150 Years of Oil

As I noted in my first posting of the month, August 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the first commercial oil well. Edwin Drake's well in Titusville, PA hit "paydirt" on August 27, 1859, and the world has never been the same since, though it took decades for oil production to grow beyond levels that would seem trivial today. In its early years the price of oil was even more volatile in real terms than it has been recently, as new sources of supply and new markets repeatedly swung the industry from boom to bust and back again. That led to numerous business failures, consolidations, and the eventual domination of a few large players. Although the world is quite different today, and history rarely repeats itself exactly, there might still be some lessons for alternative energy firms in the early history of the incumbent industry they are attempting to unseat.

Oil statistics back to 1859 are a little shaky, though this chart of oil's annual production history provides a useful overview of the early trends, if we ignore the portion devoted to projecting future output. From its current position of energy dominance, it's easy to forget that the initial success of oil was hardly a foregone conclusion, and its biggest early gains were matched by serious setbacks. While oil has never relinquished the lubricant markets it captured early on, kerosene met a very different fate. It was the most important oil product for several decades, rapidly penetrating illumination markets and displacing whale oil, which was facing its own imminent Peak Oil by then. However, it's no accident that one of the most important early markets for my former employer, Texaco Inc., which along with many other firms grew out of the great gusher at Spindletop, TX more than 40 years after Drake's well, was "oil for the lamps of China." By the early 20th century the US lighting market was already being swept by electrification. Oil was rescued from impending oblivion when a relatively unimportant byproduct called gasoline found its "killer ap" in the early automobile.

As impressive as the growth rates for wind and solar power have been over the last few years, they still fall short of the early growth of car ownership. Between 1901 and 1916, annual US car registrations grew from a few thousand units to over one million, a sustained compound average growth of around 40% per year. Over the same interval, oil production more than quadrupled, led by the combination of soaring demand for gasoline, which was produced by simple distillation of petroleum in "tea kettle" refineries, and the discovery of numerous large oil fields. This remarkable growth wasn't spurred by government incentives or economics that made oil and its products merely a little better than their closest competition. It was the result of a quantum leap in personal mobility facilitated by oil's extraordinary inherent advantages in convenience. Huge surpluses of energy could be extracted from the ground and delivered relatively easily and cheaply to cars in the most remote corners of the country.

The difference in oil's success in the transportation and illumination markets is clear. In modern terms we'd say that two transformational technologies competed head to head, with each ultimately dominating the market in which it had clear advantages of better/faster/cheaper. Kerosene, which lost to electric lighting, is only important today because it turned out to make a wonderful fuel for a device that didn't exist in Drake's time, the jet engine. And it has taken a further century for the technology of electricity to advance to the point at which it is again competitive in transportation, having once lost that battle definitively a century ago, with the mass production of the Model T.

The lessons for today's energy situation are worth contemplating. For example, ethanol has just experienced a boom and bust cycle that the early oil barons would readily understand. Over-investment in capacity still destroys margins, and distribution remains a serious constraint. More importantly, perhaps, ethanol lacks a better/faster/cheaper edge as it fights for market share with petroleum products. Must true success for biofuels await innovations that will turn cheap cellulose into molecules that carry energy at least as efficiently as those in oil, or for the mass production of new conversion devices (engines or fuel cells) that can overcome ethanol's shortcomings relative to gasoline? Oil's history poses similar questions for wind and solar power, which for all their environmental benefits remain costlier and less reliable than conventional sources of electricity. Subsidies and regulations seem anemic substitutes for the inherent advantages of cost and convenience that can sweep away incumbent technologies within a decade or two. I can't help wondering whether the story of today's alternative energy technologies will more resemble that of oil's experience in illumination or in transportation.

Read More

The Demise of MPG

Even before the advent of partially- or fully-electric cars, it was becoming increasingly apparent that the old fuel economy metric of miles per gallon isn't as useful for measuring energy consumption in vehicles as when it was first codified in the original Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard in the 1970s. That is due in part to the proliferation of new fuels--E85, LPG, LNG, CNG, methanol, and hydrogen--but also because expressing the relationship between distance and volume in this way obscured the diminishing returns to higher levels of fuel economy. As a Wall St. Journal column earlier this week put it, adding electricity into the mpg mix, "risks giving consumers inaccurate information about the financial and environmental costs of driving." But if we need a new metric, what should it measure?

I've been interested in this issue for some time, and GM's recent announcement that its new Volt plug-in hybrid achieves 230 mpg in city driving prompted some further thought. I don't doubt the accuracy of that figure or the thought that GM's engineers put into bridging this new vehicle type into a system that was designed when the average US fuel economy was 13.1 mpg and unleaded gasoline was the newest fuel around. Yet all this figure tells us is how much liquid fuel the car's generator would consume over a carefully-chosen driving interval, completely ignoring the electricity--with its cost and consequences--required to deliver that result. Nissan's Twittered riposte that it's new Leaf electric car gets 367 mpg is even less useful, because the assumptions behind it are not clear--and might just ignore some basic engineering realities.

Without access to Nissan's calculation, I can only guess at how they might have arrived at it by backing into it. (Skip this if you hate numbers.) Start with the fact that each gallon of petroleum gasoline (without ethanol) carries 115,000 BTUs of energy. At an official conversion of 3412 BTUs per kilowatt-hour (kWh), that equates to 33.7 kWh per gallon, so 367 mpg implies that the Leaf would go nearly 11 miles per kWh. That's pretty amazing by itself, considering that the Volt is generally expected to go between 4 and 6 miles per kWh. It also suggests that the Leaf would be using less than half of its 24 kWh Lithium Ion battery pack to deliver its advertised 100 mile range. But even if this is all correct, there's a basic problem with the calculation; in the real world it can take a lot more than 3,412 BTUs of primary energy to generate one kWh of electricity, depending on how you do it. If the power source is surplus wind, solar or nuclear power that wasn't already being used to displace power generated from fossil fuels, the BTUs required could be effectively zero. Otherwise, for power generated from coal or natural gas they would range between 6,000-12,000 BTU/kWh. Even assuming a relatively conservative 8,000 BTU/kWh for the natural gas turbines that provide the incremental power supply for many markets, the resulting equivalent mpg falls from 367 to 156 mpg. But that still doesn't tell us enough, in my estimation.

The problem here is the existence of a variety of perspectives on vehicle energy efficiency with competing information needs. From the standpoint of energy policy, we are most concerned about annual oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. We already have a new federal mileage standard that is set in terms of grams of CO2-equivalent per mile, which gets at the latter issue. The EPA's current mpg methodology based on liquid fuels comes close to addressing the former, though the increasing contribution of biofuels renders it suspect. Unfortunately, any standard or metric that treats non-petroleum energy as essentially free seems certain to result in colossal unintended consequences, as non-oil energy sources ramp up. The engineer in me would argue strongly for something like the MPGe calculation used for the Automotive X-Prize, comparing all the energy delivered to the car in any form with how far the car went. However, from a consumer perspective that still seems overly complex and opaque. While I would certainly prefer the inverted form of fuel economy--gallons per 100 miles--to our current mpg, it's hard to beat miles per dollar as a means of comparing how much it will cost the average driver to operate any of these new cars.

Money is the common denominator for most of the things we consume, so why shouldn't it be for vehicle energy, as well? At current pump prices, an average American passenger car goes about 9.5 miles per dollar (mp$), while a Prius-type hybrid approaches 20 mp$. If we factor in electricity at the national average retail price of $0.11/kWh, then the Chevrolet Volt would deliver something in the vicinity of 30 mp$, if I've correctly understood how they arrived at their 230 mpg figure, while the Leaf might yield as much as 99 mp$--though my natural skepticism about its unofficial claims leads me to suspect it would be closer to 45 mp$. Of course, when you have to pay $5,000-10,000 extra for a battery pack, you'd certainly hope the operating cost per mile would be a lot lower than for a conventional car. And that's precisely the kind of comparison that a truly useful fuel economy metric should facilitate.

