As much as anyone I look forward to the day when I’ll be able to drive a car that doesn’t use gasoline as the primary fuel source. And when I use the word “car” I mean a car like the ones we’ve become accustomed to. In general most people want cars that are stylish, economic, safe, affordable, flexible and have reasonable power. Each vehicle in the current field of electric vehicle contenders has one or more of those traits but none of them satisfies all the things that people expect out of a car. In fact I’m hard pressed to find vehicles that satisfies more than three of the six criteria mentioned above.
Consider the Aptera electric vehicle (pictured at left) which is made in California by Aptera Motors. With three wheels and just enough room for two passengers this vehicle has more in common with a motor cycle than a car. But with an expected price tag between $20,000 and $40,000 the Aptera sure does have a car-like price tag.
Then there’s the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) which is made by a Chrysler subsidiary called Global Electric Motorcars or GEM. The GEM e4 (pictured at right) is touted as, “…perfect for visiting family and friends or just recreational driving.” Unfortunately it’s only perfect if your family lives on the same block as you do. That’s because the top speed of the vehicle is 25 miles per hour and it has no doors. The vehicle is essentially a golf cart. But at a base price of over $11,000 the GEM e4 will set you back more than most used cars in very good condition.
If you’re part of the champagne and caviar set you have the option of going fully electric in a way that makes few compromises. The Tesla Roadster all electric vehicle made by Tesla Motors looks and performs like a sports car. It also has an impressive range of over 200 miles per charge. But the price tag of the Tesla Roadster is north of $100,000 and the production schedule only allows for about twenty vehicles each month. And with a 1,000 person waiting list you’d probably have to wait four to five years to get one even if you had the money to burn on this hot rod.
The presentation below was created as the term project for my graduate level economics class. Our analysis explored the key factors contributing to the rapid growth of wind generation in the United States between 1997 and 2007.
I think that one of the greatest threats to the clean energy movement is the myriad of misinformation and confusing rhetoric that is peddled by companies (large and small) who profess to be “green” or offer “green” solutions.
A web based service called CO2stats is a great case in point for illustrating both of those issues. The owner, Alex Wissner-Gross Ph.D.appears to be a very smart guy. Dr. Gross and his service hit the news recently via reports of a study he conducted that measured the “carbon footprint” of Google searches.
CO2stats, which is run out of a Boston apartment (source) sells “green certified site” badges. CO2stats is also offering to make websites “carbon neutral.” How does one make a website carbon neutral? You pay them of course and they’ll do it for you by purchasing, “…the appropriate amount of audited renewable energy from wind and solar farms.” (source) Anyone who knows anything about energy knows that no amount of credit purchases can “offset” the burning of a fossil fuel or the release of emissions into the atmosphere. You just can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
This company also claims to be able to know, “…what type of energy is being used to power the networks that are connecting your visitors’ computers with your servers.” Let me be one of the first to call that claim highly suspect. You can create a model to speculate on what type of power is being generated based on the location of the server and the fuel diversity profile of the region, if available. But no one can really know what percentage of fuel is powering a particular computer at any given time. So perhaps the “team” at CO2stats has some sort of a model. How accurate is that model?
What is really instructive to me when scanning the value proposition contained on the CO2stats website are the claims that they can assist with growing your business. The site exclaims, “Your subscription includes free advertising on one of the web’s largest green ad networks, spanning thousands of sites.” Could we see a comprehensive list of those sites please? CO2stats also claims that the presence of their special “green” badge will increase the amount of time that visitors stay on the website. All this leads me to wonder. Is there anything that CO2stats can’t do for a business? Click the huge SIGN UP NOW button, enter your credit card and find out.
Excuse me for being skeptical and a bit cheeky. I’m of the opinion that enterprises like CO2stats are merely marketing exercises, selling carbon offsets that are of dubious value to both the holder and the environment. Purchasing a carbon offset is tantamount to buying a get out of jail free card in the game Monopoly. And who knows what type of “green” extortion could occur the (hopefully not near) future? It’s possible that “environmental” groups could start charging companies that don’t have the approved “green” symbol on their websites with crimes against the earth.
The clean energy movement needs real solutions to difficult problems. It doesn’t need rhetoric designed to make people feel guilty about using their computers, having children, starting a business or doing anything else that uses energy. The clean energy movement certainly doesn’t need get out of jail free cards either. My hope is that in 2009 more people look beyond the hype and the marketing to realize that the long term energy problems can’t be solved by paying someone to allow you to post a certified “green” badge on your website.
The credit market freeze, stock market devaluations and commodities markets collapse are having a chilling effect on clean energy projects around the globe.
