What Lies Ahead for Hybrid Car Investors?

We found out that Tesla Motors joined the growing list of automakers receiving federal funds this week. It locked up $465 million to develop and produce battery-powered vehicles.

But as we know too well, large government checks are hardly ever the answer to our problems. And one of the biggest right now is that we’re seeing gas prices climb slowly higher.

While $147-a-barrel oil served as a wake-up call for the car-driving consumer, it was also the catalyst that shifted the plug-in electric vehicles industry into high gear (pun intended).

I’ve talked about Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) before, and I’ve heard a lot of reader comments on the hybrids on the market right now. So let’s take a look at some of the major car companies’ efforts so far, as well as what lies ahead for consumers and, more importantly, for investors…

GM’s (GMGMQ.PK) Escalade - An Implausible Hybrid SUV

Starting with the ridiculous, GM has a hybrid version of the Cadillac Escalade that seats eight…

• While a minuscule market for large SUVs still exists, these $70,350 base-price behemoths aren’t exactly flying off dealer lots in this economy.
• Even if you’re willing to choke down the expensive sticker price, the hybrid version of the Escalade gets a mere 21 MPG on the highway… and that’s only 10% better than its non-hybrid brethren (19 MPG).
• Incidentally, that difference amounts to a paltry $1,506 savings in fuel over the life of the vehicle, assuming a vehicle life of 100,000 miles and $3.00/gallon gas.

Compare that to the new five-passenger Honda (HMC) Insight that gets 50-plus MPG and comes with a $19,000 price tag, making it the most affordable high-mileage hybrid on the market.

Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Cars: Don’t Believe The Hype

While gasoline-electric hybrids are a small improvement over straight internal combustion engine-based vehicles, they’ve been over-hyped by the media and the car manufacturers.

Sadly, many consumers have the perception that gasoline-electric hybrids are the answer to our oil import problem. Getting a feeling of deja vu?

You should be: Corn-based ethanol was going to seriously put a dent in our oil imports, too. Of course, it’s turned into one of the biggest government-sponsored boondoggles of the 21st century.

Like all other large, successful, problem-solving exercises, this one is going to be solved by private industry. The government’s role will (hopefully) be limited to providing tax incentives for the manufacturers, as well as similar incentives for the buying public. The wheels are already in motion on both fronts.

Let me make a bold prediction: In the next 10 years, gasoline-electric hybrids will go the way of their fossil-fuel predecessors. The automobile market is rapidly moving to all-electric vehicles, and it’s going to happen faster than anyone can possibly imagine. Here’s why…

• The problem with the two gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles mentioned at the beginning of this article - and all hybrids, for that matter - is that they are just that: hybrids. You still have to visit the gas station, just not quite as often. (Although with the Escalade, you’d be hard-pressed to notice the difference in your wallet.)
• There’s only one reason hybrids have been so popular the past few years: The federal government - and public pressure - has forced the car companies to come up with something to give the perception of reducing our oil imports. Voila: the $70,000, two MPG-less Escalade hybrid.

The problem is that the amount of premium paid for these vehicles as a whole negates the minuscule benefit derived by the slightly better mileage. Clearly a better solution is needed.

Plug-In Electric Vehicles: Passing By the Pump… Permanently

Fortunately, the automobile industry is hard at work on one. Coming right behind the hybrids are PHEVs. These all-electric vehicles have no internal combustion engine. Instead, they sport a large bank of batteries that store power and feed it to an electric motor that powers the car.

Now if you’re thinking it will take you forever to accelerate to highway speed, think again:

• Electric motors have fantastic torque characteristics that translate into neck-snapping acceleration when they’re integrated into a vehicle’s drive train.
• Electric vehicles will ultimately out-accelerate their fossil-fuel predecessors, and leave nothing in the atmosphere in the process.
• The driving public won’t have any trouble making the transition from their old gas-guzzling clunkers.

PHEVs have other advantages as well. Braking can actually be accomplished in part by turning the motor into a generator, and dumping the generated power into the battery bank.

This technique - referred to as dynamic braking - puts a load or drag on the motor/generator and slows down the vehicle. Diesel/electric locomotives have used dynamic braking for years to help to slow down freight and passenger trains.

PHEVs - A Potential Game-Changing Technology

While PHEVs are a potential game-changing technology, efforts up until this point have been essentially relegated to the automakers’ development labs and display stands at auto shows.

