Oil from genetically-modified organisms

[turbo]

A Silicon Valley startup "LS9" is genetically modifying E.coli and yeast to excrete a petroleum substitute instead of the fatty acids they would normally produce during fermentation. The great thing about this is that they can be fed practically any type of organic waste, and the process need have no impact on food supplies. It will be interesting to see if they can scale up the process so that it's commercially viable.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece

 

[Kurdt]

I wonder if it could be modified so you could feed your car all your organic waste with some system containing the bacteria that would cut down on transporting the fuel. That is of course probably looking too far ahead.

 

[WarPhalange]

You mean so I could take a crap right into my car?

 

[Kurdt]

I meant like vegetable peel and things like that Like I say I'm probably being over enthusiastic though.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently gasoline is so expensive in Gaza (~$27/gal), that taxi drivers are fueling with just about anything organic, e.g. cooking oil + kerosene, pesticides, deoderizer, . . . . That has prompted an increase in the price of cooking oil.

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm sticking with crude oil. At least it's organic - it was definitely grown without any man made chemicals or pesticides. Coal is even better, it's vegan!

 

[turbo]

I wonder if it could be modified so you could feed your car all your organic waste with some system containing the bacteria that would cut down on transporting the fuel. That is of course probably looking too far ahead.

As with any fermentation process, there is a time factor to be considered, and you have to maintain optimal living conditions for the bugs, and then there's the separation, extraction, and refining of the oils. My license has lapsed, but while I was a process chemist, I was responsible for overseeing the operation of the mill's wastewater treatment plant. It was a juggling act keeping conditions right so that the bugs would do their work - pH, temperature, dissolved Oxygen levels, bug population density and type... I imagine that these fellows have to learn to control all these things, too.

 

[Kurdt]

Yeah, I was just thinking out loud as usual.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, I was just thinking out loud as usual.

It would be nice to have some kind of enzyme that would break down organic waste VERY quickly, but that's probably pie-in-the-sky, too. Anything that powerful would be dangerous for humans to come in contact with.

 

[Averagesupernova]

You mean so I could take a crap right into my car?

I've been in a few cars where it smelled like someone took a crap.

 

[mgb_phys]

It would be nice to have some kind of enzyme that would break down organic waste VERY quickly,

If you don't mind the smell there is a readily available multi-chamber production system that converts plant matter to methane at around 700 litres/day. At 900 KJ/mol that's only about about 26MJ/day, (less than a gallon of gasoline) but for short commuting trips my new system could work.

Converting your pickup to run on natural gas is already fairly easy ( there are many cars in europe converted to lpg) then all you need to do is put a bale of hay in the back, add the cow and insert the pipe (diagram provided).

 

[turbo]

If you don't mind the smell there is a readily available multi-chamber production system that converts plant matter to methane at around 700 litres/day. At 900 KJ/mol that's only about about 26MJ/day, (less than a gallon of gasoline) but for short commuting trips my new system could work.

Converting your pickup to run on natural gas is already fairly easy ( there are many cars in europe converted to lpg) then all you need to do is put a bale of hay in the back, add the cow and insert the pipe (diagram provided).

That system is noisy and emits corrosive liquid by-products that will rot the bed of your pickup in no time flat.

 

[mgb_phys]

Ok so it's not going to be very popular in convertibles, unless you like having a cows tongue wiped across the back of your neck. Compact cars would probably have trailers or need to use little baby calfs.

But picture it, a line of gently mooing Holstein's double parked outside the school in the morning instead of minivans.

 

[turbo]

But picture it, a line of gently mooing Holstein's double parked outside the school in the morning instead of minivans.

Mooing and farting...

 

[DaveC426913]

That system is noisy and emits corrosive liquid by-products that will rot the bed of your pickup in no time flat.

Actually, not to be too much of a buzz-kill, but IIRC the majority of methane comes from the prettier end of the cow.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is a similar result obtained using algae, and this is what seems to be the question: Is it more efficient to collect and process biomass, than it is to grow algae using sunlight? [I realize this isn't about algae, but the same question applies.]

Microalgae are likely far more efficient at converting Cs, Hs, and Os, to a fatty acid or sugar, using sunlight, than are any large plants. The conversion efficiency of algae is thought to range from 1%, to a theoretical limit of something like 10%, for fatty acid [vegetable oil] production, based on the incident solar flux. And, microalgae effectively use 100% of the land or water area required.