In the near term, the EPA should continue its work on adapting the familiar mpg metric to a new world of more diverse vehicle technologies, but for the longer term it ought to convene other government agencies, car and fuel companies, universities, and consumer groups for the purpose of developing a new and more helpful set of metrics that would tell consumers what they need to know about costs and consequences as the car fleet undergoes its long transition toward an uncertain destination.

Read More

Deficits, Dollars, and the Price of Energy

The latest revision to the forecasted federal deficit has implications beyond the sustainability of current government spending. Reading a pair of high-profile, skeptical assessments of Peak Oil in the context of a $9 trillion deficit projection for the next decade, it occurred to me that the most serious risk of higher oil prices in the near future might not be flagging production or surging demand but the further depreciation of the US dollar. The quickest route back to $4 gasoline could run through Washington, DC, rather than Riyadh or Beijing, and that might not be as helpful for renewable energy as its advocates might guess.

The main worry I've heard expressed about the size of the federal deficit has focused on the risk of inflation. However, high deficits carry another risk that could have a much more direct effect on energy prices, which in turn could help re-ignite inflation. The problem is acute because it goes well beyond the one-time impact of federal stimulus efforts, which have apparently ballooned this year's deficit to $1.6 trillion. Fundamentally, there is a persistent and growing gap between government revenue and expenses, exacerbated by high unemployment and lower income--and thus lower tax collection--particularly from the top quintile of earners who have consistently been paying 86% of the federal income tax. Unless that gap can be brought back into line with recent history, the government will soon face a difficult choice. Financing a steady stream of trillion-dollar annual deficits will require either interest rates high enough to attract investment from all over the world--and thus high enough to stifle a nascent recovery--or the monetization of the debt by means of the Federal Reserve printing even more money than recently. The latter course, which seems likely to be more politically palatable, despite Dr. Bernanke's reappointment, would inevitably weaken the dollar and lead in fairly short order to higher energy prices.

We got a taste of this effect in 2007, when oil prices and the dollar moved in opposite directions in an oil-dollar price loop that looked more than merely coincidental. A weaker dollar encourages producers to raise prices, or to consider pricing their output in a stronger, more stable currency. Meanwhile, non-US consumers experience stable or falling energy prices that encourage demand growth, which eventually leads to higher prices in all currencies. Either way, US consumers would see higher prices for petroleum products, though it's not clear how much further demand could fall in the near term, with US oil consumption already running 10% below 2007's, on a comparable year-to-date basis.

The dollar has already weakened by about 10% against the Euro and 5% vs. the Japanese Yen since March, as the resolution of the financial crisis and early signs of a global recovery have eased the fears that prompted a classic flight to dollar safety. This shift merely returns the exchange rate to roughly its level of pre-crisis 2008. Oil prices have risen by around 40% over the same interval, though how much of that is due to a weaker dollar is far from clear. However, from today's $70/bbl level, another 25% drop in the value of the dollar could return us to the threshold of $100 oil.

Higher oil prices due to a weaker dollar would not necessarily be beneficial for biofuels and other alternatives to oil, either. If we learned anything from the oil price spike of 2006-'08, it was that higher oil prices don't automatically make alternative energy more competitive. If only oil prices were moving, it might be helpful, but the only way to achieve that is through taxation, not inflation or currency depreciation. Just as oil functions in a global market, so too the components of the main alternative energy technologies have become global, with wind turbines and solar panels sourced globally and in high demand in many regions. So too for the steel and other basic materials for constructing such installations, as well as the grains and oilseeds turned into ethanol and biodiesel. A weaker dollar wouldn't just mean higher oil prices, but higher prices at least for all of the new energy sources to which we are turning in our effort to address climate change and bolster our energy security.

At an average price for 2008 of $93/bbl, oil made up just 15% of the value of the goods and services we imported last year, and a weaker dollar would see the prices of a host of other things--cars, electronics, call-center assistance, for example--go up, as well, fueling inflation and further depressing our standard of living. That scenario is hardly inevitable. A sea change on the part of the American public could convince the Congress and administration that we are finally prepared to pay for the government we have been demanding, or to see government services fall to a level commensurate with the level of taxation we appear willing to bear. Or the Fed could start raising interest rates to defend the dollar, in spite of the consequences for economic growth and unemployment. I'm pretty sure which choice I'd vote for.

Read More

US Refineries Under Cap & Trade

A new study confirms my previous suspicions that the allocation of free emission allowances in the Waxman-Markey climate bill would disproportionately disadvantage the US oil sector, with serious consequences for our energy security. In particular, it quantifies the impact on the refining sector, which was chosen by the bill's authors as the focal point for collecting the "tax" on all carbon emissions from the use of petroleum products. In the view of EnSys Energy Systems, Inc., based on their model of global downstream petroleum markets, US refineries would run much less crude oil and be able to invest much less in modernization. As a result, US imports of refined products would grow significantly, despite lower overall consumption, and employment in the US refining sector would fall, while the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from domestic refineries would be largely offset by increases abroad. Such an outcome would benefit neither the global climate nor US national security.

When I examined the preliminary version of Waxman-Markey in early June, I concluded that because it doled out so many free emission allowances to the electricity sector, its main effect for at least the first two decades would be to function as a tax on the petroleum sector, though without the clarity and transparency of a gasoline tax. Those allocations didn't change materially during negotiations, with the final House bill offering roughly 2% of emission allowances to refineries that would be saddled with the responsibility for between 33% and 44% of all US GHG emissions, depending on how you slice them. Compare that to the electricity sector, which accounts for 39% of emissions but would get at least 35% of the free allowances.

Rather than going through the details of the EnSys study, which was commissioned by API, I'd like to approach this by considering how an evenly-distributed cap & trade system (or carbon tax) should reasonably be expected to affect the oil industry, which after all accounts for a major share of US emissions. You'd hardly expect it to get off scot-free. However, it's a fact that most emissions in the petroleum value chain occur when refined fuel is burned, rather than during production (extraction) or refining. The Ensys study puts the refining contribution at less than 10% of all emissions from well to wheels. Although refiners ought to see their operating costs rise under cap & trade, giving them further incentives to increase their already impressive efficiency of roughly 90% (energy out vs. energy in), the impact should properly be relatively modest. The bulk of the impact from cap & trade should manifest in the form of higher end-user prices for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, putting commensurate pressure on consumers to use less. The outcome of that reduction would fall on the marginal suppliers of refined products to the US market: foreign refiners that sent us over 3 million barrels per day last year. EnSys concludes that Waxman-Markey would have entirely the opposite result, enriching foreign refiners at the expense of the employees and owners of US facilities.

I wouldn't be surprised if the EnSys study were greeted with the customary skepticism of a finding that supports the interests of the constituency that paid for it. API and its member companies have much at stake in this debate. But if you doubt the likelihood of the scenario it describes, you need only review the regulatory history of the US refining industry and the long-term trend of our refined product imports, which have increased at double the rate of our crude oil imports. Between 1993 and 2007--before the recession axed them--net US refined product imports (after subtracting out exports) grew by a compound average rate of roughly 6% per year, compared to an average increase of 3% per year for net crude imports over the same period. This coincided with increasingly strict regulations on permits for new facilities and on refinery emissions of criteria pollutants, along with ever-tougher rules on gasoline and diesel fuel specifications, culminating in the current reformulated gasoline and ultra-low-sulfur diesel specs. With the exception of a couple of years of stellar margins late in that interval, returns on refinery investments were very poor, and the major oil companies were steadily shedding refining capacity as a bad bet. Today, even the independent refining companies that created profitable businesses by purchasing these assets at a fraction of their replacement cost are suffering from low profits.

If anything, the economic impact on the US refining industry from regulating carbon emissions could be even worse than this recent history, since it hinges on the basic chemistry of combustion itself, rather than the removal of impurities that constitute only a small percentage of their feedstock inputs, even for the highest-sulfur crudes. That could happen even with an even-handed approach to cap & trade or a carbon tax, but it would be a certainty under a system that appears designed mainly to shield utilities and their customers at the expense of the entire existing transportation fuel system. The principal means of reducing GHGs from the latter is through cuts in consumption, not more efficient refining, and even our recent low level of product imports offers the opportunity to cut our emissions from petroleum products by roughly 7% with a minimal effect on US refineries. Instead, Waxman-Markey would effectively offshore many of those refineries--and their emissions. In a world transfixed by market failures, that would constitute a regulatory failure of the first magnitude.

