Hybrids may save the environment, but not your pocketbook

The Omninerd has a thorough analysis of the economics of hybrid cars and concludes that for overall savings, it's still far more economical to drive a conventional high efficiency vehicle like a Toyota Corolla than a "gas sipping" hybrid Prius. Those who also employ an environmental consideration in their purchasing decision may be willing to pay a premium for lower overall gas consumption, but saving the Earth is not equal to saving money in this case.

Don't buy that hybrid just yet

Fuel efficiency doesn't have to mean hybrid. 7 of the 10 most fuel efficient cars are actuall driven by conventional gas engines.

Go for the mpg

It turns out that some implementations of hybrid technology are more about feel-good than do-good. Take, for example, the hypothetical hybrid Dodge Durango, whose impressive 14 mpg would reap a federal tax credit, leaving the 40 mpg conventional Honda Civic out in the cold. This is environmental policy?

Texas primary: by the numbers

Political writer Eric Black tackles the intricate numbers in the Texas primary on March 4, and one that Sen. Clinton hopes to win to slow Sen. Obama's momentum. The numerical tussling comes down to this: Clinton's edge among Hispanics won't be worth as much as she thinks.

Proportionately, fewer Hispanics are citizens, registered to vote, and turn out to vote. That dilutes Clinton's support. Furthermore, the Texas vote is actually a primary-caucus hybrid. The delegates awarded by caucus go to state senate districts with higher Democratic turnout. Those are...districts with a high proportion of black voters. Latinos narrowly went for Kerry in 2004, but blacks went for Kerry by a 4-1 margin.

In other words, when you see the Texas polls right now, it may not add up on March 4.

Only $30 million for our energy future?

The U.S. spends $30 billion a month on oil imports, but only ponied up $30 million (with an 'm') to research plug-in hybrid cars, our best chance to reduce our reliance on oil.

Hmm. Nothing to do but count the days.

Energy efficient appliances not the lowest energy users

When is energy efficiency not equivalent to energy savings? When Americans keep believing that "bigger is better." In the same way that a hybrid Lexus can't compare in fuel efficiency to a conventional Honda Civic, Heather Rae at the Cleantech blog notes that shopping for energy efficient appliances isn't the same as looking for energy sipping ones.

Armed with the latest Energy Star data on refrigerators, she shopped around to find the best deal on an energy efficient appliance. Her discovery?

I opened the doors of every refrigerator in every one of those stores and read the average annual kWh consumption printed on their yellow Energy Guide tags. I consoled myself that I could not even consider purchasing a high-end refrigerator -- basically anything with side-by-side doors and a through-the-door water/ice dispenser, because, comparatively speaking, they consume too much electricity. That was my rationale, anyway. As with most everything in fixing up this house, the refrigerator would be a compromise of desire, quality and price...

...On outings to appliance stores, I carried a list of EPA's Energy Star-rated refrigerators...

...If I were to buy a refrigerator on the low end of the price spectrum (a top freezer model) it would more than likely be more energy efficient than all of the high-end Energy Star-rated side-by-sides and some of the bottom freezer models -- even if it did not carry the Energy Star label.... (emphasis mine)

Al Gore's personal call to action

Before you hear the mainstream media account of Al Gore's energy usage, reported by the conservative Tennessee Center for Policy Research, here's a few thoughts offered by energy blogger Robert Rapier:

1. As the most prominent environmentalist in the US (and perhaps the world), it's a shame that Gore hasn't done more to reduce his ecological footprint. Even George W. Bush's Texas ranch is more environmentally sound.
   
2. Buying carbon offsets to combat global warming is like buying a hybrid SUV to reduce gas usage.
   
3. Gore's personal energy use should not detract from his message - global warming is going to be extremely costly and action is necessary now.
   

To Mr. Gore:
Preventing global warming starts at home - try some energy reduction.

To Matt Drudge and the rest of the conservative chattering class:
How's your energy usage? What have you done to solve global warming (other than accosting one leading activist for his hypocrisy)?

This hypocrisy call is valid, but let's not kill Paul Revere just because he bought some English tea, eh?