So how much land does it require to provide the needed biomass in terms of the gross gallons of fuel produced per acre-year of biomass? Do we have enough land?

Then we have the extra step of converting from biomass to food for the bacteria. So we spend energy here.

Next, algae can be recovered using water flow in closed systems, whereas biomass must be collected and transported with machines that need energy.

Then we would have to consider the processing efficiencies at the point of entry to the fuel processing plant. So, how much energy is spent collecting the biomass? How much efficiency is lost through the added step of convering biomass to something usable by the bacteria? And how do the process efficiencies compare beyond that point?

It seems to me that the viability of this approach needs to be considered first, in principle, rather than in practical terms.

Just shooting from the hip, the simpler direct conversion from sunlight, water, NPK, and algae, to fatty acids or sugars, would probably be more efficient. But, for algae, there is the NPK. The nitrogen supply is always an issue. And algae will require bioreactors, so there is a high start-up cost per square foot of sunlight [nothing like the cost of solar panels, however]. There are also materials used that require energy to make. And they have a finite lifespan.

Note: when considering efficiencies, plants select certain ranges of frequencies - the photosynthetically active radiation - so when we compare the efficiencies of plants or solar panels, the active flux has to be compared to the incident flux, in addition to the efficiency of the active radiation.

 

[turbo]

For sure, any new energy technology will get an early buzz, and I detect quite a bit of cheerleading in the original article, but I have hopes. All around the country, there are agricultural by-products, municipal wastes, and other streams of organics that can feed algae, bacteria, and yeasts. How can we tap these nutrient streams and end up with concentrated, portable energy sources. That's the big one. Who can get beyond theory, proof-of-concept, pilot plants, and manage scale-up headaches to get to commercial viability?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The trouble is the hidden energy costs, such as the coal power and diesel used to make ethanol. Due to the market structure, these costs remain hidden.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but it can be shown that that [for example] for every three gallons of gasoline that would be sold, we now buy 4.6 gallons of ethanol, and still use an additional two gallons worth of diesel, or energy from other sources, to make the ethanol. This is easy to show, and many argue that it takes at least 3 gallons of gas [in energy] to make 4.6 gallons of ethanol, but we are still buying ethanol.

Also, any approach must be shown to be capable of scale. That it would take more land for corn than we have land in the entire US, to replace gasoline with ethanol, is not apparent at the pump - we are still buying ethanol.

 

[turbo]

When I was a training consultant, I surveyed a project at Quantum Chemical in Iowa. They had a little plant located in the middle of farm country, and with my background in chemistry and engineering, I could see from the first visit that they were living on subsidies and could never produce ethanol and other hydrocarbons on a commercially-viable scale in a thousand years. Most alternative energy projects are boondoggles designed to separate money from taxpayers.

 

[Ouabache]

A Silicon Valley startup "LS9" is genetically modifying E.coli and yeast to excrete a petroleum substitute instead of the fatty acids they would normally produce during fermentation. The great thing about this is that they can be fed practically any type of organic waste, and the process need have no impact on food supplies. It will be interesting to see if they can scale up the process so that it's commercially viable.

Sounds a lot like trying to make tofu taste like meat (making an oil substitute). I sincerely feel time would be better spent generating energy from alternative sources (tidal, geothermal, solar, wind...), convert to electricity and use that to power our energy hungry global community.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I was a training consultant, I surveyed a project at Quantum Chemical in Iowa. They had a little plant located in the middle of farm country, and with my background in chemistry and engineering, I could see from the first visit that they were living on subsidies and could never produce ethanol and other hydrocarbons on a commercially-viable scale in a thousand years. Most alternative energy projects are boondoggles designed to separate money from taxpayers.

Technologies like this can be exciting, but yes, one has to take a long hard look at the total process efficiency. This is always the achilles heal, and the "real number" may not be represented by the market price due to subsidies or other market factors. So, this, and the similar algae process worry me because I wonder about the gallons of fuel per acre-year of biomass. AFAIK, algae is the only option that can work; this is because as very simple microscopic organisms, they are extremely efficient at doing what they do - making fuel from carbon dioxide and water, by using sunlight.

