YOU: Fix the US Energy Crisis

[OmCheeto]

I was searching my Electric bill yesterday and found they off Real Time Pricing for electricity.

I found a few articles on the subject and they say a 10% drop in peak consumption is common when this is implemented.

I looked back at some of the past high cost days and during the day prices would get to .20kWh but that night they would drop to just about $.02 kWh.

Wow. That's a big difference. We pay $0.118/kWh peak and $0.037/kWh off peak. Though I'm not on metered service. But I would cut my bill at least in half if I were. At least 90% of my electric bill in devoted to heating. But I guess this is where Jevons paradox jumps in. Why get more efficient with your usage if you can get what you need for a third of the price by working the system. Up here in the northern latitudes, there are maybe 5 days a years when cooling your house is necessary.

I have a large chest freezer maybe 30 cubic ft. We don't use it currently. I am thinking I could fill it full of water jugs and freeze the water at night then open it during the day to keep the house cool. Maybe install a fan.

I know there are systems that I can buy to do this but I have these parts what do you think?

I've seen that on TV before. It does make sense.

Also being able to adjust our energy usage to low cost times of day is an immediate way to reduce peak demand immediately.

In my area it is $2.50 a month to be in the program they are using the old grid and they just change out your meter for free.( i guess that's what the $2.50 is for)

I am a home builder in the area and I live in a town with 700 people. I don't know anyone else in town using this and I talk to a lot of people. I guess the power company should get some credit for making it available but they get an F for putting it into effect.

If the utilities around here had a 10 to 1 difference between peak and non-peak and everyone were to utilize it, I think they'd go broke. I just don't see any logical reason to leave the heat on in my house when I'm not there. I suppose some people might want to come home after a long day at work to a cozy house. But watching that electric meter spin makes me go through all manner of hoops to get it to stop. A 6 m² solar thermal collector is first on my list of projects. I built a prototype 2 weeks ago out of 3 garden hoses, one solar panel, one 12vdc 500 gph bilge pump, and a 32 gallon rubbermaid trash can. It generated around 750 watts of thermal power with the pump consuming about 20 watts of power. The garden hoses were simply tossed onto a sunny spot on the roof. Away from the street of course. I don't want the neighbors thinking I'm some kind of mad scientist.

 

[mheslep]

... I don't want the neighbors thinking I'm some kind of mad scientist.

Too late, that horse has left the barn I expect.

Re your solar panels, may I ask: who's the manufacturer, when did you buy them, and how much?

 

[OmCheeto]

Too late, that horse has left the barn I expect.

Re your solar panels, may I ask: who's the manufacturer, when did you buy them, and how much?

They are made by Kyocera. My dad bought them, and they are date stamped 1991 thru 1993. When I researched their cost, they were $250. Though they may have cost more when originally purchased.

I found them to be so much fun to play with that I decided that if I hadn't inherited them, I should have bought at least one or two. Mobile energy is quite the convenience; see gasoline.

 

[mheslep]

MacKay his a nice video up that parallels his book. He has the gift for clear explanation.
Peddling past Sizewell nuclear plant:

If you don't like nuclear, for every Sizewell you want to get rid of you need an extra 2000 wind turbines

Sizewell is 1.1GW(e). Replace w/ 1.5MW turbines at 35% capacity factor, yep. And they'd still have to address storage / base load.

 

[mheslep]

I have revisited the battery and energy cost per mile claims for the EV / battery exchange proposal from the company http://www.betterplace.com" . The CEO stated a life cycle cost of 4-6 cents per mile for the battery. Now I believe that appears plausible, even likely. My calculations/assumptions:

<br /> \begin{array}{l|rrrr}<br /> \mbox{} &amp; \mbox{EV sedan}\\<br /> \mbox{} &amp; \mbox{5-seat}\\<br /> \hline<br /> \mbox{Vehicle Parameters}\\<br /> \mbox{range(miles)}&amp;100\\<br /> \mbox{efficiency battery-to-wheel (kWh/mile)}&amp;0.22\\<br /> \hline<br /> \mbox{Battery parameters: }\\<br /> \mbox{lifetime charge cycles}&amp;3000\\<br /> \mbox{lifetime range of pack}\\<br /> \mbox{ 70 percent capacity (miles)}&amp;210000\\<br /> \mbox{pack capacity (kWh)}&amp;22\\<br /> \hline<br /> \mbox{Costs:}\\<br /> \mbox{battery per kWh (dollars)}&amp;400\\<br /> \mbox{battery per pack (dollars 1000)}&amp;8.8\\<br /> \mbox{battery pack + spares (dollars 1000)}&amp;11.5\\<br /> \hline<br /> \mbox{Summary:}\\<br /> \mbox{battery lifetime cost (cents/mi)}&amp;5.5\\<br /> \mbox{energy cost @9cents/kWh}&amp;2.3\\<br /> \mbox{total battery + energy cost (cents/mi)}&amp;7.8\\<br /> \hline<br /> \mbox{ICE vehicle fuel cost}\\<br /> \mbox{@25MPG, @2.6 dollars /gal (dollars) }&amp;10.5\\<br /> \end{array}<br />

Or 20% better than a comparable internal combustion vehicle. That's just battery & fuel costs. We may also expect savings on the EV only drive train/chassis versus the internal combustion comparable, that is a $2.5k electric motor displaces in the ICE:
Engine $1850, Trans $625, Exhaust system $460, Fuel tank/injection/other $860 = $3.8k
http://www.ge.com/battery/resources/pdf/DickonPinner.pdf (slide 23)Up thread Russ commented on this EV approach:

My only quibble with your calcs is with this one. We're a long way from electric vehicles being a total replacement for cars, so for right now and for the next several decades, the only people who would buy them are those who are highly conscious of fuel efficiency. And those are the people who today would buy a Prius at 40mpg or a Civic at 35...