Read More

Why Buy a Hybrid?

Why Buy a Hybrid?

By Andi Bintang

Today people are not concerned about environmental issues. The campaign for global warming has made it clear that the planet can retaliate due to mankind's abuse. Science and technology have greatly developed over the years at the expense of the earth's natural resources and environment. Pollution is one of the major causes and with the continuing growth of the population; scientists are finding ways to save what is left.

Apart from environmental factors pollution can also greatly affect the health of the general public especially in the suburbs. Gas prices have also soared. Due to this people have turned to hybrid vehicles instead of the conventional four-door and SUV. Hybrid technology has developed greatly in the recent years.

The Hybrid

Hybrid vehicles work primarily by an electric motor powered by a rechargeable battery. It is coupled with an internal combustion engine to help it at high speeds. It also has the ability to recapture energy made from braking.

Full hybrid vehicles have computers on board to determine the best way to conserve energy and fuel. They can move using their batteries alone for power. When the vehicle is idling or coasting the engine is turned off. They can also use a combination of these power sources for efficiency. They split power paths that enable them to switch between using mechanical or electrical power.

Apart from using a different power source these vehicles can also use different fuels. They can use a mixture of petroleum and biofuels. Other hybrid vehicles can also be recharged through a standard electric wall socket.

Hybrid vehicles save on gas which leads to less greenhouse emissions. They have also been noted to reduce noise emissions. The use of electrical power decreases the wear on the engine. Contrary to what some believe their batteries are not hazardous materials and can be recycled. These batteries are also durable and rarely need replacement.

Hybrids are perfect for the suburbs. In this area you don't really need horsepower but gas mileage. Hybrids can recharge themselves when braking and only use the needed power in idle periods such as traffic. In reality you don't really need a huge amount of horsepower when driving around in the city traffic.

These vehicles also contribute to the general health of the public. Emissions don't only contribute to the greenhouse effect but also to respiratory diseases. For now, hybrid vehicles are expensive. The technology is still fairly new in the fuel dependent automobile industry.

Read More

About Hybrid

What You Need to Know about Hybrid

By Andi Bintang

Many of us don't really think much about our surroundings. In fact most of us would buy a luxury Sport Utility vehicle in a heartbeat if we could. Although there have been incessant campaigns in global warming many of us don't really pay attention to pollution emitting out of our car's exhaust pipe's. That was until gas prices started to soar and people were desperate for alternatives. Hybrid technology was new and misunderstood in the past. Visions of weird boxes on wheels came to mind. That was until the Toyota Prius came out in 1997.

The first hybrid car did not look out of this world or too space age for the common person's taste. It was just a conventional looking car that saved on gas. The hybrid technology spread slowly. Sales from the Prius and Insight were moderate. Nonetheless, the public supported the technology which led to further improvements. The Ford Escape hybrid filled the gap between looking good and doing well. It had style and practicality which became the cue for luxury hybrid cars to add to the market.

Although hybrid cars are a good choice for today, is it really worth spending a lot of money to save the environment? And how do you know which to buy amid the slew of eye candy hybrids?

Why and what hybrid to buy

Hybrids run on electric power though their motors. These motors also serve as generators that recharge batteries on board to power them for mileage. This enables the vehicle to use less fuel which leads to lower costs and reduced emissions. The internal combustion engine serves as a back up for more power at high speeds. A computer determines which and how much power will be used from the motor and the engine.

Hybrids recharge through regenerative breaking. They are perfect for driving in the city where stop and go driving is common. In the city drivers don't really need a lot of horsepower.

Other motor companies have made hybrids to add to their credentials. If you really want to be practical a compact four door sedan will do well for you instead of a hybrid SUV that cost twice as much. Luxury hybrids may do well in the long run by saving gas but spending more than $60,000 on a practical car defeats its purpose.

If you want to go green, go simple. In reality you don't need to drive a 200 horsepower vehicle.

Read More

Climate vs. Security?

In the last few years I've watched perceptions of US energy security and climate change, the two main drivers of energy policy, converge gradually toward a general sense that smart climate policy will be good for energy security, and vice versa. There's even a growing understanding that a stable climate contributes to national security, distinct from any energy considerations. However, there are still cases with strongly divergent energy security and climate change implications, and a new pipeline that will deliver crude extracted from Canadian oil sands is a prime example. The US State Department's approval of this project looks entirely appropriate and sensible, even if it conflicts with the administration's emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Like it or not--and largely because of past decisions concerning our own off-limits oil resources--Canadian oil sands have become an essential pillar of US energy security.

The "Alberta Clipper" pipeline of Enbridge, Inc. could eventually bring up to 800,000 barrels per day of Canadian crude oil to refineries in the US Midwest, as oil sands production in Alberta Province continues to grow. This oil would displace imports from the Middle East and West Africa, which absent oil sands are likely to grow, in spite of increasing biofuel production and higher fuel economy standards for new cars. That's because output from Mexico, our other main local supplier, is dropping sharply, while higher production from Brazil may only offset declines in Venezuela, which has grossly mismanaged its oil sector. Oil sands are already compensating for the steady decline in conventional Canadian oil production, and without them our imports from our largest oil supplier couldn't be sustained at their current level of roughly 10% of US oil consumption--equating to about five times the energy content of current US ethanol production. There is simply no realistic energy scenario for the next 20 years in which we could forgo imports of Canadian crude produced from oil sands, without a corresponding increase in imports from the Middle East.

The main concern cited about oil sands relates to its higher emissions of greenhouse gases, compared to conventional oil production. This is indisputable, though it's important to put those higher emissions into perspective, while also recognizing that technology and an increased Canadian emphasis on these emissions should reduce this disparity over time. The most recent study I've seen on the subject indicates that although the processes for producing useful liquids from Canadian oil sands result in roughly three times the upstream greenhouse gas emissions of the average barrel of US supply, the well-to-wheels lifecycle emissions are only 17% higher than average. In either case, most of the emissions from oil occur when it is burned in vehicles or other end-uses, not during production. While not insignificant, the excess emissions from oil sands can be offset less expensively elsewhere in our energy economy, particularly if the ultimate US climate legislation gives the utility sector the right incentives to cut its CO2 emissions, which are roughly a fifth larger than those from oil consumed in transportation.

Greenhouse gas emissions aren't the only environmental impact associated with oil sands, but we lack any reasonable or consistent way to assess the trade-off between the others and the potential impacts--physical or aesthetic--of increasing our own oil production from the significant resources we have placed off-limits to exploitation, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the outer continental shelves of California and other states. In effect, American policy makers and consumers have implicitly chosen to ramp up oil output in Alberta to spare other areas of greater concern to American voters. Such decisions have left us reliant on this Canadian energy resource, the incremental greenhouse gas consequences of which can be offset elsewhere. The State Department appears to have reached a similar conclusion.

Read More

What is a Hybrid Vehicle?

What is a Hybrid Vehicle?

By Andi Bintang

Mankind has made a huge impact on the environment. Although science and technology are continually progressing, it is also the cause of the planet's deterioration. Natural resources are being depleted to sustain the demand of a growing population. Although we have been gifted with logic and reasoning we are also prone to excess and carelessness that will inevitably bring about our demise. Although eradicated species and holes in the ozone layer can't be restored, scientists are finding ways to help the environment and maintain whatever it has left.

One of the main contributors of pollution is cars. Transportation is a necessity so this problem is not easy to solve. Scientists and automotive companies have come up with a solution for environmental conscious customers. Hybrid vehicles were created to answer environmental issues and provide alternatives for customers.

What is a hybrid?

A hybrid vehicle is a type of automobile that depends on different power sources other than fuel (ex. diesel, petrol). These vehicles are either powered by internal combustion engines, electric motors, or a fuel cell and a rechargeable energy storage system. These types of power sources can be applied to different type of vehicles for public and private transportation.