The conversion goes directly from raw materials to a low grade fuel, which is easily converted to a high grade fuel once extracted. And the total land or water area requirement is quite reasonable as compared to other options. But then algae still has high energy costs in dewatering and extracting the oils, so it's not a done deal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sounds a lot like trying to make tofu taste like meat (making an oil substitute). I sincerely feel time would be better spent generating energy from alternative sources (tidal, geothermal, solar, wind...), convert to electricity and use that to power our energy hungry global community.

It is done every day.
http://nearbio.com/

You still can't drive your car on tidal, geothermal, solar, or wind power. Not in practical terms.

It appears to me that a better analogy would be that we still can't fit a square peg in a round hole. For example, in order to get the same power from an off-the-shelf fuel cell as we would get from a typical car engine, it would cost upwards of $1 million [actually, that price has dropped to something like a half-million or so]. And even the best battery options cannot compete with a tank of gasoline, or better yet, biodiesel, but they do cost $50K or $60K per car, and they weigh 900 pounds or so.

And then there are the matters of trucking, farming, construction, power and pumping stations, aviation, railroads, shipping, the military...

 

[rewebster]

Technologies like this can be exciting, but yes, one has to take a long hard look at the total process efficiency. This is always the achilles heal, and the "real number" may not be represented by the market price due to subsidies or other market factors. So, this, and the similar algae process worry me because I wonder about the gallons of fuel per acre-year of biomass. AFAIK, algae is the only option that can work; this is because as very simple microscopic organisms, they are extremely efficient at doing what they do - making fuel from carbon dioxide and water, by using sunlight.

The conversion goes directly from raw materials to a low grade fuel, which is easily converted to a high grade fuel once extracted. And the total land or water area requirement is quite reasonable as compared to other options. But then algae still has high energy costs in dewatering and extracting the oils, so it's not a done deal.

yeah, but, I wonder what the yield is for the algae-----would it take an acre (or five)of 'algae' to produce 1 gallon of 'oil' a day? If you compare even yeast making alcohol (beer...what's the output? 3-6%? with what input?)

I can see it in a way better than ethanol fuel as it wouldn't 'use up' corn, etc.

 

[G01]

I wonder if it could be modified so you could feed your car all your organic waste with some system containing the bacteria that would cut down on transporting the fuel. That is of course probably looking too far ahead.

Like in Back to the Future 2?

In all seriousness though, this seems like a really interesting option if they get it to work. The other question we must ask though is "How will this fuel compare to normal petroleum in terms of pollution and carbon emissions?"

 

[Ouabache]

You still can't drive your car on tidal, geothermal, solar, or wind power. Not in practical terms.

The technology already exists to enable us to drive on alternative energy converted to electrical storage. For example, the vehicles made by http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php , utilize Li-Ion battery storage and yield up to 220miles/charge. They are finished with prototyping and into production. This kind of technology could be adapted to trucks, tractors, construction equipment, military vehicles, rail. It does not contribute to global warming, as there is no greenhouse gas emission. (Combustion of biofuels still generate greenhouse gas. We ought to be thinking of better ways to sequester CO2 to reduce global warming).
Power and pumping can already be accomplished, using wind and moving water energy. Aviation and ocean transport will require additional innovation..

Initially, not everyone will be able to afford a vehicle like the Tesla, however prices will come down as mass production and competition take place. In the meantime, there are Plug-In-Hybrids coming onboard, which will allow you up to 60mi/charge after which you can either plug it back into the grid for recharge or switch over to a conventional engine to recharge the batteries. Not a bad intermediary solution. So I don't feel it is worthwhile spending too much effort making alternative liquid combustible fuels.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The technology already exists to enable us to drive on alternative energy converted to electrical storage. For example, the vehicles made by http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/how_it_works.php , utilize Li-Ion battery storage and yield up to 220miles/charge. They are finished with prototyping and into production.

I was citing the numbers for the Tesla. $60K for batteries at 900 lbs.

I can get 500 miles from 120 lbs worth of fuel, using an engine that costs maybe $5K, today, using biodiesel, so who is trying to make tofu?

This kind of technology could be adapted to trucks, tractors, construction equipment, military vehicles, rail.

We are not even close.

It does not contribute to global warming, as there is no greenhouse gas emission. (Combustion of biofuels still generate greenhouse gas.

Biodiesel is carbon neutral. You release the carbon that was consumed in order to grow the fuel source.

Initially, not everyone will be able to afford a vehicle like the Tesla, however prices will come down as mass production and competition take place.

We could convert to biodiesel, today. In fact as you can see from the link nearbio.com, it is already a quickly growing industry.