The purchase price of a battery exchange capable EV with a chassis comparable to either a Prius or Civic should be substantially less. The Prius commands a premium because of its battery and hybrid drive train; the high mpg Euro Civic also does because of the more expensive diesel engine (Edit: and the Civic is smaller than Better Place's Renault)

edit: spreadsheet version of the above data attached

 

[mheslep]

Cost per km analysis from McKinsey, entire vehicle, model vehicle is a VW Golf. They show a BEV200km comparable in cost to a similar US Gas vehicle which is in agreement with my previous post. The same gas/diesel in Europe w/ the higher fuel taxes and combustion vehicle taxes is substantially more expensive than a BEV200.
http://www.ge.com/battery/resources/...ckonPinner.pdf, slide 24
They state in the notes that the battery model is depreciated separately from the vehicle, though they don't make clear how. A separate battery depreciate model is key for a battery exchange system. Above I used a battery life of cycles x the battery pack range * 70%. That's crude, as it doesn't reflect the battery shelf life which must come into play as the battery life in km/miles extends past ~150k/200k.

 

[mheslep]

Port of LA now using some electric trucks for its short haul work around the port. Full size 18 wheelers, 60000lb load, 40-60mi range. They went lead acid with the first ones, lithium on the next go round.
Mfn Fact Sheet
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/Electric_Truck_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Electric Truck
2 kilowatt hours of energy units per mile
Operation cost: 20 cents per mile
...
Diesel Truck with 5 miles-per-gallon*
Operation cost: 80 cents to 90 cents per mile
* The above energy consumption and energy cost comparisons are based on a 100% duty cycle, which diminishes in the diesel truck when the truck is idling. A common 50/50 duty cycle in a diesel truck, reflecting 50 percent idling time, would increase the diesel truck’s cost per kilowatt hour from .90 to $1.80

Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0f1AlrG8gVU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0f1AlrG8gVU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[OmCheeto]

Did anyone read the article in the latest SciAm today regarding grassoline?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grassoline-biofuels-beyond-corn"

I've not had a chance, and am running quite late.

 

[mheslep]

Did anyone read the article in the latest SciAm today regarding grassoline?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grassoline-biofuels-beyond-corn"

I've not had a chance, and am running quite late.

Well this part is disappointing:

...[the author] is the founder of Anellotech, a biofuel startup

C'mon Sci American. That the explains the lack of any mention of the recent Science paper showing the biofuels are better used to produce electricity than gasoline.

 

[RonL]

Port of LA now using some electric trucks for its short haul work around the port. Full size 18 wheelers, 60000lb load, 40-60mi range. They went lead acid with the first ones, lithium on the next go round.
Mfn Fact Sheet
http://www.portoflosangeles.org/DOC/Electric_Truck_Fact_Sheet.pdf




Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0f1AlrG8gVU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0f1AlrG8gVU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

When I suggested this type of truck, someone said it was an asinine idea, Oh well not everyone thinks alike.
I'm still working on the lead acid batteries that last a lifetime. Even if energy density is compromised at 50% to 75%, would it be worthwhile?
I think so.

 

[mheslep]

When I suggested this type of truck, someone said it was an asinine idea, Oh well not everyone thinks alike.
I'm still working on the lead acid batteries that last a lifetime. Even if energy density is compromised at 50% to 75%, would it be worthwhile?
I think so.

Lead acid has two drawbacks here RonL, weight is one but the other is limited deep cycle lifetime. So its fine to build a few of these trucks with lead acid to see how they work out, but the batteries will quickly give it up. Even that's ok for the experiment - replace them, but it can't fly economically. A real working E-truck requires something else like Li-ion and thousands of deep cycles, which the Port of LA is doing as the sources above show.

 

[OmCheeto]

Well this part is disappointing:
C'mon Sci American. That the explains the lack of any mention of the recent Science paper showing the biofuels are better used to produce electricity than gasoline.

But it was very nice to see them mention that we could generate half of the country's motor car fuels from farm refuse.

I saw something that looked a lot like crude oil in the bottom of my bio-recycle bin last week, but I rinsed it out. I guess I should have taken it to work and had them do a spectrum analysis of the goop. Might be, one of my 20 weeds spontaneously decomposes into fuel. Now wouldn't that be something.

 

[drewk79]

Trains have been running diesel motors to power electric motors for years. Caterpillar is now building a D7 bulldozer that works on the same principal. No batteries. Raser has also built a H3 hummer using the same tech and claims 100 mpg. http://www.rasertech.com/media/videos/the-electric-h3

These technologies when mass implemented will only be one rung in a never ending search for energy independence.

