A123 Bankruptcy Casts Doubts on EV Goals

The theory was that the federal government could guide an entire US electric vehicle (EV) industry into existence by orchestrating a constellation of grants, loans and loan guarantees to manufacturers and infrastructure developers, along with generous tax credits for purchasers.  That vision was attractive, because EVs have the potential to be an important element of a long-term strategy to counter climate change and bolster energy security. However, yesterday's bankruptcy of battery-maker A123 Systems, Inc. provides a costly reality check. Along with the earlier bankruptcy of another advanced battery firm, Ener1, and disappointing battery-EV sales, it raises new doubts concerning both the government's model of industrial development and the achievability of President Obama's goal of putting one million EVs on the road by 2015. 

A123 was built around a novel lithium-ion battery technology developed at MIT.  For a time they were the darling of the advanced battery sector, with a market capitalization above $2 billion following its 2009 initial public offering. That IPO came on the heels of A123's receipt of a $249 million stimulus grant from the Department of Energy and $100 million of refundable tax credits from the state of Michigan. Subsequently, though, they experienced low sales and a costly battery recall that contributed to their signing a memorandum of understanding with China's Wanxiang Group to sell an 80% interest in the company for around $450 million.  Instead, it now appears that Johnson Controls, a diversified company that was the recipient of a $299 million DOE advanced battery grant of its own, will end up acquiring A123's assets for around $125 million.  Johnson is apparently providing "debtor-in-possession" financing for A123's Chapter 11 process.  It's not clear whether Johnson would be able to draw down the unused portion of A123's federal grant.

Because of the government's close involvement with A123, and in particular its structuring of aid to A123 in a manner that left taxpayers without any call on the firm's assets ahead of suitors like Johnson Controls or Wanxiang, this event is inherently political.  I was a little surprised it didn't come up in last night's presidential debate.  If it does become a "talking point" in the next two weeks, however, I'd prefer to see the conversation focus on the real issues it raises.  The reasons for A123's failure appear very different from those behind the much-discussed failure of loan-guarantee recipient Solyndra.  While the latter ultimately called into question the judgment of officials who loaned money to Solyndra when that company's business model was already doomed, A123 highlights the much deeper challenges involved in attempting to conjure an entire industry out of thin air.

The earlier failure of GM's electric vehicle effort in the 1990s, the EV-1, demonstrated the chicken-and-egg nature of EV sales: Vehicle sales depended on recharging infrastructure that in turn depended on robust vehicle sales to justify infrastructure investment.  But at least GM could begin then by relying on a mature lead-acid battery industry.  Those batteries turned out to be inadequate to meet consumers' expectations of range and recharging convenience, which led to the creation of another chicken-and-egg dependence for the new EV industry: carmakers needed a reliable supply of advanced batteries from producers who couldn't invest in the capacity to make them, without knowing that vehicle sales would consume enough batteries to turn a profit.  So in 2009 the administration set out to short-circuit all those inter-dependencies by simultaneously funding the key elements of these loops, including advanced battery makers.  It makes me wonder if anyone involved had any direct manufacturing experience--a natural doubt considering that the entire US auto industry was restructured in 2009 by a task force without a single member who had worked in any manufacturing business, let alone the auto industry. 

The main causes of A123's failure appear to have involved basic manufacturing issues of capacity utilization and quality control.  The company wasn't selling enough batteries to cover its costs, and too many of the batteries it sold came back in an expensive recall.  They weren't the first business to experience such growing pains, but their challenges were compounded by the burden of a manufacturing line that had been sized to meet the demand of an EV market that hasn't yet materialized. US EV sales through September amounted to just 31,000 vehicles, or less than 0.3% of total US car sales.  The picture looks even worse if you subtract out sales of GM's Volt and Toyota's plug-in version of its Prius, the gasoline engines of which provide essentially unlimited range, circumventing the limitations of today's batteries.  I think there's a strong argument that the government's assistance to A123 was actually a key factor in leading them to bankruptcy, by prompting A123 to grow much faster than could have been justified to its bankers or private investors.

Perhaps it's some consolation that A123's technology has apparently been snapped up by a competitor, rather than going the way of Solyndra's odd solar modules.  Yet that outcome hardly justifies the casual dismissal of A123's fate by a DOE spokesman as a common occurrence in an emerging industry.  That sort of talk merely perpetuates the perception of cluelessness fostered by Energy Secretary Chu's failure to hold anyone accountable for the Solyndra debacle.  Yes, companies in emerging industries fall by the wayside, but the preferred response would be to examine what happened and apply the lessons learned to the rest of the "venture capital portfolio" with which the administration's industrial policy has saddled the DOE.  With EV sales still low and several key EV makers experiencing delays and production problems, a thorough public review of the entire EV strategy is in order.

Read More

Five Stars for Robert Rapier's "Power Plays"

It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to recommend a new book by a fellow energy blogger, especially when the blogger in question has the kind of deep, hands-on industry experience that makes Robert Rapier's work so authoritative.  Robert has been communicating about a variety of energy-related topics for years, first at his own "R-Squared Energy" site, where I encountered him in about 2006, and lately at Consumer Energy Report and at The Energy Collective. You should not assume from the book's title, "Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil" or the image on its cover that it is just another in a long line of recent bestsellers proclaiming an imminent and permanent global oil crisis.  Robert's description of the risks of peak oil is nuanced and balanced, as is his assessment of the many other timely subjects included in the book.  The chapter on "Investing in Cleantech" is worth the price of the entire book for would-be inventors and investors, as well as for those setting or administering government renewable energy policies and programs. 

In some respects this is the hardest kind of book for me to review.  It covers much of the same territory as my own writing, drawing on similar educational and career experiences, so I'm hardly representative of its intended or ideal audience.  It is also very close to the book that I've long been tempted to write, myself, after well over a thousand blog posts on the same set of topics and issues.  With those caveats, I enjoyed reading "Power Plays", mainly because despite superficial similarities, our perspectives are still different enough that I found it thought-provoking.  I even picked up a few new facts.  And I should make it very clear that although the book certainly reflects the large body of writing Robert has produced over the last half-dozen years or so, it does not read like a collection of recycled blog posts.  It is also as up-to-date as any project like this could be, including assessments of the Keystone XL pipeline controversy, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and other recent events.

"Power Plays" is structured as an overview of the complex set of energy sources and applications in use today, including their intimate connection to domestic and geopolitics.  (The book includes a sobering, non-partisan analysis of the efforts of eight US presidents to promote energy independence.)  It is also based on an explicit point of view about the need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to attempt to mitigate human influence on climate change, while being exceptionally realistic about our available options and likely success.  Robert has definite ideas on energy policies that would be useful, particularly in guiding our long transition away from oil.  I don't agree with all of them, but they're well-reasoned and well-articulated. 

The book is also very sound on the facts.  I didn't spot any notable errors, with the possible exception of a brief explanation of why hybrid cars are more efficient than conventional cars--in my understanding this derives from the optimization of engine output and the recycling of energy otherwise lost in braking, rather than from inherent differences in energy conversion efficiencies between electric and combustion motors.  Otherwise, aside from the natural differences of interpretation one would expect, Robert delivers 250 pages of straight talk about energy.

One word of warning along those lines: If you come to this book as a firm and uncritical advocate of any particular energy technology to the exclusion of most others, you should prepare either to have your feathers ruffled or find yourself questioning some of your beliefs.  That is particularly true for renewable energy and biofuels, which constitute Robert's current main focus as Chief Technology Officer of a forestry and renewable energy company.  On the other hand, if you'd like to learn more about why fuels like corn ethanol are less-than-ideal substitutes for oil, and why cellulosic biofuel is more challenging to produce and scale up than the promoters of many start-up companies would like you to think, this is a great place to start.  And in addition to the obligatory assessment of vehicle electrification and electric trains, his chapter on oil-free transportation features a serious discussion of bicycling and walking, something it might never have occurred to me to include.  All of this is handled with rigor, ample references, and a leavening of tables and graphs that shouldn't overwhelm those who are more comfortable with words than numbers or data.