In the meantime, there are Plug-In-Hybrids coming onboard,

The most efficient hybrids use diesel engines that can burn biodiesel.

So I don't feel it is worthwhile spending too much effort making alternative liquid combustible fuels.

Eventually you might be correct in that there will be better alternatives, but,in fact, I have been listening to these pie-in-the-sky promises for decades, and we are running out of time. The technology to make and run biodiesel exists and is used today. And unlike solar, wind, and geothermal, it is practical to grow algae at the scale needed to replace petroleum.

For example, if you wanted to replace the energy from fossil fuels using wind powered generators, you would have to build one state-of-the-art turbine, every two square miles, over the entire US.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

yeah, but, I wonder what the yield is for the algae-----would it take an acre (or five)of 'algae' to produce 1 gallon of 'oil' a day? If you compare even yeast making alcohol (beer...what's the output? 3-6%? with what input?)

I can see it in a way better than ethanol fuel as it wouldn't 'use up' corn, etc.

Algae can produce yields of 5000 gallons per acre-year, with claims as high as 10,000 gallons per acre-year and more. As you will see in the link below, it is practical to grow algae at the scale needed.

Corn can produce about 400 gallons of ethanol per acre-year, and we only get to keep 120 gallons of that at best.

Biodiesel also has about 40% more energy per gallon than does ethanol.

For more information, see
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=211274

 

[rewebster]

Ivan--so, 30-35 gal. per acre per day--hmmm


has anyone actually had a acre devoted to this and produced that quantity, or is it extrapolated? what's the largest right now?---sounds good --I'll read those links in that other thread. So, that seems like a good possibility of how 'oil' was created in the first place maybe (or maybe a good part of it) in shallow water fields over millions of years with this organism (algae) growing and producing an 'oil'.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

More like 13-20 gallons per acre-day, which is far superior to all alternatives; quite manageable, and capable of the needed scale.

Yes, this was studied for twenty years in the DOE's Aquatic Species Program.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/biodiesel_from_algae.pdf

Yes, it is now believed that much of the crude that we pump today came from algae.

 

[winfotech]

Ivan said (previous page)
"It seems to me that the viability of this approach needs to be considered first, in principle, rather than in practical terms."

I disagree with that. For many decades "scientists" said it was aerodynamically impossible for a bee to fly, but not knowing the laws of aerodynamics, these "outlaw" bees just did it anyway. )

I'm fully in favor of some "shoot from the hip" attemtps to apply what we do understand (or think we do) and try to improve from there.

Algae have the effect of temporarily sequestering carbon dioxide as well as being a source of liquid fuel energy to produce mobile power (motive power). That doesn't mean you get full license to burn coal or natural gas just because you use algae to "eat" your smokestack carbon dioxide, but it does mean that once you start burning algae derived biomass and algae derived liquid fuels, you are simply recycling the same carbon over and over again.

I've mentioned in another thread, but might be worth repeating here that my company has created a "competitive" design to Vertigro's plastic air matress vertical algae cultivation system. But to correct (dispute?) Ivan's suggestion that only a fraction of an inch is actually photosynthetically active in an algae growth medium, it is entirely dependant on how dense the algae culture is, since the algae is itself is the main obstacle preventing greater penetration of the light. (see press release at http://energy.psyrk.us/press/ )

However, in general, 3 to 4 inches (or 7 to 10 cm.) is usually considered to be the active "growth" zone from the "surface", but as in Vertigro's system (and ours) the "surface" is not just the horizontal area at the "top" of the liquid growth medium. Our system provides "vertical surface area" as well as the top of the tank for exposing the algae to light. Algae can adjust their own buoyancy (somewhat like fish bladders, though nothing like the same physical structures or course) to seek out light and nutrients. They also tend to "cling" to surfaces (in many species) (just watch the tide go out some time), and we use that in our processes too. Other systems tend to "fight" against this as a "bad thing" that they must overcome. Some tubular photobioreactor systems (e.g. http://www.algaelink.com/tubular_photo_bioreactor_systems.htm though I can't find the specific reference to confirm that this particular brand uses this), use beads of synthetic materials with scouring edges to clean the interior walls of the transparent tubes and prevent algae from clinging there, blocking light to the rest of the volume of the tube. Tubular systems generally either use bubbling to keep the algae moving or pumps that force the liquid (and the cell cultures) to circulate in turbulent patterns that gradually expose all cells to the optimal lighting exposure at the interface (surface). We use this natural "sticky" tendency to aid in simplifying the mechanics of harvesting the algae. We use some bubbling of gases, and can help control temperatures by varying the temperature of those gases, but we do not pump the growth medium, except to clear the tank if we need to re-start the colony in that particular tank.


