The Forgotten Renewable

An editorial in the New York Times last week highlighted a topic I've been meaning to comment on for some time, the gradual demise of our oldest and still largest source of renewable energy: hydroelectric dams. Along with lauding plans to remove several West Coast dams in order to protect fish populations, the Times urged the dismantling of the four large power dams on the lower Snake River in Washington state. The disconnect between that position and the paper's long-standing advocacy of stronger measures to address climate change is remarkable, considering the elimination of 3,000 MW of zero-emission power generation that would accompany the loss of these dams. But if the unpopularity of existing hydropower dams in environmental circles explains the exclusion of this vital energy resource from the definition of "qualified renewables" included in the proposed national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, that hardly excuses a policy so counter-productive for our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Consider the four dams in question. I can't speak to concerns about declining salmon populations or other habitat issues, though I note that the dams in question are all "run of river" facilities, without large reservoirs. What is clear, however, is that if the four facilities typically operate at the national average hydropower utilization rate of around 36%, their annual power generation would come to about 10 million megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity, equivalent to the output of 4,000 MW of wind capacity, or roughly 20% of the entire US wind power output in 2008. After a banner year for wind turbine installations in 2008, the US might not add much more new wind capacity than that this year, and wind remains the largest-scale technology among our preferred renewable power options. In fact, since 1999 US hydropower output has declined by an amount greater than the entire current contribution of wind power. That means the emissions benefits of a decade of dramatic growth in wind and solar power have been negated by the loss of hydroelectric generation--a loss that the authors of Waxman-Markey have chosen to ignore by counting in their RES only "incremental hydropower", which they define as

"(A) energy produced from increased efficiency achieved, or additions of capacity made, on or after January 1, 1988, at a hydroelectric facility that was placed in service before that date and does not include additional energy generated as a result of operational changes not directly associated with efficiency improvements or capacity additions; or
`(B) energy produced from generating capacity added to a dam on or after January 1, 1988, provided that the Commission certifies that--
(i) the dam was placed in service before the date of the enactment of this section and was operated for flood control, navigation, or water supply purposes and was not producing hydroelectric power prior to the addition of such capacity;
`(ii) the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is licensed (or is exempt from licensing) by the Commission and is in compliance with the terms and conditions of the license or exemption, and with other applicable legal requirements for the protection of environmental quality, including applicable fish passage requirements; and
`(iii) the hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained, subject to any license or exemption requirements that require changes in water surface elevation for the purpose of improving the environmental quality of the affected waterway."

In other words, a utility would be able to count increases in hydropower towards its RES compliance only if they came from certain carefully-specified improvements, while the sole penalty for lost hydropower capacity and output would be an increase in the base amount on which the RES would be calculated. So at the full 20% RES level for 2020 and beyond, a MW of new wind, solar or other "qualified renewable" capacity would count 5 times as much as a MW of hydro dismantled.

This mismatch speaks to our conflicted attitudes toward climate change and the broader issues of sustainability. I'm sure that those advocating the removal of these dams would argue that we shouldn't make such decisions on the basis of any single criterion, even one as important as greenhouse gas emissions. Yet that view is at odds with the underlying philosophy of a climate bill that aims to do more than just level the playing field by imposing a charge on greenhouse gas emissions to account for the environmental externality not captured in the economics of the energy market. In addition to its skewed version of cap & trade, Waxman-Markey would stack the deck for a chosen group of renewable energy technologies, in the process excluding the one that produces more zero-emission MWhs than all the rest put together. When the Senate takes up this legislation, it should abandon this narrow focus on specific technologies in favor of one that creates a positive bias for all our low-emission sources, including hydropower and nuclear energy. For a government so determined to demonstrate our seriousness about tackling our emissions, in advance of December's Copenhagen climate conference, that would speak far more loudly than another thousand-plus pages of convoluted new regulations.

Read More

Honda Civic Hybrid

Honda Civic Hybrid

Hybrid technology has come a long way since Toyota released the Prius. Sales substantially picked up in the market prompting other automobile companies to make their own hybrids. Following in the footsteps of Toyota in 1997 Honda made its own hybrid. The Honda Insight was a moderate success. Although it was a fuel efficient car it had different technology under the hood. The hybrid technology was new at that time and the public perceived the Insight to look to odd to be driven around the city.

