« Dreaming of Curitiba | Main | Sloth: Perhaps not a sin, but still deadly »
November 14, 2005
Electrifying Transportation
Editor's note: This is one of a series of posts from guest contributor Richard Feldman, regional organizer for the Washington arm of the Apollo Alliance; and executive director of the Worker Center, the economic and workforce development division of the King County Labor Council, AFL-CIO.
Every 20 minutes outside my home in Seattle, a vehicle quietly swishes by that uses not one drop of foreign oil for fuel and emits zero greenhouse gases. What is this wondrous vehicle? It’s a King County Metro electric trolley bus, powered by electrical fuel from Seattle City Light, now the first major utility in the U.S. to achieve no “net emissions” of greenhouse gases.
Electricity for transportation? In Seattle, we take it for granted--almost to the point of not thinking about it as an alternative fuel. But electricity could play a much greater role in moving the Northwest to energy independence and reducing tailpipe pollutants. Unlike a hydrogen future, which will require massive investments in fueling infrastructure, electrical infrastructure is pervasive and in place right now.
For example, we could expand the electric bus trolley system. Or make any of the proposed bus rapid transit corridors electric. We could electrify our ports. Oregon's Climate Trust has paid for truckstop electrification; substituting electric grid power for diesel idling. RailPower is making hybrid switcher locomotives powered off a large bank of batteries (it's currently recharged by a small diesel, but in the future perhaps it could be plugged into the grid for recharging).
And on the passenger vehicle front, we could promote plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs) until the automakers start producing them. PHEVs are like some current hybrids but with larger batteries and the ability to re-charge conveniently, so local travel of 20 to 60 miles is electric, yet the vehicle has unlimited range. PHEVs drop gasoline consumption by 60 to 80 percent relative to conventional vehicles across all classes from compacts to full-size SUVs. (See chart below, from ET Currents.)
Felix Kramer of the nonprofit CalCars describes a PHEV as "like having a second small fuel tank that you always use first. You get to fill this one at home with electricity at an equivalent cost of under $1 a gallon. You refill from an ordinary 120-volt socket, with energy that's much cleaner, cheaper and not imported." He should know. Felix and his crew have built the world's first PHEV Prius prototype. (And they're coming to the Northwest this week. See bottom of post for details.)
Furthermore, PHEVs charged at night take advantage of idle generating capacity (forty percent of the generating capacity in the U.S. sits idle or operates at reduced load overnight). In addition, wind-generated electricity tends to increase at night. Various models by EPRI (pdf), Argonne Labs and others show that PHEVs using nighttime power would result in large reductions in emissions even with the average national grid providing power (50-60 percent coal).
Sure, batteries can be improved. But in real-world driving situations NiMH batteries used to power Toyota’s RAV 4 Electric Vehicles traveled over 100,000 miles with no appreciable degradation in battery performance or vehicle range. Improving and mass-producing PHEV batteries seems much more achievable than figuring out how to make a hydrogen fuel cell provide locomotion.
And if a PHEV is also a flexible fuel vehicle, you can get 200-400 miles per gallon of petroleum. (A flex fuel vehicle is a standard gasoline car with a stainless steel gas tank, Teflon hoses, and a computer adjustment that allows it to run a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline as well as 100 percent gasoline. These vehicles are being manufactured now.) This is an energy-independent future that combines the development of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel with the convergence of the electrical and transportation sector. It builds off of existing infrastructure and systems combined with American (and Japanese) ingenuity to guarantee our energy security. And it is a vision that is shared by a wide spectrum of supporters, from the Commissioners of the Port of Chelan County (pdf), to neo-con James Woosley to environmentalist Lester Brown.
Several cities, including Seattle, are looking at signing on to the City-of-Austin-led Plug-in National Campaign to demonstrate to automakers that a market exists for flexible fuel PHEVs.