I highly recommended "Power Plays" for my readers.  It is available in print and e-book formats from Barnes & Noble and Amazon, where it has garnered exclusively five-star ratings at this point.  I intend to post my own five-star review there when time permits. 

Read More

D.C. Auto Show Focused on Efficiency

Last week I attended the media preview of the Washington Auto Show. With its dual focus on cars and energy policy, this is always a high point of the winter for me, even if this year's display lacked a draw of the magnitude of the pre-production Chevrolet Volt I drove at the 2010 show. Instead, I was pleased to find that the emphasis on fuel economy and technology in carmaker presentations was matched by a broad array of efficient and attractive new products. They still don't quite constitute the new car fleet needed for the 54 mile-per-gallon target the federal government requires them to meet by 2025, but in my opinion they're off to a very good start.

No one listening to the presentations I sat through last Thursday could have missed the shift in focus from previous years. Performance and drivability were still mentioned prominently, but in most cases the innovations allowing those attributes to be delivered along with improved fuel economy, instead of at its expense, received top billing. I heard about Ford's nine models that achieve at least 40 mpg, including the new C-MAX Energi plug-in hybrid that received Green Car Journal's Vision Award for 2012. GM touted a number of efficient new models, including the upcoming Chevrolet Spark subcompact, which will later be available as a full EV. In some respects I found the 2013 Malibu Eco with "e-Assist" even more impressive: With the new Malibu and this year's Buick LaCrosse, GM is building family-sized gasoline-powered sedans that achieve 36 or 37 mpg on the highway. And thanks to Fiat's MultiAir technology, Chrysler had its new 40 mpg Dodge Dart on display.

I was particularly interested in the VW press conference, where they debuted the 45 mpg 2013 Jetta turbo hybrid. The head of VW's US division introduced the car as part of his company's Think Blue sustainability drive, which with this latest model encompasses hybrids, clean diesels, efficient non-hybrid gasoline engines, and soon EVs. With all this technology to talk about, including the new, larger Passat sedan--where's the wagon?--built in VW's new Chattanooga, TN plant and sporting a diesel engine delivering 43 highway mpg (31 city), the biggest surprise was the amount of time he devoted to VW's partnership with Bikes Belong, a cycling safety group aimed at getting people out of their cars. That certainly reflects a bigger-picture view of vehicle sustainability.

My visit to the car show also included a meeting with Lars Ullrich, marketing director of Bosch Diesel Systems North America, and Jeff Breneman of the US Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars. They updated me on the progress that diesels have been making in the US market, particularly in light of the greater cost-consciousness of consumers, post-recession. In the last five years, the willingness of consumers to consider diesels has nearly tripled to around one-third, while diesel sales passed the 100,000 mark for 2011--still less than 1%, but about where hybrids were just a few years ago. Clean diesel models are expected to double by 2014. Models with announced future diesel versions include the Chevrolet Cruze, Jeep Cherokee, Dodge Dakota, and a Mazda crossover. Will diesels ever reach the level of popularity here that they've attained in Europe, where half of all new cars are diesel-powered? They must wage an uphill battle against fuel economy regulations that are anything but fuel-neutral, legacy perceptions formed by the dirty diesels of 20 years ago, and federal and state fuel taxes that still assume that all diesel fuel is used by heavy-duty trucks that wear out our highways. That's a shame, because this is a terrific technology that could be every bit as attractive to many consumers as more expensive hybrids.

Another noteworthy item I gleaned from the manufacturers' presentations was that several of them are forecasting a return to annual US car sales of 16 million within a couple years. That would be good for the industry and employment, but it's crucial for shifting the fuel economy of the entire light-duty vehicle fleet. One of the unnoticed consequences of the low car sales of the last several years is that the US fleet has been aging faster, notwithstanding the small blip from the Cash-for-Clunkers program of 2009. The difference between sales of 16 million a yar versus 12 million is an average turnover of 15 years, instead of more than 20, and faster turnover should translate to quicker improvements in average mpg.

For years we heard that the biggest obstacle to improving the fuel economy of the US car fleet was the auto industry, which only wanted to sell us big SUVs that carried higher profit margins. That excuse was always overly simplistic, and it has been relegated to the ash heap by a new generation of cars and light trucks featuring innovations delivering steadily improving efficiency, even in mainstream sedans and SUVs. Getting the entire fleet to 54 mpg won't be easy, but if what I saw at the D.C. auto show is any indication, the attainment of that goal now depends at least as much on sales mix as on the availability of efficient models. Within a few years, virtually every segment of the market will include hybrid, diesel and EV options that will put a big dent in both fuel bills and emissions, albeit at the expense of higher sticker prices. That means that future fleet mpg will likely be determined mainly by the decisions of consumers, rather than carmakers.

Read More

US Energy Poll Reveals Contradictions

Yesterday I received a press release announcing the results of a new poll on US consumer attitudes towards energy conducted by the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas in Austin. I wasn't surprised to see that a plurality of the poll's respondents thinks the country is headed in the wrong direction on energy--triple the proportion that think we're on the right track--and many expect the situation to get worse in the next 25 years. That meshes with numerous readings on Americans' views of the overall economy. The poll also showed consumers broadly dissatisfied with the job that government and industry are doing in this regard, though the renewable energy sector, along with engineers, scientists and academia received somewhat better marks. At the same time, the results on several questions either contradict current consumer trends or reveal a poor understanding of energy market influences. Perhaps the most reassuring finding was that less than a quarter of consumers consider themselves knowledgeable on energy, while a large majority is interested in learning more.

The main question that grabbed my attention concerned consumers' "expectations for adopting new technology." 38% reported they were likely to use smart meter technology within the next five years, 30% said they were likely to own a hybrid car, and 21% were likely to install solar panels on their homes. On the face of it, these should be very encouraging results for the renewable energy and advanced vehicle sectors and those who invest in them. At the same time, it's hard to square these figures with the actual adoption rates for such technologies in the marketplace.

Consider hybrids, which have lost most of their novelty in the last decade, with cumulative US hybrid car sales standing at just over 2 million at this point. That's less than 1% of total US light-duty vehicles (cars, SUVs and light trucks), but it's still impressive, considering they started at essentially zero in the late 1990s. The problem is that even now, with practically every major carmaker offering at least one hybrid model, and several fielding an entire range of hybrids, 2011 sales have averaged just 2% of total US car sales of 9.5 million through September, based on figures compiled by hybridcars.com. Add plug-in electric cars like the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf and you get to 2.1%. Even before hybrid supplies were constrained in the aftermath of the earthquake in Japan, advanced vehicle sales never topped 3% in any month of this year.

The poll provides few insights into why the actual "take rate"would amount to less than a tenth of those with favorable attitudes towards buying a hybrid. However, it does suggest that the standard explanation that gas prices just aren't high enough yet is out of step with how consumers view those prices. Fully 95% of respondents described gas prices as either "very high" or "somewhat high", and 78% expected them to be somewhat or significantly higher in six months. One possible conclusion is that despite coming in compact, SUV, truck and luxury flavors, hybrid technology still doesn't deliver the value and/or performance most consumers are seeking, even if they're receptive to it in the abstract.

Then there's the even more dramatic disconnect on solar power. If 21% of single-family dwellings in the US were to install rooftop solar panels of 3 kW or more in the next five years, that would equate to at least 228 GW of solar power--about 90 times current US installed capacity--for average installations of 46 GW per year, or nearly three times the amount installed globally last year, mostly in Europe. As of the end of 2010, there were 153,000 grid-connected PV systems in the US, including commercial and utility installations. Even if all of them were on the rooftops of homes, that would still amount to just a 0.2% market penetration. Although PV prices are coming down rapidly and sales could approach 2 GW in 2011, this divergence between sentiment and sales suggests that a lot more Americans like the idea of rooftop solar than are actually willing to invest in buying (or leasing) it at this point.