O yeah I applied to switch over to Real Time Pricing on my elec bill. WooHooo!

 

[mheslep]

Energy Secretary Chu just announced big loans to three car companies for electric cars. Ford $5.9B, Nissan $1.6B, Tesla $465M. A US loan to a Japanese auto maker is eye raising, but the http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl&q=Smyrna, Tennessee nissan" to be retooled is in Smyrna, Tennessee.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124573130607640647.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalc...-and-tesla-enjoy-a-big-day-for-electric-cars/

Rennault-Nissan has the deal with the electric infrastructure company Better Place to build battery switch capable cars, discussed above. Its not clear whether the vehicles coming from the Tn. plant will be compatible.

 

[mohd_adam]

For nuclear power plant 1000 MWe, it needs 24 tones of enriched uranium 3- 5%.
To get 24 tones of enriched uranium 3- 5% , we need 200 tones of uranium oxide 'yellow cake'. ( i hope correct of numbers are wrong )

in 2006 the world produce 39100 tones. If the world started depend on nuclear power, when uranium will run out !?
--------

 

[mheslep]

For nuclear power plant 1000 MWe, it needs 24 tones of enriched uranium 3- 5%.
To get 24 tones of enriched uranium 3- 5% , we need 200 tones of uranium oxide 'yellow cake'. ( i hope correct of numbers are wrong )

in 2006 the world produce 39100 tones. If the world started depend on nuclear power, when uranium will run out !?
--------

No.

Closed fuel cycles extend fuel supplies. The viability of the once-through
alternative in a global growth scenario depends upon the amount of uranium
resource that is available at economically attractive prices. We believe that the
world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000
reactors over the next half century and to maintain this level of deployment
over a 40 year lifetime of this fleet.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf

And after the U runs out we can burn Th

 

[signerror]

For nuclear power plant 1000 MWe, it needs 24 tones of enriched uranium 3- 5%.
To get 24 tones of enriched uranium 3- 5% , we need 200 tones of uranium oxide 'yellow cake'. ( i hope correct of numbers are wrong )

in 2006 the world produce 39100 tones. If the world started depend on nuclear power, when uranium will run out !?
--------

The world uses about http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=29 of thermal energy (1 ton oil equivalent = 42 GJ); one 1 GWe nuclear reactor produces about 3 GW of heat. So as an order-of-magnitude estimate, we would need about 5,000 one-gigawatt reactors.

If these were once-through reactors like ordinary light water reactors, we would need 5,000 * (200 tons/year) = 1 million tons uranium metal per year. If instead these were fast breeder reactors, we could use the U-238 (via U-238(n,gamma) Np-239 (,e-) Pu-239, which is fissile), and there is about 100 times more of that isotope than U-235 in nature. So, with closed fuel cycles, we would need 1/100th as much natural uranium, or 10,000 tons/year.

How much uranium we 'have' depends on what resources you consider accessible. According to the IAEA, there are an estimated 5 million tons of 'conventional' ore resources, and another 30 million tons unconventional, very low concentration resources in phosphate minerals (PO₄^-3). There is also about http://jolisfukyu.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/fukyu/mirai-en/2006/4_5.html tons of uranium salts dissolved in the oceans at 3 ppb, which appears to be feasible to extract.

I think the meaningful number here, since we were projecting centuries out, is the theoretical supply of ocean uranium, used in fast breeders: this is 5 billion tons / (10,000 tons/year) = 500,000 years at present world energy demand. The other, less meaningful permutations are - from the above numbers,

conventional reserves - 5 years
conventional reserves in FRs - 500 years
phosphate reserves - 30 years
phosphate reserves in FRs - 3,000 years
seawater reserves - 5,000 years
seawater reserves in FRs - 500,000 years

Hope this is helpful.

 

[mohd_adam]

thank you signerror , mheslep for the reply and the information..

 

[mheslep]

The world uses about http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/balancetable.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=29 of thermal energy (1 ton oil equivalent = 42 GJ); one 1 GWe nuclear reactor produces about 3 GW of heat. So as an order-of-magnitude estimate, we would need about 5,000 one-gigawatt reactors.

Well I don't know of any civilian reactor examples where reactor waste heat is used, so I think that must be ~15,000 one GW(e) reactors.

...
conventional reserves - 5 years
conventional reserves in FRs - 500 years
phosphate reserves - 30 years
phosphate reserves in FRs - 3,000 years
seawater reserves - 5,000 years
seawater reserves in FRs - 500,000 years

Hope this is helpful.

Plus another 1.5 million tons of Th worldwide

 

[signerror]

Well I don't know of any civilian reactor examples where reactor waste heat is used, so I think that must be ~15,000 one GW(e) reactors.

No, that's silly: it makes much more sense to compare like with like (thermal with thermal). For example: (nuclear electricity) EVs need to carry much less energy than petroleum cars, because they store electricity rather than thermal energy. So comparing oil joules with electricity joules would overestimate their electricity requirement by a huge factor. But if you compare oil joules with nuclear reactor heat joules, you get the right numbers - modulo differences in the efficiencies of the heat engines (internal combustion engine vs. steam turbine).

