http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/argonne-assesse.h ...
http://greyfalcon.net/khosla

-David Ahlport

He also gave biodiesel a thumbs down, saying it requires too much land.

He is just trying to pump up his own investments by spreading negative hype about his competition. He's just another rich guy, not all that bright, not all that creative. He will cut and run if the crap hits the fan. Those counting on his advice will deserve what they get. Such is life in the world of venture capital.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

That is the more important mistake he made.  Pure electric plugins are too expensive and impractical for most people.  The ones making news are "toys".  High end sports cars.

Plugin hybrids are a different animal.  They require a fraction of the still very expensive nanotech lithium ion batteries.  Like the A 123 battery in the Prius Hymotion plugin conversion.  It's price is rumored to be 12k for the conversion kit.

The new Audi plugin hybrid is a much better design, as is tthe Volt.  Though the Volt is over powered.

I don't think Khosla understands the difference or how having the average daily trip length covered by battery power with backup internal combustion engine vastly increases average mpg.  While at the same time allowing regular fueling at gas stations for longer trips.  

With a pure plugin electric car, like george Clooney and Gov Schwartzeneggar have ordered (for 93k, the test drive costs 5k),  when you run out of juice, you call a tow truck.

With a plugin hybrid you stop at a gas station before you ever get stranded.  Wealthy stars can afford the delay, most drivers can't.

They need a plugin hybrid with a fifth of the expensive nano tech batteries.  And a fraction of the price of a pure electric.

It appears the writer whose article you linked to was confused about tyhis too Joseph.  just had to make it cleaer than khosla and the writer did.

plugin hybrids, the way to reduce gas guzzling by 80%.  Pure electric plugins, still "toys" for the wealthy until nanotech batteries can be recharged in 10 minutes.

Even bio-d's excellent plugin bike is technically a plugin hybrid.  Battery power and pedal power.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/8/2049/64576

His optimism on cellulosic ethanol may be understandable, but his support for large subsidies for conventional ethanol production now just makes little sense to me. And there are a lot of other odd arguments in there as well. Not credible, I decided when I read that the first time.

15,000 more V?  Does the Audi plugin hybrid cost that much more than a regular hybrid or a comparable economy car?

With mass production would plugin hybrids cost anymore than a conventional economy car?  It's a fact, until mass production efficiencies kick in products are more expensive.  Plugin hybrids take a fifth of the batteries of a pure electric car, and those batteries need not be the very expensive quick charge type.

Plugin hybrids do not need quick charge.  They have backup liquid fuel.  A few hours charge time is no problem.

The complaint that electric cars pollute just as much if the electricity is from GHG intensive sources like coal is deceptive.  The goal of renewable energy revolution is to go renewable with the grid as well.  Your dream of cellulosic ethanol would not happen overnight, neither will a distributed renewable smart grid to charge plugin hybrids.

Thanks for your reply though.  I personally think you would be better off targeting investment dollars to a distributed renewable generation and storage internet enabled smart grid.  Plugin hybrid vehicles and high speed light rail.  And conservation in the form of geo heat exchange heating and cooling.

Climb on board and come on in for the big win with us (to paraphrase "Full Metal Jacket").  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Then where pray tell, is all this imaginary biomass going to come from for Cellulosic Ethanol?
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/perlack
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/logistics-problem ...
http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol.png

What if, Cellulosic Ethanol doesn't result in Michael Wang's imaginary emissions reductions. What if the secondary emissions, and emissions he's leaving out, completely eliminate any sort of benefit one was hoping to gain?
http://greyfalcon.net/landuse
http://greyfalcon.net/n2o.png
http://greyfalcon.net/palmoil
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/ocean_bacteria_ni ...

Whats if the known impact of N2O suddenly tripled?
http://greyfalcon.net/n2ostudy

_

Also that $15000 figure seems a bit suspect to me.

Even full performance electric cars don't have that kind of markup.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png

Seems like you're comparing it to a parallel plugin hybrid, and not a series plugin hybrid.