Automotive companies today are continually developing this technology to be able to cater environmental friendly cars and deliver quality brand vehicles at the same time. They are turning to popular type of vehicles such as SUV's to expand the appeal of hybrid technology.

Hybrid vehicles were designed to reduce emissions and save fuel. With the continuing rise of gas prices and global warming campaigns, more people are searching for alternatives to decrease dependence on fuel. This technology will also contribute to the general health of the public because car emissions pose a threat to one's health.

These vehicles are able to achieve this purpose in four ways. It shuts down the diesel engine during stops or idle periods. It has a battery storage that enables it to store and reuse the energy that it has recaptured. It's able to recapture energy that is usually wasted while breaking. It relies on two power sources, the diesel engine and the electric motors to reduce fuel consumption during peak power usage.

This type of vehicle is very convenient for traffic ridden areas. It also reduces noise emissions when the vehicle is operating at low speeds. Hybrid vehicles are practical and convenient cars for everyday living in the city.

Read More

Vehicle Hybridization

Vehicle Hybridization

By Andi Bintang

Anyone can choose to ignore the incessant global warming campaigns. Most of us simply forget that we live on earth which is slowly deteriorating because of our actions. But all of us cannot tolerate the continuing rise in gas prices. Customers today are looking for alternatives to save on fuel costs. Fortunately hybrid vehicles have given us the option to save gas and help the environment. Hybrids are no longer restricted to a conventional 4 door sedan. Hybrid SUVs are also out on the market today to meet the demands of the customers.

Ever since the Toyota Prius came out, other automobile companies have devoted their research in developing their own hybrid technology. Ford and Honda have their own hybrid system incorporated into new models. Hybrid vehicles are expensive for now but development in the future will make them more accessible and affordable for the general public. The technology is still going through development to be able to compete with the fuel dominated automobile industry.

How hybrid are you?

Hybrids have different types. Their structures may differ in some ways but generally they have a rechargeable battery on board or an electric motor that works with an internal combustion engine to move the vehicle. In other vehicles they can operate a rechargeable battery alone but there are many limitations to this type which has prevented it from being widely manufactured. These vehicles are primarily moved by an electric motor and only use the diesel engine for high speeds.

There are different degrees of hybridization. Full or strong hybrids that can run just by using an engine, its batteries are a combination of both. Examples of this are the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape. These two vehicles can move by battery power alone and be assisted by their diesel engines when needed.

Power assist hybrid uses its engine for primary power, coupled with an electric motor to boost torque. The electric motor is connected to a power train and is mounted between the engine and the transmission.

Mild hybrids are conventional vehicles with huge starter motors. This allows the engine to be turned off during idle periods and coasting but still enable the vehicle to start quickly. Most people do not consider this type to be a hybrid but it can still save fuel costs. It's just not as efficient as full hybrids.

Hybrid vehicles are perfect for suburban environments where there is a lot of traffic. If you really look at it the most important is not horsepower but gas mileage.

Read More

Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Toyota Highlander Hybrid

By Andi Bintang

Sport utility vehicles have been famous for their features and looks. When they came out, the vehicle became a favorite among celebrities and people were more than willing to buy it. Unfortunately a lot of people are also against it for its size and fuel consumption. It does have the power but at the expense of your wallet and environmental conscience (that is if you have one). Fortunately Ford has decided to follow in the Footsteps of the Toyota Prius. The first ever hybrid car sold on the market.

Due to soaring gas prices, the new technology was supported and Toyota dominated the hybrid automobile market. Ford made a hybrid version of their Ford Escape which started the SUV hybrid. After the successful launch of the Ford Escape, Toyota decided to jump on the bandwagon and created the Highlander Hybrid SUV.

A step up from the Prius

Although it is not clear if Toyota earned a profit from the Prius, they still continued to develop and manufacture hybrids. Sales didn't pick up until 2004 and when other motor companies decided to make hybrids of their own it was clear that the technology was worth investing in. Toyota then decided to make a hybrid version of their commercially successful Highlander.

The highlander, like other Toyota's creations has the hybrid synergy system but with a new power train to be able to sustain load carrying requirements of the SUV. It is a formidable propulsion management system in hybrid technology that was also used in the Ford Escape. It has a 3.3 liter V6 engine and two permanent magnet electric motors with a peak power of 270 horsepower (combination of gas engine and electric motor).

The highlander comes in front wheel and four wheel drive. It has daytime running lights, power windows, tilt steering wheel, door locks, cruise control, and a radio and CD sound system with six speakers. It also has a navigational system that monitors on which and how much power it will use from the gas engine and the electric motor. The highlander is also an example of a full hybrid and can run off the electric motor alone.

The highlander, like other Toyota hybrids has regenerative braking, continuous variable transmission, anti-lock system, and Vehicle Dynamics Integrated System. It has the advanced airbag system for the driver and the passengers. The highlander can be expensive but it will be beneficial in the long run.

Read More

Toyota Camry Hybrid

Toyota Camry Hybrid

By Andi Bintang

There are many hybrid vehicles on the market today. Unfortunately due to the unique technology they don't come cheap, developments and experiments with high powered engines made them more expensive. The perks provided by luxury cars come at a price. If being environmental friendly is this heavy on the wallet then why buy?

Hybrid vehicles may be an instant shock to the wallet but they are beneficial in the long run. Apart from SUVs and luxury vehicles there are also compact four doors that may provide an alternative for the average Joe. Following the success of the Camry, Toyota has decided to give the model a fresh new trim by turning it into a hybrid. Using Toyota's latest hybrid technology, the Camry may provide to be an alternative to expensive hybrids.

Camry facelift

The original Camry didn't give its owner many problems. It's priced right, big and powerful enough for the average Joe. With soaring gas prices, more people are willing to support and pay for hybrid technology. This prompted Toyota to hybridize its Camry to give customers a break from expensive sedans and Sports Utility vehicle hybrids.

Like other hybrids today, the Camry is equipped with a gasoline engine and electric motor combo. It has a 192 horsepower and runs at 38 miles per gallon. It still has the same accessories as of the previous Camry like alloy wheels, daytime headlights, power heated mirrors, six CD changer on the dashboard, eight way power and eight stereo speakers. The CD changer is compatible with a mp3.

It's still equipped with standard safety features such as airbags in the front, on the seat mounts for side impact, at the side curtain, and for the driver's knee.

The main difference is additional features. The hybrid Camry has a push button start system, Smart Entry keyless locking, power door locks, anti-lock out windows and the air-conditioning relies on the electric motor. It also has anti-lock breaking system and Toyota's Vehicle Dynamics Integrated System. The latter has traction and stability control with other electronic devices for vehicle control.

The Camry may not look as stylish as other luxury sedans and SUVs. But if you are looking for an affordable car that has been tried and tested this would be a good car for you. You don't really need lots of horsepower for city driving. The Camry provides the best of both worlds while still being able to be accessible for the average Joe.

Read More

The Climate-Industrial Complex

An emailed link I received the other day led to a fascinating article featuring a truly eyebrow-raising statistic. According to the Center for Public Integrity the number of companies and groups now lobbying the US Congress on the subject of climate change has passed the 1,000 mark with room to spare, standing at 1,150 as of the second quarter of 2009. Now, in one sense that figure shouldn't surprise anyone; the pending legislation on greenhouse gas emissions would affect nearly everyone in America, directly or indirectly, and it would be remarkable if numerous firms and organizations didn't want to help shape the rules that will govern our future emissions. But let's not kid ourselves. There's more than altruism behind such activity, and the last few Congresses have encouraged it with an approach that turns important legislation such as this into a potential bonanza for favored sectors and groups. In addition to its primary economy-revamping aspects, the climate bill puts hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits, subsidies, and direct research, development and deployment investment up for grabs, while levying massive sums to pay for it all. Deft lobbying could yield huge rewards or savings.