Whatever the UT poll results indicate about the potential medium-term market share of new energy technologies, they provide a data point that Americans view energy as another important issue they believe government is getting wrong. They also highlight the need and opportunity for more education on how energy markets really work, with supply constraints and growing demand actually having a much bigger impact on energy prices than the limited pricing power most energy companies enjoy.

Read More

The Next Big CAFE Loophole

The great pitfall of government policies, no matter how well-intended they might be, is their inevitable unintended consequences. When those are truly surprising, it's hard to attach much blame to the legislators or regulators involved. However, that degree of indulgence shouldn't apply when the unintended consequences are as obvious as the ones inherent in the new fuel economy regulations that were announced with such fanfare last week. After all, an earlier generation of CAFE standards gave rise to what might just be the classic unintended consequence of recent times: the "SUV loophole" that fed a 20-plus-year SUV fad and dug the nation's oil consumption hole much deeper than it needed to be, affecting oil prices, trade deficits and energy security. Now regulators are proposing the creation of a similar loophole for electric vehicles.

I'm not surprised that the coverage I have read on the latest CAFE debate didn't remind the public of the ongoing consequences of treating pick-up trucks and delivery vehicles differently than passenger cars when the first CAFE standards were established in the 1970s. (That loophole was mostly closed just a few years ago.) Who could have guessed that a provision intended to help small businesses would blow up, because an entire generation embraced deluxe versions of such vehicles as their primary transportation--by the tens of millions--undermining the purpose of the CAFE standards to reduce gasoline demand? When I looked at this several years ago, I estimated that SUVs had increased US gasoline consumption by over 400,000 barrels per day, or roughly 5% of total demand, equivalent to the energy contribution of around 10 billion gallons per year of ethanol.

In this case the problem starts with the evolution of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards from a tool intended solely to improve US energy security by reducing the consumption of petroleum products in transportation, to one encompassing the greenhouse gas emissions implicated in climate change. Although there are important overlaps between these two goals--keeping a chorus of pundits employed touting them--they are not identical in operation or effect. Consider the specifics of the new CAFE proposal.

The "supplemental notice of intent" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (NHTSA) of the Department of Energy, the body that along with the EPA designs and enforces the CAFE standard, spells out the special treatment accorded EVs in the rules that will be forthcoming. It states that EPA intends to give manufacturers multiple credit for each EV, plug-in hybrid (PHEV) and fuel cell vehicle they sell, starting at a multiplier of 2.0 for EVs and fuel cells and declining to 1.5 by 2021, as if these cars somehow canceled the emissions of more than one vehicle. They also intend to treat EVs and the electric portion of PHEVs as having zero emissions, regardless of how the power they use is generated. So in order to meet the tough greenhouse gas standards that accompany the 54.5 mpg CAFE standard, carmakers will have every incentive to produce as many EVs they can. Unfortunately, it's not obvious that this will reduce emissions in the real world, except in the rare instances when EVs recharge exclusively from renewable or nuclear power, which provide only 30% of our electricity mix today, up from 28% in 2005.

One needn't assume that EVs might be recharged using only coal-fired power to see that they aren't always a big improvement, emissions-wise, over non-plug-in Prius-type hybrids or clean diesels. Using the average US grid CO2 emissions of around 1.3 lb/kWh, a Nissan Leaf getting 3 miles per kWh is responsible for the emission of roughly 200 grams of CO2 per mile traveled. By comparison, a 2011 Prius with its 50 mpg EPA average emits around 196 g/mi. A more rigorous comparison would require a full well-to-wheels lifecycle assessment, but that is precisely what the new CAFE rules eschew in the interest of leaning on the scales to help today's preferred vehicle technology.

Subject to further refinement, this back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that skewing the new CAFE regulations in favor of EVs isn't going to do much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Its main advantage is in reducing oil consumption, since less than 1% of our electricity is generated from oil. But if we only cared about oil and not emissions, producing gasoline from domestic coal--in the same manner as a sizeable fraction of South Africa's fuel supply--would be equally effective at backing out oil imports. Meanwhile, a gallon of gasoline saved by an advanced internal combustion engine with stop-start technology and other low-cost efficiency features would be worth exactly as much as a gallon saved by an EV, while costing dramatically less. That's especially true when you factor in the $7,500/car EV tax credit, which I can't help thinking will be a prime target when the joint Congressional committee on deficit reduction established by the debt limit bill passed by the House of Representatives last night and by the Senate just a few minutes ago sets up shop this fall.

The unintended consequence that is easily envisioned from this special treatment of EVs is a massive over-investment in a particular and still very expensive vehicle technology, at the expense of other, less costly and more cost-effective technologies. I certainly accept that EVs represent a major long-term trend in cars, but I don't believe that their development requires fiddling with the CAFE rules in this way. Nor is it obvious that US manufacturers enjoy any particular competitive advantage in producing EVs, which depend on ingredients such as rare earths for which we are even more import-dependent than for oil. If saving oil and emissions is what we really care about, then we are entitled to expect that new fuel economy regulations would focus squarely on those outcomes, without being diverted by the industrial policy fad of the moment. Perhaps this will be one of the topics taken up by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee of the Congress as it investigates the new CAFE rules.

Read More

Carmageddon, Hybrid Cars and Diamond Lanes

The looming "Carmageddon" in Los Angeles made the front page of today's Wall St. Journal, as residents there brace for the two-plus day closure of ten miles of the famed San Diego Freeway (I-405) this weekend. The disruption is apparently required to allow for some demolition necessary for the construction of new high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on the 405. As locals assess their alternate routes--there are many--they might also want to spend some time thinking about who will be allowed to drive in those new HOV lanes. California recently decided to deny ordinary (non-plug-in) hybrid cars that privilege, in preference to plug-ins and other alternatively fueled vehicles. The new policy and the one it replaces both reflect muddled thinking, but I would argue that abandoning hybrids at this juncture is a mistake, at least if saving gas is still a priority in the Golden State.

I routinely commuted on that stretch of the 405 between the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) and the Ventura Freeway (US-101) when I lived on the West Side and worked in Mid-Wilshire and later in the San Fernando Valley. I carpooled for part of that time but for most of it, like most other Angelenos, I drove alone. I would have found the option of going solo in the HOV lanes a very appealing way to avoid the frequent stop-and-go traffic, and that's why offering that right to hybrid cars has been a useful non-cash incentive to boost their sales. State officials apparently concluded that normal hybrids are now commonplace, so the incentive should be shifted to the even more efficient cars now becoming available. They have emissions data on their side, because California's electricity mix is dominated by hydropower, nuclear and efficient gas turbines, plus a growing contribution of non-hydro renewables, though it also includes some imported coal-fired power from the Four Corners region. A plug-in should indeed emit less CO2 (directly and indirectly) than a Prius-type hybrid under those conditions.

What I think the state's regulators have missed, however, is that simpler hybrids, which currently enjoy no other incentives, still look like an equally effective way to save gasoline. That's particularly true if most buyers of plug-in cars are choosing them in preference to non-plug-in hybrids, rather than instead of gas-guzzling conventional cars. It comes down to the simple, but often counter-intuitive math of fuel economy the way we calculate it in the US, yielding diminishing gallon savings for increasing miles per gallon (see chart below.) Consider a 50 mpg hybrid that replaces a 25 mpg conventional car. Driven 12,000 miles per year, this choice saves 240 gallons per year. Trading in that hybrid for a plug-in like a Nissan Leaf only saves an additional 240 gallons per year, while a Chevy Volt would save somewhat less than that, unless it were never filled up.