Also, direct use of nuclear reactor waste heat will probably be much more common in the future. For one thing, Gen IV reactors can finally reach temperatures high enough that waste heat can be used directly in industrial processes, like hydrogen production.

Plus another 1.5 million tons of Th worldwide

That's negligible compared to the U figures I showed.

 

[mheslep]

No, that's silly: it makes much more sense to compare like with like (thermal with thermal). For example: (nuclear electricity) EVs need to carry much less energy than petroleum cars, because they store electricity rather than thermal energy. So comparing oil joules with electricity joules would overestimate their electricity requirement by a huge factor. But if you compare oil joules with nuclear reactor heat joules, you get the right numbers - modulo differences in the efficiencies of the heat engines (internal combustion engine vs. steam turbine).

That's a moving the goal post fallacy. Your premised was that world wide primary energy usage is ~15 TW(t) and then calculated the amount of oar required to produce that thermal power, fair enough. You can not then logically reduce that load assuming all of combustion powered travel (ground/air) the space heating and needs become much more efficient and credit the difference to nuclear, as if oil/gas could not also be used to make electricity. You are then actually reassuming the thermal load as something less, maybe 10-12TW(t).

That's negligible compared to the U figures I showed.

Not at all. Obviously that Th reserves figure was for land mined reserves only. For land mining Uranium and Thorium worldwide reserves are the same order of magnitude.

 

[mheslep]

Another source confirming a 5 year Moore's law for Li Ion battery cost per kWh.

Section 1.3.3, Figure 3 from Kromer and Heywood, 2007
Electric Powertrains: Opportunities andChallenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet
http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electric_powertrains.pdf

This compares well with the Japanese data I posted over https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2224199&postcount=78".



A related figure to cost is specific energy (Wh/kg), an it turns out the authors say (page 41):

As a general framing principle, it is important to understand that improvements in battery capacity will not proceed along anything like a Moore’s-law trajectory. Rather, progress occurs in incremental steps, improving a few percent each year: over the near- and mid-term these improvements are likely to involve developing host materials with higher lithium uptake and operating cells at higher voltage;...
These constraints would indicate that specific energy can be expected to at most double in the next several decades – an improvement of 3.5% per year.

That's not the quite the same as kWh/$ over time, but they are related.
However, they also say:

For reference, the historical rate of improvement illustrated in Figure 10 corresponds to about 7% per year.

which is a 2x increase in spec. energy every ~6 years, historically.

Below I also attached Figure 11, the economies of scale for Li-Ion which is based on internal Ford studies, showing production cost decreases "nearly 3-fold from 50k to 2M units". Given high volume battery production, the Battery Technology Advisory Panel claims a specific cost of $270/kWh, and Argonne National Labs claims $225/kWh - again that's current technology at high production. (table 11, page 43).

 

[russ_watters]

Another source confirming a 5 year Moore's law for Li Ion battery cost per kWh.

...with the elephant-sized caveat that it doesn't include the last 7 years!

 

[mheslep]

Significant updates to post #422
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2255903&postcount=422

 

[vanesch]

Well I don't know of any civilian reactor examples where reactor waste heat is used,

Well, there is one I know of
http://eng.lafermeauxcrocodiles.com/

It is heated with the cooling waters of the Tricastin nuclear power plant.

(about 100 km from where I live)

 

[mheslep]

Another interview with the Better Place battery swap people, suggests they would include a switches to different batter sizes:

I'll give you an example: Hypothetically, you could drive in (Las Vegas) on a contract. Vegas is about a 15-mile-radius city, and you have a smaller battery inside. But on the edge of Vegas you might pull out your battery and put in a long-distance battery. In theory, you pay roaming charges as long as you have not returned that battery to the station. So, it would be a convenience thing. You'd go to L.A.; you'd drive a lot more; then you'd come back three days later; you'd drop the battery and take back the 50-mile battery.

http://www.gartner.com/research/fellows/asset_221489_1176.jsp
A 50-mile battery drops the total battery depreciation plus energy cost to $0.06/mile* versus a combustion fuel 30 mpg vehicle cost of twice that, $0.10/mile.

*($400/kWh - 3000 cycle battery, 0.19 kWh/mi tank-to-wheel, $0.09/kWh electricity)

 

[mheslep]

A http://cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CET_Technical_Brief_Economic.pdf" study came out today that backs the battery rental/ exchange approach to all electric vehicles.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/UCBerkeley/Electricvehiclestudy/prweb2628184.htm" :

The University of California study shows that the mass adoption of electric cars is a reachable goal. For electric cars to achieve this wide-scale adoption in the United States, these vehicles must be able to compete with the existing gasoline fueling infrastructure in terms of price, range, and reliability. Becker finds separating the purchase of the battery from the car is the most practical and cost-effective means of addressing these concerns.

First, not having to pay for the battery upfront makes the purchase price of an electric car competitive with that of an internal combustion vehicle. Given current battery prices and the federal tax incentives for the purchase of electric cars, switchable battery vehicles are expected to be $7,500 less expensive than a similar gasoline-powered car when introduced to the market in 2012. The total cost of ownership of these vehicles is expected to be between $0.10 and $0.13 lower on a per-mile basis than gasoline-powered cars, depending on the future price of oil.