Honda then turned to one of its famous compact sedans. The Honda Civic was released in a hybrid version in 2003. The design was pretty much the same with the conventional Honda Civic incorporated with Honda’s own hybrid technology.

Honda Civic Hybrid

The first generation Honda Civic hybrid came out in 2003. It operates with a different hybrid technology compared to the Toyota Prius which is the basic template for all hybrids. Instead of the hybrid synergy system, the Honda Civic hybrid uses an Integrated Motor Assist system that was also used in the Insight.

The first generation was produced from 2003 to 2005. It has a 1.3 liter lean burn internal combustion engine with Honda’s VTEC cylinder cut-off system. This allows 3 cylinders to stop operating while decelerating which reduces friction losses. This in turn creates a more effective way of regenerating energy. It has a 15 kW permanent magnet motor which also serves a generator for recharging the batteries. It also has a 120 V nickel metal hydride battery, 5 speed manual transmission, regenerative braking, electric power steering, and low rolling resistance tires.

The second generation was also equipped with the same thing with a few changes. A high profile camshaft was added, fourth generation Integrated Motor Assist and third stage VTEC and Variable Cylinder

Management replaced the previous ones. It has a satellite-linked navigation system and an audio system that supports mp3 and WMA. It also comes in with an average fuel consumption regulator. An idle stop feature automatically shuts off the engine in idle periods.

The second generation was also an improvement from the first one which used lean burn engine.

Honda has stopped producing Civic hybrids to replace them with smaller and affordable types to compete with Toyota. Nonetheless previous the second generation proved to be a worthy competitor to the Prius. Although they may differ in terms of technology, fuel efficiency was still attained.

Read More

Modern Transportation

History of Modern Transportation

By Andi Bintang

People may be surprised to know that the idea of electric and hybrid vehicles have been present even before the gasoline engine was invented. A lot of people with their brilliant ideas revolutionized modern transportation as it is today. With the rise of health-threatening pollutants, new age electric and hybrid vehicles are truly becoming a reality.

When Electric Cars Ruled the World

Robert Anderson from Scotland created the first electric carriage during the 1830s. Professor Stratingh of Groningen from Holland designed a simple electric car. Christopher Becker was Stratingh’s assistant who built the model in 1835. In 1842, Thomas Davenport from the United States and Robert Davidson from Scotland built more advanced electric vehicles with the use of non-rechargeable electric cells. Gaston Plante from France improved the storage battery and created a better model in 1865. Sixteen years later, Camille Faure continued to improve the storage battery.

During the late 1800s, several European nations like Great Britain and France began the spread of electric vehicles while constantly innovating for better design and performance. Electric cars did not need gear changes. The United States followed with the creation of electric tricycles. At the turn of the century, electric cars were selling better compared to their gasoline engine counterparts due to less vibration, noise and pollutants. In 1916, Woods invented the first hybrid consisting of an electric motor and combustion engine.

The cost of electric vehicles was somewhat expensive so only the people belonging in the upper class were able to afford them. Prices would reach $2,000 to $3,000 depending on the interior and materials used. Production peak for electric vehicles were from 1910 to 1912. During the 1920s, road systems were significantly improved so people needed vehicles that traveled farther than electric cars.

The price of gasoline also decreased making it more affordable for everyone. Charles Kettering invented the electric starter for gasoline cars taking away the tedious hand crank. Henry Ford and his idea of mass production at lower costs continued to reduce the popularity of electric cars. Gasoline cars at this point were only about one-third the price of an electric vehicle.

Decline and Regrowth

From 1935 to 1960, electric vehicles were slowly fading from the scene. However, people began looking for alternative fueled vehicles in order to solve problems on pollution and the growing price of gasoline. More practical models of electric vehicles were proposed.

A number of actions were also imposed in the United States and across the globe to exert effort in improving electric vehicles. Some great works were the U.S. 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment as well as the U.S. 1992 Energy Policy Act. Other states required vehicles to have zero emission. Some of the largest automobile manufacturers as well as the U.S. Department of Energy collaborated to start making hybrids. Mileage, speed and performance were greatly enhanced in these newer models.