1. A parallel plugin hybrid is merely a conventional hybrid with an extra battery pack bolt on it.
   
2. A series plugin hybrid is an electric car, with a small motorcycle generator on it.

_

That said, I wouldn't speak to loudly by saying
"It's not practical because it CURRENTLY costs more than a hybrid"
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/02/gm-responds-to-us ...

-David Ahlport

17 million new cars are sold each year in the US.  300 million need replacement over 20 years, no problem then.  

The best part of the new Audi plugin hybrid design is this.  They simply added a rear axle plugin battery electric drive to a regular front wheel drive car.  That not only allows easy conversion of used cars, but it means automakers don't need to change their capital intensive production facilities.

They keep turning out the standard front wheel drive cars and simply add the rear wheel electric drive.  making them all wheel drive as well.  Another atractive feature for extra traction in difficult weather conditions, with ever more extreme weather this is a feature car buyers already pay more for.

Witness the great success of Subaru.  It's the silent sports/nature lovers status vehicle of choice right now.  Eco friendly folk don't want SUVs anymore.

It's not personal, it's just business, hehey. Well maybe it is personal for green car buyers, we want to keep up with the latest eco status symbol.

Gas guzzling flex fuel vehicles just don't make the grade.  Wether they guzzle oil or corn or cellulose.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Makes me kind of curious though why a nation already primarily using CNG and Diesels as their primary mode of transportation should do Hybrids.

_

Especially when you consider that India's fuel economy rating is already far higher than the United States.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/india-developin.h ...
http://greyfalcon.net/oilvsethanol2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/oregon

_

Sorry but the analogy just doesn't work for India.

-David Ahlport

1. There's no-where near enough domestic green biomass to fuel cellulosic ethanol.
   
2. Practically any economic advancements in cellulosic ethanol could be directly applied toward coal-to-liquids. (i.e. Fischer Tropsch, etc)

And since the United States can't regulate the world.  So it's a Pandora's box if ecologically distasterous technologies suddenly become far more economically viable.

_

How do you factor that into the emissions created by cellulosic ethanol?

-David Ahlport

This always seems to be forgotten and is an obvious way of reducing the up front costs of EVs and series hybrids.

I would contend that with battery leasing (plus expected improvements in battery technology, vastly improved vehicle design and even potential revenue from V2G applications in the future... maybe... hopefully) the statement "pure electric plugins are too expensive and impractical for most people" is not true.

Sure they're expensive now but as far as I am aware there are zero OEM PHEVs available on the market at the moment (although this will all be changing in 2008 at long last).

The are both promises, to men like me on the street, that the inventions will be made and that the tech will be delivered at a reasonable price point.

I think I prefer to be agnostic, and let these guys do their inventions, and then compete with actual product details.

Not my model.  Self reliance and family survival will dominate a chaotic future.  Jobs, energy, and transportation will source close to home.  That implies highly distributed solar cogeneration for home heat and and light electric transportation.

The future is here, it just isn't evenly distributed.

etc., etc.

There is no static now, nor a railroad track to a defined future.  We evolve, but we need to trick our human sense of time to see it.  The "year in review" lists spanning the web are lessons in how not to do it.  They often contain items that are not items for 2007 at all, just hints and promises for the future.  You see "2007 was the year we learned ..."   Yeah, maybe.  Or maybe we learned something else, something we don't understand right now.

But again, one thing we can do is make our best steps for today, and adopt new/better tech as it proves itself.

It said before Captain Cook arrived and took over the joint, the Hawaiians were pretty much hedonists.

Because of the plenitude of the island, they had so much food they only needed to work 1/3rd of the year.   They also created coral seawalls and practiced aquaculture -- they let in the small younger fish, and when the fish matured, they were trapped (and killed and eaten), giving the Hawaiians even more food!

Of course, shelter only had to be minimal because of the warm weather.

So, when people talk about "solutions" to the energy problem, we have to realize that the problem is that most of us live in crapholes where the weather means we have expend lots of energy in the first place just to survive.

The alternative is to try and make the situation like Hawaii in the first place where there is more energy (food) than needed from nature.