Browsing through the search function on the Center for Public Integrity climate change site turned up a fascinating array of companies and groups lobbying the Congress on this issue. Traditional energy firms are well represented, including both resource/refining companies and a large number of electricity suppliers and their trade associations. In a sign of the growing strength of the renewable energy sector the list includes not just the expected alphabet soup of "trades" such as AWEA, ACORE, RFA, and SEIA, but also individual biofuel, wind, solar, fuel cell, and synthetic fuels companies. If this fight drags out, or the SEC follows through on threats to force companies to disclose their potential climate change liabilities, the list of participants seems likely to grow even longer.

Nor is it just industrial concerns seeking to protect their interests or capture a piece of the new pie; organizations ranging from AARP to the Water Research Foundation and including, of all things, the National Turfgrass Federation want to be heard on this issue. Then we have agricultural interests, who as the article describes achieved a very valuable save for the ethanol industry in the House at the climax of the Waxman-Markey negotiations. If you're interested in seeing who else is represented and how much they've put into this fight, I encourage you to browse this useful database and its pre-set reports.

I don't blame companies for chasing the plums that Congress is offering. There's too much at stake for many to eschew that pursuit on principle. I do wonder, however, whether this could possibly be the best way to embark on what looks like the most important change in our economy in the last several decades. The outcome now rests with the US Senate. If it is willing to challenge the House over a distorted system for allocating free emission allowances, and the agricultural lobby on requiring corn ethanol to demonstrate that it actually improves global greenhouse gas emissions, compared to petroleum-derived fuels, while rationalizing a plethora of marginally-related provisions, then we might get a climate bill that puts a price on emissions without contorting the economy more than the minimum amount necessary to achieve that end. Otherwise, we will end up with legislation that will tell us more about which sectors and groups wielded the most influence in Washington, DC this year than about how best to cut emissions.

Note: Energy Outlook will be on vacation for the next week or so. New postings should resume on 7/21/09.

Read More

Top Hybrid Vehicle Myths

Top Hybrid Vehicle Myths

By Andi Bintang

Hybrid vehicles have created a lot of hype. As a result, misinformation is all over the place. It is time to separate facts from fiction and clarify some of the myths created by the stir.

1. You can save money when you buy a hybrid car. While you can definitely save money on gas, the amount of the hybrid car itself can set you back. Hybrid cars are not very expensive though. But if you are thinking that you can make back your investment, you got the wrong concept of buying a hybrid car. You buy a hybrid car because you want to reduce the demand for fuel, to help save the environment, and want to earn the bragging rights of one of the first to drive a hybrid.
2. Hybrid batteries need to be replaced. The high cost of hybrid battery replacement is one of the main reasons why some may avoid buying a hybrid car. The fact is Toyota has claimed that there is not a single battery replacement reported due to wearing out or malfunction. Moreover, manufacturers issue a standard 80,000 and 100,000 miles warranty for hybrid batteries depending on the location of the dealer- though that does not mean that you have to replace your batteries after 100,000 miles.
3. Hybrid vehicles are very expensive to maintain. Maintaining a hybrid car costs almost the same as maintaining a conventional gasoline-engine car. According to Honda website, the 5-year maintenance and repair costs for the Honda Civic Hybrid and Toyota Prius are $2,056 and $1,969 respectively; while the Honda Civic Si Sedan 6-Spd MT has a 5-year maintenance and repair cost of $2,137.
4. Hybrid cars are the only solution to environmental problems. The number of hybrid vehicles on US roads may hit the 1 million mark sometime in 2008 but that doesn't mean that is has solved the problems of the environment. There are approx. 200 million cars in the US that consumes roughly a total of 400 million gallons of fuel each day. Clearly, we have a long way to go.
5. Hybrid vehicles are small and underpowered. If you limit your thinking to the Civic Hybrid's 1.3 L engine and disregard the 20-hp electric motor, then you may think that hybrid vehicles are small and underpowered. Think of the Toyota Camry with its 2.4 L engine or the Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid with its 6.0 L Vortec V8 engine. Hybrid cars are not only powerful, they are big.

Read More

The Influence of "Peak Oil"

An article in the Washington Post this weekend, together with a must-read interview in The Independent, a paper I used to read regularly when I lived in London, reminded me of an observation I made several years ago concerning the similarities between Peak Oil and Y2K. Having spent a fair amount of time in my former corporate role planning for the serious outcomes the latter might have produced, I don't intend this as a slam on the former. Without rehashing the technical arguments behind either phenomenon, it's worth spending a few minutes thinking about the consequences of a growing belief that we might be only a few years away from the end of oil, as we know it. Whatever one's take on the validity of the Peak Oil argument, it has already evoked noteworthy consequences, both positive and negative.

A week ago The Independent ran an interview with Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA). In it Dr. Birol repeated a warning he has issued previously, that higher-than-expected decline rates in the world's mature oil fields and "chronic underinvestment by oil-producing countries" are setting up a severe oil supply crunch within the next few years, as a recovering global economy resumes its growth in energy consumption. It's not hard to imagine the "green shoots" withering if oil reprised its 2007-8 march from around $70/bbl to nearly $150. From the supply side, I have little doubt that this is correct, for reasons I've mentioned frequently in the past: restrictions on access to resources, routine diversion of national oil company profits into social budgets at the expense of reinvestment, chronic project delays, and the inherently long timelags between discovery and production. I'm less convinced that the demand side of the equation would play out the same as last time, with that experience so fresh in our minds. At the very least, though, Dr. Birol describes a highly credible scenario, and belief in its likelihood could have far-reaching consequences, good and bad.

On the plus side, our reactions needn't go to the extent of the author of a Washington Post piece, searching for self-sufficiency on a small farm in New Mexico, to have a beneficial impact on consumption patterns. Our best chance of avoiding the apocalyptic outcomes that Mr. Fine fears is to live our lives on the assumption that the days of cheap oil are indeed past, and that it will be more expensive in the future. From initial reports of the transactions involved in the Cash for Clunkers program, many people already sense this, despite gasoline prices that remain one-third below where they were at this time last year. And while I certainly don't advocate survivalism as an indicated strategy for individuals, everyone who chooses to downshift in this way stretches out the supplies available for the rest of us, making the transition to more sustainable energy sources more manageable. Merely being prepared mentally for another oil crisis might reduce the likelihood of counterproductive behavior, such as hoarding, should we find ourselves in one.

Unfortunately, these psychological effects also point to the main downside of a widespread belief in imminent Peak Oil. While I remain unconvinced of the role of speculation in last year's spike in physical oil prices, to whatever extent the s-word was driving prices on the oil futures exchanges it was underpinned by a pervasive mentality that we were experiencing something truly unprecedented, backed by hints that oil supplies had already reached their natural limit. If you believe in the inevitability of Peak Oil, today's oil futures prices must look like a buy--a steal, even at levels over $90 for delivery in 2016 or 2017.

There are many good reasons to invest in the alternative energy sources that would help mitigate a true Peak Oil crisis down the road, and that hold the seeds of eventually escaping from that threat entirely. The real mark of success for our various renewable energy, nuclear renaissance, and energy efficiency efforts would be the eventual arrival of a peak in global oil output without crippling the economy. However, the dark side of Peak Oil is a self-defeating notion that no amount of increased investment in new oil production can make any worthwhile difference in this outcome.

If the IEA is right, we certainly can't escape this pickle by drilling alone. However, it's equally true that if oil production began to drop in the next few years, no other strategy, by itself or in combination--not even dramatic improvements in energy efficiency--could make a big enough difference to avoid a serious, economy-wrenching crisis. Many of the cars on the road in 2015 will either be those already on the road today or others very similar to them, if a bit thriftier with fuel. Nor could we electrify more than a small fraction of the global car park within that timeframe, let alone a US car fleet of 245 million vehicles at a time when sales (and thus turnover) have collapsed. Double today's biofuel output--which in that timeframe mainly means more corn ethanol, with all its problems--and we still won't have made a big enough dent.

Inescapably we will need as much more oil as we could eke out, because the whole world would be going through this transition at once. If we're saving the oil in ANWR, offshore California, and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico for a rainy day, then imminent Peak Oil would be that deluge, and it takes 5-10 years to go from bidding on leases to full production. Even if this bought us only an extra 1 million barrels per day--Mr. Pickens apparently thinks twice that--the value of that to the US in a world of $200 oil would be $73 billion/year in today's dollars, along with the possible preservation of critical services if the shortfall that went beyond a mere price spike. The US can't make up for the problem of "chronic underinvestment by oil-producing countries" of which Dr. Birol rightly warns, but we could certainly exacerbate it through deliberate under-investment in our own oil capacity.

