backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 29 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Dec 20 at 9:56 AM

The DOE says that the US is prepared for plug-in hybrids

Late last month, GM announced that it would introduce a Saturn Vue Green Line hybrid with plug-in capabilities before the end of the decade. The "plug-in" Vue Green Line will feature a two-mode hybrid powertrain and a power cord that allows the vehicle's batteries to recharge from a standard exterior 110-volt household outlet. According to GM, the plug-in hybrid will achieve 70MPG -- quite remarkable for a 3,500+ pound crossover.

With one of America's auto giants onboard with plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), it's quite fitting that the Department of Energy (DOE) is on the verge of releasing a study that shows that such vehicles could be of great importance in reducing America's reliance on foreign oil – not to mention reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the DOE study will show that 84% of the 220 million US vehicles in daily service could be powered using our existing power-generation infrastructure if they were PHEVs.

That 84% figure would be achieved if PHEV batteries are charged during off-peak hours. Many critics have claimed that our power grid wouldn't be able to handle such a heavy load if a substantial number of vehicles relied on electric power -- even if off-peak hours are taken into consideration. The DOE study, however, shows that Eastern and Midwestern states have enough surplus capacity for charging PHEV batteries, with the Pacific Northwest region being the most limited in terms of energy surplus. The latter region is more power constrained due to a heavy reliance on hydroelectric power generation. The Car Connection reports:

PHEVs would increase typical residential power consumption by 30 to 40 percent, according to the study, though the majority of that additional consumption would occur during off-peak hours, with commuters charging their vehicles at night. The researchers proposed that utilities could make the vehicles more attractive by billing residential customers a lower rate for off-peak power, as is common practice for industrial customers.

With PHEV vehicles being billed are giving consumers as much as a 50 mile range on battery power alone, it would more than enough to satisfy the average American's daily commute of 33 miles. As a result, America's reliance on foreign oil could see a substantial drop. "Since gasoline consumption accounts for 72 percent of imported oil, it is intriguing to think of the trade and national security benefits if our vehicles switched from oil to electrons," said Rob Pratt of the DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Would we really charge up off-peak?
By Kuroyama on 12/18/2006 1:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
Don't we already have trouble serving up enough electricity as it is? The article suggests that we can do charging off-peak. However, given that employers are encouraged to give special carpool parking lots and subsidize rail passes, I imagine that employers would also be encouraged to let us plug in our cars in the company parking lot, leading to charging during peak hours.




RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By Troll4Hire on 12/18/2006 1:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
America is the Middle East of coal, we have so darn much of the stuff that we could burn it for 300 years and possibly have some left.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By tkengalnd on 12/18/2006 2:13:45 AM , Rating: 3
Last time I checked though, coal was still a fossil fuel. Aside from decreasing reliance on foreign sources to provide our energy, we also need to move away from fossil fuels in general. I know it we won't completely transform our power usage in the next century, but swapping one source of fossil fuel for another isn't much of an improvement environmentally.


By Lifted on 12/18/2006 2:42:01 AM , Rating: 3
There are companies out there researching ways to minimize the impacts of burning carbon fuels for electricty as well. I wish more of our tax dollars would go to research like this than to support Oil wars.

This company in particular uses CO2 from power plants to produce algea which can in turn be used as a biofuel, thus reducing polution and creating more fuel in the process.

quote:
GreenFuel's patented Emissions-to-Biofuels™ (E2B™) process harnesses photosynthesis to grow algae, capture CO2 and produce high-energy biomass. The process serves as a flexible platform for retrofitting fossil-fired power plants and other anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide. Using commercially available technology, the algae can be economically converted to solid fuel, methane, or liquid transportation fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol. Using commercially available technology, the algae can be economically converted to solid fuel, methane, or liquid transportation fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol.

http://www.greenfuelonline.com/technology.htm

[PDF]
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/gf_files/GFTCCogend...


By EnzoFX on 12/18/2006 4:10:45 AM , Rating: 4
I read that even if all we did was switch from burning fossil fuel in our cars to burning another fossil fuel at a power plant, we would still be saving energy because we wouldn't be burning as much because the process would be more efficient, unified? I believe it naturally makes sense for 1 plant's process to be more efficient than the process of getting the fuel to many cars, there's too much room efficiency loss.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/18/2006 6:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't particularly like to chime in about environmental things, but I had to do some research on this for a project in college several years ago.