I had the privelege of chatting online with another founder of Sun, Bill Joy, online in conjunction with the now defunct "NEW show" on the also defunct CnnFn network.  Way back in the internet boom years, 1999.

These are the people that need to get the message if this energy revolution is going to go in a better direction than fuel farming, (newer, safer)nukes, and clean coal.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

The reformer changes the hydrocarbon and water into a CO/H2 syngas which is what the vehicle runs on. Since up to half the H2 (which is the primary energy source in the syngas) in that gas mix comes from water you cut emissions drastically and cut the amount of hydrocarbon fuel required.


Mike Johnston

with known chemistries (batteries are) limited to maybe 2-4x change in cost/performance - not nearly enough to change the hybrid or plug-in hybrid cost dynamic.

Chemistries change when you factor in nanotech.
"New Nanowire Battery Holds 10 Times The Charge Of Existing Ones"

Could we get people in India and China, the fastest growing car markets, to ante up this much additional money when the biggest thrust in volume cars in India is to reduce the cost of the whole car to $2500

You're talking about a car that gets 58.8mpg, with European emissions standards.

But the way it achieves this is by drastically lowering horsepower, size, and weight.

_

And if one were so inclined,
For a couple extra bucks they could even play around with the aerodynamic drag if they wanted to.  

Aptera is certainly having a go at it.

-David Ahlport

I'd ask them to pursue their dreams, with their money and the money of their investors, but not to leverage with public funds.  End of story.

the upside with known battery chemistries is limited change in cost/performance

Why can't we change battery chemistries?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/researchers-dev.h ...

-David Ahlport

Powering the average American's daily commute completely with electricity without a change in infrastructure? Doesn't sound like a toy to me.

Thanks for the post Joe, I just picked up your book and I'm looking forward to reading it.

Discuss sustainable cars - wiserearth.org/groups/hypercar

ohgreen.com/blog

Having said that, let's accept his assertion for the sake of argument.

It seems likely that even if biofuels can ultimately fulfill the promises made by their proponents (a big IF), they will still be priced at or near the cost of gas/diesel, i.e. $3-5/gallon for the near future.  Electricity, on the other hand, is a much cheaper fuel in terms of $/mile. So if I'm a 30-50 mile/day commuter, I would prefer a PHEV that allows me to do most of my driving on grid current.  The savings on fuel costs would be substantial -- easily enough to offset a premium on the cost of the vehicle.

For most of the market that is, and has always been, silly.  Most people choose a car, hybrid or not, that suits them, and most already pay more than what a hybrid would cost.

If someone is talking to you about a hybrid premium then they are either a buyer of low-end cars (those costing less than $22K) or they are deluded.

Ask them what their last car cost.

This is very true.  I suspect that the psychology here is that we are willing to pay more for a better service, but we resent paying more for what we perceive as equivalent service.  While the mileage of a hybrid is somewhat better than the equivalent conventional car, the incremental difference probably only justifies itself as "better service" to those who place a premium on fuel efficiency above and beyond the cost of gas (i.e. greens).

In this context, a PHEV may not have to compete on price (at least for the American consumer) if it's marketed correctly.  Being able to fill up at home on wall current, and avoid gas stations nearly entirely, is a type of service that nothing currently on the market provides.  Spun correctly, this should appeal to a whole range of non-green consumers, like the gotta-have-the-new-cool-toy early adopter crowd, and the raghead-hating, oil-independence conservative hawk, just to pick two.

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison, and if the folks who sell the first production PHEVs don't capitalize on this, then the manufacturer needs to fire their marketing team.

Ausra has a large cosine loss, and low intensity.  eSolar has a medium cosine loss, and high intensity.  Solar dishes have zero cosine loss and plasma intensity.  

Faites vos jeux.

L.A Times, December 26, 2007

It's hard to tell exactly what the "hybrid premium" is on the Tahoe Hybrid (MSRP of $50,490) but it looks to be, at a minimum, $8,000. That's a huge lump.

FWIW, the Greenhybrid database shows that a Highlander Hybrid gets 26 MPG real-world, and the Escape Hybrid gets 29-32 MPG.