Second, electric vehicles with switchable batteries can have a driving range comparable to gasoline-powered vehicles. Just as there is a network of gas stations, the study incorporates the cost of a network of public battery charging spots augmented by battery switching stations into the per-mile service contract price offered by electric car network operators. This business model innovation will ensure that a sufficient density of electric car infrastructure is deployed to extend the range of these vehicles. Through this system, Becker argues that "the overall range of electric cars will eventually rival that of gasoline-powered vehicles."

Lastly, consumers must perceive electric cars to be as reliable as gasoline-powered vehicles. To achieve this, Becker again finds that the best solution lies in separating the ownership of the vehicle from the battery. By placing ownership of the battery in the hands of an electric car network operator, consumer concerns over the lifetime or durability of the battery are eliminated. Switchable batteries also allow the newest innovations in battery technology to reach drivers more quickly.

 

[mheslep]

The Berkeley study, http://cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CET_Technical_Brief_Economic.pdf" , predicts the point where half of US light vehicle new sales are EVs will be reached in 10-11 years given acceptance of battery lease and exchange paradigms, and nearly twice that long if it is not. That's in-line with what some companies have been saying. I'll go further here and say that, if battery lease & exchange is accepted, that we'll see the point where EVs are half of all new vehicle sales in at least one [smaller] country in 5-6 years

 

[mheslep]

Nissan announces their EV, which when released in 2012 would make it the first mass market EV in 90 years.
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6537775...een-introducing-the-nissan-leaf-ev/index.html
They seemed to have dumped the idea of on-the-fly battery swap stations, or any connection with third party battery lease companies. The quick charge feature is nice, but it is no replacement for a 2-3 minute fill up and go, and that situation will not improve, rather it will get worse with bigger batteries.

Performance
Driving range over: 160km/100miles (US LA4 mode)
Max speed (km/h): over 140km/h (over 87 mph)

Motor
Type: AC motor
Max power (kW): 80kW
Max torque (Nm): 280Nm

Battery
Type: laminated lithium-ion battery
Total capacity (kWh): 24
Power output (kW): over 90
Energy density (Wh/kg): 140
Power density (kW/kg): 2.5
Number of modules: 48
Charging times: quick charger DC 50kW (0 to 80%): less than 30 min; home-use AC200V charger: less than 8 hrs
Battery layout: Under seat & floor

 

[Topher925]

Toyota recently announced they will be delaying the release of any all electric cars and will currently focus on hybrids (series/plug-in hybrids) until at least 2012. Also, they have been showing off their fuel cell vehicles to help promote the technology. It seems that this is the same path that GM is taking as well. A smart move for both companies in my opinion.

Meanwhile, Toyota's new president, Akio Toyoda, has become a big promoter of the company's fuel cells, which he calls the "ultimate" technology. But fuel cell cars, which produce electricity from hydrogen, would take even longer than battery-electric vehicles to commercialize.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/107571/toyota-holds-back-in-race-to-go-electric?mod=family-autos

 

[mheslep]

Toyota recently announced they will be delaying the release of any all electric cars and will currently focus on hybrids (series/plug-in hybrids) until at least 2012. Also, they have been showing off their fuel cell vehicles to help promote the technology. It seems that this is the same path that GM is taking as well. A smart move for both companies in my opinion. http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/107571/toyota-holds-back-in-race-to-go-electric?mod=family-autos

Delay is not the right word for Toyota regarding EV's; they've never had any EV operations for next year to delay. They are going ahead with a plug in version of the Prius. So for the moment, Nissan is the only company going mass market within next year with a pure EV. Expect Renault to announce similar plans next month (~same company)

...Toyota executives rattle off reasons to be skeptical of electric cars: They do not travel far enough on a charge; their batteries are expensive and not reliable; the electrical infrastructure is not in place to recharge them...

That's a common refrain but I think its mistake to level them all in the same sentence. The batteries could be free, and EV's would still be problematic. Infrastructure is a bigger problem, into which the vehicle manufacturers will have to wade, or partner with someone who will. Solve the infrastructure problem, and the other problems fall away.

 

[OmCheeto]

Infrastructure is a bigger problem, into which the vehicle manufacturers will have to wade, or partner with someone who will. Solve the infrastructure problem, and the other problems fall away.

I've x'd out the name of the city in the following article. It was written by the cities own mayor. Is Reuters allowed to do that? Seems like shameless, self-promoting advertising to me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenAutos/idUS268106043420090806
Reuters
Thu Aug 6, 2009
...
The state in which X is situated was named as a test market by the Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec), which announced today it's receiving $99.8 million in federal funds to study electric vehicle usage.
...
eTec, a subsidiary of ECOtality, Inc., is working with Nissan North America to deploy approximately 5,000 electric vehicles and 12,750 charging stations in five U.S. markets

ps. Portland receives loads of hydro and wind generated electricity, so it's fairly CO₂ friendly.