Moreover, plug-ins didn't lack for incentives already. In addition to the federal tax credit of up to $7,500 per car, California offers its own rebate of up to $5,000 for qualifying plug-ins, which also receive discounted rates for electricity. Then there's the money the state is investing in recharging infrastructure. Whether or not the aggregate level of incentives is justified on grounds of economics, environmental and energy security benefits, throwing the HOV benefit on top of them seems like an unnecessary gilding of the lily. The 85,000 hybrids that were given the sticker allowing HOV access for solo drivers still represent a tiny fraction of the state's 39 million registered motor vehicles, and offering 40,000 new stickers for EVs won't make a noticeable dent in California's emissions, or its 40 million gallon-per-day gasoline consumption.

I don't know whether this weekend's Carmageddon will live up to its name, or like L.A.'s 1984 Summer Olympics result in lighter-than-normal traffic because motorists had enough notice to allow them to plan ahead. Yet it does seem that continuing to offer HOV access for non-plug-in hybrids would provide a meaningful incentive for a class of gas-saving vehicles that still represents only around 3% of US car sales, at no cash cost to the state. And if the state is truly concerned that a growing hybrid population could choke the HOV lanes and make them less useful for everyone, an even better option would be to auction the stickers, with only buyers of hybrids, plug-ins and other alternative fuel cars eligible to bid. The proceeds might be sufficient to relieve the state's battered budget of a large portion of the cost of the cash subsidies they're already paying on plug-in cars.

Read More

Temperature Extremes and EV Battery Trade-offs

The first production-model Nissan Leaf electric vehicle is scheduled to be delivered to a customer in the San Francisco Bay Area tomorrow. I know if I were on the receiving end, I'd be as excited as a kid on Christmas morning, particularly in a place where having the first Leaf will score its owner many green points. However, if the assessment by MIT's Technology Review of Nissan's choices concerning the temperature control of the Leaf's battery pack is accurate, then it's probably just as well that the first one is going to a location with such a benevolent climate, instead of the Midwest, upstate New York, or the desert Southwest. Batteries are sensitive to external temperature, in terms of both performance and longevity, and Nissan appears to be betting that making the battery simpler to replace is a higher priority than optimizing its condition at all times, as GM has done for the battery pack in the Chevrolet Volt.

It's easy to forget that batteries are fundamentally chemical, rather than just electronic devices. The chemical reactions in a battery absorb or release heat during the charge/discharge cycle, and the capacity of the battery's environment to accommodate those heat flows can affect these reactions. For a battery pack storing and delivering as much energy as required to run a car, these interactions are significant, and early adopters of EVs are already learning that the range of EVs becomes more limited in hot or cold weather. It's not as clear that they understand the degree to which extreme temperatures can degrade battery life. The economics of an EV could look very different if a battery pack only lasted six or seven years, instead of ten.

As the article explains, GM chose a liquid cooling system for the battery pack in its Volt range-extended EV. This system cools or heats all of the battery's cells, as necessary, and sometimes draws power for this purpose even when the vehicle is parked, as I learned when I test-drove one with the Volt's Vehicle Line Director last winter. According to him, GM's design team knew it had to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure the battery would perform reliably and last the expected ten years or 150,000 miles. Nissan appears to have taken a different path to battery management, providing a cooling fan for the battery pack and an optional battery heater--an option reportedly not available on the first Leafs. You don't have to be an expert in heat transfer to guess that air won't move heat around the battery pack's cells as well as liquid can, and that as a result, at least part of the Leaf's battery could potentially be exposed to more heat and cold--and possibly suffer more performance impact from them--than the Volt's.

That trade-off might reflect a different vision for how the battery will be used. Nissan (with its alliance partner Renault) is the main carmaker working with Better Place, Shai Agassi's EV battery recharging-and-exchanging start-up. A battery pack with only electrical connections to the car will be much easier and neater to swap in and out than one with liquid hoses running to a radiator and heater. This situation wouldn't even be a consideration for the Volt, which has an onboard generator to take over when the battery's charge falls too low. But for battery-only EVs, battery-swapping is as close as they can get to replicating the convenience of refueling a gasoline or diesel car in a few minutes. If EVs catch on via a business model like Better Place's, in which consumers routinely exchange their flat batteries for fully-charged ones (and might not even own the battery pack, but instead rent it by the month or the mile) any shortcomings from Nissan's less robust battery-conditioning strategy would fall on someone other than the consumer, as a statistical cost of doing business.

From my perspective this is just one of the uncertainties concerning the operation and consumer acceptance of EVs about which we'll learn more as their numbers climb from the low thousands to the hundreds of thousands and millions. However, I find it interesting that few journalists have picked up on an issue that could have far more impact on the EV ownership experience than the tempest in a teapot that some stirred up when they found out that the Volt's wheels are occasionally driven partly by the engine-generator, rather than entirely electrically. If I were buying one of these cars, I'd be a lot more interested in how far its expensive battery pack will carry me and how long it will last, than in whether the car is truly a range-extended EV or just a plug-in hybrid.

Read More

Are EV Incentives Justified?

The Wall St. Journal has been running an interesting series of articles on electric vehicles this week, coinciding with the mounting excitement surrounding the arrival of the first truly mass-market EVs in the US within a month or two. The articles cover a wide range of issues, including the cost of the batteries, efforts to overcome the lack of recharging infrastructure, the lifecycle environmental benefits of EVs, and the real-world experience of a participant in one of several EV consumer tests now underway. Although I've blogged about most of these topics in the past, I also found some insights in the articles that deserve to be highlighted, along with serious questions regarding the assumptions behind federal and state EV policies and incentives and the benefits of these vehicles for the country.

The US government is investing large sums to create a domestic EV industry and ensure there's a market for its output. Between the stimulus grants for battery and component factories and recharging infrastructure, and the ultra-generous tax credits for the first million or so vehicles, it adds up to around $10 B, and that's not counting the federal loans and loan guarantees to unproven EV manufacturers, at least a few of whom might not survive long enough to repay them. It also doesn't include more than $1 B in foregone federal and state motor fuel taxes over the lives of these cars. This is all justified on the grounds of energy security and emissions reductions and predicated on the idea that by making early sales more affordable for customers, the government can help the industry expand its volume to the point at which costs would come down dramatically. That would ultimately make EVs competitive with conventional cars on their own merits, without perennial subsidies. The Journal articles identify at least two major factors calling this model into question.

The first and most important of these relates to the high initial cost of the batteries that contribute a major portion of the total cost of an EV, and essentially all of its cost premium over a conventional car. Citing several battery experts, the Journal raised doubts about how quickly battery costs are likely to fall, based on an assessment of the components of these batteries. Although the Lithium-ion batteries that go into EVs are new products, many of the things that go into them are not new at all, and are thus unlikely to become dramatically cheaper. Should we really expect that EV batteries would follow an entirely new "experience curve" of their own, yielding sharp cost declines over the first few years as output grows, or do they really fall within the larger category of all Lithium-ion batteries, for which the cost curve has flattened significantly in recent years, in applications such as laptop computers and cellphones? This is a crucial point, because if volume/experience effects do not quickly drive down the cost of EV batteries, then when the current subsidies expire EVs would become prohibitively expensive relative to their non-EV competition, and sales could collapse. That would force the government to choose between extending generous EV subsidies for a much longer period or standing by as US factories producing EVs and their components shut down.