Stafford "Doc" Williamson
http://energy.psyrk.us

"You can't buy the truth for nickel." Mark Twain (referring to newspapers)

 

[rewebster]

Just as an 'aside' before you two may turn this into the 'OK Corral' over the advantages of whose system is better---oil floats on water--I find it interesting that oil is found so deeply sometimes--what? up to a couple MILES below the surface.

I would guess that there will be many advances as this is more or less just the beginning of 'algae' technology.

Has any bacteria been found that produce oil?

Have you guys got any algae that will live on Mars without water that will terraform the place?

 

[Ouabache]

I didn't realize Ivan had a vested interest in biofuel.
Now I understand why any competing technology is no good

With regard to carbon-neutrality, I believe we (global community) have a responsibility to try and find ways to sequester CO2 and reduce global warming; rather than try to fix it into biomass and release it back again. Suppose we find out the energy equation was wrong (for example; due to unforeseen hidden energy costs) and actually requires more energy to make biodiesel than it yields, resulting in a net increase of CO2 into the air. As we've found out, our atmosphere is fragile system. We're already at a tipping point with global warming and can't afford to experiment with greenhouse gases.

With regard to using electric power on other vehicles, here's a nice electric truck. It can pull a 60,000lb container and get 60miles/charge. If they can already put this technology into a large truck, making an electric tractor, backhoe, and military transports will be easy.
Here's an electric backhoe. A rural designer made this electric farm tractor. Turbo, check out John Howe's solar-powered tractor on this page. He's just down the road from you

 

[turbo]

There are two Mainiacs on that page with solar-recharged electric tractors. I don't know where Howe lives, but Heckentroth lives about 40 minutes from here, right in the heart of MOGFA country. The Maine Organic Growers and Farmers Association is a very pro-active group dedicated to sustainable farming practices and conservation of all types of resources. They host the Common-Ground agricultural fair every year.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I didn't realize Ivan had a vested interest in biofuel.
Now I understand why any competing technology is no good

First came the motive, then came the action. And for all practical purposes, as yet I have no vested interest. The fact is that my presumed investors were not properly motivated, so I ditched them. I am not interested in making money if the technology is not a part of the solution

With regard to carbon-neutrality, I believe we (global community) have a responsibility to try and find ways to sequester CO2 and reduce global warming; rather than try to fix it into biomass and release it back again.

The key is to use natural sources, but recycled carbon is another facet of this.

Suppose we find out the energy equation was wrong (for example; due to unforeseen hidden energy costs) and actually requires more energy to make biodiesel than it yields, resulting in a net increase of CO2 into the air. As we've found out, our atmosphere is fragile system. We're already at a tipping point with global warming and can't afford to experiment with greenhouse gases.

Lets suppose that pigs can fly. You suppose and then use that as an argument?

With regard to using electric power on other vehicles, here's a nice electric truck. It can pull a 60,000lb container and get 60miles/charge. If they can already put this technology into a large truck, making an electric tractor, backhoe, and military transports will be easy.
Here's an electric backhoe. A rural designer made this electric farm tractor. Turbo, check out John Howe's solar-powered tractor on this page. He's just down the road from you

Wow, 60 miles. Let's see, a real truck can travel 500 miles, fill-up in fifteen minutes, and go another 500 miles.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, to be fair, I do have a vested interest: I have worked hard for thirty years to be a part of the solution to the energy problem. And I have also worked hard for two years evaluating the algae option, and trying to find a strategy for algae that works well at scale. But in all honesty, until the algae option came along, I was losing hope that we would find a solution in time.

 

[mheslep]

This kind of technology could be adapted to trucks, tractors, construction equipment, military vehicles, rail.

We are not even close.

Rail has been hybrid electric for decades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_train#Diesel-electric
Diesel-electric is highly efficient. It was instituted early on in locomotives in part because they could afford the the weight of lead acid batteries.