By coincidence, Felix Kramer and Ron Gremban of CalCars will be driving their 100MPG Prius+ PHEV prototype through the Northwest this week. Today, they were at a press conference hosted by the Mayor’s Office, Seattle City Light, the Apollo Alliance and the Mayor’s Green Ribbon Taskforce on Climate Protection. At 2pm today, they’re at South Seattle Community College West Seattle Campus Auto Bldg room 134. Tomorrow, they join the leading lights of the PHEV world in Wenatchee for the Advanced Vehicle Initiative Summit.
Posted by Rich Feldman | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834573a7069e200d83495dac069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Electrifying Transportation:
Comments
It seems that we are so engrossed what to do about our environment and economy as well. Specially in terms of transportation, saving of money on fuel and what is best of the best. Georgia Tech is helping design the electric and electric-hybrid vehicles of tomorrow. Electric vehicles are quiet, generate no tailpipe pollution and would be the most efficient mechanism of transportation — but completely electric vehicles have some design hurdles that must be overcome before they can be mass produced. Hybrid-electric vehicles, a cross between electric vehicles and those that use internal combustion engines, run more cleanly than conventional internal combustion vehicles while maintaining the extended range that travelers have come to expect. But, according to Robert Michelson "Hybrid vehicles are more expensive because they have many redundant parts when compared to purely electric vehicles". Still, Automakers Show More Efforts to Produce Greener Cars(http://autopartsinfo.blogspot.com/2005/10/automakers-show-more-efforts-to.html ).
Posted by: Jenny McLane | Nov 14, 2005 10:28:44 PM
thanks for this richard. i believe i saw you speak at the "independence from oil" day + parade?
one of the benefits of fuel cells commonly stated is that they can produce energy for your house. althought PHEVs would not be capable of this, maybe a PHEV battery could be used for electricity when needed?
could PHEV technology be used on trolleys? whereby they could charge while using the grid and remain being powered electrically while the batteries last?
Posted by: charles | Nov 15, 2005 12:50:03 AM
Jenny,
Hybrid cars are definitely a significant improvement. However, they are still a gasoline vehicle. Current hybrids do not run in an all electric mode except for startup or idling. A PHEV on the other hand is able to run in all electric mode for 30 to 60 miles enabling all local travel to be done on electricity. This is what produces the dramatic improvements in MPG of oil. When the battery is drawn down normal hybrid operation kicks in giving the PHEV unlimited range; an advantage over an all electric vehicle which needs to stop and recharge after the battery is drawn down.
Charles,
I just came from the AVI conference in Wenatchee and there was some talk about using PHEVs as emergency power sources. Felix Kramer of CalCars in his 10 talking points notes "Suitably equipped hybrids and PHEVs can serve as mobile electricity generators after disasters and outages, providing low-emission 120-volt power for days to emergency centers and individual homes."
See his post http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/power/preparedness-after-katrina
for a discussion on how PHEVs could be mobilized to respond to a disaster like Katrina.
The PHEV idea for bus trolleys might be interesting. Perhaps the batteries could be used to bridge a gap from one set of overhead wires to another or as a range extender for bus trolleys. The electric & diesel bus trolleys that operated in Seattle's bus tunnel could come on and off the overhead wires. But I don’t know if a PHEV bus is operationally or economically feasible.
Posted by: Rich Feldman | Nov 16, 2005 11:54:49 AM
See www.commutercars.com for an ultra-narrow, electric vehicle prototype that can double highway capacity and parking availability. All with available technology. These cars need to get into production. I'd buy one!
Posted by: Larry | Nov 18, 2005 2:08:33 PM
If these cars were equipped with "smart grid" technology they could know when they are being fed by the coal power plant in Centralia vs. wind power from eastern Washington. The user could specify a preference for renewable energy (or simply purchase green energy offsets) and presto, transportation without the guilt of using foreign sourced, terrorist funding, carbon emitting, gasoline.