All that’s about to change:

• Nissan (Nasdaq: NSANY) just announced that it will be mass-producing PHEVs for sale in 2012. That’s a few short years away.
• Mitsubishi (NYSE: MTU) has unveiled a PHEV, but it comes with a $48,000 price tag.
• Of course, the newly restructured GM introduced the Chevy Volt with much fanfare. It remains to be seen, however, if GM can pull it off - and how much the restructuring process will affect its introduction schedule.
• And there are other PHEVs that will be announced over the coming months, as no major manufacturer wants to be left out of the game.

The bottom line is that car buyers in the next few years will have a number of PHEVs to choose from, with prices starting in the $20,000 range. This puts them squarely in the high-volume, mass-produced car market.

Your choices as an investor are directly related to your appetite for risk. At the high end of the risk scale, we have the restructured General Motors. At the low end, Nissan, Ford (F) and perhaps Mitsubishi represent less risky ways to play a surge in PHEV sales.

To put it in perspective, however, any investment with PHEVs as a focus should be viewed with a three- to five-year timeframe. It will take at least that long for the sector to flesh out the winners from the losers.

For investors, it represents potential long-term gains that could rival anything the auto sector has produced to date. I’ll be following the space on a regular basis, and will report all of the interesting developments right here.

Disclosure: None.

Comments

[beach bum ...:]

First, PHEV stands for plug-in hybrid electric. Meaning there's also a gas engine.
Second, even all electric vehicles polute unless you recharge them via solar, wind or other alternative electric source and not coal.
Third, when all electric vehicles run out of battery, you are stuck. which is why PHEV's are great. They have a gas engine to take you where you want once the battery dies. They are an improvement over plain old hybrids because when you plug them in to charge them, you can do all of your short range driving without gas (and let's hope without coal).

Jun 28 08:33 AM

[StraightCar...:]

beach bum has caught some mis-statements, but there are so many items in this article that the author must be clueless on how cars work. People do not buy hybrids to drive on the highway - they buy them if they do a lot of city driving. The Escalade also gets 20 MPG in the city - a whopping 67% increase over the base vehicle of 12 MPG. For a driver who drives 12K miles per year at $3/gallon, this is a savings of $1,200 PER YEAR, or about $10K over the life of the vehicle. People who drive on the highway a lot would be better with a diesel vehicle. As Diesel prices come down, it begins to look a lot better. In general, fuel economy for COMPARABLE vehicles is the same, but the cost is less (compare the Jetta to the Honda Civic Hybrid, not the insight).

Jun 28 10:39 AM

[FloridaBoy2:]

Thanks for the article. Personally, I am going to stay out of the auto arena because of the debt and uncertainty. However, I think Ford
may end up being the one to watch,

Jun 28 10:43 AM

[Mad Cow:]

I don't read often here but this article shows that the authour really knows little about PHEV.

BEV is battery electric vehicle, without an internal combustion engine/ fuel cell. PHEV is a vehicle with two power sources: an internal combustion engine/fuel cell, plus a secondary battery, or other energy storage device.

BEV will not replace HEV/PHEV because nobody wants to be stranded on the road. Of course, if someday someone invents a device that the BEV's battery can be charged in 5 minutes, then things may be different. However, don't listen to the hype that someone knows how to charge BEV battery in 10 minutes for now. It would require hundreds of pounds of copper for the charging device alone. It would require substantial investment in charging stations (can a charge station support 20 cars at the same time?) What about the power grid?

May be I will just wait for a vehicle powered by dreams.

Jun 28 11:19 AM

[Edward Heikell:]

There seems to be a misunderstanding that electricity is a free source of power. Electricity is relatively cheap in some regions of the world but very expensive in other areas. If everyone plugs into a socket to get their "gas" the cost of electricity for our water heating, cooking, lighting, etc will sky rocket! Unpopular sources of power such as nuclear, new water resevoirs and others must become common place. Hybrids on the other hand use energy sources that would otherwise be wasted in brake heating and deceleration by engine compression.

The all electric concept is a step in the right direction but I do not believe it can be the final long-term anwer to our problem.