The other assumption that looks questionable is the basis of competition between EVs and non-EVs. The Journal makes a good case that most of the developments that could make EVs cheaper and more effective would also benefit hybrid cars. Cheaper batteries for fully-electric cars mean much cheaper battery capacity for hybrids, even those providing a few miles of all-electric driving. That strengthens the argument that consumers won't be choosing between EVs and big, gas-guzzling cars, but between EVs and hybrids that already capture the most valuable portion of the available fuel--and fuel cost--savings. That shrinks the consumer benefits that would offset the inconvenience purchasers will take on when they buy plug-in cars without onboard generators. When you aggregate the annual fuel savings of the first million EVs on the basis of their displacing 50 mpg hybrids rather than 25 mpg average cars, they shrink from 480 million gallons per year to 240 million gpy, or just 16,000 barrels of oil per day. At that rate, it would take 22 years to repay the government's $10 B investment in them, even ignoring the cost of the energy from other sources--mostly domestic natural gas and coal--that these cars will consume.

So while I still regard the electrification of transportation as an inevitable trend, as I have for more than a decade, and am tremendously impressed by the engineering that went into the Chevrolet Volt and the other new models on their way--20 in all, by the Journal's count--I'm left with some serious doubts about their viability as a sustainable national energy strategy. It seems pretty clear that we wouldn't be seeing nearly this level of activity without the huge commitment to EVs by this administration and, to a lesser extent, the previous one. Although these decisions have largely already been made, the EV tax credit would still have to be renewed next year, as I understand it.

$10 billion is a lot of taxpayer money to invest in making these cars more attractive to a group of relatively well-off early adopters. Consumers in states like California will receive as much as $12,500 for buying a Nissan Leaf or other qualifying EV. Nor do I buy the argument that if we don't invest in this industry now, China will own it within a few years--not because I don't think they would, but because it's not clear to me that we have any particular competitive advantage for building millions of Lithium-ion car batteries cheaply enough to hold our own, particularly when we'll be importing many of their components and could come up short on access to any rare earth metals required. Spend a few minutes gazing at the accumulating federal and state debts and even larger unfunded liabilities displayed at usdebtclock.org and you might join me in wondering whether, as cool as these cars promise to be, the generous incentives associated with them are a luxury we can't afford just now. While it wouldn't be fair to the companies that have invested in factories and hired workers on the basis of these incentives to cut them off suddenly, it might make sense to slim them down and phase them out faster than currently planned.

Read More

Fuel Economy Gold Standard

I've long been fascinated by the X-Prize approach of providing substantial (but not astronomical) incentives for key breakthroughs: private sub-orbital flight, lunar landers, and most relevantly for this blog, the Progressive Automotive X-Prize for a 100 mile-per-gallon car, which began in 2006. The latter competition has been won by a trio of extremely efficient cars with very different architectures, power sources, and appearances. Splitting a $10 million prize probably won't even come close to reimbursing these teams for the cost of developing their cars, but the associated visibility should lead to some valuable opportunities. In a larger sense, the competition has served another useful purpose, In addition to furthering the technology for continuing to improve the efficiency of mainstream automobiles, it provides a gold standard reference against which to gauge the lavish claims of fuel economy we've already begun to hear from the makers of various plug-in electric vehicles.

One of the main aspects that impressed me about the Automotive X-Prize was the determination of its founders to avoid the superficial approach of merely counting how many gallons of liquid fuel each competing car burned, in favor of a comprehensive energy consumption metric, MPGe, or miles per gallon equivalent, which is based on the gasoline-equivalent energy used, regardless of source or form. MPGe gave the X-Prize judges a fair and unbiased means of comparing cars running on gasoline, ethanol, hydrogen, electricity, or any other energy carrier, onboard or offboard.

Now, as long as our primary concern is reducing our dependence on imported oil, a simple view of gallons of gasoline consumed isn't all bad. Displacing gasoline with electricity or hydrogen produced from domestic energy sources provides important benefits for energy security and our balance of trade, even if it doesn't save much actual energy in the process. One of the main arguments for vehicle electrification is that we can generate electricity in many different ways, but we can only produce gasoline or effective liquid-fuel substitutes for it in a few ways. However, in the long run, total energy consumption matters, particularly because of its strong linkage with emissions. Running a Nissan Leaf or GM Volt on electricity generated from coal--as would be the case in large swaths of the country--certainly saves oil, but it doesn't do very much for the atmosphere or climate. That's where MPGe comes in, and that's why I was pleased that the EPA and Department of Transportation have proposed something similar in their new fuel economy stickers for cars.

So when you see an ad for a new plug-in car that claims that to get effectively 100, 200, or even 300 miles per gallon, you should take a careful look at it, both in terms of MPGe and the physical characteristics of the car in question. This is what a real 100 mpg 4-passenger car looks like: the 830 lb., one-cylinder engined Very Light Car of the Edison2 team--from Virginia, I might add. Or consider the 187 MPGe Wave II two-seater plug-in battery electric car from Li-ion Motors. Cars like this show what it takes to deliver that kind of efficiency on a comprehensive basis. If you're buying a plug-in production model in the next year or two, and it looks more like a normal passenger car than these do, with room for four or more passengers and equipped with all the usual accessories we've grown accustomed to, then you should recognize that while it might burn little or no fuel from petroleum, that's not the whole story.

Read More

Diesel Hybrids Arrive

Regular readers know I'm a fan of diesel cars, having test-driven some terrific models at recent car shows, as well as renting them on past trips to Europe. For drivers who travel mainly highway miles, the fuel economy benefits of dieselization can approach those of hybrids at a much lower initial cost premium. However, at least in the US, combining the two technologies to achieve even greater fuel savings has been cost-prohibitive, while in Europe, where fuel prices are much higher, interest in hybrids languished until fairly recently. Now, two auto makers have announced they will take that step and launch European hybrid-diesel models next year, with impressive fuel economy and emissions results.

Carmakers have known about the efficiency potential of diesel hybrids for a long time. This was the architecture chosen by the Clinton-era Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, a US government/industry consortium pursuing the goal of an 80 mpg car. As both Mercedes and Peugeot have determined, there is no technical barrier to building such a car, and the two models announced, although falling somewhat short of the old PNGV goal, are expected to deliver the equivalent of 62 mpg and 57 mpg. That would be respectable for small hybrid sedans competing with the Prius, but it's remarkable for a small crossover SUV and an E-series sedan, respectively. And in addition to fuel efficiency, Peugeot claims its diesel hybrid will emit just under 100 g/km of CO2, roughly matching the lifecycle emissions of an EV recharged on average US grid electricity. I'm also intrigued by the potential for highly-efficient four-wheel drive it creates.

The problem with this configuration, and a primary reason it has faced resistance in the US, results from the combination of relatively low US fuel prices and the diminishing returns to increasing fuel economy. Converting a gasoline model to either a hybrid or a diesel captures the largest, most valuable increment of fuel savings, leaving less fuel--and less money--to be saved by the other technology. As the article in Technology Review notes, achieving an attractive return on the pairing of powertrain technologies requires fuel prices much higher than the roughly $3 per gallon we pay here. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that the first place we'd see this configuration is in Europe, where diesel cars are already well-established--to a much higher degree than hybrids are here. With the average retail price in the EU currently around $6.06/gal. for gasoline (with a range of $5.00-7.11/gal.) and $5.53/gal. for diesel, the incremental savings for going from 40 mpg to 60 mpg still amount to over $500 per year, compared to less than $300 in the US.

The New York Times recently quoted research from the University of Michigan suggesting that cars could achieve 74 mpg by 2035 without drawing energy from the electric grid. With the US new car fleet struggling to reach 35 mpg within a few years, that sounds fanciful, until you see real cars like the Mercedes and Peugeot diesel hybrids. However, unless fuel prices end up rising significantly between now and then--which many expect but is far from certain--the biggest obstacle won't be technology, but justifying the cost, as the performance of baseline vehicles continues to move down the curve.