 

[mheslep]

The post office just published a study on the feasibility of making its local delivery fleet of 146,000 vehicles electric. It's a nearly ideal case. First, daily range for the USPS vans is short, averaging only 18 miles per day, 97% of the fleet is less than 40 miles, and they park at night. Second, the stop/go pattern means the current combustion vehicles average ~10mpg in making the rounds allowing a large savings of 28 cents per mile in a replacement EV van, or $1500 per year per USPS van.

Their costs assumptions are shown below, which look reasonable to me, though I believe their battery replacement rate is too high at five years. A nine to ten year life with a daily full discharge/charge cycle is more reasonable for their use case.

Of course the USPS is $7B in the hole/yr so they can't afford new anything.
http://www.uspsoig.gov/FOIA_files/DA-WP-09-001.pdf

 

[OmCheeto]

The post office just published a study on the feasibility of making its local delivery fleet of 146,000 vehicles electric. It's a nearly ideal case. First, daily range for the USPS vans is short, averaging only 18 miles per day, 97% of the fleet is less than 40 miles, and they park at night. Second, the stop/go pattern means the current combustion vehicles average ~10mpg in making the rounds allowing a large savings of 28 cents per mile in a replacement EV van, or $1500 per year per USPS van.

Their costs assumptions are shown below, which look reasonable to me, though I believe their battery replacement rate is too high at five years. A nine to ten year life with a daily full discharge/charge cycle is more reasonable for their use case.

Of course the USPS is $7B in the hole/yr so they can't afford new anything.
http://www.uspsoig.gov/FOIA_files/DA-WP-09-001.pdf

Odd that they stop with a simple electric. Perhaps the http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/10/ups-hydraulic-h/" didn't work out. It stuck me as a more logical stop and go system.

But it looks like the Feds will be spending more money on it, and other programs:

Trucking Headlines
http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=81411"
9/1/2009

The U.S. Department of Energy last week announced the selection of 25 cost-share projects under the Clean Cities program that will be funded with nearly $300 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
...

Under the Recovery Act, the Clean Cities program will fund a range of energy-efficient and advanced vehicle technologies, such as hybrids, electric vehicles, plug-in electric hybrids, hydraulic hybrids and compressed natural gas vehicles, helping reduce petroleum consumption across the United States.

If this keeps up, I may have to give up all my research, and just sit at the beach.

 

[mheslep]

Odd that they stop with a simple electric. Perhaps the http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/10/ups-hydraulic-h/" didn't work out. It stuck me as a more logical stop and go system...

I would think that would be much more expensive way to capture stop/go energy than a simple regenerating electric motor.

 

[Astronuc]

To make better biofuels, researchers add hydrogen
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10344817-54.html

The biggest technology breakthrough in this design is the high-temperature electrolysis, which originally came from a program to study how nuclear reactors could be used to make hydrogen. But hydrogen-powered vehicles face a number of obstacles, including on-board storage and the infrastructure to cleanly produce and to distribute hydrogen.

By contrast, if the hydrogen was used to make hydrocarbon fuels, they could be distributed through the existing channels and be used with existing autos, including hybrid-electric vehicles.

The jump from hydrogen research to biofuels happened when Hawkes thought to make biomass the heat source for INL's high-temperature electrolysis, rather than the heat from a nuclear reactor. By making that switch, the electrolyzer can operate on biomass and electricity alone, rather than rely on a nuclear reactor.

"We feel each that each one of these technologies is individually proven but nobody has ever taken them and hooked them together to make one process," said Hawkes.

There are some commercially available biomass gasifiers and a few facilities turning synthesis gas into liquid fuel using coal as a feedstock. But coal-to-liquids has a high carbon footprint, even compared with gasoline, said Hawkes. If a renewable or carbon-free source, such as hydro power, can be used through bio-syntrolysis, the resulting fuel would have very low emissions, he said.

Storing hydrogen on plants
So far, INL researchers have done experiments using available commercial products and they have modeled the overall efficiency on computer. To build a high-temperature electrolyzer, they have purchased commercial fuels cells and modified them to work in reverse, so they produce hydrogen and oxygen from electricity.

"There is no need for any great discovery but there is a need for development of materials and electrolyzers and just the will the put all the different sources together," said Steve Herring, a research fellow at Idaho National Labs.

The projected cost of the fuel would be $2.50 a gallon to produce, which is not cheaper than today's gasoline. But the primary advantage is the fuel is domestically sourced, low-carbon, and available at a predictable price, Herring said. One of the rationales for the technology is that biomass to make fuel will become a scarce commodity, making techniques that can squeeze more energy from existing crops more compelling.

More on bio-syntrolysis.
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=3076&mode=2

There are other processes for producing fuels from biomass.

It looks like gasoline will stay around $3/gal for the forseeable future. The supply is restricted in line with demand and OPEC and the other oil producers are comfortable for now with oil at around $70/bbl.

 

[mheslep]

.
It looks like gasoline will stay around $3/gal for the forseeable future. The supply is restricted in line with demand and OPEC and the other oil producers are comfortable for now with oil at around $70/bbl.