Posted by: Matt Leber | Nov 18, 2005 4:36:11 PM
I think there is a lot of good information and good ideas in this thread. However, I think the whole idea of PHEV's is pie-in-the-sky.
Let's say Toyota could pump out 30,000 PHEV's/year (about the number of Prius's?). And let's say they all came here. I'm estimating there are about 1 million cars in this area. So that would be about 30 years to replace our current fleet.
However, according to many independent oil professionals, global oil production will peak around 2010. When depletion sets in, prices oil prices will sky rocket and shortages will ensue. We won't have 30 years to replace our fleet!
In other words, our current car-based transportation system is unsustainable, PHEV's or not. We will be forced to mass transit. That's where our energies ought to be going.
Sure PHEV's will be useful for some, but they won't answer our future needs. And I haven't even addressed the extra load on the grid a million cars would demand. Nor the prohibitive cost of replacing a fleet of cars.
Posted by: Colin Wright | Nov 23, 2005 12:15:38 AM
Colin, the same criticism can be said of working to improve CAFE standards or adopting California vehicle emission standards as Washington State did last year and Oregon is on track to follow. They apply only to new vehicles. Clearly any and all efforts to improve vehicle efficiency are critical and the longer these efforts are postponed the higher our future oil imports and C02 emissions. Part of dealing with the problem is by not making it worse. And, having flex-fuel PHEVs in the future getting 200-400 mpg of oil brings overall consumption down even if they are not 100% of the fleet.
The present focus of the National Plug-in Hybrid campaign is on OEM’s and convincing them to build flex-fuel PHEVs. But it is not inconceivable that conversions of existing hybrids to PHEV and existing conventional cars to E85 could not make a substantial contribution if oil prices increased greatly. One small company, Edrive Systems, is now gearing up to convert Priuses to PHEV. No aftermarket conversion company has taken the initiative to certify an E85 kit that would allow a gasoline vehicle to operate on 85 percent ethanol.
There will not be one silver bullet to resolve oil dependence. The Apollo Alliance sees transit as a critical component. But transit doesn’t deal with oil consumption by our ports, trucks or rail systems. Alternative fuels, biofuels and electricity, have to be part of the solution. Better to start now in developing these alternatives then when we are facing a crisis.
I personally don’t find the peak oil doomsday scenario useful in organizing a response. As with any apocalyptic vision, it tends to engender paralysis or perverse reactions. “There is no hope and there nothing we can do.” And, it discounts the adaptability of our society. We are in a serious situation right now no doubt. With worldwide available oil supply barely able to keep up with demand and no spare pumping capacity from the Saudis, we are subject to political disruption and rapid price escalation. But I strongly believe that America is a can-do country. We have a history of facing and overcoming great challenges.
On the electrical load of PHEVs. Remember these are charged off peak. Here’s an estimate from ET Currents www.iags.org/platts0705.pdf:
“If we assume that 5 percent of the 17.2 million cars and light trucks that the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates will be sold in 2010 are PHEVs with a 20-mile electric range, that on average they can travel 4 miles per kilowatt-hour of grid electricity delivered, and that on an average day they are driven 15 miles in all-electric mode, the total annual load would amount to 1.17 million megawatt-hours (MWh). If the vehicles are recharged over a 10-hour period, the average load would amount to just over 320 megawatts (MW) on a national basis.”
320 megawatts is quite minimal. Even doubling that to 640 megawatts is not a cause for discounting PHEVs.
Posted by: Rich Feldman | Nov 29, 2005 12:57:05 PM
Richard, I am surely in favor of improved CAFE standards, PHEV's and any other policies and technologies that will reduce our consumption of oil. I think PHEV's will prove crucial in getting us towards a sustainable society.
But I don't believe American exceptionalism (can-do spirit) can save our current auto-centered industrial way-of-life. In fact, a can-do spirit that simply buries its head in the sand and ignores best scientific estimates of resource depletion, I would say is a hindrance to a future with a decent standard-of-living for all.