 

[turbo]

Today my wife and I had to make a very long trip to the nearest Subaru dealer to have a "check engine" alert decoded - simple fix, but the gas to get there and back was brutal. On the way home, we passed a huge bus/RV towing a full-sized SUV. Both vehicles had CA plates, and even if those people hadn't taken lots of side-trips and drove a pretty direct route, I'd imagine that their trip was at least 4000 miles each way. At the current 4.98/gal for diesel that's probably a minimum of $10,000 for the fuel for a round-trip. I guess if you can plunk down a few hundred thou for the motorized house, fuel costs are insignificant, but still... I-95 southbound was absolutely clogged with tourists going home after the 4th of July weekend, so people are still taking vacation trips even with the high gas prices.

 

[Ouabache]

There are two Mainiacs on that page with solar-recharged electric tractors. I don't know where Howe lives, but Heckentroth lives about 40 minutes from here, right in the heart of MOGFA country. The Maine Organic Growers and Farmers Association is a very pro-active group dedicated to sustainable farming practices and conservation of all types of resources. They host the Common-Ground agricultural fair every year.

I like that.. They sound like my kind of people!

I-95 southbound was absolutely clogged with tourists going home after the 4th of July weekend, so people are still taking vacation trips even with the high gas prices.

I traveled 450mi (roundtrip), over the 4th to visit friends, camp out and play some music. I'm certainly not pleased with current fuel prices. However, my old car still gets 35mpg, so even at current fuel prices, can justify an occasional holiday trip. A friend of mind who drives the same distance and normally takes his humungous RV, opted to drive his van & pitch a tent this year. So fuel prices are definitely impacting travelers this summer (though perhaps not that fellow you saw with the CA plates )

 

[chemisttree]

Of course the advantage of the GM E. Coli is the chance that they will escape and populate our gut. The human race would thereafter have severe GI distress and oily diarrhea.

My money is on the algae...

 

[DaveC426913]

Of course the advantage of the GM E. Coli is the chance that they will escape and populate our gut. The human race would thereafter have severe GI distress and oily diarrhea.

This is an advantage? I'd hate to see what you consider the downside.

 

[turbo]

This is an advantage? I'd hate to see what you consider the downside.

That's a huge advantage if you're heavily invested in Kimberly-Clark (Depends).

 

[Ouabache]

Of course the advantage of the GM E. Coli is the chance that they will escape and populate our gut. The human race would thereafter have severe GI distress and oily diarrhea.

I sure hope we get this all sorted out before attempting to terraform a dead planet. (introducing GM organisms to accelerate production of a suitable atmosphere, is felt to be a key step in terraforming a dead planet, such as Mars, within a practical timeframe).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rail has been hybrid electric for decades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_train#Diesel-electric
Diesel-electric is highly efficient. It was instituted early on in locomotives in part because they could afford the the weight of lead acid batteries.

Yes, note the diesel power. Not the same problem.

 

[turbo]

Diesel-electric has been used for many years for heavy equipment other than rail, too. 30 years ago, the wood-yard at the pulp mill I worked at used huge diesel-electric tractors with hydraulic grapples to unload pulp trucks. Having each wheel individually driven by variable-speed electric motors made those monsters quite nimble, so the operators could manage some really delicate maneuvers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point is that systems are not designed to be all electric - the battery reserve is virtually nill. They keep the diesel engines running for power.

 

[turbo]

I know that. The diesel powers a generator and the electric power is distributed to the individual motors driving the wheels. They consumed large amounts of fuel. The electric drive was for precision and fine control - not for any perceived advantage in efficiency.

 

[mheslep]

The upcoming 'Plug-ins' are all hybrids too - gasoline (or diesel) hybrid electric. The term plug-in usually means there's enough battery in there to run short trips solely on electric power, and those trips are the largest share of transportation energy use (see chart)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/02/power-and-speed.jpg

http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/

Q: What is the driving range of the Chevy Volt?
A: The car is being designed to drive at least 40 miles on pure electricity stored in the battery from overnight home charging. After that the gas engine will kick in and allow the car to be driven up to 400 miles on a full tank (6-7 gallons) of gas.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The upcoming 'Plug-ins' are all hybrids too - gasoline (or diesel) hybrid electric. The term plug-in usually means there's enough battery in there to run short trips solely on electric power, and those trips are the largest share of transportation energy use (see chart)
http://www.autobloggreen.com/media/2008/02/power-and-speed.jpg

http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/

There will be a percentage of the population that can use these in all electric mode, but not everyone can. What about air conditioning in bumper to bumper traffic and 100 degree weather? What about parents who drive a car full of kids? What about contractors and others who need trucks? These sorts of people might fall within the mileage spec, but it would not be possible to drive on all electric.