Recent electric and hybrid models are able to generate energy through special energy-converting systems. Hybrid models had special dual engines running on both gasoline and electricity which helped conserve a lot of fuel aside from being environmentally friendly. Sedans, SUVs and trucks were quickly built using the newly discovered technology. The method of running on electricity had various approaches but the main idea of being conservative and green was present in all models.

Hybrids: The Pollution Solution

Gasoline engines were proven to be reliable and powerful. However, the constant burning of gasoline released a variety of harmful gases like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. These are also known as greenhouse gases which trap heat in the atmosphere instead of allowing it to go out into space. The result would be global warming wherein surface air temperatures and sub-surface temperatures in the ocean would rise.

Although there are also natural causes to global warming, vehicle emission significantly multiplies the rate spurring the creation of alternative fuel sources. Electric and hybrid vehicles have shown to be very promising in reducing the greenhouse effect. Pollution will be minimized greatly if more and more people will start relying on these newer models which do not emit any harmful gas at all. These vehicles are also very economical since there is no longer a need for crude oil which constantly is growing in price.

Read More

An Energy Bill for the Other 92%

Now that the Waxman-Markey Bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009--all 1428 pages of it--has been narrowly passed by the House of Representatives, its fate rests in the hands of the US Senate, a body that has spurned a long series of cap & trade bills. The Senate's rules will require a much larger plurality just to bring such a bill to a vote, and that doesn't look easy, despite the belated resolution of the Minnesota race. The situation is further complicated by the existence of the Senate's own recently-drafted energy legislation, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (ACELA) from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chaired by Senator Bingaman (D-NM). Although lacking a counterpart to Waxman-Markey's cap & trade provisions, ACELA seems in many respects the better bill, promoting both renewable energy and the sources that supply 92.5% of our current energy needs and are likely to dominate our energy diet for many years: fossil fuels and nuclear power. This broader scope will be crucial, if our goals extend beyond reducing emissions to include shoring up energy security and fostering net job creation, not just "green jobs."

The full text of the Senate energy bill isn't yet available, nor has it been assigned an "S-number", by which it can be tracked. In reviewing the summary of ACELA on the committee website, I was struck by a marked contrast in its approach, compared to the House bill. ACELA is the product of a deliberately bi-partisan process, and the results of the horse-trading that went into it seem more cohesive and less jarring than the non-cap-and-trade portions of Waxman-Markey. ACELA's renewable electricity standard--which really ought to be a low-emission electricity standard--would start at 3% of electricity sales and ramp up to 15% by 2021. Importantly, the bill emphasizes energy efficiency, particularly for buildings, which would account for most of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions it would promote.

It also includes several provisions that echo themes I've advocated in a number of previous blog postings, such as updating the strategy for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and opening up more of the Gulf of Mexico for offshore drilling. That would provide prompt access to identified hydrocarbon resources such as Destin Dome and take in a healthy portion of the currently-understood resource potential of those areas that had been kept off-limits by the expired offshore drilling moratoria. In addition, the bill would expand our knowledge of our offshore energy resources, conventional and renewable, through a detailed inventory including seismic exploration. If we're going to have a meaningful national debate concerning the expansion of access for oil & gas drilling, a better understanding of what's actually there is a critical prerequisite. If that seems contrary to the goal of reducing our emissions, consider that the main CO2 cuts from the hydrocarbon sector will result from reduced consumption, which would come at the expense of our enormous oil imports, not from suppressing the domestic production and access to Canadian production that underpin our energy security.

As for energy markets, unlike the heavy-handed regulations buried in the miscellaneous provisions of Waxman-Markey, ACELA would increase the transparency of oil & gas trading by expanding the Energy Information Agency's data and analytical coverage and bolstering industry reporting requirements. And in another provision, the bill would commission a long-overdue assessment of the critical connections between energy and water that I mentioned in last Tuesday's posting.

The bill also emphasizes job creation, both explicitly and implicitly. Its provisions for renewable energy, efficiency, and electricity transmission and grid improvement would promote the same kinds of green jobs claimed by the supporters of Waxman-Markey. At the same time, its oil & gas provisions would stimulate jobs of the kind highlighted by a new labor-industry partnership between the American Petroleum Institute and 15 labor unions. The US oil & gas industry employs 1.8 million people directly and another 4 million or so indirectly. Both figures could grow further with expanded access to US resources, and these jobs typically pay well over the national average.