T Boone Pickens, a renowned Texan oilman who is raising the capital for the wind farm, told a US television station today that the twofold problem was slowing down his ambitious plan. Pickens, who made a fortune from the oil industry but has been converted to renewable energy as a means of ending US dependence on foreign oil, announced the original plan for the wind farm last year and construction was supposed to start in 2010.
In a sign of these strange economic times, Chrysler LLC is simultaneously preparing to launch its first hybrid vehicles and to shut down their production. Chrysler announced that it will close the Newark Assembly Plant in Newark, Delaware, at the end of this year, a move that will bring an end to the Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen in all their forms, including the new hybrids.
Evergreen Solar Inc., a Marlborough manufacturer of solar power panels, said today it has filed suit against Barclays and Lehman Brothers in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy cases. Evergreen Solar said it is demanding the immediate return of Evergreen stock shares loaned to Lehman Brothers in July as Evergreen Solar seeks to challenge Barclay’s ownership claim to shares transferred during Lehman Brothers bankruptcy proceedings.
FPL Group, the largest operator of wind-power generation in the United States, said on Monday it would slash its 2009 spending because of the economic slump, reducing its wind turbine additions. The company said it would cut 2009 planned capital expenditures nearly 25 percent to $5.3 billion and add 1,100 megawatts in new wind-power generation rather than the 1,500 megawatts it originally had planned.
The chief reason given for the rejection was related to viability of the project. According to the story, “The commission noted that a prototype buoy deployed by Finavera off the Oregon coast in 2007 sank before its six-week test period was concluded.”
The buoy in question sank in November of 2007 just one day before it was to be removed from the ocean.
Popular Mechanics reports, “Dubbed the Mini E, it will be available for lease in three states—California, New York and New Jersey—and only to those companies and individuals participating in the 500-unit pilot program. A 204-hp electric motor resides under the hood and powers the front wheels, a single-speed gearbox provides motive power and a 35 kilowatt-hour lithium-ion battery pack supplies the juice. Unfortunately, the battery pack takes the space normally occupied by the rear seats, so this Mini is just a twofer.”
It all sounds great, but there is a problem with small, stylish electric cars that must be considered. While these vehicles are likely to excite young, urban dwellers with a decent amount of disposable income, this same demographic is also less likely to have access to an outlet to plug into the car for charging.
Generation Y urban dwellers are more likely to live in an apartment building with a parking garage than a 3-bedroom house with a private garage. Adding electric in a shared building garage (or outdoor parking lot) requires the buy-in of building management and/or apartment owners. As a former condominium and co-op owner in the New York City area I speak from experience when I say, “Good luck with that.” It is very hard to get building boards to agree on basic building upgrades let alone ones that will require tens our thousands of dollars in electrical system upgrades.
Given the lack of available charging infrastructure in and around major cities, it stands to reason that sales of plug-in electric vehicles will fare much better in the suburbs where vehicle emissions due to traffic congestion is a much smaller issue.
The problem is clear. Plug-in electric vehicles are most needed in areas that tend to have more vehicle congestion, higher emissions and higher gas prices. But people living in those same areas also have much less access to a reliable charging infrastructure. A solution to this problem will likely make the difference between plug-in electric cars as novelty, second vehicles for the suburbs and plug-ins as the standard for urban private transportation.
The outlook for clean energy projects has started to change as a result of the current economic situation in the U.S. and around the world. A pair of news items underscore the wider issues that are likely to develop.
Noble Environmental Power has stopped work at its Bellmont and Chateaugay wind-energy projects and laid off its workers. And it appears the bankruptcy of one of its major financial backers may have played a part. “Due to conditions in the financial markets, Noble Environmental Power has had to scale back its development plans for 2009,” Noble Chief Executive Officer Walter Howard said in a written statement.
Citing “extraordinary times,” Tesla Motors, maker of the battery-powered, $109,000 Roadster, said Wednesday that difficult market conditions were forcing it to delay production of its next-generation vehicle, close two offices, lay off an unspecified number of employees and replace its chief executive.
Like all power projects, clean energy projects rely on investment capital. Investment capital is in short supply right now and is likely to be in short supply for the foreseeable future.
The latest Energy In Brief posting by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is very instructive on the topic of U.S. government subsidies for energy. I consider it recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand the level of government investment and how it effects energy production in the U.S.
In total, renewable energies were subsidized to the tune of $4.8 billion in 2007. That number put renewable subsidies ahead of any other type of energy source by over $2 billion.
There is detail on the amount of subsidies per unit of production as well. Wind producers were paid $23.37 per megawatt hour. Solar producers were paid $24.34 per megawatt hour. Biomass and Geothermal were subsidized at a very paltry rate of $.89 and $.92 per megawatt hour respectively.
