Alternative fuels versus batteries
Could it end foreign oil dependence in 10 years?
Filling ‘er up with natural gas, really?
Over the years I’ve attacked alternative fuels as a distraction from reality. Biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen, I’ve argued, were just excuses and delay tactics against the inevitability of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and pure battery-powered vehicles.
In recent years, however, I’ve softened my stance against these alternatives to ending ending oil dependence, particularly foreign oil dependence, especially in the short term (See The great American con: Ending foreign oil dependence ). For me, it is no longer just about change, but the time it takes to achieve change.
So, do any alternative fuels – even all of them combined – match up to the potential of batteries?
According to Car&Driver’s Alternative Fuels for America, there are many alternative fuels vying to compete with battery-powered vehicles. Most just aren’t ready for the challenge, although E85 and natural gas offer the most compelling arguments.
E85 still requires innovations, according to C&D, regarding more viable feed crops. Likewise, natural gas still requires storage breakthroughs if it were to totally replace oil.
Of course, batteries are not on a path to displace oil either, even just foreign oil, for at least several decades. Batteries are simply not a slam dunk without major technological breakthroughs.
Yet, within a decade or two – just like batteries – there are many alternative fuel technologies that might prove just as viable as electrification. Algae, for instance, could be the key to several different biofuels according to Car&Driver. Likewise, in a few decades, enzymes might enable cars to run on “thin air”.
As for today though, neither alternative fuels nor batteries appear fully ready to displace oil any time soon.
However, there is mounting evidence that natural gas provides the most compelling case for displacing the most oil in the quickest amount of time. Likewise, many biofuels suggest potential that might one day rival batteries, or provide the perfect synergistic partner for batteries. All of these options, it seems, might be required.
Sadly, there just isn’t a perfect solution to energy independence now readily available, and in two decades from now, unfortunately, there still might not be either. To use that as an excuse not to achieve energy independence in the next few decades, however, is beginning to seem far more a story of politics rather than real world capabilities.
Chris, how is the Volt cost-effective? Compared to what? Compared to a Prius it isn’t cost-effective unless gas prices increase very significantly. And most consumers don’t believe the Prius is cost-effective. Every single study on consumers, as well as the historical data, indicate that until plug-in costs come down very significantly. They won’t appeal to consumers.
Being first? That’s just marketing. If you can’t produce in numbers, what does first really mean? If by 2013 Toyota and Hyundai are producing as many or more plug-in hybrids as GM, what did first really mean? Who will be the first to sell 100,000 plug-ins per year? A million? Until we get to those kinds of numbers, such cars are irrelevant outside of marketing purposes.
And, I wish “dependency on oil has become yesterday’s news”. Yet, there isn’t a study available that indicates America is anywhere close to ending even just foreign oil dependence until well after 2030. Even converting 50 percent of our passenger fleet to EVs, according to a recent study, would still leave America dependent on foreign oil, and we’re no where close to that.
So, we might not be looking back, but if we’re only going to take baby steps for the next few decades then I’m not sure there is too much to get excited about just yet.
Ummm….I think that’s what they are going for. The Chevy volt is both and it’s the first one to hit the streets. Most, if not all of the purely EV have not set a target intro date or are still in prototype stages.
It’s not just efficient and cost-effective, but it’s practical. We don’t always have the time to stop at a station for 5-10 minutes only to recharge half the battery.