Jun 28 12:17 PM

[Davewmart:]

I believe the author is getting confused about Mitsubishi's releases.
The main thrust of their effort is in EV's, and it was the MiEV which was recently firmed up for around $48k, but that does not take account of breaks from the Japanese government, which brings the price down to around $30k is memory serves.
They hope to reduce costs substantially in the next few years:
www.bloomberg.com/apps...

A hybrid version is due in 2013.

beachbum,
You would have thought that you would still generate quite a lot of pollution with electric vehicles, wouldn't you?
In fact though, even if most of your energy comes from coal, you still save quite a lot according to US Government data, simply because electric motors are far more efficient than ICE.
The latest look at this (not Government) worked out that in fact the grid would use no more electric if you switch!
This is because you are saving petrol, and petrol refining uses a heck of a lot of electric - more than running a car solely on this source:
evworld.com/article.cf...

It seems you can indeed get something for nothing!

Jun 28 01:00 PM

[Miken:]

Through a number of factual errors pointed out previously, the author has somehow arrived at the right short term conclusion in my opinion. PHEV's (not BEV's) are the near term right step. We should do a serious grid analysis (done by serious people with no advance agenda) to determine what kind of energy draw will be necessary to accommodate this technology.

I do think that research and infrastructure analysis should continue with hydrogen powered vehicles however.

Jun 28 01:09 PM

[tukuemuaca:]

100% electric will fail miserably. What everyone will "discover" is that a "fillup" from the plug will require an electric load that will dwarf the ability of the plug to deliver. SAE has developed the "standard" connector that will be seen at filling stations everywhere. It delivers a maximum of 70 amps at 240 volts. As a rule of thumb, with 100% efficiency (impossible) of the electric drive train, it will take 1 hour to get an energy load to take you 40 miles. This is fundamental. I challenge anyone, anytime, anyplace to prove, with facts, that what I am saying is wrong. Plan your trips carefully, with lots of time to fillup, get a hot dog, slurpee, sauna, nap, etc.

Jun 28 02:29 PM

[tukuemuaca:]

Yep, let's recharge the 100% plug in with wind power. Just put a propeller with a generator on the front of the car, and we go forever. As you go, you charge and run the motors. Never have to plug in as long as you keep going...RIGHT???

And, let's do solar powered all electric. The surface area of a typical "Big" car will yield solar power of about 3 horsepower. OOOO I can hardly wait to get my powerful 3 horsepower car going on a long trip. Further, in the driveway, on a full sunny day, no clouds, assuming 100% efficiency, it will take 7.7 hours to get enough charge to go 40 miles. All day to get enough to go to the store the next day. Well, how about a big lens? ;-)

Amazing how little engineering homework anyone has done on this subject. But, it time, it will all come true. Crash goes the plug in.

You people need some basic knowledge of engineering.

Jun 28 02:45 PM

[greeneggs00:]

Didn't GM have a 100% plugin called the EV1 13 years ago? Is this going to be a hype re-make?
Why aren't the public looking into natural gas? Honda has been selling the natural gas Civic for 10 years. You can even get a home filling station installed at home. I've been driving one for 6 yrs. It drives like a normal gas Civic.

Jun 28 10:46 PM

[Fibb222:]

BEVs are going to win. In ten years gas cars (including hybrids) won't even be on dealer's lots.

The economics are the reason. You can't beat 2 cents a mile. Not to mention the grid needs cars as a place to (finally) store energy and increase renewables to 40% in order to combat global warming.

As far as the issues of short range, getting stranded, and higher up front costs - they all have the same answer: Better Place - betterplace.com. For a small fraction of what the USA spends on oil imports in one year, the entire country could have the infrastructure to make all the range problems go away. Plus the business model of better place is able to take away the high upfront costs to the consumer.

Jun 28 10:51 PM

[greeneggs00:]

"May be I will just wait for a vehicle powered by dreams."

Are you refering to the Honda FCX Clarity powered by Hydrogen? Honda's slogan "The Power of Dreams".

On Jun 28 11:19 AM Mad Cow wrote:

> I don't read often here but this article shows that the authour really
> knows little about PHEV.
>
> BEV is battery electric vehicle, without an internal combustion engine/
> fuel cell. PHEV is a vehicle with two power sources: an internal
> combustion engine/fuel cell, plus a secondary battery, or other energy
> storage device.
>
> BEV will not replace HEV/PHEV because nobody wants to be stranded
> on the road. Of course, if someday someone invents a device that
> the BEV's battery can be charged in 5 minutes, then things may be
> different. However, don't listen to the hype that someone knows how
> to charge BEV battery in 10 minutes for now. It would require hundreds
> of pounds of copper for the charging device alone. It would require
> substantial investment in charging stations (can a charge station
> support 20 cars at the same time?) What about the power grid? <br/>
>
> May be I will just wait for a vehicle powered by dreams.

