Argonne to lead DOE plug-in hybrid effort

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(xraynano @ Dec 11 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]360540[/snapback]</div>

And obviously, each of the two is a Prius.

Dave M.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(xraynano @ Dec 11 2006, 03:39 PM) [snapback]360540[/snapback]</div>

I realize the people who write the press releases and webpages are not the scientists, but this had a few peculiar items in it. One that caught my eye was:

"PHEVs require additional, expensive components. Very large, heavy, and costly batteries are required to provide vehicle range. "

I believe the hymotion conversion takes out your 100lb NIHM and puts in a 170lb Li-Ion. For that matter, a regular lead-acid starter battery weighs about 50 lbs. So this "very large, heavy" part seemed a bit spin-ish, for a straight-up goverment lab, given that you've got a commercial company doing this by adding a net 70 lbs of battery to the Prius. Just don't want the guys in charge to be naysayers from day 1.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Dec 14 2006, 05:30 PM) [snapback]362478[/snapback]</div>

I was concerned about the tone of the press release as well. I understand that in order to justify a program such as this at a national lab, there needs to be a clear "problem" that needs to be solved. Perhaps this is why the article appears to emphasis the potential "problems" associated with technology for PHEV's.

I agree with the previous poster that they've gone a bit too far in trying to make the problems seem larger than they really are. For example, they state:

"The U.S. Department of Energy has determined that to be commercially viable, a hybrid technology vehicle must repay its extra upfront cost in the form of fuel savings within three years of the initial purchase."

- I think the marketing folks at Toyota would beg to differ. If this were true, the Prius would not be considered "commercially viable". Yet, I think we're all in agreement that Detroit would love a top seller like the Prius. Are the U.S. auto manufacturers getting their marketing information from the DOE?

I prefer to take a different approach, and state the "problem" to the auto manufacturers this way:

Problem: The products you (the auto manufacturers) produce derive all their energy from burning petroleum. The consumption of and dependence on petroleum at current levels in this country pose major economic, national security, and environmental risks. When vehicles that operate on alternate sources of energy become commercially available in the near future, I (and hopefully, a large collective WE) will never buy another vehicle that derives 100% of its energy from petroleum products.

When stated this way, the problem is shifted from being one of technology for PHEV's, to one of marketing for the auto industry. As someone involved in the technical end of new product development, I can tell you that things happen much quicker when the marketing guys come and say "this is a problem... we need to do X in order to preserve our market", then waiting for a group of guys in a national lab to perform some studies and issue a report.

The key is for enough of us to state the problem this way to get the attention of the auto manufacturers. - By buying a successful product like the Prius (and subsequently Toyota kicking Detroit's butt), the market is validating our approach. And the "Prius" (latin root="former" or "prior") by its very definition means this is only the beginning. And it has to be only the beginning (see my signature statements below), if the objective is going to be achieved.

One other point on the whole "extended tailpipe" argument... The press release stated:

"Whereas virtually all electricity in the United States comes from domestic energy sources," Hillebrand said, "in some areas, much of that electricity would be generated by coal-burning power generation plants. The energy costs to extract and transport the coal, as well as the environmental considerations associated with burning the coal, are all part of the overall cost of using plug-in technology."

These issues decrease in importance as the amount of renewable energy in the electricity mix increases.

While this is all true, and does represent a problem, the source of the problem does not lie with PHEV concept or technology. The only way the problem is coupled with the application of PHEV's is because with the application of PHEV's there would be a substantial shift of energy currently consumed from burning petroleum that would be shifted to electricity taken from the grid. (Ironically, this is actually the objective.) The alleged problem here is that a significant amount of electricity currently available on the grid is derived from burning coal.