Aside from the fact that a significant portion of the midwest sits directly on top of coal, the U.S. is a huge research-ground for zero-emission coal (ZEC) power plants. Between government subsidies and the relatively cheap cost of fuel, in some regions it is actually cheaper to go with a ZEC power solution over nuclear.

Granted, the U.S. is also putting a lot of money into nuclear power plants as well. The problem with nuclear plants in the U.S. is that every plant is a one-off solution. Once the country standardizes a design and sticks with it, nuclear may be much cheaper.

Now for the proponents on the other side, nuclear is not the end-all either. Aside from the insane amounts of coal in the U.S., we also have the largest shale deposits in the world. It is currently too expensive to extract oil from shale, but lots of research has projected that in 20-30 years it will be cheaper to extract oil from shale than to import it from other countries.

None of these solutions are ultimately enviromentally friendly. Strip mining shale and coal destroys miles of farmland, and putting nuclear waste into a mountain that will remain there for the next 10 millennium is unnerving too. However, there is so much momentum for all three of these fields that unless someone discovers the secrets of hydrogen economy within the next 5 years, we're going to be using all three by 2030.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 8:57:01 AM , Rating: 4
> "putting nuclear waste into a mountain that will remain there for the next 10 millennium is unnerving too"

One thing to remember which may put this into perspective. Unlike most industrial wastes which remain forever dangerous, nuclear waste decays. Mercury, lead, chlorine, etc-- all are permanently toxic. Nuclear waste loses its radioactivity eventually. And the more radioactive it is, the faster it decays...thats a basic law of physics. The truly dangerous isotopes have half-lives measured in weeks or even hours. Its the slow-decaying (and far less dangerous) isotopes that remain radioactive for thousands of years.

Anti-nuclear advocates like to scare people with those "thousands of years" figures. But isotopes in the in the air we breathe have half-lives measured in thousands or even billions of years...it is that very long lifespan which makes them safe.

As for the hydrogen economy, you have to remember that hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. No matter what advances we make in the generation, distribution, and use of hydrogen, its still going to require massive amounts of energy to create it in the first place.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/18/2006 9:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
All good points :) I can't argue there


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By Pirks on 12/18/06, Rating: -1
By hubajube on 12/18/2006 4:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Very nice points there masher! I don't mind these types of discussions when they filled with informed content. I just despise the scare tactics and the "you're an idiot if you don't believe me" discussions.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By RogueSpear on 12/18/2006 6:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it is that very long lifespan which makes them safe.


While you make some good points, I don't think I'd ever consider nuclear waste to be "safe". You went out of your way to disparage anti-nuclear advocates as using hyperbole in order to scare people, while at the same time making it sound as though this stuff is so innocuous that you could store jars of it in your pantry.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 10:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "I don't think I'd ever consider nuclear waste to be "safe""

Safe is a relative term. Water has killed far more people than nuclear waste ever has or will. Is water safe? What about the rocks in your own backyard? If you live in a Rocky Mountain or New England state, your backyard has a few tons of nuclear waste in it...waste left over from the creation of the planet. And in your own home, you'll experience radioactivity levels far higher than are allowed for an operating nuclear power plant.

Nuclear waste is a non-issue. High level waste is extremely dangerous for 6-12 months. Low-level waste constitutes nearly all of the bulk...and its far less dangerous than most of the things found under your kitchen sink.

> "making it sound as though this stuff is so innocuous that you could store jars of it in your pantry"

My physics advisor in graduate school actually kept a small bit of radioactive yellowcake on his desk, encased in lexan. It generated the same level as did Three Mile Island, at the height of its radioactivity release. He had it there a couple decades at least.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By goz314 on 12/19/2006 6:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuclear waste is a non-issue.


O really? If it's such a non-issue and, according to you, arguably less dangerous than the natural background radiation produced from the decay of uranium or other naturally occuring sources, then I vote to put it all in your backyard. Who needs Yucca Mountain? We can save the American taxpayers and the residents of Nevada a whole bundle of money and heartache. ;-)

Listen... I hear what you are saying. Overall the risk to the public from nuclear (or, as our fearless president likes to pronounce it... nukular) waste generated from spent fuel rods, idustrial use, or weapons production is pretty low. Many people are fearful of utilizing nuclear power and its considerations without understanding the true nature of the technology and natural processes behind it.