The gaps and conflicts between the House and Senate bills look too big to overcome through reconciliation, which would in any case require the Senate first to pass either its own energy bill or a version of Waxman-Markey. I spent some time on the phone yesterday with contacts on Senate staffs to try to understand the likely process. Several paths appear possible, with the simplest involving the use of Rule 14 to bring Waxman-Markey directly to the Senate floor. The controversy around the bill and its narrow margin of victory in the House suggest a low likelihood of success for this route. Another avenue would involve moving the House bill into the Environment and Public Works Committee chaired by Senator Boxer (D-CA) and modifying it extensively. That would create the opportunity to include or substitute the measures in the ACELA bill for those in Waxman-Markey. However, that might still not avoid the fate of last year's Boxer-Warner-Lieberman cap & trade bill, which fell significantly short on the cloture vote required to bring it to a full vote of the Senate. The composition of the Senate has changed significantly since last June, yet it remains to be seen whether supporters of cap & trade have gained enough votes to carry the day.

My strong preference would be for the Senate to graft a clean version of cap & trade onto Senator Bingaman's energy bill, jettisoning the distortions that Waxman-Markey acquired in the process of lining up enough House votes to ensure passage. Some of those distortions neatly cleaved the natural business coalition against the bill by lavishing so many free emissions allowances on the utility sector, but in the process severely undermined the bill's potential for achieving prompt and significant emissions reductions. They effectively gave a temporary Get Out of Jail Free card to the sector of the economy that is responsible for the single largest share of our emissions, yet possesses the best options for substituting cleaner natural gas for its highest-emitting energy sources. The legislative fusion I'm suggesting could put a price and a cap on CO2 emissions, while ensuring adequate supplies of nuclear power and North American fossil fuels to manage the long-term transition to a lower-emitting economy.

Read More

Gas and Electric Power

Gas Power and Electric Power Combined

gas power and electric power combined

By Andi Bintang

Gasoline powered vehicle

As the name implies, a gasoline powered vehicle uses a combustion engine as a source of power. It has a fuel tank that supplies gasoline to the engine which drives the transmission and turns the wheels.

Pros

With a single full tank, a gasoline-powered vehicle can run several times longer than an electric car.

A gallon of gasoline is much denser than batteries in terms of energy. For example, 1 gallon of gasoline (7 pounds) produces the same amount of power as 1000 pounds of batteries.

It can keep up with the traffic on the road.

You have the widest car options. From compact to full-size sedan, from pickup trucks to SUVs, from minivans to luxury cars, you can jump from one car dealer to another and still get the best car varieties.

You can also choose from different types and sizes of engines.

Cons

With the soaring prices of fuel, getting a gas tank full is very expensive. Combustion engine wastes a lot of energy and consumes a lot of fuel. It also emits pollutants that contribute to the depletion of the environment.

Electric vehicle

An electric vehicle has a battery that supplies power to the electric motor, which then drives the transmission and turns the wheels.

Pros

Since it does not consume fuel, an electric vehicle emits no toxic fumes which is good news for the environment.

Although the battery pack is expensive, electric power is cheaper as compared to pump prices.

Cons

The battery can power the car short distances on a single charging.

Batteries of an electric car take several hours to charge.

Electric cars cannot keep up with the traffic.

Its top speed is slower than gasoline cars.

Hybrid Car - Problem solved

Hybrid cars get the best of both engines. It uses both an electric motor and a combustion engine to drive the vehicle. That means that a hybrid can either run on an electric motor and use the advantages of an electric car, or run on a combustion engine and use the edge of a gasoline powered car. Or, it can run on both at the same time. Depending on the type of hybrid car, you can have the best fuel efficiency with a performance similar or even better than its non-hybrid counterpart.

Read More

The Gasoline Stimulus

US gasoline prices have attracted a fair amount of attention recently, as they climbed from a national average of just over $2.00 per gallon in mid-April to $2.69 last week. Much of that increase came just before Memorial Day, which historically signals the start of the driving season and higher consumption. Some regions have even begun to see prices at $3.00 or higher. As the news media has reported on this trend, I've heard more than one reporter comment that the recent price hikes have erased the effective economic stimulus that lower gasoline prices provided earlier this year. That didn't sound quite right, considering how much higher prices were last summer, but it wasn't until I looked at the actual data that I realized the stimulus has actually grown in the last month or so, not shrunk. However, unless oil prices are headed for an even bigger collapse than they experienced last fall, this stimulus must be short-lived. It will probably end entirely by November.

