Study – Cheap plug-ins end foreign oil dependency in 2020!!!!
New battery makes EVs 1/2 cost of gas vehicles
The end of oil!
Almost 10 years ago I began closely following fuel cells, believing the hydrogen economy was set to revolutionize America’s energy paradigm. Eventually, however, it became obvious that fuel cells, while improving, were still decades away from effective change. Thus, I became a fan of hybrid cars.
Not only can hybrids reduce fuel consumption today, they can also help develop plug-in and fuel cell technologies while providing a spectacularly important plug-in option to minimize the legacy effect of gas-guzzling.
Unfortunately, at just 3 percent of market-share, however, hybrid cars have accomplished little in the last decade, and the research is overwhelmingly suggesting that the plug-in market is facing the same slow hybrid trod into America’s energy paradigm.
But that was before today’s ground-breaking study that is set to turn the world’s auto industry upside down.
OK. Sadly, there is no such study. Instead, a growing and overwhelming amount of evidence is claiming, almost beyond any shadow of a doubt, that any combination of plug-in hybrids and EVs is going to have little impact on foreign oil dependence for decades.
Just today, Car and Driver, for instance, reported that there is much evidence that battery-powered vehicles might not even scale as much in price as what many are expecting. In a report written for the Seeking Alpha Web site, John Petersen, a lawyer specializing in alternative-energy clients for Fefer Petersen & Cie in Barbereche, Switzerland noted that backers of hybrids and electric vehicles ignore “fundamental natural resource development issues like location, economics, environmental impacts and the difference between known mineral resources and developed mineral reserves.”
For instance, while there might be enough lithium in the world to produce 100 million plug-in hybrids without any concern, most of that lithium has yet to be mined, refined or manufactured, and achieving the manufacturing capabilities to achieve such production could be vastly more costly than many are estimating.
Ironically, even those studies with the most optimistic price cuts – about 65 percent before commodity costs hit their threshold – still claim such declines won’t be enough to move battery-powered vehicles into the mainstream. And that’s the the consensus best case scenario, prompting researchers from the likes of Argonne, MIT, Oxford and a plethora of consultancies and analysts to pin the future of EVs on next generation batteries, such as lithium air.
Despite the negative cost-effectiveness of today’s battery technologies, 10 percent EV penetration might still be possible in the next 10 or 15 years, but 10 percent EV penetration will have a negligible, at best, effect on reducing oil consumption.
So, as I’ve been asking a lot lately, what is being accomplished? But even more important, isn’t it time to ask whether we can do better?
For decades, fuel cells were an excuse not to worry about better fuel economy and growing foreign oil dependency. Are EVs on the same complacency-breeding trajectory? For instance, if Ford sells 50,000 EVs per year, does that justify millions of 18 mpg truck sales per year?
A lot of good points Dehran, but I don’t fully agree.
First, the US does provide massive subsidies for ethanol and has provided research money to a number of biofuel projects, though mostly related to cellulosic ethanol. Still, today’s ethanol is driven by oil, so I’m not going to fight much on that one.
Second, while biofuels might be deserving of subsidies, I’ve not seen a study that remotely suggests that biofuels could replace oil without major technological breakthroughs. Oxford University, for instance, carried out a pretty substantial study on this and found that biofuels are still only regional solutions, such as in Brazil. And, while algae holds promise, major technological breakthroughs are needed. So, we can’t just make biofuels our solution, but i do agree with your sentiment.
Moreover, recently I’ve become supportive of natural gas. It’s domestic and its cleaner than oil. Plus, there is extremely interesting research on methanogensis that could eventually convert the natural gas paradigm into a sustainably produced paradigm. However, even if that doesn’t work, natural gas is still an interim solution. However, couple that with other technologies that still need time to unfold and replace natural gas with better solutions over time.
Third, I think the $30.00 per gallon estimate is being a little over the top. No doubt that the oil industry and gasoline prices are subsidized, but no one is going to buy those numbers. America had to protect the Persian Gulf from Russia after WWII. Yes, that has created massive problems that have cost America a lot – maybe even justifying $30.00 – but we had little choice at the time.
Thus, I’d rather focus on why doesn’t the US charge the cost of oil tanker shipping lanes at the pump, for instance? It’s a cost of business and should be assessed at the pump. Simply subsidies like that would push gas prices a good bit higher and make alternatives more competitive.
Still, I agree with the basic point.
Fourth, the EV “joke” is not nearly as bad as you suggest, at least not in terms of coal. EVs, if charged at night, won’t require massive amounts of excess coal burning. Sure that’s perfect world, and more coal will be needed because it’s not as simple as saying that ‘in theory, if charged at night, EV’s will simply suck up excess capacity’, but it’s not as if all oil burning is being replaced with new coal burning – most of it would be coal that would be burned regardless.
Nevertheless, I do agree with your larger point on the idea of the United Corporations of America implication, and that’s why my goal has been a focus on foreign oil dependence. Let’s use whatever resources we have available to end foreign oil dependence as quickly as possible, while building out a long term plan to move towards more efficient and sustainable resources.
Unfortunately, US policy seems far from such a goal.
If biofuels enjoyed even a fraction of the subsidies that the petroleum industry is showered with, energy diversification would take effect immediately. In the US, it is estimated that when taking all costs into consideration including defense and the loss of jobs and capitol overseas, gasoline really costs the U.S. @ $30.00/ gallon, the petroleum industry would never survive without the government holding it’s hand every step of the way. Biofuels are not given a single government subsidy and producers are left to fend for themselves. EV’s are a joke on the public who’s energy use can literally be measured in lbs of coal/ mile and are basically intended to fail sustainability calculations in order to perpetuate the American Petro-government’s ongoing crusade to discredit and disregard all attempts to move to sustainable alternatives. Any subsidy at all for biofuels would help our country to create jobs at home and move towards energy independence, subsidies to the extent of those the petro giants receive going in the direction of alternative energy would show immediate positive results in all sectors. The fact that there is no government support whatsoever in the U.S. for alternative fuels speaks volumes to who is actually running this country and who benefits from U.S. public policy. It’s a sad day when we can honestly say the U.S. is way below many countries like Brazil and China on the list of countries actually looking to face the coming energy challenges with intelligent, realistic, available solutions, and chooses to let the greedy few dictate the policies which control the lives of the hundreds of millions. Welcome to the United Corporations of America, where the life and well being of a citizen takes a back seat to that of a corporation.
Dehran Duckworth
http://www.tristatebiodiesel.com
I like Study – Cheap plug-ins end foreign oil dependency in 2020 … and find the best thing from here. Thanks Friend.
The war in Afghanistan has again emphasized our risky dependency on foreign oil. Truck Parts
a perception change is about the only thing that can result in effective change. if americans don’t change their perceptions, the technology won’t meet their expectations. that seems quite clear to me.
yet, thus far, events like 9/11, Iraq, BP, etc., etc. have changed overall perception very little.
still, i totally agree that perception is the key and best chance towards achieving real change.
It’s the mindset that has to change. We Americans are known to throw our money at anything we think is a good deal, once we’re convinced it’s a good deal.
Just look at the Pet Rock.
HeV, technolog of supercapacitor,ionic liquids visit Scientific Indonesia
http://www.scientificindonesia.co.cc/