By saying that peak oil is not worth worrying about because you think it might paralyse people is like saying you don't think people are smart enough to deal with the truth. Better to face up to facts squarely and then craft meaningful responses and solutions is my attitude. Some communities around the country are trying just that (eg Willets, CA).
Again, the best science says global oil production could peak by 2010 (given the uncertainties in reporting reserves). These are not crackpot estimates. They come from petroleum engineers and executives who are independent of the oil companies (Matthew Simmons, Colin Campbell, Representative Rosscoe Bartlett, etc...)
Nevertheless, if we had 5% of our vehicles as PHEV's by 2010 that would help enormously with distribution of resources and reducing oil imports. Say after peak, depletion rates fall at 5%/year, PHEV's could help us get down to the 95% level. With this sort of gradualism and stratgegy it would be possible to avert the worst kinds of disasters.
Thereafter it would be necessary to reduce the car fleet by 5%/year (or whatever the depletion rate was). That would mean more reliance on public transit (including more electrifed buses and trains), as well as a shift to working-closer-to-home, etc. But with hydroelectric power essentially maxed out in this area, we would be unable to fuel a fleet of PHEV's comparable to what we have today.
Unless I suppose you burnt every last lump of coal and uranium you could find. That might get us another 50 years of insanely-clogged freeway traffic, followed by an inevitable apocacalyse and a fried planet.
Posted by: Colin Wright | Nov 30, 2005 11:41:02 PM
"I strongly believe that America is a can-do country. We have a history of facing and overcoming great challenges."
I can't help but grin to hear these words. Our economy and country are poised for eternal growth, and the absurdity of that future is something we have a history of not facing at all. In the 1800's we moved west and in the 1900's we dominated other countries. Now, we're gutting environmental rules and playing a dangerous game of housing brinksmanship because we don't have anything in our economic bag of tricks but "growth", and it won't work forever.
We are NOT a country ready to face that music, and when peak oil starts playing, the beloved earmuffs of people like yourself might not seem "useful in organizing a response", either.
Your views on peak oil should probably be organized around the realities we face, instead of around their usefulness in organizing people. No matter how good a fight you put up, you won't win if you fight the wrong enemy. The absurdity of the infinite growth culture is the right enemy.
Posted by: Robert Nelson | Dec 1, 2005 7:47:30 AM
It's great to see discussions of how quickly we could phase in new plug-in hybrids (and perhaps conversions of existing hybrids). The sooner we start, the smaller a hole we'll have to dig out of (not that it's not already a huge hole). And in my view, it's CO2/global warming that's a far greater threat than the price of oil.
My feeling on peak oil: too many people think that on at some particular moment, when oil supplies peak, everything will change. In fact, oil will always be available--it will just tend to get more expensive. (I wouldn't even rule out another large decline in oil prices in the near future--it's entirely possible, given how the supplies are controlled. Most people don't realize that the extraction costs for Middle East Oil are well below $10/barrel.) The cover story of December's Wired magazine looks at all the new technologies that could kick in as oil prices rise. (In some cases, I think they're overly optimistic about technologies that need further development, and I believe they're very mistaken in saying PHEVs won't arrive until oil is well over $100/barrel, but the article is worth reading!)
Getting back to plug-in hybrids, Toyota is already producing hundreds of thousands of hybrids a year, and Ford aims to increase its production by a factor of ten in the next few years. No reason why, if we really HAD to do it, we couldn't rapidly increase production of flex-fuel PHEVs worldwide. In 1942, after Pearl Harbor, the entire US auto industry went from cars and trucks to tanks in planes in a year. This is easier than that....
Of course, a rapid expansion of electrified and PHEV mass transit at the same time would make all the sense in the world.
Felix Kramer, founder, CalCars.org
(Check in at the CalCars News Archive in the next few days for a report on our Seattle/Wenatchee trip.)
Posted by: Felix Kramer | Dec 4, 2005 10:48:41 PM