Read More

Electric Vehicle Choices Expand

One of my basic assumptions about our energy future is that most automobiles will eventually be electrified. That's based on extensive scenario work done with my former colleagues at Texaco, Inc. in the late 1990s. Nothing I've seen since then has changed my view on that. However, vehicle electrification is not necessarily synonymous with "electric vehicle" (EV) in its common usage to connote a car powered only by electricity stored in batteries. It's a much broader category, covering all three electrification options now slated to be available to consumers by year-end: hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and "pure" EVs. It also encompasses fuel cell vehicles, though these have yet to move beyond the test-market stage. The characteristics of the three current varieties of electrified vehicles differ in important ways that will affect both their impact on our energy consumption and their success as consumer products.

With hybrids already well established and plug-in and EV models intended for the mass market about to go on sale, this is no longer just a theoretical comparison. Shortly, consumers will be assessing these cars against each other, as well as against more conventional choices, including clean diesels and ordinary gasoline-powered cars, which are becoming more energy-efficient all the time, as noted for the new-model Ford Explorer SUV. Only part of that comparison will hinge on how their drivetrains are energized. In order to achieve mass-market success, they must compete on the whole array of product attributes, since for many people cars are much more than simple transportation.

Start with hybrids, which are sometimes referred to as conventional hybrids, or even "non-plug-in hybrids", to distinguish them from other types. According to the June Hybrid Cars Dashboard at hybridcars.com, 26 hybrid models represented 2.3% of the cars sold in the US in the first half of 2010. That's down from about 2.8% last year. The Prius by itself accounted for half those sales, and it's still the archetypal hybrid for comparison purposes. Like other hybrids of this type it gets all its energy from the gasoline that's put in its tank, and it uses this fuel more efficiently than non-hybrid cars by recovering and recycling part of the energy otherwise lost through braking, and by avoiding idling. (The latter feature is pretty much all that some "mild" or stop/start hybrids do.) The EPA rates the 2010 Prius at 51 mpg city/48 mpg highway. The base model Prius has a sticker price of $22,800, and as far as I can tell it is no longer eligible for any federal purchaser tax credits.

The Chevrolet Volt is based on a different hybrid design, as a plug-in hybrid (PHEV) or more accurately a range-extended electric vehicle (REEV). It also represents a different car philosophy, presumably aimed at a different segment of the market than the Prius. This kind of hybrid gets its primary power from an external electricity source, stored in a battery pack that gives it a range of roughly 40 miles without using gasoline. At that point, and before the battery's charge is fully depleted, the car's onboard generator--a four-cylinder gasoline engine--kicks in to recharge the battery, which continues to send power to the electric motor. Actual fuel economy thus depends on how often and how far one drives with the generator running. I believe the EPA is still grappling with an appropriate methodology to represent this fairly. Of course even when driven only on battery power, it still consumes energy, and in most parts of the US that means that some fossil fuel will be burned somewhere to power it, most likely natural gas.

GM just announced the base sticker price for the Volt, and at $41,000 before tax credits this should make it pretty clear that GM had someone other than Prius buyers in mind. Having driven a pre-production Volt this winter, I'd see it competing more with the Lexus HS250 hybrid, which starts at $34,650, and with non-hybrid entry-level luxury cars like the Acura TSX ($29,310 MSRP but more like $32,410 similarly equipped.) If it lives up to its potential, the Volt could significantly broaden the appeal of hybrids in general, while also saving a lot of gasoline for its owners. Whether it will also save them money is much harder to assess, because the calculation hinges on the specifics of where and how the car would be used.

Nissan's new Leaf is a bolder, if technologically less-complex step than the Volt, because it relies entirely on grid power stored in a 24 kWh battery pack, with no back-up other than a cable and plug--or a tow-truck. At $32,780 before tax credits the stakes are also somewhat less daunting for buyers willing to risk a bit of range anxiety and some adjustments in their lifestyles. I'm not the only one who sees the Leaf aimed squarely at the green consumers who have formed the core of Prius buyers. That's important for several reasons. It reduces the substantial product launch risks for Nissan, which already has thousands of prospective buyers on its waiting list. However, if the Leaf cannibalizes existing hybrid sales, rather than dramatically broadening the electrified vehicle market, then its impact on US oil consumption and the economics behind those tax credits will look a lot less valuable to policy makers.

My skepticism about the Leaf goes a lot farther than Nissan's incredible claims concerning its equivalent miles per gallon. In the basic architecture of the Leaf I see many of the same issues that caused the launch of GM's ground-breaking EV-1 electric car to fail. Attitudes towards oil and the environment have changed significantly in the last decade, and the government is pushing recharging infrastructure much harder and with much more financial support than when the EV-1 was launched. The Leaf also benefits from not being the only plug-in vehicle coming to market, though it requires its plug, whereas the Volt merely works better with one. Fundamentally, however, I just don't know if enough Americans are ready for a car that can only go about 100 miles on a good day, and potentially a lot less than that when conditions aren't ideal. That's particularly important when we recognize that at the price points for both the Leaf and Volt their realistic market isn't first-time buyers in their early twenties for whom basic assumptions about range and refueling times might not be so ingrained. Taking advantage of the entire $7,500 federal tax credit would require an adjusted gross income of at least $55,000 for single taxpayers ($74,000 for married couples), based on last year's tax tables--and probably even higher when taking into consideration itemized deductions, dependents, and other factors. In my view, likely buyers for both cars would be solidly middle-to-upper-middle class.

Rather than making expansive predictions based on guesses about how well these new cars will do with real consumers, I will be watching the start of this grand experiment with great interest. If the Leaf catches on as well as Nissan hopes, then the trickle of other EV launches that are expected to follow could turn into a tidal wave of automotive innovation. If the Volt does better than the Leaf, despite its higher price, that could signal that consumers still value the comfort of knowing they can pull into a gas station and refuel in three minutes--rather than several hours--more than they value their independence from oil. And if both do well without eroding the sales of conventional hybrids, then that would bode well for a much more efficient vehicle fleet in the years ahead, relying on a much wider mix of energy sources than today's.

Read More

Setting Energy Goals

With the failure over the weekend of BP's "top kill" effort, the odds that the oil will continue flowing until relief wells can be completed--in months, rather than days--have gone up considerably. In addition to the accumulating economic and environmental consequences, that also means that media attention on the oil spill and the questions it raises about US energy policy will remain front and center for at least that long. In the absence of any formal effort to guide the discussion, we're likely to end up with the usual array of random energy musings and rants, built around an understandable, if unrealistic message of ending our reliance on oil now. That would be a shame, because this sad situation gives us a unique opportunity to refine our thinking about our energy future when much of the country is focused on it.

One comment that I've heard frequently in the last few weeks is that this spill serves as a reminder that oil companies are drilling in depths of a mile or more of water, far offshore, because the easy oil is mostly gone. There's more than a grain of truth in that view, though the full picture turns out to be rather more complicated. While it's certainly true that the mature oil regions of the US have been drilled like a pincushion for 150 years, and that many of the large, important undeveloped oil resources we know about are on the Outer Continental Shelf, there's still a lot of oil in other places, both onshore and in the nearer offshore, in shallower water, that we've chosen not to exploit. Access has driven development at least as much as geology in the last decade or two. In the US, we've made an implicit decision to focus oil and gas development on the Gulf Coast, not because it had the most resources--though it has plenty--or because it was less-densely populated , but presumably because it had already been developed so extensively. In effect, this approach sacrificed the Gulf Coast--whether that sacrifice was ever envisioned in quite the terms we're seeing today--to give us the oil we needed while preserving the beaches and viewscapes of our other coasts.