And as has been pointed out in other threads, this does not include commercial transportation, which uses diesel and gasoline, nor does it include rail, nor shipping, nor air transportation. And for that which can be displaced, the grid is already in trouble with huge new demands coming online everyday. We will be lucky to keep up with demands on the grid without huge additional demands for electric cars. What's more, the cradle to grave efficiency of hybrids is not yet known, and lead-acid batteries are an assault on the environment.

Today, a report came out that shows that even with the price of fuel today, hybrids are not the most economical cars to drive. I will post it when it becomes available.

Energy markets are driven by price, and hybrids do not even make economic sense at this time. It is still cheaper to pay for the fuel than it is the additional price of hybrid technology.

I remember Joanna Kerns - the actress who played the mother on the TV sit-com Growing Pains - talking about her date with Ed Begley Jr., who drove an electric car. She said that it was the worst date she had ever been on. They parked and ran the radio, which depleted the batteries, leaving them stranded.

 

[mheslep]

...For example, if you wanted to replace the energy from fossil fuels using wind powered generators, you would have to build one state-of-the-art turbine, every two square miles, over the entire US.

Wind farm power is much denser than one turbine per two square miles so it would take much less land, not that it would make sense to replace all fossil by wind alone, nor do I think it best or feasible to run all US transportation by electricity alone in the near future.

Details:
Wind farm density rule of thumb is 5MW/km^2 [1], 40000MW-hrs/yr/km^2 installed nameplate capacity, or 7400km^2 of wind farm per BTU Quad. In the US 16 Quads of fossil go to transportation, to replace that takes, say, 1/3 of the area of New Mexico, and 1.8 "New Mexico's" to replace all 80 quads of US fossil[2]. Wind averages ~30% capacity, but then wind direct to electric power eliminates the ~25-40% efficient fossil power plant or IC engine heat cycle.

[1] 5MW/km^2 - NREL number, see for example "Arizona Wind Energy Assesment"
http://ses.nau.edu/wind/YavapaiCtyAZWind%20EnergyPotential4-10-07.pdf
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States

 

[mheslep]

There will be a percentage of the population that can use these in all electric mode, but not everyone can. What about air conditioning in bumper to bumper traffic and 100 degree weather? What about parents who drive a car full of kids? What about contractors and others who need trucks? These sorts of people might fall within the mileage spec, but it would not be possible to drive on all electric.

And as has been pointed out in other threads, this does not include commercial transportation, which uses diesel and gasoline, nor does it include rail, nor shipping, nor air transportation.

Agreed. I don't see any serious proposals to run transportation on all electric (yet), so bring on the biodiesel. The point is energy use for short distance driving by light vehicles is a _large_ part of US transportation fuel costs, greater than any of the others. That's why NREL/ DoE estimates plug in hybrids would cut US transportation fuel use by almost half, and if the electricity is produced by nuclear or renewables or sequestered coal then CO2 production is cut similarly[1].

And for that which can be displaced, the grid is already in trouble with huge new demands coming online everyday. We will be lucky to keep up with demands on the grid without huge additional demands for electric cars.

No as discussed here and in NREL reports there is plenty of excess grid capacity for charging PHEVs (5 to 15kWhrs) at night when the demand is otherwise low. Growing a renewable source like wind power will require substantial transmission capacity increase, but that is independent of the PHEVs.

What's more, the cradle to grave efficiency of hybrids is not yet known

Good point. This needs more attention.

and lead-acid batteries are an assault on the environment.

Non-issue. Nobody has plans to use lead acid batteries for PHEVs, the energy density is too low. Lithium Ion batteries do not use heavy metals (the environmental threat) though they need a recycling plan just like everything else these days.

Today, a report came out that shows that even with the price of fuel today, hybrids are not the most economical cars to drive. I will post it when it becomes available.

Will be interesting to see but note: 1) we're talking here about 100 mpg equivalent PHEVs not just the current HEVs and PHEVs are a year away, 2) to be relevant to the context of this thread, the comparison needs to be against the cost of algae biodiesel or cellulosic ethanol per gallon

Edit: source
[1] Preliminary Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ..., table 3
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39729.pdf