You can buy those, or a Prius, or you can "add" hybrid to a Tahoe and get 21?  Should I even believe 21 at this point?

Why are you telling other people what they value? What does what you value have to do with what others value?

Furthermore, over about 10 or 20 mpg, why would anyone value fuel-economy? Your personal hobbies (energy efficiency, etc.) do not seem to have much to do with what people generally value in this world.

The argument that there is this general "hybrid premium" is not based on the cost to buy a hybrid.

It is based on an artificial construction, the idea that one must choose from some arbitrary pair of pundit-chosen "equivalent" cars.

... and not from "the constellation of cars available (from the $10K Aveo to the $1.7M Bugatti)"

Who's choosing for people?  Me when I say buy any car, including any hybrid, or you when you say it is all "Tahoe or Tahoe-hybrid?"

You can choose to spend $8K more for hybrid on your Tahoe, or you can choose to spend $20K less on a Prius.

The pundit-chosen "equivalent" cars are equivalent in terms of what people generally value. Why are you telling others that what they should value should be based upon your personal hobbies?

Let's let the numbers speak for themselves:
http://12.155.133.84/autos/reviews/review.aspx?ID=814

The Chevrolet Tahoe competes in the Large Utility segment, which consists of eight models. Buyers in this segment look for comfort, performance, and exterior styling, according to the J.D. Power and Associates 2006 Avoider Study and the Escaped Shopper Study.

The top sellers in the segment during calendar year 2006, according to the J.D. Power and Associates Sales Report, were the Chevrolet Tahoe (161,491 units sold), Ford Expedition (78,953), and Chevrolet Suburban (77,211). The Chevrolet Tahoe's 161,491 sales in 2006 represent an increase of 6.0 percent compared to the previous year. Other models offered in the Large Utility segment include the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, Toyota Sequoia, and Nissan Armada. Joining the segment in 2007 is the Ford Expedition EL.

There it is in black and white, Odograph: "comfort, performance, and exterior styling". Fuel-economy is notably absent. Why are you telling others that what they value should be based upon what you personally value? Over about 10 or 20 mpg, why would anyone, except for an odd bigot here or there, care about fuel-economy?

... is a perfect sucker.

Most people juggle a basket of want and needs, as well as costs and disadvantages, as they shop for a new car.

You have to be a hypothetical being, or an imbecile, to limit yourself to two "equivalents."

It is much better to spend our limited resources on cycling, public transit and rail than waste in on the fantasy of a sustainable automobile.

Regarding the misconception that prices will go down once mass production is achieved. This was true before the age of peak resources that we find ourselves in now. As soon as as enough of these are produced to even come close to making a difference, the cost of the materials used to make the batteries will likely rise and negate the advantages of mass production.

It is time to come to grips that we are on a planet with limited resources. Using them on automobiles is simply irresponsible.

No Automobile is Sustainable

The bottom line is that personal automobiles are simply not sustainable in a world of 9 billion people.
It is much better to spend our limited resources on cycling, public transit and rail than waste in on the fantasy of a sustainable automobile.

Regarding the misconception that prices will go down once mass production is achieved. This was true before the age of peak resources that we find ourselves in now. As soon as as enough of these are produced to even come close to making a difference, the cost of the materials used to make the batteries will likely rise and negate the advantages of mass production.

It is time to come to grips that we are on a planet with limited resources. Using them on automobiles is simply irresponsible.

I don't know about where you live but the very prosperous Northern California city I live in can no longer afford to keep up on road maintenance. As the cost of oil continues to rise the cost of asphalt or coal tar will rise also as well as the cost of concrete and the operating costs of the fleet of trucks required to repair roadways.  

There was more than one bridge collapse last year due to deferred long-term maintenance. So while we argue about what kind of fancy new cars, ethanol, plug-in hybrid or electric, the roads that we are supposed to drive them on fall apart . While our governments could always print or borrow money to repair said roads the squeeze on already limited resource bases will be felt globally.