Jun 28 10:53 PM

[CE:]

Let's start with the worst vehicle first. Fuel Cell Vehicles are DEAD. Oh, there is enough Hydrogen to power 180 Million of them, but only enough PLATINUM to build 400 thousand/year. By the time FCVs reach that volume they will be less than 1% of the global market.

BEVs, you're kidding, the first time you run out of juice, don't plan on me stopping to pick you up. GM crushed the EV1s, that is true, WHY? Your governmet requires auto manufactures to maintain a parts inventory for 7 years after production ends. GM crushed them in order to avoid that expense. If you were running GM at that time you would have crushed them too!

PHEVs, those of you who asked for an Engineer to check your numbers about them can feel justified about your comments, I'm an Engineer. The 40 mile range will not only cover 75% of the daily use it will also keep people from burning their houses down. Those of you who want a 400 mile range please don't move in next door to me.

That brings me to hybrids. Hybrids are for people that cannot do basic math and politicians in DC that like to talk about MPG. If the US were to change from MPG to GPM (like L/KM in Europe) then you would understand. 20 MPG is 5 G/HM, 25 MPG is 4 G/HM, 33 MPG is 3 G/HM, 50 MPG is 2 G/HM, 100 MPG is 1 G/HM. But look at the differences (5, 8, 17 and 50!). It is called the "Law of Dimishing Returns". The more the MPGs go up the less you actually save. If you drive 20K a year, if gas is $3/gal, and you keep your car 5 years then paying more than $3K more for the hybrid over a a high mileage ICE is STUPID!! You will NOT save any money.

Jun 29 12:27 AM

[bob will:]

We are plunging into a depression. America will be gutted. For the next twenty years, dirt cheap transportation--which Americans hate--junky cars, motorscooters, carpooling, buses and bare bones Chinese cars--will be reality. Hybrids, diesels and American cars will be shunned by the impoverished workingclass and middleclass Americans. Detroit's rebirth is a joke; Flint, Michigan must be bulldozed to 1/4th it's size. Thirty years from now a group of Chinese auto companies will be #1 in the USA--followed by Toyota and Honda. Most Americans will be living in Mexican style poverty.
Detroit will be a ghost town--or Chinese.

Jun 29 01:45 AM

[jerrydd:]

Sadly many here need to learn a few things including the 'engineer'.

First EV's will be the future. It is possible to recharge them in 15 minutes as I and others have done for decades. All that's needed as fueling stations to do it which are not that hard to do with less copper than in a gas car.. Less of a cost than gas station fuel tanks are.
My EV could be recharged by the standard SAE plug in 10 minutes though it is smaller than most, But that plug isn't the only one as another for very fast recharging will be available soon. But the standard one will recharge most EV's in .5-1 hr while one eats or shops.

Until then EV's with very small gas generators will win if one needs more than 250 mile range. Most will use BEV's of about 100mile range as that works for most people most trips. For long trips these will get 100mpg and short ones cost a couple pennies/mile. With the $4-6'gal gas costs by the time these are widely available they and BEV's will be no brainers.

H2 and Fuels cells, we call them fool cells because only a fool would think they are any good taking 4x's the energy cost/mile Vs a BEV.

Davemart and FIBB are about the only ones here that know what they are talking about.

As for pollution yrs ago the EPA studied this and even from coal EV's were cleaner and since then coal plants are much cleaner.

And BEV's will not only use power but supply it to the grid for peak needs and be fully charged when the owner needs it. This peak power is so valuable that a utility might even charge the BEV for free to use that power while the owner works, charging at night. Called V2G.

You'll find EV's will only weight 2k lbs and aerodynamic to get 300 mile ranges and only need a 10hp generator for unlimited range with a 100 mile battery pack. But then most cars will be around 2k lbs as fuel cost are too high for heavier ones.