My point here is two-fold:

a.) The alleged "coal-burning-for-electricity" problem should not be coupled to the application of PHEV's. It should be addressed separately and in parallel - if one even considers it a problem. It is interesting that the director of the Argonne National Lab's Transportaion R&D Center even highlights this as a problem associated with PHEV's. Put the whole PHEV question aside for a minute. Shortly after the devastating 911 attack the acting Assitant Secretary of Fossil Energy for the U.S. DOE in a clean coal power initiative workshop stated:

"In the next 20 years... we expect electricity demand to grow by 45 percent, owing at least in part to the growth of power hungry information technology." (http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/pubs/kripowicz.PDF)

He then proceeded to elaborate on how clean coal was a critical part of our country's energy future. - PHEV or NO PHEV. Basically... WE NEED MORE ELECTRICITY! - with or without PHEV's. To suggest that coal-burning-for-electricity is some sort of limitation or obstacle to the implementation of PHEV's is kind of ridiculous and scary at the same time. - Ridiculous because our energy needs exist with or without PHEV's. And, scary because if the argument is true, then where the hell are we going to get the additional 45% of the electricity that we need in the next 20 years?!? This is basically saying that that we have no energy policy! The alleged problem then is much bigger than the PHEV issue, and certainly shouldn't be attributed to it.

To add additional perspective on this point, there was a recent press release summarizing a study from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204) that stated the benefits of powering vehicles from electricity from the grid out-weighed any perceived disadvantages.

b.) Even if one does consider the "coal-burning-for-electricity" a problem, PHEV's still address the primary 2 of 3 of the major risks stated in my origial "problem statement" above. That is, they still address the economic and national security risks associated with petroleum dependence, even if they do derive their electricity from coal burning power plants.

Well, that's my 2 cents (or 2 dollars). Basically, I'm not going to worry too much about the guys at the Argonne National Lab. I look forward to their tests and the reports they will generate. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that they are going to drive this. We need to get PHEV's (and EV's) on the road by whatever it takes. Whether that's going to be due to stuff like the folks at Calcars, or Hymotion, or Tesla Motors are doing, I don't know. But ultimately, commercial demand will drive this. Tremendous opportunities exist here for technology entrepeneurs. Let's keep our eyes on Tesla Motors.

 

Hi Danatt,

I sensed something off when I read that Argonne website too, but could not bring it to the surface, the way you did. Thanks for your post.

 

Well, this is disturbing, and is, as I see it, emblematic of the saying "physicists are always sure, but often wrong."

I hate to say it, but this release may be yet another example of a garbage press release "enforced" by the Bush administration. Why?

I read the PNL release, and they make no mention of one thing that is, IMHO, extremely important in the equation. This is the fact that PNL suggests that virtually all of the electricity that would be used to recharge PHEVs would come at off-peak hours. I heard somewhere that most off-peak electricity is wasted. Power plants cannot shut down during off-peak hours and, in fact, generate at full capacity at off-peak hours and that this energy must be used somewhere, so plants "dump" the excess energy. Assuming this is true (I see no reason why it is not since in the course of investigation of wind turbines I found that the excess energy had to be distributed to a "dummy load" that one could then use for heat), this means that there would be virtually no increase in coal or other fuel needed to supply the electricity demands of PHEVs. This is important, so I'll emphasize it a bit.

No additional fuel would be needed to supply the electricity demands of PHEVs because most off-peak electricity is dumped, i.e., most off-peak electricity is wasted.
I can see where a national laboratory might not want to put things as directly as this given the political and economic climate in the US. After all, the US could literally be considered addicted to fossil fuels; however, I believe that we must face up to this and start using all energy in a responsible manner.

OK, now that said, gas, LNG, etc., are expensive to transport to thousands of individual outlets throughout the US. Switching to electric would entail a major disruption of the fossil fuel distribution industry causing, perhaps, the loss of thousands of jobs from that industry, and it would almost certainly decrease the overall cost of energy distribution.

Think of it. Now, we have a widespread electric distribution network AND a widespread fossil fuel (gas, LNG, etc.) distribution network. PHEVs would enable us to get most of the fuel for the vehicles through only one of those distribution networks, the electric grid, and greatly reduce the need for the fossil fuel distribution network with all that that would entail. The price of gas would plummet.