Thinking the the Cartopia is going to continue powered by ethanol is just foolishness. The reason we have climate change is we already use more energy than the biosphere can provide for or sequester the CO2 from. It's simply NOT logical. We might continue driving plug-in hybrids for somewhat longer but the waste in resources that we will need to get to a greenhouse-stable atmosphere is just staggering.

We have a VERY SHORT TIME to stabilize the atmosphere and that stability may not include any private citizen driving a Tahoe, Yukon or Armada (who named that thing?) around even if it's all electric. They will have to go sooner or later because we need the climate stable so we can have a reliable food supply. Sorry Australia, the free market cannot make it rain on cue when your crops need water.

The optimal personal vehicle is a bicycle.

Put the Carbon Back

1. Subaru: RiE
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/26/subaru-ev-could-a ...

2. Mitsubishi: iMiEV
prizewinning, Japanese government-supported r&d like built the Prius
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/14/mitsubishis-all-e ...

3. Smith Electric Vehicles
huge delivery vans, (over $30,000: but same price as equivalent in gas) has grown seven-fold this year: making EVs in Europe since the 20's, coming here:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/05/smith-ev-announce ...

4. GM: Chevy Volt (not pure electric because it has a range extender: a tiny ICE just to recharge its battery) 40 mile range all electric between charges, +400 mile range with recharger
http://www.gm-volt.com/

and Tesla plans to make the cheaper electric WhiteStar sedans once they jumpstart the assemblyline using the luxury Roadster, which is a respectable way to start a business.

John McCain already vetoes every eco bill

1. Spyder
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=913

2. Miles
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/19/new-york-mayor-bl ...

4. Phoenix
http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/01/phoenix-motorcars-intr ...

John McCain already vetoes every eco bill

Fuel efficiency isn't a hobby, it is an essential element to society's survival.  That's like saying the effort to cure smallpox was a "hobby"?  

Are you high?

-Christopher

But not on your false drugs, he's high on a clean windshield and a full tank of plutonium in his nuclear powered hovercraft (to paraphrase "Firesign tHeater").

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

They are usually far more interested in the style and the sticker price.

And often will buy cars with more horsepower and size than they would use on any regular basis.

Often for things which they will only do maybe 2-5x a year. (I want to tow a boat, I want to pull out tree stumps)

Kind of like how you have Mom's buying V6 SUVs instead of V4 minivans.

_

That said Europe has much more priority on fuel economy, but thats because it costs more to buy fuel.

I can't find a good source for this (shock)
But I swear I've heard that the unsubsidized cost of petroleum should be somewhere around $19 per gallon.

If people were really paying that much for fuel, I'm sure that it would be a large priority.

But thats what subsidies do.
They devalue the cost of doing something.

And as such, people don't really value fuel economy much.

-David Ahlport

There might also be some marginal factor with global warming education.

If you want to know "how much" mileage matters you'll have to ask now, again in 2008, and again in 2009.

Times change.

Appel offers no apologies for needing government largesse to make money. "All oil, even fossil-fuel oil, gets government subsidies in the form of tax breaks and other incentives," he says, citing a 1998 study by the International Center for Technology Assessment showing that unsubsidized conventional gasoline would cost consumer $15 a gallon. "Before we got this, I had the only oil in the world that didn't get a subsidy."

Right now the Canadian Pacific Railroad is trying to buy the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad to convert it into a coal hauling railroad.

If electric cars are a way to maintain our present lifestyle and preference for land yachts, then the solution will be worse than the problem. Our present rate of energy use is completely unsustainable and should not be used as a model for future energy needs.

Corn ethanol has lately become a whipping boy for all kinds of problems. Farmers do not grow corn to feed you. They grow corn to provide a living for their families. If something comes along that provides a better living, they will switch to it. And it's farmers that decide what they want to grow, not the government, not banks, not technical experts and not bloggers.

One of those things could be cellulosic biomass crops. The advantages to farmers in the corn belt of growing a perennial crop are so huge that I can see a day when people will be begging farmers to grow corn. A biomass crop can provide three paychecks: the crop, carbon sequestration credits, and wildlife benefits. I'm a retired native grass farmer. Growing fuel and fiber crops has been part of agriculture for thousands of years.