My new one I'm building is a Lovin's style Hypercar done in composites that with a 200 mile range 2 seat EV sportwagon Lithium battery only weighs 1000lbs with crash protection of a compact car. Now with a lead battery and 100 mile range it could be built for under $12k using older tech.

The only reasons these are not available is the huge subsidies oil gets and big auto's hatred of such simple cars that have few parts to service, replace, where they make most of their money.

Soon a combo of BEV's and eff homes with RE making their own power plus charge their EV will be the low cost way to live by far. while it may cost a little more the $200-500/mo energy savings will easily cover it for the 5 yr payback then it's mostly profit. It's not whether one can afford it, it's whether they can not afford to.

My home site doesn't allow RE because I'm under a 100% coverage old oak forest but my total energy bill in Fla is between $22-45/month for heat, cooling, EV, ect. My EV is my only transport. What's yours?

Jun 29 12:29 PM

[Dave K.:]

As the CTO for a company working on electrical energy storage technology in competition to batteries I wish to add is that EVs will be the long term future and it will take 8 years for the technology to settle down/shake out. In the end fast recharge <5 minutes will be the standard and storage technology will be $50 to $150 dollars per kilo-watt-hr. That is the reality of the technology I am working on and it is easily scaled to large volume production. During the 8 year period battery companies will come and go and investors have to try and identify the Google, Microsoft, E-Bay, Amazon of that market sooner rather than latter. My suggestion as a technical expert is look at the battery company’s 1. manufacturing cost per kilo-watt-hour; 2. is it practical for automotive use (robust); 3. is the company over-hyped which in my book is used to hide the loud gobbling sound of the turkey product? Dave Kelly CTO, I can be contacted through 1-ltl.com
Good Luck

Jun 29 02:39 PM

[a. palmer jr.:]

Maybe nobody has come up with a system that will charge a BEV battery, but it would be easy to come up with a system that will CHANGE a car battery in 5 minutes or less if all BEV manufacturers make the battery readily accessible and alike.

Jun 29 03:18 PM

[EVExpert:]

The other winners are going to be the providers of EV infrastructure (charge stations/systems etc.) Look at ETLY and AVAV. These are the winners in this huge sector.

Jun 29 04:44 PM

[jerrydd:]

Aerovironment has the equipment to fast charge, it's just not that hard and been available for a decade or more. It was used at LAX EV airport limo's for a yr fast charging them while unloading/loading them.
They also make EV to grid inverters/fast chargers that feed power into the grid for peak power needs called V2G. And have for over a decade in production.

* Dave K.: assuming you do have ultracaps that could store that much power you'd need very expensive electronics to get the power that went from full voltage down to zero to get that power out. That would be much higher cost than you say your unit does. Plus just the connectors, terminals for such power would be quite a lot.

As for present batteries both A123 and Kokam have very mature battery tech and LiFepo4 is very well known and can presently be bought for under $300/kwhr, what Detroit said was their goal. And both can be recharged in 15 minutes without problems.

Nor would I invest any money I'm not willing to lose in a battery, ultracap especially as the competition will be fierce with most failing even with good products. Batteries easily beat ultracaps in power storage and don't need the electronics to get the power out.

Jun 29 05:00 PM

[Davewmart:]

Miken said:
'We should do a serious grid analysis (done by serious people with no advance agenda) to determine what kind of energy draw will be necessary to accommodate this technology.'
It's been done.
Here is Pacific National Lab's Assessment:
www.calcars.org/calcar...
There are others, including the benefits of Time of Use metering.
Serious enough for you? ;-)
As I said earlier, these assessments did not include the huge savings in electricity use available from not refining oil, which uses about the same amount in the US as powering an electric vehicle fleet would.
Extra electricity use from going EV is minimal.

Those concerned about charging times when away from home should note that both the US and EU are introducing fast charging systems:
www.greencarcongress.c...

They provide power at around 400volts and 32 amps.
It's still slower than filling a tank, but a 20 minute break after driving 100miles or so with current technology is not too bad.
For technical reasons such a fast charge only tops you up to around 80% - the last part has to be much slower.