However, as I see it, this is the path that needs to be taken. We cannot just simply go on with pseudo science telling us that the additional costs must repay itself within three years. It reminds me of the scene in "The Inconvenient Truth" where Gore shows the world balanced against the dollar bill. Just what sense does that make? The pseudo science used in this article harps back on the economic impact. In the long run if all the costs of fossil fuels vs PHEVs are examined in an unbiased, completely scientific manner, I think that it would be revealed that the long-term benefits of switching to PHEVs would far outweigh the short term consequences. In addition, I don't think that this matter should be considered solely on the grounds of economic merit. If this happens, it will be as if science is burying its head in the sand and ignoring the consequences of sticking to fossil fuels as our primary energy source.

I find the article also disturbing because it seems to emphasize the obvious costs associated with PHEVs while ignoring the benefits. Is battery recycling more hazardous than tail-pipe emissions?

It is a very disturbing article and, as I see it, may have been posted as damage control in response to the PNL report. After all, Argonne is a more widely known national laboratory with a reputation for scientific integrity. In my opinion, Argonne has lost its reputation with this one.

 

It's not just the Oil companies, Petroleum refineries and Gasoline companies that are going to try to block this every step of the way.

It's also the Utility companies.

Switching from gas to electricity will scare the former pee-less. But it opens the door for PV panels to go up on roofs all over. Okay, the car charges at night during off-peak and you're not generating power at night. But those same folks buying those EVs are going to try to reduce their peak electricity bill during the day by generating their own. And that is going to get the Utility companies in a twist.

All of the above have been making money hand over fist by yanking the consumer by the short hairs. A PHEV or EV coupled with a photovoltaic roof will eliminate the middle man, and the profits that go with it. They haven't figured out a way to charge us for the Sun (or the wind) yet.

I only hope that some legislation gets passed somewhere requiring the Utility companies to buy and pay for any excess electricy produced. Sure, some can already take advantage of it. But not where I am. SDGE will not pay for excess power produced. You offer people a chance to sell what they produce and they won't just install a system to meet their own needs. They'll put in as much as they can install/afford looking at selling the excess to pay for the system. That's what gets a million solar roofs up and running.

And we're going to need as many solar roofs as possible to take care of that 45% during peak hours. And wind. And geothermal. And whatever else.

Yes. This has to happen at the same time the plug-in is being developed in preparation for the return of the EV.

 

Great points xraynano.

Sorry to be away from this thread for so long. I just got back to finding it now.

I guess in cases like this determining whether or not the article was "pessimistic" or not is in the perception of the reader, which will vary from person to person. I choose to believe that the tone was not motivated by malicious intent to undermine the technology. But as I stated earlier, the tone did concern me. In issues like this perception can play a huge role in terms of acceptance or rejection.

To me, it seemed that the presentation of the problems in that article was motivated towards the justification of the program (and I do support the idea of doing that research). However, when you dig into the traceability of the arguments back to the actual problem you find that there are some logical inconsistencies. I tried to highlight those in my post.

As I stated previously one of these inconsistencies that struck me as particularly glaring was that the article presented PHEV's use of electricity as a problem because much of our electricity comes from burning coal. One would hope that the position of the national lab was aligned with that of the DOE. Yet (as I pointed out above, see link) the DOE position was that coal was the solution to our rapidly expanding electricity needs.
- Glaring inconsistency here. If you try to follow that logic it leads to the position that the use of electricity (for anything requiring a substantial amount of energy) should be avoided. Where does that leave us?!?
- My point here was that this argument is a non-starter, and certainly shouldn't be presented as a PHEV "problem".
- Alternatively, if the folks at ANL feel strongly that the coal burning problem is indeed a strong argument, then they need to properly focus it on the root cause. In this case they should take it back to the DOE, tell them the stated position on coal is a problem, and perhaps work on solving that. I would support that research as well.

What I'd really love to support is a coherent consistent energy policy that we could all understand and be confident in.