The posting covers all types of subsidized energy and also includes comparatively generous subsidies for refined coal ($2.37 billion) and natural gas ($2.149 billion). Because coal and natural gas are so heavily relied upon for electric generation the cost per megawatt hour for either of them is very low. Natural Gas is subsidized at $.25 per megawatt hour and Coal is subsidized at $.44 per megawatt hour.
The wind industry was the largest beneficiary among renewable industries having received $666 million in production credits in 2007.
There is an opinion piece on the Weekly Standard today titled, “No Hope For A Sensible Energy Policy.” The article presents a very dim portrait of the chances for major changes in the U.S. energy landscape no matter who wins the race for the White House. The article makes points that touch on the real problems facing the development of every clean or emissions free power generation technology.
On ethanol, “Obama supports continued subsidization of corn-based ethanol production, despite the inflation in food prices that the switch to growing fuel instead of food is causing.”
On nuclear power, “Nuclear plants are dauntingly expensive–estimates of their cost seems to double every six months–and new nuclear plants cannot compete with existing coal- and gas-fired generation.”
On wind and solar, “Neither is the favorite of many environmental groups. Wind machines spoil their views, as the Kennedys argue from their Hyannisport waterfront compound…And solar installations take up huge swathes of land–almost 20 square miles in the case of one being built to service a tiny portion of the electricity consumed in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco area.”
On electric vehicles, “McCain would offer a taxpayer-funded prize of $300 million, and the infrastructure to service them. But the Arizona senator has given no indication of the government subsidies he has in mind to fund the replacement of your once-friendly gas stations with battery-charging substitutes.”
On cap and trade, “Neither concedes that consumers will end up paying the bill, or that the system has been a fiasco when tried in Europe…”
I think that the aforementioned points (and others in the article) do indeed address the real challenges facing the development of clean (or cleaner) energy technologies. It’s certainly not all about money. Throwing $150 billion at the cleantech industry guarantees nothing. And even if the investment (from government or otherwise) exists to develop new technologies there are many political and legal issues that could prevent those technologies from being deployed.
Last week Google.org announced their latest round of clean energy investments which are geared towards the development of unconventional geothermal technology. A total of about 11 million dollars will be invested across two companies and a university in order to lower the cost, improve the technical feasibility and expand research in the area of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).
While conventional geothermal technology relies on underground caverns that are filled with water or steam to produce energy, EGS technology injects water into dry holes, thus greatly expanding the number of possible sites that may yield power.
A 2005 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) assessed the possibility of wider EGS development. The MIT study concluded that, “The potential of EGS in evolving U.S. energy markets is large and warrants a comprehensive research and demonstration effort to move this technology to commercial viability”.
The Director of Climate and Energy Initiatives for Google.org says that, “EGS could be the ‘killer app’ of the energy world.” The challenges in developing meaningful production of energy from both standard geothermal and EGS are many though.
The MIT report notes that, “…the main constraint is creating sufficient connectivity within the injection and production well system in the stimulated region of the EGS reservoir to allow for high per well production rates without reducing reservoir life by rapid cooling.” So when you inject water into a dry hole that is hot, the rocks in the hole will get cooler over time. No one seems to know exactly how fast the rocks will cool. This fact raises the possibility that repeated drilling will be necessary in order to continue to exploit the geothermal resources in a particular location.
The impact of the drilling related to EGS is likely to be an issue that limits future development. According the Department of Energy, “Drilling a well and testing the temperature deep underground is the only way to be sure a geothermal reservoir really exists.” So in order to find your resource lots experimental drilling will have to occur. And the holes drilled are thousands of feet deep which means significant time and cost is involved.
The need to inject water presents another potential problem for EGS developers. Where will the water be pumped in from? How much water is needed to maintain production? These questions will be of great concern to the municipalities that govern the lands used in the production of this power.
EGS may be indeed be a viable clean energy generation technology. It is also a very a risky and expensive technology that yields its share of negative environmental impacts.
Consider the Aptera electric vehicle (pictured at left) which is made in California by Aptera Motors. With three wheels and just enough room for two passengers this vehicle has more in common with a motor cycle than a car. But with an expected price tag between $20,000 and $40,000 the Aptera sure does have a car-like price tag.
If you’re part of the champagne and caviar set you have the option of going fully electric in a way that makes few compromises. The Tesla Roadster all electric vehicle made by Tesla Motors looks and performs like a sports car. It also has an impressive range of over 200 miles per charge. But the price tag of the Tesla Roadster is north of $100,000 and the production schedule only allows for about twenty vehicles each month. And with a 1,000 person waiting list you’d probably have to wait four to five years to get one even if you had the money to burn on this hot rod.
The San Jose Mercury News 
Now that BMW 
RSS Feed
Email
Digg
Delicious