Is that just a guess, or based on some data/analylsis? EIA says differently for their high price case, 20 to 30% increase per year.
2009:$60.89/bbl petroleum
2010:91.08
2011:104.74
2012:118.35
2013:131.38
2014:145.80
2015:157.23
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/excel/aeohptab_12.xls

My reading of various sources is that world wide oil production is going to stay roughly flat at 85m bbls/day for some time: the numerous new finds are just balancing out the depletion of older fields. However, there is no such cap on the petroleum demand in China and India, and Asia in general is already growing briskly again.

 

[OmCheeto]

I would think that would be much more expensive way to capture stop/go energy than a simple regenerating electric motor.

I was all ready to argue this point until I saw the price of super-capacitors has fallen to a reasonable rate.

Gads.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Ar...Supercapacitors-see-growth-as-costs-fall.htm"

This means to absorb the energy of a 3500 lb vehicle from 35 mph to zero will only cost $250, vs. $55,000 in 1996.

I should really double check that calculation. If true, my hobby just got a lot simpler.

 

[mheslep]

I was all ready to argue this point until I saw the price of super-capacitors has fallen to a reasonable rate.

Gads.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Ar...Supercapacitors-see-growth-as-costs-fall.htm"

This means to absorb the energy of a 3500 lb vehicle from 35 mph to zero will only cost $250, vs. $55,000 in 1996.

I should really double check that calculation. If true, my hobby just got a lot simpler.

I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, I am curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

 

[OmCheeto]

I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, I am curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

Perhaps you forgot the 1/2 factor. But I'm curious also. I've been quite busy this last week with work and such, and have not had the time to research the mass and volume of a 194 kJ capacitor bank. Might be that they would weigh as much and/or take up as much room as a tractor trailer.

Otherwise, as you've alluded to, there'd've been mention of them.

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps you forgot the 1/2 factor.

Yep

But I'm curious also. I've been quite busy this last week with work and such, and have not had the time to research the mass and volume of a 194 kJ capacitor bank. Might be that they would weigh as much and/or take up as much room as a tractor trailer.

Otherwise, as you've alluded to, there'd've been mention of them.

Appears to to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density" , 50kj/l

 

[mheslep]

MIT Tech Review has good presentation/interview with Emanuel Sachs, founder of PV maker 1366. In particular, I was interested in a tangent question he addresses: "Do we need fundamental breakthroughs in solar cells for solar power to compete with conventional sources of electricity?" (at 4:23). Interestingly, he credits most of the drop in the cost of mass market PV electricity production in the last 30 years to advances in the production process (from $5/kWh -1978 to $0.20/kWh now), not to major physics 'breakthroughs'. There have been some big physics advances - multiband PV and thin film - but they're both niche players in the mass market.

I was also interested in where he drew his break even with natural gas (~$0.18/kWh) and coal ($0.05/kWh) electrical prices. The assumption there must be peak load only applications, i.e, no storage required, use it when you make it. This holds apparently only up about 7% of power needs or 70GW in the US. After that there a serious breakthrough is needed in energy storage for further PV growth. Sounds about right.

Starts at 4:33
http://www.technologyreview.com/video/?vid=433

 

[mheslep]

I had begun to doubt the battery switch players were going ahead, but it looks like Renault is coming through as promised with their EV role out in Frankfurt this week.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125287239312206713.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"We're making a major industrial bet," said [Renault's CEO]...

It's a risky one, and many other auto companies think Mr. Ghosn is on the wrong track. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. also has announced an electric car for the U.S. market. But Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., among others, say batteries still cost too much, they run down too quickly and recharging them takes too long.
...
But Mr. Ghosn said they will sell for the same amount as their gas-powered equivalents -- and that the overall cost of electricity plus battery use will be less than that of gasoline.

The trick, said Mr. Ghosn, is to have consumers lease, not buy, the batteries, which currently cost nearly €10,000. Renault's electric cars will have removable batteries, which it expects to lease for about €100 a month in Europe. When the electricity runs down in a battery, it can either be recharged, or the leasing company might swap in a fully charged one...

which is about $0.15/mile of battery cost - to the the car owner. That's steep in the US, but w/ $0.20/mile gasoline costs in Europe, Renault must think that battery leasing fee reasonable there.

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002040/leased-electric-car-batteries-take-a-big-step-forward/"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jdgoxIRhk6qjSF6C8ry_5lyjqoeQ"

Also Iceland seems to be getting on board with battery switch EVs.
http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10002...s-an-electric-car-charging/?tag=shell;content

Renault's EV:
http://cdn.images.autocar.co.uk/612x408FFFFFFF/Car/Renault/Concepts/Renault-Concepts-119991235155461600x1060.jpg

 

[OmCheeto]

Just go shopping.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fizCP9hv_58&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fizCP9hv_58&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

(thank you PC!)

 

[mheslep]

Just go shopping.

I disagree where the BB rep says there is no existing US business model. The market for low speed EVs is already in the 100k range, with attention from the majors.