Read More

Combustion Engine

The Internal Combustion Engine

By Andi Bintang

The engines in vehicles is a rather broad but interesting subject. People may be amazed to know that the ones currently in use today were drawn on several hundreds of blueprints before they were distributed to the market. The present models are the result of over a century worth of brainstorming and experience and will further influence the models of the future.

What is the ICE?

ICE stands for internal combustion engine wherein the combustion of fuel and an oxidizer occurs. The combustion chamber is the space where everything happens causing an exothermic reaction that produces gas at a high pressure and temperature. The expanding hot gases will directly put pressure on solid engine parts causing them to move. Pistons, rotors or the engine itself then begins movement which propels the entire vehicle.

The very first models of the ICE ran on an air/fuel mixture rather than compression. The initial part of the intake stroke sucks or blows in the mixture. Modern ICEs already incorporates in-cylinder compression. The engines were used in a variety of methods and industries like generators, boats, aircrafts and most particularly, automobiles.

The Operation

The internal combustion engine operates using a four-stroke cycle or the Otto cycle. The cycle involves four phases namely: induction, compression, power and exhaust. All of these aim to create an exothermic chemical process to start vehicle propulsion. During induction, oxygen or other oxidizers are introduced into the cylinder to act with the fuel. Compression then begins as the gases start a reaction that continuously increase temperature and pressure within the cylinder.

When enough pressure is applied on the corresponding engine parts, the engine begins to gain power through movement coming from direct force application. The aftermath of the entire compression process will lead to exhaustion of byproducts like carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen wastes. These gases are freely emitted into the atmosphere. The combustion process is started through engine ignition using the spark ignition method or the compression ignition system.

Where Does Gasoline Come In?

There are electric/gasoline-type systems that use a combination of lead-acid battery plus an induction coil to create a high-voltage electrical spark. The spark will then ignite the mix of air and fuel within the cylinder. The battery is rechargeable even during operation through an alternator or generator driven by the engine itself. Gasoline engines get an air and gasoline mixture to be compressed to less than 185 psi. The spark plug ignites the mixture during compression within the cylinder.

As for diesel engines, these require only heat and pressure produced by the engine during the compression process for ignition. Diesel compression is approximately three times higher compared to a gasoline engine. Diesel engines use air only. Some diesel fuel is sprayed into the cylinder with the use of a fuel injector just before peak compression to start ignition immediately. HCCI engines also require only heat and pressure but take in air and fuel. This process makes diesel and HCCI engines more prone to cold starts.

The Polluting Effects

Combustion products or the hot gases ignited and burnt inside the engine will have higher amounts of energy compared to the compressed fuel and air mixture. After available energy are used up to drive the engine pistons, remaining combustion products will be vented or exhausted through a valve or the exhaust outlet to bring back the piston in its original state also called TDC. Any heat which is not used up will become a waste product due to be removed from the engine via a liquid or air cooling system.

Air pollution emissions then result from incomplete combustion of carbonaceous fuel. Examples of engine byproducts are carbon monoxide, soot, nitrogen wastes, sulfur and uncombusted hydrocarbons. These also result if the products did not operate near the stoichiometric ratio required for effective combustion. The fuel would not have burnt very well due to factors like cool cylinder walls or lack of air. This is also known as quenching of the flame.

Both gasoline and diesel engines emit harmful gases that can be dangerous to humans as well as the environment. The greenhouse gases start trapping hot air within the atmosphere instead of allowing them to exit to space leading to global warming. The rise of the ICE or internal combustion engine finally showed its major flaw which is pollution.

Read More

The Best of Both Worlds Hybrid

The Best of Both Worlds

By Andi Bintang

Hybrid vehicles are slowly taking over the automotive market. Environmental issues and rising gas prices have prompted scientists and companies to provide alternatives. These vehicles provide an option for consumers and reduce dependence from fuel (ex. Diesel, petrol).

Hybrid technology has been steadily developing over the past centuries. Although diesel will always be a dominant power source for vehicles, other sources are also being utilized to reduce harmful impacts on the environment and health of the general public. This gives hybrid vehicles the edge over conventional vehicles today.

It is no doubt that mankind is not only depleting the planet of its natural resources but also causing its deterioration. The development of science and technology has made Hollywood sci-fi movie sets more feasible than we thought but it also brings a lot of consequences. The development of other power sources such as vehicles and fuels are beneficial in the long run to sustain life on earth.

Hybrid electric vehicles

Hybrid electric vehicles work by using an internal combustion engine which uses fuel and a rechargeable energy storage system. By using the combination of these two power sources the vehicle will be able to decrease fuel consumption, reduce pollution and noise emissions. It is different from the hybrid vehicle drive trains which uses a fuel power source and a rechargeable energy storage system.

Diesel engines are typically used to generate power for hybrid vehicles. These vehicles can also use biofuels which are renewable sources of energy. This reduces the dependence on petroleum for fuel. Decreased use of fuel leads to lesser emissions and lower costs.

These vehicles are able to recapture wasted energy and turn off the diesel engine during low output and idle periods such as traffic. The internal combustion engines are also much lighter and efficient when compared to conventional cars. The technology reduces the wear on the engine and the brakes. Contrary to popular belief hybrid electric vehicles batteries are not hazardous wastes. They can be recycled and reused.

These vehicles are suitable in urban environments where traffic is normal and there are more people in the streets. Emissions from cars are also harmful on the health of the general public.

These vehicles provide a practical alternative for environment conscious consumers. Gas prices, environment and health issues are all being addressed by this technology. Hopefully in the future these types of vehicles will be more accessible all over the world.

Read More

Plug and Pay

Yesterday's photo-op at an Indiana RV factory for the purpose of announcing more federal assistance for the electric vehicle industry came just a few days after Nissan debuted its Leaf electric car, which might become the first mass-market EV in the world. Cars powered by batteries alone or a combination of batteries and conventional engines look like one of the most promising long-term solutions to the dual problems of energy security and climate change. But precisely because of their potential to have such a large impact, it's vital that the economic arrangements for their energy consumption are put on the right basis from the start. Among other things, that means avoiding the temptation to provide free public recharging for them. If we get this wrong, we risk negating much of the energy and greenhouse gas benefit these cars offer. We could also inadvertently deter the substantial private investment in recharging infrastructure that would be needed to make EVs fully competitive with cars running on liquid fuels.

Against the backdrop of $2.4 billion in new subsidies for EV and battery manufacturers and federal electric vehicle tax credits ranging up to $7,500 per car, my concerns about collecting for the electricity actually used by the first few mass-production EVs might seem disproportionate or even eccentric. After all, how much juice can a few battery cars use, compared to our factories, office buildings, and billions of home appliances? Initially, very little and eventually still less than you might imagine. If every vehicle-mile traveled in the US were driven in an EV averaging 3 miles per kilowatt-hour (kWh), US electricity consumption would only increase by about 27%. The impact on emissions is much harder to assess, however, since it depends heavily on which generating technologies deliver the power used by EVs, and that in turn depends to a large degree on the time of day when they are recharged. Charge up at 3 AM, and you might be getting zero-emission wind power that would otherwise go to waste. Charge up at 3 PM, and you are almost certainly going to be drawing on a gas turbine somewhere--probably a fairly inefficient "peaking" unit--or a coal power plant. To put that in perspective, let's look at the emissions from two comparable cars, under both scenarios.