Khosla is on to something big. Remember that commercial transport uses as much oil as private transportation, and commercial transport is not amenable to battery conversion. Linear transport running on rails should switch to mains electric power, but trucks will need portable fuel.

We have to take a systems approach to our energy future. We have to increase transportation fuel efficiency by a factor of four, through behavior and vehicle morphology change. What I've seen of battery and fuel-cell vehicles, they accomplish less than a doubling. Even my old beater 5-speed Neon gets a consistant 38 mpg. in mixed driving and I only paid $1,200 for it.

social problems demand social solutions

Over half our electricity comes from burning coal, the very worst fuel to use. Put a lot of electric powered cars on the road and we will burn much more coal, which puts out nearly twice as much CO2 per energy content as petroleum. We're going to cook ourselves to death on coal.

But you're forgetting the efficiencies at play.

Coal may produce ~2x more CO2 per Btu
But electric cars are more than ~4x more efficient.

So it pans out that driving an electric car on coal is like driving a hybrid on gasoline.

http://aceee.org/pubs/t061.htm
http://epri-reports.org/PHEV-ExecSum-vol1.pdf
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/argonne-assesse.h ...

_

And ultimately electric cars create a wonderful solution for Renewable Electricity, specifically wind.

You have to charge you car for roughly 3 hours. But you got a 14 hour window of time to do it in.

If you charge whenever the wind is available, that removes one of winds biggest weaknesses.

We have to increase transportation fuel efficiency by a factor of four, through behavior and vehicle morphology change. What I've seen of battery, they accomplish less than a doubling.

Where did you read that?

Electric engines are 80-90% efficient.
Gasoline engines are only 15-20% efficient.
http://greyfalcon.net/raser

-David Ahlport

Over half our electricity comes from burning coal, the very worst fuel to use. Put a lot of electric powered cars on the road and we will burn much more coal, which puts out nearly twice as much CO2 per energy content as petroleum. We're going to cook ourselves to death on coal.

Right now the Canadian Pacific Railroad is trying to buy the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad to convert it into a coal hauling railroad.

If electric cars are a way to maintain our present lifestyle and preference for land yachts, then the solution will be worse than the problem. Our present rate of energy use is completely unsustainable and should not be used as a model for future energy needs.

Corn ethanol has lately become a whipping boy for all kinds of problems. Farmers do not grow corn to feed you. They grow corn to provide a living for their families. If something comes along that provides a better living, they will switch to it. And it's farmers that decide what they want to grow, not the government, not banks, not technical experts and not bloggers.

One of those things could be cellulosic biomass crops. The advantages to farmers in the corn belt of growing a perennial crop are so huge that I can see a day when people will be begging farmers to grow corn. A biomass crop can provide three paychecks: the crop, carbon sequestration credits, and wildlife benefits. I'm a retired native grass farmer. Growing fuel and fiber crops has been part of agriculture for thousands of years.

Khosla is on to something big. Remember that commercial transport uses as much oil as private transportation, and commercial transport is not amenable to battery conversion. Linear transport running on rails should switch to mains electric power, but trucks will need portable fuel.

We have to take a systems approach to our energy future. We have to increase transportation fuel efficiency by a factor of four, through behavior and vehicle morphology change. What I've seen of battery and fuel-cell vehicles, they accomplish less than a doubling. Even my old beater 5-speed Neon gets a consistant 38 mpg. in mixed driving and I only paid $1,200 for it.

Look up the difference between solar panel efficiency and plant growth. Plants are pathetic in converting sunlight to energy we can use compared to solar. Likewise electric motors driving wheels on steel rails are orders of magnitude more efficient than ICE engines driving rubber tires on asphalt roads. It's even worse when you compare the costs of road construction and maintenance to any rail system for any given level of traffic. Cars and trucks are just wasteful by comparison. Replacing petroleum with biofuels just delays the day of reckoning and conversion to more efficient systems.

Put the Carbon Back