As far as biofuels go…the numbers of farms still being utilized as a 1st gen crop (entire crop being utilized for biofuel), the numbers are dwindling. Most have converted to 2nd gen, where only the waste from the crop is being utilized for biofuel production. There are so many new breakthroughs every day it’s hard to keep up. There’s the use of algae as a source crop for biomass. There’s the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process of making synthetic fuels, there’s the use of non-food crops such as camelina, jatropha, seashore mallow which needs only marginal agricultural land that can’t normally be used as farmland for food crops. There’s biobutenal. There’s even a car that runs on farts. Yep, Good ol’ methane. We didn’t just stop at plug-in hybrids, we’re looking further. Because we know that the materials needed to make the Li-ion batteries will also eventually one day become scarce. The dependency on oil has become yesterdays news…..and we’re not looking back.
yeah, hard to say, but there is definitely some very interesting research in algae out there.
would that kill hybrids, for instance?
or are hybrids destined to become more cost-effective. for instance, if EVs are to one day be cost-effective, then might not hybrids also become cost-effective enough to easily return payback in a very short period of time versus non-hybrids?
likewise, might it not be easier to produce a clean algae fuel, easily and cheaply stored in a liquid form versus as electricity?
additionally, perhaps a fuel cell could also be added to the mix one day.
Enerdel – i think – has came up with a very interesting fuel cell hybrid with onboard reformer that they claim would be more cost-effective than just a battery-powered vehicle. and this from a battery maker.
it seems we’re trying so hard to put all our eggs in one basket when the future is going to require batteries, fuel cells, alternative fuels, etc. simply because the combination of them together is simply more efficient and cost-effective then relying solely upon one of the them. the sum will be greater than the parts.
consequently, perhaps the battery technology is really already there. perhaps pure battery powered vehicles will never really be cost-effective, but hybridizing most everything with the same amount of battery material isn’t just more cost-effective to consumers, but also offers more impact upon oil consumption. then as fuel cells, natural gas, cellulosic ethanol, etc. come on line we integrate them into the formula.
ironically, the research strongly demonstrates that pure battery powered vehicles will never be cost-effective based on today’s lithium technologies, regardless of manufacturing breakthroughs. ultimately, commodity costs and a few other factors impose a threshold on how much costs can be reduced – something like 65 percent i think.
however, if that same battery technology were spread into hybrids and coupled with other technologies, it might offer a more compelling option for greater, faster change. and, if a battery breakthrough were achieved, all those hybrids could be converted into plug-in hybrids.
of course, even such a battery breakthrough might be cost-ineffective compared to a breakthrough in algae or fuel cells. instead, it might just make batteries cheaper, but still just a piece of the sum – a sum that is still more efficient and cost-effective than pure batteries, or pure alternative fuels, etc.
anyway, just rambling….
well.. it appears that algae might be energy dense but no one is providing real data, ostensibly because those working on it think it might turn out to be the holy grail of green fuels.
“That’s the amazing thing about oil – nothing else really compares to it in terms of net energy density.”
And that’s the sad truth, although on a wholistic basis – wars, pollution, etc. – other fuels might achieve a better comparison. Still, those truths don’t translate very well to consumers.
I think the thing we have to remember about alternative fuels is how much energy it take to create them because they do not exist natively but instead need to be extracted and refined just like oil has to be.
The other thing we have to remember is the energy density of the fuel.
Oil in the ground can be refined into gasoline on the order of 5 barrels for each barrel used to extract and refine them.
Ethanol and the other fuels are closer to one to one – almost to the point where you are just converting one form of energy to another.
That’s the amazing thing about oil – nothing else really compares to it in terms of net energy density.
So what does this mean?
Well.. it means if you drove by a 300 acre field of corn -that there “might” be enough ethanol there to power your car for a few months – if you don’t count the energy require to covert it from corn to ethanol.
If you include the energy needed to convert it – i.e. the energy needed to plant the corn, harvest it and then distill it into ethanol.. you might need a 1200 acre field to power your car for a few months.
multiply that number times all the cars in your neighborhood or all the ones you see in your daily commute and you start to realize that alternative fuels are not very efficient or energy dense compared to oil.
On the plus side – we have a lot of fallow acres of farmland no longer used for food and often just sit there or planted in marginal crops – like the balls of hay you see rolled up – and left to rot in the fields.
The biggest obstacle we face on these issues is our own ignorance as to what the realistic options that we really have – are.
And right now – oil is much, much more efficient to “harvest” than any “crop” for fuel.