Jun 30 04:06 AM

[Gandalph:]

Has no one outside of the physics community heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? The energy to operate an EV: Typical power plant efficiency, regardless of fuel source (including nuclear) is about than 40%. The resistive losses in the electric grid have been calculated at 7.2 - 7.4% (does not include other losses in the circuitry). About 14 percent of the electric power is lost as heat charging a lithium ion battery. So with optimistic assumptions, 31% of the energy in the power plant fuel is available to drive the EV. The latest generation of clean diesel internal combustion engines, capture about 45% of the energy in the fuel to drive the vehicle !
There is another issue: To build out a fleet of electric vehicles, materials are required that we do not have. The Lithium comes from China and Bolivia; the Neodymium for the motor magnets comes from China; 90% of the other rare earth metals, required for EV technology come from China.
If you want to provide the electricity with wind turbines, here is the rule-of-thumb: One tonne of Neodymium magnets (from China) is required for 1 MW of turbine output! If you want to provide the electricity with nuclear power, 60% of the energy just heats the cooling water and is dumped directly into the environment as heat; This is no solution global warming.
Our own Department of Energy (DOE) in a recently released study concluded that Li-ion batteries are not appropriate for vehicle operation! Do your homework folks; Go to the library, and ignore the ill-informed blogs.

Jun 30 04:02 PM

[Road Runner:]

Good discussion everyone, though the main article was flawed.

First point that I want to emphasize is the performance of electric drive vehicles.

Eventually battery prices will drop to the point where all-electric vehicles will be cheaper than an engine/transmission (a very complex and expensive piece of hardware) vehicle, and plug-in hybrid (with a small single-speed optimized engine/generator) electric vehicles will be about the same price as an engine/transmission vehicle. At this point the consumer will start to think about other factors like performance. Eventually the general public is going to figure out that electric drive vehicles perform much better, especially when it’s important like pulling away from a stop light or merging into heavy traffic. This will push people to hybrid-electric and all-electric vehicles just as much as the fuel mileage, in my opinion. This is point where sales of electric drive vehicles will suddenly take off.

Second point I want to emphasize is that solar technology is progressing along at the same strong pace as battery technology. These two are made for each other like chocolate and peanut butter. As prices drop for both, people who decide to buy plug-in vehicles may be more inclined to buy a home solar system to power their cars, especially in places with very good solar profiles and high electric rates like California, Spain, and Italy. And, people who buy home solar systems to help with expensive air conditioning costs may be more inclined to buy a plug-in vehicle to take advantage of extra electricity generated. There’s a strong synergy here.

Also, note that cheaper batteries integrated into a home solar system makes it much more valuable in being able to provide home electricity at night and for charging the plug-in vehicle battery at night. So, there is another synergy there, though it will probably come from a different type of battery than the one in your vehicle since weight and density are not issues in your home.

The cheaper solar and battery synergy I see starting to become evident in about 5 years, with a full-blown synergy in about 10 years. At that time, I believe, the sales of both will diverge higher than is what is predicted today because of the battery/solar synergy and the performance factor.

Predictions of future sales, etc. are often inaccurate because they don’t foresee synergies from other evolving technologies, and changes in consumer attitudes.

P.S. The “nightly plug-in hassle” will be fixed in the next 5 to 10 years. Intel, and probably other companies, are working on transferring power via radio waves. So far they have an 80% efficiency at 1 meter. This could be used to charge a plug-in vehicle in your garage overnight without any action on the driver’s part except pulling into the garage. Just another hard-to-predict technical advancement that will have synergy with the new electric car world.

Jun 30 05:09 PM

[Road Runner:]

Gandalph, Please put a link to the government report that LI-ion batteries are not suitable for vehicle operations.

Jun 30 05:23 PM

[Road Runner:]

Gandalph, I found the post that I believe you were intending to link to at "DOE": seekingalpha.com/artic... .

The DOE report gives a view of the CURRENT state of Li-ion batteries for vehicles. And, I agree with it. Current Li-ion is not good enough for vehicles. But, the technology is rapidly improving and the cost is dropping.

I find it very frustrating when people talk about green technologies as if they are stagnant, when, in fact, green technologies are evolving very rapidly.