For our baseline, consider a Prius-type hybrid that gets all of its energy from the fuel that goes into its tank. At 50 mpg, its emissions from gasoline amount to roughly 40 lb. of CO2 per 100 miles. For an EV getting 4 miles per kWh and recharged with wind power, they would be essentially zero. However, the same car recharging during mid-peak or peak electricity demand would trigger power plant emissions between 35 lb. ("peaker" turbine @ 12,000 BTU/kWh on natural gas) and 53 lb. (average US coal plant) for every 100 miles. In other words, while the hidden emissions from an EV would in the worst case still be lower than those of the average car in America today (around 80 lb. CO2/100 mi.), they could be substantially higher than from an ordinary hybrid that never plugs in. So if we want EVs to repay the substantial national investment we're making in them by reducing our fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, we will want them to recharge as little as possible during daylight hours, particularly in the late afternoon, at least until wind, solar and geothermal power account for a much higher share of our annual electricity generation than the 1.6% they contributed last year.

Paying for the electricity to recharge plug-in electric vehicles involves major cultural and behavioral shifts. The price of gasoline is one of the most visible, ubiquitous and transparent prices in our society. You stand at the pump and see the dollars going into your tank. But when you recharge an EV at home, unless you have a separate electric meter, you're going to have to sift through a power bill with a welter of distribution, fuel and non-fuel supply charges plus various state and local taxes and fees to see what it actually cost. At the current national average rate of around $0.11/kWh, a typical driver might only see an extra $27 a month, a big savings compared to the typical gasoline bill even at the current $2.55/gal. The extra power cost could easily get lost in seasonal usage fluctuations and rate changes. The impact would likely be more noticeable for utility customers in places with sharply graduated rate structures or time-of-use rates. For many people, however, even if they don't charge up using someone else's electricity--their employer's, their town's, or the local Starbucks'--it could look nearly free.

That would have implications for companies that are building vehicle recharging infrastructure that would need to recoup their investment on a per-kWh basis or, like Better Place, charges per mile of usage in a manner similar to cellphone service contracts. Those investments won't happen and the companies involved will go out of business if consumers regard the electricity for their new plug-in vehicles as effectively free and resist paying as they now do for fuel.

How this will all turn out is anyone's guess at this point, and I emphasize "guess." Until there are at least hundreds of thousands of these vehicles on the road, in the hands of many ordinary consumers and not just unrepresentative deep-green or "gear-head" early adopters, we can only make assumptions about how they will really be used. Still, it seems safe to predict that recharging that was free or regarded as free would get used more, resulting in more trips, more miles traveled, and eventually more energy consumption and emissions.

Read More

Electric Hybrid Vehicles Gasoline

Parts of the Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Vehicles

By Andi Bintang

The typical gasoline powered car contains a combustion engine, fuel tank, and transmission, whereas with the gasoline-electric hybrid vehicle, it contains the following parts:

Gasoline Engine. The engine of a hybrid car is relatively smaller than its gasoline-only counterpart. This is because of two reasons: (1) the car doesn't require a big engine since there it uses another source of power, (2) a bigger engine means larger displacement, heavier weight, and poor fuel economy; since most hybrid cars are designed for maximum fuel efficiency, the engine has to be small. (Diesel engines for diesel-electric hybrid vehicles.)

Fuel Tank. The fuel tank is the energy storage device of the gasoline engine. The size of the fuel tank on a hybrid car may be reduced since the car has to accommodate the size of the batteries.

Transmission. Most hybrid cars use the same transmission as a conventional car.

Batteries. The batteries of a hybrid car are the energy storage device for the electric motor. The batteries perform 2 functions: they send energy to the electric motor and store energy that is being captured by the generator.

Electric motor. A hybrid electric motor is very sophisticated. It can perform as a motor as well as a generator. This means, the electric motor can draw the energy from the battery to accelerate the car or to assist the gasoline engine during acceleration. The electric motor can also act as a generator by slowing the car down and store the energy back to the battery.

Generator. The generator of a hybrid car is much the same as the electric motor but it only acts to produce electric power. Generators are mostly used on series hybrids.

Hybrid electric cars can be parallel or series. Parallel hybrid cars can use the electric motor or gasoline engine to drive the transmission which turns the wheels. Or, it can use both the electric motor and the gasoline engine to drive the transmission and turn the wheels.

Series hybrids, as opposed to parallel hybrids never directly use the gasoline engine to power the vehicle. Instead, the engine turns the generator which either powers the electric motor that drives the transmission or changes the batteries.

Be it a parallel or series structure, the hybrid vehicle uses two sources of energy to provide the same performance we expect from a passenger car and increasing fuel economy at the same time.

Read More

Clunkers 1, Critics 0

I have to admit to being somewhat bemused at the apparent success of the "Cash for Clunkers" scheme, which burned through its initial $1 billion of funding so rapidly that Congress is still scrambling to find more money for it before leaving town. Although the final version of the program wasn't quite along the lines of the idea I supported back in January, it appears to have produced much more useful results than most critics predicted when it looked as if it would mainly move Americans out of old SUVs and into new but minimally-thriftier ones. Given its popularity and the boost it's provided the flagging car industry at just the right time, I very much hope the Senate will pass an extension before escaping the August heat and humidity here.

Let me briefly focus on a few key points concerning the program and its funding. If the report I saw in Bloomberg is correct in showing an average fuel economy improvement from 15.8 mpg for the clunkers that were junked to 25.4 mpg for the new cars that are replacing them, that works out to an impressive annual fuel savings of around 280 gallons for the average driver. That's more than the average Prius driver uses in total. Aggregate that across approximately a quarter-million new cars and it works out to 70 million gallons per year--impressive-sounding but still a relative drop in the bucket in a fuel market of 138 billion gallons per year. The corresponding CO2 reduction would be around 700,000 tons per year, which if you figure the cars removed from the road by this program likely only had a few more years of high-intensity usage left in them yields a CO2 abatement cost in the region of $475/ton. As climate policy, this wins no prizes.

However, despite the immense seriousness of that issue, climate surely can't be the only lens through which to view a program such as this. In particular, when you examine the way the House of Representatives came up with the $2 billion to stretch it through the end of September, it is clear that they viewed it as an extension to--or more properly an acceleration of--the federal economic stimulus. Their bill, which is a model of brevity and simplicity, shifted $2 billion from a $6 billion appropriation for DOE loan guarantees to advanced energy projects. Considering that the DOE still has yet to dole out all the money originally appropriated for this purpose when it was funded under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and that their highest-profile decision so far was to turn down an application from a major nuclear fuel processing project in Ohio, it seems fair to say that Cash for Clunkers will get this money into the economy vastly quicker than under a stimulus program that has taken its own sweet time about stimulating anything.

As New York Times columnist David Brooks described Cash for Clunkers in last Friday's weekly segment with Mark Shields on the News Hour, "It's costing some billions of dollars, but it's actually temporary, timely and targeted, so I'm all for it." Despite the program's reported administrative glitches, Mr. Shields liked it, too. That may be as close to a bi-partisan consensus as we are likely to get all summer.

Read More

Select the Right Hybrid

How to Select the Right Hybrid for You

By Andi Bintang
Planning to go green and buy a hybrid? You have to know a few things first to make sure that you're getting an efficient one that best suits your needs. Hybrid vehicles come in many forms today and also operate through various means and mechanisms. Here are some guidelines which will help you select the right one.

What Technologies are Available?

1. Idle-off capability is when the engine automatically shuts down when the hybrid vehicle is braking, idling or coasting. The engine can also easily turn back on once the driver releases the brake and steps on the accelerator.
2. Regenerative braking is when the electric motor takes over when the car is slowing down. It also doubles as a generator in which energy lost while the hybrid vehicle is braking can be converted into electric power that recharges the battery.
3. Power assist and engine downsizing is when the electric motor kicks in to help move the car during acceleration. The size of the engine is virtually smaller since both the electric motor and engine combine in providing power.
4. Electric-only is when the electric motor solely provides power for the vehicle when running at low speeds or when starting.
5. Extended battery-electric range is when the electric motor can provide power for the vehicle when running over a distance of 20 to 60 miles. Afterwards, the battery can easily be recharged by plugging into an external electric power source. The gasoline engine kicks in after the range has been covered by the electric motor.

Learn how to define the type of hybrid vehicle you are getting. Mild hybrids use the first three technologies mentioned earlier while full hybrids use the first four. There are also plug-in hybrid vehicles that use all five but are not yet available to the general public.

There are muscle hybrids that come in the form of SUVs which are more cost-effective and environmentally friendly compared to their conventional counterparts. Some hybrid vehicles may use only one or two technologies but still aim to improve mileage and ecological effects.

Questions to Ask

Is it fuel efficient? What is the average range that the electric motor can cover before the gasoline engine kicks in? Does it have idle-off capability? Check the gas mileage and engine size to determine if the hybrid vehicle you are getting can truly help you save more. Some hybrid vehicles are very mild in which a minor technology may only be incorporated. Saving even 1 to 2 gallons of fuel a day more can be quite cost-effective.

Is it environmentally friendly? Check the emission of the vehicle. Hybrids should have very low or zero emission which minimizes the risk of exhausting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Find out the electric motor capabilities since these are the times when gasoline byproducts are prevented and reduced. There are various sources of power available which reduce pollutants like fuel cells, hydrogen and electricity. Find out if any of these are incorporated in your vehicle.

What are its other features? Check the interior and exterior of the hybrid vehicle just as you would when buying a conventional one. Determine if the size is right for your or your family, determine the quality of the materials used if the overall structure is safe for highway driving and compare the advantages and key features with other models. Some hybrids don't look as stylish as gas models but there are also hybrids that look exactly like their conventional counterparts.

How much is it? The initial sum of buying a hybrid vehicle is usually higher compared to conventional cars. However, you will discover that you can easily make up for the initial cost by saving more on fuel. Again, you need to check the mileage, rate of consumption and possible tax deductions to see if the hybrid can really be cost-effective in the years to come. Also consider repair and maintenance expenses in the future.

Advantages to Look for When Selecting

The United States Federal government provides significant tax breaks to individuals who opt for hybrid vehicles. The tax break will depend on the tax bracket once the buyer sends a file. There are states that provide special parking areas as well for hybrid vehicles so drivers get to save more on parking fees. Some insurance policies may provide special offers to owners of hybrids on repair and maintenance too.

There are SULEVs or super ultra low-emission vehicles, ULEVs or ultra low-emission vehicles and PZEVs or partial zero emission vehicles that are very clean and quiet. Drivers get to enjoy smooth and peaceful driving without the environmental hazards and risks. Some of the largest automobile manufacturers are greatly investing in hybrids with very stylish and powerful models that can go up against the best gasoline-powered ones.

Read More

"Over a Barrel" - Part II

Picking up where I left off in Friday's posting addressing the issues raised by ABC's recent "Over a Barrel" report, concerning what Americans ought to know about oil, let's turn to the products that we get from it. Over the course of a century and a half of production--this month marks the sesquicentennial of Drake's well--petroleum has provided us with a cornucopia of fuels, lubricants, and raw materials for industry, many of which grew out of the search for substitutes for other, scarcer commodities or the availability of low-value byproducts from earlier, less-sophisticated refining techniques. In recent years, however, we've acquired a greater awareness of oil's adverse consequences, and it has attracted its first serious competition in many decades in its primary transportation fuels market.

The gasoline we put in our cars, the diesel that fuels trucks and buses and heats many homes, especially in the Northeast, and the jet fuel we can sometimes smell when the plane on which we're traveling has just refueled together accounted for 74% of the 19.5 million barrels per day of petroleum products consumed in the US last year. Throw in propane, lubricants, asphalt, petrochemical feedstocks and solvents, and you're up to around 90%, with most of the remainder coming out as heavy fuel oil for ships, petroleum coke (a solid, coal-like fuel,) and the fuel used by refineries in their processing. The average US refinery is 90% efficient, meaning that 90% of the energy that goes into it comes out in the products it sells, while the other 10% is consumed along the way. Greenhouse gas emissions follow a similar pattern, with the majority occurring not during processing but in the subsequent use of the products.

That's a crucial factor in the effort to reduce emissions. In the recent estimate of last year's US CO2 emissions, nearly 80% of oil's 42% share of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels came from the combustion of transportation fuels. That means that by far the largest opportunities to reduce emissions from oil are associated with vehicle efficiency, not changes in refinery processes, which are already quite efficient. So while reducing direct refinery emissions by 1/3 would only cut total oil-related emissions by about 3%, increasing the efficiency of cars, trucks and planes by 1/3 would reduce those emissions by 26%. That is a realistic possibility, because most of our vehicles use these fuels so inefficiently. Although we can't easily reduce the 20 lb. of CO2 emitted from the combustion of each gallon of gasoline, we can certainly reduce the number of gallons we burn per mile.

If you asked most people why gasoline has been such a successful fuel for the last century, you'd get a variety of answers, including some entertaining conspiracy theories, but relatively few would zero in on the fuel's remarkable capacity to deliver lots of energy in a compact and easily portable form. Every gallon of E10 gasoline (10% ethanol blend) you put into your car carries roughly 110,000 BTUs, compared to 82,000 BTUs for the E85 ethanol/gasoline blend, or 66,000 BTUs for an 85% methanol/gasoline blend. Those extra BTUs translate into range and convenience, even though the typical internal combustion engine vehicle throws away roughly 80% of them as waste heat and other losses. That's why there's such a big opportunity for hybrids, advanced engines and transmissions, and other technologies to improve the fuel economy of most cars, if consumers are willing to pay the higher up-front costs. It's sobering to think that the advanced battery pack for GM's highly-anticipated Volt plug-in hybrid will hold the energy equivalent of just a half-gallon of gasoline, though the car's electric motor will use that energy much more efficiently than an internal combustion engine would.

So what are you buying when you fill up at the pump? If you watched "Over a Barrel", you probably got the impression that you are paying for an entirely generic fuel, a moderate slice of taxes and dealer margin, and a whole bunch of advertising and other marketing expenses. That's misleading on a couple of levels. It's true that the basic fuel is indeed generic--"fungible" in industry parlance--for the very good reason that this facilitates efficient pipeline shipment and inter-company purchases and exchanges to cover refinery problems and demand fluctuations, while reducing bulk transportation costs. However, there are real differences in the additives injected when the tank truck picks up a load of fuel at the distribution terminal, when the fuel becomes some company's branded product. If you own a newer car with a sophisticated engine, spending a little more to get a major oil company's additive package could pay off in better performance and reduced maintenance costs down the line.

But while the company from which you buy your gas might not have refined every gallon themselves, they must still stand behind it, and in my estimation that's the most important extra you're paying for. If you get a tank of bad gas or one blended with 20% ethanol instead of 10% and need to have your car's entire fuel system rebuilt, you stand a much better chance of getting compensated for the repair by a major gasoline brand than an independent or discount station. I consider myself fairly thrifty, but that's worth an extra 5-10 cents per gallon to me. I'll admit to a bias against buying gas from even a big supermarket chain for the same reason.

Finally, in terms of competition, it's ironic that the most viable competitor to gasoline at the moment is another petroleum product, diesel, which has captured half the new-car market in Europe and is getting a closer look here, thanks to some new technology. While biofuels hold great promise, they are still only available in relatively modest quantities, as explained in Friday's posting, and more as "hamburger helper" for traditional fuels than as fully independent alternatives to oil. While ethanol advocates would doubtless take issue with the characterization of E85 as a failure, so far, its sales have probably been hampered more by its poor value proposition--offering fewer miles per dollar than conventional fuels--than by infrastructure constraints and limited numbers of flexible fuel vehicles. In the long run, electricity looks like the strongest challenger, assuming battery prices come down and mainstream consumers find the trade-offs involved in recharging in hours rather than refueling in a few minutes acceptable.

If "Over a Barrel" accurately reflected Americans' frustration at being dependent on a commodity they feel they no longer control, it also highlighted oil's continuing indispensability. Petroleum and its products aren't about to disappear any time soon, though their dominance is starting to slip. From all indications, US oil demand has peaked, and the industry's remaining growth prospects are centered on developing Asia. The pressure to reduce oil consumption in developed countries is growing, and alternatives that were once dismissed will soon erode oil's share of the transportation energy market. However, absent a technology breakthrough, that transition seems likely to stretch out for decades, and it's a virtual certainty that the economics and geopolitics of oil will continue to frustrate us for many years to come.

Read More