The aspect of economic stimulus I'm considering here results from the year-on-year comparison of average US gasoline prices. As the graph below shows, since slumping oil prices drove the pump price of gasoline below its level of a year earlier, starting last October, US unleaded regular has averaged $1.25/gal. cheaper than in the same week a year earlier. Even with gasoline demand down by around 3%, that equated to an injection of roughly $170 billion after-tax dollars per year into consumers' pockets. Despite the recent increase in prices at the pump, that year-on-year gap has grown, averaging $1.41/gal. since Memorial Day. For the average household, which owns two-plus cars and drives nearly 25,000 miles per year, that has reduced monthly expense budgets by around $120, compared to 2008. This has surely come in handy, as unemployment grew and we all waited for the federal government's $787 billion stimulus to ramp up.

Unfortunately, by the same definition I've used above this gasoline stimulus has a time limit, because it is essentially a mirror image of last year's pricing trends. The effect is widening just now, as we approach the anniversary of the all-time peak of oil prices of $145 per barrel on July 14, and the all-time high US gasoline price of $4.11/gal. that accompanied it. However, once we pass that point the normal seasonal weakening of the gasoline market would be hard-pressed to echo the slide that took oil prices all the way down to a more than four-year low under $34 by year-end 2008. While gas prices should retreat closer to $2/gal. again by fall, they're unlikely to go lower, ending the 2009 vs. 2008 pump-price gap.

As the economy recovers, we should expect prices to trend back up, independent of the eventual increase we can expect from the climate bill the House of Representatives passed last Friday--assuming the Senate ultimately passes a bill similar enough to the House version of cap & trade to be reconciled and become law. That means that future fuel prices are likelier to be a drag on the economy than a boost. Anyone putting off a road trip this summer due to "high gas prices" should perform a quick reality check on whether they are ever again likely to be much lower at this time of year.

Read More

Hybrid Car Features

Features You may Want for Your Hybrid Car

By Andi Bintang

Hybrid cars were not created equal. Some produce more power. Some are designed for maximum fuel efficiency. Some are built for city driving; others are made to turn heads. Most have unique features that further improve the quality of driving and fuel economy. When you are shopping for one, take note of the following features.

Regenerative braking system. In conventional gasoline-powered cars, all the kinetic energy (energy in motion) is lost and wasted during braking. Hybrid cars recapture this kinetic energy through the regenerative braking system back to the battery for future use. The regenerative braking system increases fuel economy and reduces wear to the brakes.

Low-rolling resistance tires. Tires are often not seen as a major factor in increasing the fuel economy. But in hybrid cars, they use low-rolling resistance tires to improve gas mileage. These stiffer, narrower, and inflated tires reduce the drag against the ground.

Fuel economy. Not all hybrids are fuel efficient. Some are made to perform. And even if the hybrids are made to get the longest miles out of every gallon of gas, some are still better than others. For example, the Ford Escape Hybrid runs 34 mpg in the city and 30 mpg on highway. Toyota Prius runs 48 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on highway. The Honda Civic Hybrid runs 40 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on highway. When choosing what hybrid car to buy, take note of these differences.

Periodic engine shut off. Idling consumes fuel too. So, most hybrid cars automatically turn off its combustion engine temporarily during stops. A hybrid car with this feature is most ideal if you drive in stop-and-go traffic most of the time.

Smaller and more efficient engine. Logically, the car does not actually need a V6 or a V8 in order to run because most of the time, your car only requires 20 hp to move. The extra horsepower is only needed during acceleration. This is the reason why hybrid cars are so efficient. They use smaller engines.

Safety, Comfort, and Space. These are 3 issues that are questionable to hybrid cars. In general, hybrid cars are as safe, as comfortable, and as spacious as their non-hybrid counterpart. But if you are more concerned about not getting these 3 in a hybrid car, you should not have a problem. There are several hybrid cars on the market today that focus on these 3 areas.

Read More