Advice to Obama on energy

I don't necessarily always agree with Robert Rapier, but he's one of the most cogent and comprehensive thinkers on U.S. energy policy and he has an open letter to President-elect Obama on his energy plan.  The highlights:

A 4-point program
1). Minimizing per capita energy usage
2). Finding sustainable, affordable alternatives
3). Managing the down side of the production peak such that severe shortages are avoided.
4). Communicating to the public the nature of the problem, and explaining why sacrifice is needed.

Rapier's criticisms of Obama:

• We will need more domestic fossil fuel production in the near term to bridge the gap between fossil fuel and renewables (windfall profits taxes will kill exploration)
  
• Prices must rise to constrain consumption [YES]
  
• Reliance on ethanol to supplant oil means long-term unsustainability - corn farming depletes soil nutrition, fertilizer comes from natural gas, and irrigation (and ethanol production) deplete aquifers [true, we need a next-generation biofuel, but mostly we need plug-in hybrid cars]
  
• We need nuclear to help bridge between coal-fired electricity and (capital-intensive and often rural) renewable electricity [NO - for what nuclear costs, we could probably build enough renewables with battery storage]
  

Rapier's agreement with Obama

• Plug-in hybrids
• Incentives for wind, solar, geothermal,
• Weatherizing homes
  

Getting over 100 MPG!

An Ontario blogger got to borrow a plug-in hybrid Prius over the last week and he regularly got over 100 mpg! Driving on electricity is the way to go!

Saving the Planet? Or easing your conscience?

This story from the Minneapolis Star Tribune is meant to highlight how average people can help reduce carbon emissions and conserve electricity. And it's the perfect illustration of the incompatibility of the American way of life with living sustainably.

Susan Levere's 4-day-old refrigerator looks great in her family's newly remodeled kitchen. The stainless steel gleams, and the French doors are great for the occasional wide tray of food.

How about the fact that it uses only $1 a week in electricity?

"I don't want to be too sanctimonious about it," said Levere

I should hope not. That energy efficient model touted in the article is a behemoth at 25 cu. ft. Whirlpool, a company that sells refrigerators, says that "For an average family of four, 19-22 cubic feet is ideal." By why go small when you can go large? (note: Levere has one child at home - that's a family of three).

Shrinking the fridge down to the "ideal" size would mean a reduction in energy use from 562 kWh per year to 445 kWh, a 20% decrease.* Since Minnesota gets two-thirds of its electricity from coal, that's a significant decrease in carbon emissions.

Showering praise on folks who buy "efficient" oversize appliances is like the federal policy of providing tax credits to buyers of hybrid SUVs. This is energy policy?

*Computed from the average energy use figures for models in each size class on the Energy Star list.

A basement remodel: the turning point

My wife and I are finishing our basement in our 1940s-era home. It's a hybrid DIY-get some help project that started in late August. So far, we've had the concrete floor ripped up for plumbing, a huge new electric box and meter installed, and a bunch of electrical run throughout the basement. We did all the framing ourselves, which is why this project extended from August until February before the drywall was up.

But today's the day. The drywall guy is in the basement, right now, listening to oldies and rocking the 'rock. Today it goes from a plastic-sheeted, wood framed, not-unfinished-but-not-finished basement to a Basement. A finished basement. A place where guests can stay with their own bathroom. Where I can watch LOTR and play Wii with surround sound.

To quote RL: "It's a great day in John and Kristin's apartmenthouse."

Senate bailout passes (with lard)

The Senate took the failed House bill and sexed it up with a few juicy (and often unrelated) components to win some more votes.  It passed this evening.

Some of the additions:

• Increasing FDIC insurance to $250,000 from $100,000 (the maximum you get back if your bank goes under)
• Renewables and "renewables"
  
• Extending the renewable energy credits for wind and biofuel for 1 year, and for other technologies for 2 years
• Lots of coal related tax credits (for things like "refined coal," "advanced" coal and "coal gasification")
• Tax credits for plug-in hybrid cars
  
• Mental health parity for health insurance (yay!)

And then there are a few smaller items like this:

• SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
• SEC. 325. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF DUTY SUSPENSION ON WOOL PRODUCTS

I think I agree with Paul Krugman that this stinks, but may be necessary.

Neat car tech: hydraulic hybrid