Firm figures for the number of NEVs on the road and the rate of sales growth are difficult to pin down. Some people close to the industry say roughly 100,000 such vehicles are in use, while other estimates are higher. Global Electric Motorcars, the Chrysler LLC unit that builds GEM electric vehicles and is the leading manufacturer, says it has sold about 38,000 vehicles in the U.S. GEM says it has recorded double-digit percentage growth in sales for the past five years. Sales grew at an especially high rate last summer as fuel prices reached $4 per gallon. Other popular models include the Think City and Think Neighbor, built by a former unit of Ford Motor Co., and such small manufacturers as Zenn Motor Co. and Wheego Electric Cars Inc.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204348804574402673476299290.html

 

[OmCheeto]

I had ~387kj or ~$500. In any case, I am curious why caps aren't already the preffered storage mechanism just for regen braking. Their cycle life is essentially unlimited compared to chemical batteries, and there's no temperature dependence.

It appears the $1.28/kj was a forecast. Shopping for supercaps results in a price of ~$5/kj. Which means the cost goes up to around $1200 for my requirements. The cost for the caps in the following vehicle would be around $40,000!

http://www.sinautecus.com/products.html#hybrid
Sinautec's forty-one seat Ultracap Buses have been serving the Greater Shanghai area since 2006. The bus is powered entirely by electricity, which is stored in ultracapacitors and batteries onboard. When the bus stops at passenger stops, the overhead charger quickly recharges the ultracapacitor onboard to allow the bus to go to its next destination. The battery serves as a back up power and allows the bus to extend its traveling range. The Ultracap Bus has a top speed of 35 miles per hour and has a maximum range of 45 miles between charges. The bus is ideal for on-campus shuttles and municipal bus lines with short in-between-stop intervals.

When solar panels are placed on top of charging stations and surrounding building, Sinautec's Ultracapacitor Bus can be powered completely by the sun. The bus draws electric power from the charging station solar panels in sunny days, and from the electric grid in cloudy conditions. Ultracap Bus uses less than 10% the fuel cost of a conventional bus. Compared to a diesel engine bus, an Ultracap Bus can achieve a lifetime fuel saving of $200,000. The vehicle is noise free and generates no tailpipe pollution. A Ultracap Bus can prevent over 100 tons of carbon-dioxide from entering the atmosphere each year.

I'll be interested in the press coverage it gets when it comes to visit:

http://www.greenbang.com/zero-emission-ultracapacitor-minibus-gets-us-debut_11919.html
Zero-emission ultracapacitor minibus gets US debut ... on October 21st, in Washington DC.

 

[mheslep]

The cost for the caps in the following vehicle would be around $40,000!

I'll be interested in the press coverage it gets when it comes to visit:

Kind of odd to call it the 'ultra cap bus' with a ton of lead acid batteries on board (60kwh)

Vehicle Life: 8-12 years
Battery Replacement Every 18 Months

Yep, that's lead acid.

 

[OmCheeto]

Kind of odd to call it the 'ultra cap bus' with a ton of lead acid batteries on board (60kwh)

There are two versions of the bus.
One is pure cap, with a range of about 3 miles.
The other is a hybrid lead/cap with a range of 45 miles.
Which version shows up in DC will also be interesting.

They list a charge time for the pure cap bus of 5 to 10 minutes.
Though as I recall from grade school, caps can be charged and discharged pretty much instantly, so I'd imagine it's the energy stations that still need development.

 

[mheslep]

There are two versions of the bus.
One is pure cap, with a range of about 3 miles.

Yes ok I see the top one: 6kWh of ultracaps, 6 miles with no air conditioning. I read 0.02 megajoules / kg elsewhere for ultracaps, so that is still one ton of storage. Lasts the life of the vehicle, and then some I expect.

They list a charge time for the pure cap bus of 5 to 10 minutes.
Though as I recall from grade school, caps can be charged and discharged pretty much instantly, so I'd imagine it's the energy stations that still need development.

Yep, charging in 5 minutes is supportable by the ultracaps, but would require 120kW service (i.e. 4KV at 30A - don't give me that cable) In the future, if the weight can get down to ~500 lbs the way to go here would be use a mechanical capacitor exchange, IMO.

Also they have the bus at 1.5 kWh per mile? I know its a heavy bus, but that's ~7x worse than an EV sedan going 60mph (0.2kWh per mile) and this bus tops at 30 mph. The starts and stops must take a toll, or that must include the air conditioning load.

 

[mheslep]

I see the NRC sat on Westinghouse's AP1000 nuclear reactor design this week.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2009/09-173.html

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has informed Westinghouse that the company has not demonstrated that certain structural components of the revised AP1000 shield building can withstand design basis loads.
...
The impact on the overall AP1000 certification review schedule will be established after the staff and Westinghouse discuss the company’s plans to address the NRC’s conclusions regarding the shield building design...

Response from Fla official:

"The NRC process is supposed to be new and improved, but I'm not so sure it is," said Nathan Skop, a member of the Florida Public Service Commission.

"The NRC has said it would streamline its processes and bring us off-the-shelf plans they would approve," said PSC Chairman Matthew Carter. "It's time for them to expedite the process. We have ratepayers' dollars on the line."

http://www.reuters.com/article/dome...091016?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=11621
Yes I'd also say the NRC review is not 'improved'.

So now the US faces this delay on top of terminating the Yucca mountain waste facility.

Recall that China started construction of its first AP1000 in April.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/19/content_11217731.htm