To discount the issue, however, because your physics advisor kept a hunk of yellow cake on his desk for x number of years without incident I think is kind of a short sighted and narrow way to argue your point, and it's not representative of the entire scope of the issue. Your implied comparisons between the natural sources of radioactivity in one's own backyard and that of the by-products from fission reactors, for example, hardly qualifies the latter as being safer by association. The concentrations of radioactive materials in high level waste is orders of magnitude higher than that contained within the earth's crust.

While not as toxic to human physiology in low quantities as say botulinum toxin, Plutonium and most of the other tansuranic elements created through the various nuclear process reactions in power reactors are both toxic and highly radioactive. Consequently, Plutonium's most common isotope has a half life of 24000 years -hardly a short period of time in the course of human events. That's why spent fuel rods, in part, are placed in re-inforced shielded casks buried in the ground.

Sure Polonium, Radium, Radon gas, and a number of other naturally occuring radioactive elements can be equally as hazardous. After all, if one is terminally poisoned slowly over time or in a matter of days or weeks doesn't matter in the end -just ask Marie Curie or more recently, the ex-Russian spy, Litvenenko.

If given the choice, however, between dealing with the natural sources of radioactivity inherent to our environment in their more or less natural concentrations and having a spent nuclear fuel rod or decomissioned plutonium pit in my own backyard, I would choose the former. (so would every other right-minded and sane person out there)

For the sake of peace-of-mind let alone safety, I contend that nuclear waste is an issue. It's one that should be dealt with even if it isn't fully understood and the public has misconceptions about it.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/20/2006 9:56:58 AM , Rating: 1
> "If it's such a non-issue and...then I vote to put it all in your backyard."

Fine by me. If the storage facility is even 1% as well-designed as what they've proposed for Yucca Mountain, then I'll have a higher chance of being struck by lightning twice in a day, than I would of suffering harm from a radiation leak from it.

> "To discount the issue, however, because your physics advisor kept a hunk of yellow cake on his desk for x number of years without incident I think is kind of a short sighted "

The reason I discount it is due to familiarity with all the underlying issues. I've worked in a yellowcake reprocessing facility myself, and some of my graduate work involved a research reactor. The incident I cited is simply illustrative. We live in a constant bath of radiation, from numerous natural sources. If the average membre of the public carried around a geiger counter all day long, they'd fear radioactivitity considerably less.

> "Plutonium and most of the other tansuranic elements created through the various nuclear process reactions in power reactors are both toxic and highly radioactive"

Plutonium, however, is easily separable from spent fuel rods, and reprocessed and reinjected into the fuel cycle. Plutonium is a highly valuable nuclear fuel...its only viewed as "waste" due to political issues. And that is the point I'm making...the issues here aren't technological, they're political.

As for the rest of the high-level waste components, nearly all of them have extremely short half-lives. Which is why spent fuel in a cooling pond loses most of its radioactivity within a few months.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By gerf on 12/18/2006 3:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
He's saying our distribution system is not up to snuff. We may be able to generate more power, possibly from coal, but increasing load might be too much for the substations, transformers, power lines, etc.

It's not just New York City with outages. I'm in WI, and there are brown and black-outs in the summer months.

I'm sure the DOE realizes this, and is not just looking to curb gasoline useage, but also to improve the electrical grid infrastructure ahead of absolutely needing it in case of overload system-wide.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 12/18/2006 6:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm in WI, and there are brown and black-outs in the summer months.