There's also an international dimension to this issue of access. At the same time the US offshore oil industry has been constrained in a box with only one open end pointed toward ever deeper water, the publicly-traded international oil companies have been progressively squeezed out of world-class oil opportunities elsewhere, as a result of full or partial nationalization and through competition with national oil companies that are guided not by market forces, but by geopolitical ones. As a result of these parallel trends, the major oil companies have focused their efforts where they retained both access and some key advantages over many of their state-owned competitors, usually in the form of technology or management of complex projects. In other words, they've been pushed to the frontiers, such as the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

While many lament the powerlessness of the US government to plug the leaking well, and some like Admiral Allen ponder whether the government should acquire that capability for itself--a topic for a future posting--we shouldn't ignore that even without banning deepwater drilling the federal government has the power to shift the industry toward less-risky opportunities by expanding its access to onshore and near-offshore resources that are more attractive and less difficult, but have been restricted for years.

Another common response to the spill relates to the incentives for moving away from oil. If we just had more incentives for biofuels and for electric vehicles, goes this thinking, we could quickly wean ourselves off oil and not only do away with the need to import it, but also to drill for it in such challenging locations close to home. While many of my recent postings have been aimed at showing why this can't happen quickly, I want to disassociate myself from what Tom Friedman calls the "petro-determinist" approach. I'm not here to tell you that breaking our addiction to oil is impossible; if I thought that I wouldn't have spent much of my career working on or promoting alternatives to oil. At the same time, with the current euphoria for cleantech and green jobs, someone needs to remind us that if breaking our oil addiction requires a 12-step program, we are only on about step 2. More importantly, it matters how we get there: Not all paths are equally valuable, and we don't have good enough information to determine which ones will work best in replacing a hydrocarbon-based energy system that evolved over the better part of a century.

Consider vehicle electrification, which depends on batteries. If the goal is putting the largest number of mainly-electric vehicles on the road in the shortest time, then we might be on the right track, handing out extremely generous tax credits for consumers to buy fully- or partially-electric vehicles, along with billions of dollars in manufacturing tax credits, grants, loans and loan guarantees for the factories to build those cars and the batteries they require, in addition to installing the recharging infrastructure they'll need. But if our goal is to reduce oil consumption and the emissions that accompany it, then this approach could be counterproductive, particularly if growing concerns about the availability and sourcing of the crucial raw materials necessary to build today's state-of-the-art electric vehicle batteries are correct. Simply put, the batteries in a Prius-style hybrid that never plugs in save many more annual gallons of oil per kWh of onboard storage than the batteries in a plug-in hybrid (PHEV) or full EV. That's true for two reasons that are a function of physics, rather than economics: a) fuel economy is subject to diminishing returns, in which moving from 25 mpg to 50 mpg saves twice as much total fuel as going from 50 mpg to 100 mpg and b) PHEVs and EVs require a lot more battery capacity per car than conventional hybrids.

What both of these examples share in common is that focusing on specific paths instead of outcomes can be counterproductive and multiply risk, instead of reducing it. An oil policy that started with the recognition that we must produce significant quantities of oil domestically during a lengthy transition to alternative and renewable energy sources, and that asked where the best-placed resources were to provide that supply with the least risk, might arrive at a different answer than one that resulted from a series of isolated decisions to place a growing sequence of oil resources off-limits. Likewise, a fuel economy and emissions-reduction strategy centered on annual fuel savings, rather than rewarding consumers and carmakers for concentrating the largest number of batteries into each vehicle, would better leverage vehicle-electrification technology to reduce our reliance on oil. That's particularly relevant when batteries look like a short-to-medium term constraint and their raw materials might impose longer-term limits until we have better battery technology based on cheap and plentiful raw materials.

If the Gulf Coast spill represents another crisis too important to waste, then it's also one that is too important to relegate to unfocused wishes for an oil-free world within the next few years. The best "use" of the spill is to convene a concrete national conversation on how to provide the US with energy that is as affordable and environmentally-acceptable as we can realistically make it in the in the short, medium and long-term. That will require examining all the trade-offs involved, as well as how the balance between conventional energy and renewables and other alternatives is likely to shift in the years ahead. If that did nothing else but get us clearly focused on outcomes, rather than picking our favorite pathways, then it might constitute a positive outcome from an otherwise miserable episode in our nation's energy history.

FYI, tomorrow (June 2) at 1:00 PM EDT I'll be on a webinar panel hosted by The Energy Collective to discuss the implications of the oil spill for the future of energy. If you're interested, please sign up using this link.

Read More

How Fast a Transition from Oil?

The Gulf Coast oil spill remains the top energy story this week, eclipsing a $10 drop in oil prices that should soon ripple through to gas pumps near you. With BP's latest effort to contain the spill having run afoul of a slush buildup composed of methane hydrate crystals, the deepwater well continues to leak at an undetermined rate. The longer the spill continues, the greater the chances for severe environmental consequences, and the likelier that it will become a perception-altering milestone event as some environmentalists have already suggested. However, even if the spill were to galvanize public opinion in a manner similar to the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill, what options do we have that could realistically reduce our reliance on oil produced from offshore platforms?

Last week I focused on the energy contribution of the oil we produce offshore in US waters, particularly in the deep water of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico. It constitutes 30% of domestic crude oil production, or about 10% of our total oil consumption, and contrary to the wildly-inaccurate assertion on a widely-read environmental blog last week, essentially none of it is exported. (Anyone who doesn't know the difference between crude oil and petroleum products has no business commenting on that aspect of energy policy.) Today I'd like to go into a little more detail on the alternatives to offshore drilling that I alluded to last Wednesday.

Gasoline, jet fuel and diesel accounted for 75% of the petroleum we consumed last year. Other than the heating oil included in the diesel tally, these are the fuels that power most transportation of people and goods. Many initiatives are under way to develop non-petroleum fuels for cars, trucks and even jet aircraft, though at this point they are all in relatively early stages of development or deployment. On paper, at least, electricity looks like the best option for replacing gasoline, by means of plug-in electric vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf. Since less than 1% of US oil consumption is used to generate electricity, switching cars from gasoline to electric power represents a nearly total displacement of oil. It would also facilitate the direct use of renewable electricity sources to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. This prospect has many people excited, and I've heard it mentioned frequently in reactions to the Gulf spill. Yet this is hardly a slam-dunk, for numerous reasons, topped by scale and the unproven consumer acceptance of mass-market EVs.

In one of their periodic special sections on energy, today's Wall St. Journal included an article on the development of EV recharging networks in the US. It cited a study by Pike Research forecasting 610,000 EVs by 2015. That would be a great start, though it would fall short of President Obama's goal to put a million plug-in vehicles on the road by then. Even assuming that the million-EV mark were reached that soon, and that they were driven as much as other cars and replaced vehicles averaging 25 mpg, the quantity of gasoline they would displace amounts to just 31,000 bbl/day--less than the quantity of oil the leaking Macondo field would have been producing in a couple of years, had Deepwater Horizon's exploration well been completed uneventfully. Substituting for all of the oil currently produced from offshore drilling--or for the decline in US oil production that would occur by 2020 if we stopped drilling offshore--would require up to 50 million EVs, making up roughly 40% of all the cars likely to be sold in the US this decade. I suppose that might barely be possible on a crash basis, with a World War II-style mobilization of the resources required to achieve it, but it doesn't look very likely to me. I would be impressed if the US had 10 million EVs by 2020, implying annual production of well over a million units within just a couple of years, though that would reduce our current oil demand by under 2%.

So if EVs can only take us a small part of the way to replacing our oil consumption in the near future, what about advanced biofuels? There are many promising avenues, including biofuels produced from agricultural or forestry waste or dedicated energy crops, biofuels from algae, and bio-hydrocarbons from plant sugars. All are in their infancy. The EPA recently had to reduce its mandate for advanced biofuels delivered in 2010 from 100 million gallons to just 6.5 million gallons--424 barrels per day--because no truly commercial-scale facilities will come on-stream this year. We might get a few billion gallons per year from these sources by 2020, if numerous technical and economic hurdles can be overcome, but that would displace at most a couple of hundred thousand bbl/day of oil.

Natural gas looks like another good alternative transportation fuel. T. Boone Pickens has put forward his plan to shift long-distance trucking onto compressed or liquefied gas. There's no shortage of gas available for this purpose, thanks to the much larger supplies made possible by shale gas drilling. It starts from a very low level, however, with current natural gas used in transportation equivalent to less than 1,500 bbl/day of diesel fuel. It also competes with other uses of gas, such as generating more electricity to reduce our consumption of coal. Or, looking at it another way, there might be plenty of gas to do both, but not at today's price.

That leaves what looks like the best option for reducing our oil consumption, other than simply deciding to drive less, as some folks have apparently already done. Because the US car fleet is so large and is driven so far, increasing its fuel efficiency by just 3 miles per gallon could save nearly a million bbls/day of gasoline. That's more than the entire contribution of corn ethanol, our most significant alternative transportation fuel. In fact, the latest demand forecasts of the Energy Information Agency are already based on that kind of improvement, reflecting new regulations requiring new-car fuel economy to increase to 35 mpg before 2020. Still, only a small fraction of our fleet of 240 million cars turns over every year, so it will take a long time before average fleet fuel economy even begins to approach these levels.

Whether your preferred alternative to offshore drilling requires replacing millions of vehicles with hybrids, EVs, natural gas-powered vehicles, or highly-efficient small conventional cars like the new Ford Fiesta, or depends on a vast new infrastructure of alternative fuel production and distribution, none of these solutions can work overnight. In the meantime, every barrel of oil we consume but don't produce here must be imported, some of it from countries that don't like us very much--as we're frequently reminded--and all of it with serious implications for our national financial and trade balances. (And don't forget the inevitable oil spills from all those extra tankers.) If we don't want OPEC to be the biggest beneficiary of a new environmental mindset after the Gulf Coast spill, then we face some very tough choices, including whether we'd prefer to open up major new areas for onshore drilling, instead of some of the offshore prospects that were slated to be leased in the next few years, or to continue drilling offshore under updated procedures and with strengthened environmental protections, at the same time we pursue all of our options for reducing our overall reliance on oil.

Read More

910 Miles Per Gallon*

Yesterday provided one of those occasional treats that makes blogging about energy so enjoyable. In conjunction with the Washington Auto Show, I had the opportunity to drive a demonstration version of the eagerly-awaited Chevrolet Volt around an impromptu test track, accompanied by the Volt's Vehicle Line Director, Tony Posawatz, who answered every question that occurred to me and many that didn't. The experience was exhilarating. For a bona fide car of the future the Volt--even in "pre-production" form--looked and handled like a real car that I could imagine myself driving around town or on a long trip, aside from its impressive technology and efficiency. That's an important distinction, since to be truly successful the Volt and its eventual siblings must be able to compete beyond a niche market of green-oriented consumers.

My test-drive of the Volt was the latest in a series of advanced vehicle experiences that includes driving a Fuel Cell Equinox a couple of years ago and goes back to a spin around Phoenix behind the wheel of an EV-1, GM's first electric vehicle, in the late 1990s. I asked Tony to what extent the Volt incorporated EV-1 technology, and his answer confirmed that while no actual parts were shared, its design philosophy and engineering DNA owe much to that earlier effort.

At first, when I drove the Volt onto the big, empty parking lot where GM had set up its test track for the DC Auto Show, I was disappointed that I didn't sense that immediate high-torque response I recalled from the EV-1--the kick that my GM contacts at the time called the "EV-1 grin." Then Tony pressed the "sport" button, and the grin was back. While my Acura might be able to beat the Volt's 0-60 miles-per-hour acceleration by several seconds, most drivers should be quite satisfied with the Volt's responsiveness and handling, even when compared to the entry-level luxury cars with which the Volt's expected price puts it into contention--and which its energy efficiency beats hands down.

The technical aspects of the Volt are fascinating, starting with the battery pack, which consists of 400 lb. of Lithium-ion batteries configured as "prismatic cells" that facilitate easier heat management than some other designs. That's a critical factor for battery life, since the battery must dissipate a fair amount of heat during its charge/discharge cycles, and its performance and efficiency are affected by ambient temperature. When plugged in, some of the energy the Volt draws from the grid is used to "condition" the battery, not just recharge it. That should help GM deliver on its expectation that the car's battery pack should last for 10 years and 150,000 miles of normal driving, over which its capacity would gradually decline, while still ultimately retaining at least 70% for later use in other, non-automotive applications. The potential after-life value of the battery could be a critical element of the lifecycle economics of a plug-in hybrid or Range-Extended Electric Vehicle like the Volt.

I was particularly interested in the battery's recharging requirements, in relation to the energy density concerns I discussed in last Tuesday's posting. The Volt recharges in two modes: At 240 V and drawing between 15-30 amps, it takes up to 3 hours to restore the roughly 50% of the battery pack's 16 kWh maximum charge used in "charge-depleting" operation--that first 40 miles or so of battery-only driving that provides the car's main selling point. Recharging on 120 V household current takes more like 8 hours. I was somewhat surprised that Tony seemed to share my view that Volt drivers are unlikely to wait until the middle of the night to recharge their cars, unless their highest priority is minimizing their electricity costs (and possibly emissions.) He has apparently been using a Volt on weekends and cited the benefits of daytime recharging at home or office to keep the battery ready for use, consistent with the main purpose of owning such a car.

The switchover from battery-only operation to driving with the onboard generator running was one of the key features I was anticipating, based on my concern that the Volt would ultimately be handicapped in low-battery, "charge-sustaining" operation by its reliance on a fairly small 4-cylinder engine. After all, the performance expectations in the category the Volt aspires to are set by powerful engines similar to the V-6 in my Acura TL, which delivers 270 peak horsepower. Well, you could have fooled me. The Volt I drove yesterday was intentionally given just enough battery charge to last about 3 miles, and when I passed that point and the little engine fired up, there was no discernible change in performance. That's apparently because the car is never really driven by the engine alone, since the battery is never completely drained. The accelerator controls only the flow of current from the battery to the electric motor; meanwhile the car's software runs the engine as needed to keep the battery charged to acceptable levels, but not to recharge it fully. That's a subtle distinction, because when I pushed the car hard in this mode, I heard the engine rev up noticeably with that characteristic 4-banger tone that provided the one discordant note in an otherwise near-luxury experience. But the trade-off was evident when I pulled the car into its tent shelter and switched it off. The cumulative fuel economy display on the dash read a whopping 910 mpg.

That result prompted an interesting discussion about what fuel economy really means in a car like this, which dutifully calculated mpg based on the tiny amount of gasoline consumed in the last lap of several miles of mostly battery-powered driving. I got a sense that GM recognizes the shortcomings of mpg in measuring such a vehicle's energy usage, though they are clearly quite focused on it as the primary metric of both consumers and the existing and proposed federal fuel economy standards. But even knowing intellectually that the car's electric efficiency, which Tony confirmed is in the range of 200-250 Watt-hours per mile, or 4-5 miles per kWh, equates to roughly 58-72 miles per gasoline-gallon-equivalent of natural gas going into a gas turbine power plant somewhere, that 910 mpg still got my attention with its implication of very rare visits to the gas station.

Recently, I indicated that while plug-in hybrids and full EVs might not yet be ready for the mass market, they do look ready for "innovators and early adopters", the folks who routinely queue up for the latest iPhone and long ago swapped out their cable set-top boxes for streaming video. If the pre-production car I drove yesterday, with the further refinements Tony Posawatz hinted would be incorporated between now and then, was any indication, the production cars that reach showrooms late this year should have early adopters salivating in anticipation, particularly with help from a federal tax credit that maxes out at $7,500 per car and for which the Volt should qualify in full. Based on his comments and my own experience with the car, there's every indication that the Volt is on track to meet its late-2010 launch target. I will be eagerly awaiting the first comment reporting that one of my readers has bought one.

Read More