Jun 30 05:38 PM

[Davewmart:]

Gandalf,
You appear to suffer from the same lack of information that you accuse others of, and need to do more homework.
Without bothering to refute every point, here are a few of your more glaring misconceptions:
You do not reference your claim that ' the latest diesels capture about 45% of the energy in the fuel to drive the vehicle' and so it cannot really be taken seriously, but presumably relies at minimum on the assumption that no energy is expended in creating the fuel, when in fact petrol is a product of energy intensive processing from oil.
Next you state, again unsourced, that 80% of the rare earths needed come from China.
Now I would actually agree with this, but it does not tell us very much, other than that supplies normally come from the cheapest sources, and rare earth production largely comes as a by-product of the some of the mines in China, and tells us nothing at all about the potential availability of the resource, which although they are called rare earths are often not rare at all.
You then say:
' One tonne of Neodymium magnets (from China) is required for 1 MW of turbine output! '
You surely do not imagine, although you appear to suggest it here, that these magnets contain 1 tonne of neodymium!
Even checking in Wiki would have told you this:
'Although it belongs to "rare earth metals," neodymium is not rare at all. It constitutes 38 ppm of the Earth’s crust.'
As for lithium 'shortages', in a 250kg 15kwh lithium manganese battery they actually use around 3 kg of lithium:
www.greencarcongress.c...
Reserves AT PRESENT PRICES of around $8kilo are variously estimated at around 14-17 million tonnes.
The costs of extracting the small amounts needed from seawater are around $22-32/Kg.
That should do for the first few trillion vehicles.
You then go on to assert:
' If you want to provide the electricity with nuclear power, 60% of the energy just heats the cooling water and is dumped directly into the environment as heat; This is no solution global warming. '
Nuclear power, just like coal and solar thermal, has indeed got a thermal efficiency of around the rate you mention, although high temperature reactors using the Brayton cycle may lift it to around 50%.
However, since you appear to have missed it, it is not chucking out some surplus heat that everyone is worried about, it is altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere to permanently absorb more heart which causes the problems.
Nuclear power and solar power can greatly lower the emissions of these gasses.
If you want to counter the heat island effect, you don't need any fancy technology, reflective film is fine, and around 60,000square kilometres strategically located would do the job of reducing global temperatures to the same level as though there were no emissions.
You might still have local effects due to different distributions, but the world as a whole would be no warmer.
Pick a figure you fancy for the modest cost of the film and installation, which effectively is no more than aluminium foil, and you come out to a modest cost of a couple of hundred billion.
In short, your effort to patronise others for their alleged lack of knowledge seems to be hindered by your poor research and wild assumptions.

Jun 30 07:20 PM

[Davewmart:]

I said:
'Next you state, again unsourced, that 80% of the rare earths needed come from China.'
Should read:
' 90% of the other rare earth metals, required for EV technology come from China.'

Jun 30 07:24 PM

[jimp:]

From Jack Liftons - instablog:
"To make the most efficient, lightest weight, lowest service wind turbine generator of electricity takes one ton of the rare earth metal, neodymium, per megawatt of generating capacity. This to to build the neodymium-iron-boron permanent magnet necessary for the generator to function."

"You surely do not imagine, although you appear to suggest it here, that these magnets contain 1 tonne of neodymium!"

Jun 30 07:36 PM

[Davewmart:]

Since4 the figures for neodymium magnet weights used windmills are unsourced, I really can't be bothered to track down the figures - let those who say that there is a problem provide them.
In any case, the use as formulated in the post I was challenging is incorrect, as it stated that:
'One tonne of Neodymium magnets (from China) is required for 1 MW of turbine output!'
Neodymium magnets contain both iron and boron in addition to the common element neodymium, so as formulated that is incorrect.
If someone wants to come up with a precise referenced tabulation of the use of neodymium in windmills and why that is a problem, fine, we can take a look at it.
I am certainly not going to spend time tracking down sources when the people who wish to assert that there are problems do so in such a fuzzy and unreferenced manner.
Lifton said this or that, fine, in what publication, and what are his sources?

Jul 01 04:32 PM

[Davewmart:]

Addendum:
The use of neodymium in neodymium magnets appears likely to be another case of the referenced information that I provided, where a lithium battery in the Renault Ze weighs 250kg, and so people cry 'Whoa! lithium shortages!'
which sounds credible, until one comes across the information from AESC, the battery makers, that actually only 3Kg of lithium is needed in this 'lithium' battery.
This may not be the case and the neodymium used in a 'neodymium' magnet may be much higher, but until those who say that we have a problem come up with credibly referenced figures I am certainly not going to do their work for them.
Since neodymium is common, not rare, the issue may be moot in any case.

Jul 01 04:42 PM