Blame the closure of all of Illinois' nuclear power grid on that one. Even though the IL nuclear grid never serviced WI, all of the plants the plants that used to service WI along the IL border were allocated to power Chicago instead. The one Zion nuclear facility used to power almost all of Chicago and 1/4 of IL alone before it was closed in 1998.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 8:58:05 AM , Rating: 2
> "He's saying our distribution system is not up to snuff"

Our distribution system has enormous amounts of spare capacity at nighttime...the time at which most of the charging of a PHEV would occur.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By kleinwl on 12/18/2006 1:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
Battery power provides energy for the PHEVs’ first 20-60 miles of travel each day. This means electricity costs replace gasoline costs in those allotted miles. Electricity in the US is generated from nuclear, coal, and gas power plants. The combination of diversified sources and a cheap, established coal market has consistently kept the price of electricity low. For a PHEV battery that that runs at 0.674 kWh per mile, it will cost approximately $0.04-$0.05 per mile when the price of electricity is $0.03/kWh. This contrasts with the cost of driving on gasoline. For a car that gets 20 mi/gal of gasoline, it will cost $0.08-$0.09 per mile when the price of gasoline is $1.80/gal.

However, even given the cost savings, the price premium for a plug in hybrid is unlikely to be overcome with cost savings for the first 200K - 300K miles.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/18/2006 2:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "For a car that gets 20 mi/gal of gasoline, it will cost $0.08-$0.09 per mile when the price of gasoline is $1.80/gal.

However, even given the cost savings, the price premium for a plug in hybrid is unlikely to be overcome with cost savings for the first 200K - 300K miles"


I never thought I'd be in the position of defending PHEVs to anyone. But I have to point out your figures are slightly off. First of all, the average price of gasoline today is $2.30/gallon, not $1.80...and some people are paying $3 or more.

That puts your cost savings at roughly $0.06/mile. Over 200,000 miles, thats $12K. Were that the only savings, you might have a point...but to compare apples to apples, you either need to count in the higher economy of the hybrid itself, or you need to count only the additional cost of offering a "plug-in" variant over a normal hybrid.


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By qdemn7 on 12/18/2006 3:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
Companies are doing more than burning coal. Windpower is growing the fastest of renewable energy sources. And there's always nuclear power. I think people and companies are finally getting serious about other sources of energy.

Wouldn't it be nice to tell the OPEC countries to take their oil and... drink it?


RE: Would we really charge up off-peak?
By Samus on 12/18/2006 6:14:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, GM tried this 10 years ago with the EV1. The oil companies and for the most part, the government, wouldn't let them continue to produce it because it pissed off the oil companies and the Saudi's.

Maybe now that they're on the virge of bankrupcy they don't give a shit ;)


By i2mfan on 12/18/2006 8:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
The "environment" has changed since then. People don't like the wars and are more willing to look at other sources. Canada can sell you the extra electricity and oil that you need. We are the perfect neighbor. :D It may also help clean the air and reduced smog alert and noise pollution.

Oil will still be needed for longer drive.


By frobizzle on 12/18/2006 7:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
I hope GM is not planning to use batteries produced by Sony!


One problem
By PrinceGaz on 12/18/2006 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 1
The main problem I forsee with a plug-in hybrid, is will the cable be long enough for an average journey from home to work :p




RE: One problem
By Jedi2155 on 12/18/2006 12:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
Now that is a poor joke :P.


RE: One problem
By oTAL (blog) on 12/18/2006 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
It kinda reminded me of Neon Genesis Evangelion though. Massive power hungry robots that had to be be attached to the grid or they would run out of power in 60 seconds.


Where's Mr. Fusion?
By HueyD on 12/18/2006 8:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
I want Mr. Fusion, (Back to The Future) Put in some old beer and garbage and wa la!! Instant engergy. :)




By The Blue Moose on 12/18/2006 1:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Charging these things only in off-peak hours would be easy enough. They could simply be on a timer. You plug it in when you get home. If the batteries are below a certain point, it charges them to some minimal level then. But, it waits to do a full charge until 3AM. If needed, you could override the thing and force it to charge, or tell it to do nothing until off peak hours.

Another possibility would be to work with the power company. In NC here, most power comapanies have a program where your home A\C is connected through a special circuit. In times of emergency the power company can send a signal down the line to cut off your A\C and save power. Something similar could be done for cars. They send a signal to stop charging in times of emergency, or send a signal when it's ok to draw all the power you want.

There is usually an incentive of a slight discount on your power bill attached to such programs.




Can someone tell me
By Dfere on 12/18/2006 4:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
1) If 70 MPG takes into account an equivalency of the "MPG" of electricity charged or if this is just an avg based on nightly recharges and tyical consumer driving?

2) If this hybrid recharges while running on gas?

Thanks





"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki