Michael Fitzsimmons

How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence

once again, nice article john. i do like the comparison table very much. my definition of "clarity" if the objective is to:
- reduce foreign oil imports
- reduce CO2 and particulate emissions
- prevent dependence on battery production and foreign sources

is to build vehicles based on the simple and proven concept of a:

***** Natural Gas / Electric Hybrid *****

think prius with an engine running on US produced natural gas instead of an engine running on foreign oil. at the same time, the battery requirements are much reduced over PHEV and pure EVs. we could be producing these cars now and refueling them in the garage with a FSYS "phill" home garage refueling appliance. this isn't rocket science, but some people sure like to complicate the hell out of a problem.

The Obama Fast Track for Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)

wrt your last paragraph, it also makes no sense to make these hybrid vehicles based on gasoline instead of natural gas. a natural gas electric hybrid like this toyota concept vehicle:

www.autoblog.com/2008/...

continues to be the best transportation solution i have seen to address both the foreign oil import issue as well as environmental concerns. if obama would simply invite mr. toyoda to the white house to discuss american support for toyota manufacturing this car in volume, and support the natural gas infrastruture needed to refuel it, he would make more headway on US economic, environmental, and national security challenges than all of his other initiatives ... combined!

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

johnP: wrt your comment on constraints/opportunity, i think that is why i am such a big nat gas transportation fan. the constraints are pretty simple and very solvable: chicken-n-egg scenario with respect to NGV and refueling availability (of both). on the electric car front (i.e. battery technology) it doesn't seem as simple to me, nor, from a time constraint standpoint, as rational as NGV's. even if electric cars were available in quantity today, they'd be re-charged by coal (bad). it will be a minimum of a decade to build the wind/solar/nuclear infrastructure needed to signficantly reduce foreign oil imports. economically, environmentally, and from a national security standpoint - the US is simply running out of time. therefore, to take the pressure off electric and hydrogen powered vehicles, and to do something proactive over the next 10 years to address the trifecta of big problems just mentioned, it seems to me the pragmatic, technically proven, feasible, and logical move is to place a big bet on NGVs. not just for fleets, but for middle class homes and electrical power generation. americans can save $trillions of dollars and prevent trillions of lbs of CO2 from entering the atmosphere over the next 10 years by taking this step. meantime, let's build the solar, wind, and nuclear infrastructure we'll need to power EV's or generate hydrogen fuel. if i missed your point on constraints/opportunity trade offs, perhaps you could clarify. thanks!

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

i always enjoy your articles john. i couldn't help noticing how your "family reunion test" resembles my "can i fly-fish in colorado the rest of my life test". so here's the question: if natural gas vehicles were widely available at dealers, and if CNG refueling stations were abundant, would your family drive to your reunion in an NGV and would i go to the mountains of colorado in an NGV? i can answer affirmative to the later. so, it's not difficult to find a warren buffet type "known" technology...it is staring us right in the eyes and has been around for decades. unfortunately, honda appears to be the only company engaged. considering our abundant natural gas resources in this country, that is a sad commentary on america. regardless, your article was well written and made me think. good action.

Smart Grid's Enabler - Alternative Energy Storage

ok, while making my coffee i realized what my real problem is with battery storage of alternative energy. rather than store the energy in batteries in order to put that energy back on the grid to recharge EV and hybrid batteries, why not come up with a process that simply charges the end-use batteries directly? in other words, have a bank of EV batteries at the alt energy site, charge them at the site, and truck (or rail) the charged batteries into cities and towns such that they can be exchanged for discharged batteries. kinda like project better place's process, just expanded to the grid. this would have the advantages of lower overal battery requirements and prevents the losses associated with transmission and distribution. it would of course require standardizing on battery design types, both electrically and physically such that a minimum of different battery types would be used.

Smart Grid's Enabler - Alternative Energy Storage

i haven't done any calculations (haven't had any coffee yet...), but my gut feel is that the sheer size of battery capacity needed to provide ample and adequate energy storage for an alternative energy based smart grid will simply be enormous. i wonder if the price estimates for these various battery technologies have taken into account the magnitude of total battery production needed for energy grid backup and for providing batteries for EV's and hybrids? have you by any chance done so? perhaps this could be calculated in cubic meters of batteries needed to smooth out the supply. perhaps it is in the articles you refer to - i haven't read them yet.

there are two storage mechanisms I've been asked about previously that were not covered in this article: electrolysis and molten salt. does the omission of these two technologies mean they aren't cost efficient or that they are technologically insufficient in some way? thanks. btw - good article.

Lead-Acid, Lead-Carbon Batteries: The Only Option for Average Consumer

very interesting commentary on the economics vs range on EV's which seems obvious after reading, but i must admit the logic never struck me before. that said, discussions on EV battery technology, foreign battery manufacturing, and EV range bring me back to a the following model for a nuclear family's garage: an electric/nat gas hybrid, refuelable in the garage and on the interestate highway system by nat gas refueling stations (which obama's stimulus plan should be emphasizing now). this vehicle would:
0) leverage existing proven technologies
1) leverage electric use on short trips (wind, solar feeding the grid...)
2) reduce our imports of foreign oil
3) reduce greenhouse gas emissions
4) create good jobs in the energy and automotive industries
and
5) create an infrastructure that will pay dividends for decades.
any thoughts?

America Must Rebuild Domestic Battery Manufacturing Infrastructure

your title is dead on. imagine what the $700 billion paulsen and bernanke have thrown at the "financial crisis" could have accomplished had it been thrown at:

1) battery research, development, and manufacturing technology (similar to the Sematech organization in semiconductors)
2) wind and solar electric generation
3) building out the electrical grid infrastructure

i can only hope the obama team "get it" and use their "stimulus package" in a much more useful way (i.e. the above 3 items) than the ridiculous paulsen and bernanke strategy (just more money to the bankers and wall streeters who put us in this deep hole).

Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance

sorry, the above comment should have been Carter reduced US foreign oil imports by "5 million barrels per day", not "50%". typing too fast....

Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance

1) Carter's policies reduced US oil imports by 50%, made the country aware of energy's ability to cripple our economy (as the Arabs did), and raised fuel economy standards for automobiles (just think where we would be today without that). to detract from Carter's work in this area (the best of any president's), and not to mention the oil-centric disaster that Bush has been wrt energy policy, is simply not objective. i repeat, it was the bush ethanol mandates that brought on food inflation, not the Carter tax subsidies (note the food inflation didn't really hit until recently as Bush's idiotic ethanol mandates kicked in). you cannot blame Carter's actions in the late 1970s for something that happened in 2008.
2) the DOE publishes something like their prediction of vehicle sales in 2030?? come on John...anyone who has the slightest idea of oil supply/demand fundamentals (and the DOE has proven it hasn't the slightest clue), knows that these DOE estimates of vehicles sales is nothing but pure dreaming. the DOE has an oil centric bias, yet doesn't have a clue about oil supply/demand fundamentals. using their data is not only misleading, but dangerous. statistics, sure. prognostications about the future, F-
3) i understand it's an article about investment ideas. but at the same time, listing investment choices in an area as specific as "alternative energy storage" without acknowledging the possible competition to those investment choices seem an omission to me. much of your analysis on batteries is good, and they will certainly be used in electric only and hybrid cars. however, the larger playing field of solar and wind energy array storage, well, i am not so sure batteries are the way to go. are you? do you think batteries, with the cost and capacity needed, will be the way to go to store energy from wind and solar for those times when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shinning? just curious.

Alternative Energy Storage: It's All About Price vs. Performance

John: nice article and you had some important things to say. that said, i'd like to point out a few things:
1) your implication was that the Carter ethanol tax credits were responsible for the recent food inflation. they were not. it was the bush ethanol *mandates* (i.e. mandates forcing the amounts of ethanol blended gasoline) that caused the huge disruptions in the food chain.
2) the DOE has been dead wrong on every major energy policy affecting the US and the department should simply be shut down. presenting DOE data is a good way to be discredited. for instance, the DOE has been wrong on oil price predictions, supply/demand prognositications, and you yourself point out the lack of support for US produced natural gas transportation. DOE policy and predictions make it one of the most dangerous departments of the US government.
3) i am very surprised an article on alternative energy storage didn't go into more detail on molten salt and electrolysis production of hydrogen. in my opinion (and i am still studying the matter) both these system are potentially more cost effective energy storage mediums for large wind and solar arrays than are batteries, as well as being more environmentally friendly.

Time to Fill Up on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

wiz: i *absolutely* agree that hedge funds should be held to the same regulation (and tax policies) that mutual funds adhere to, including transparency, standard accounting practices, and disclosure. capitalism doesn't mean "complete de-regulation". in fact, anyone paying attention has learned that "complete de-regulation" has led to fascism.

3rd party: yes on the typo, thanks. the foundation for natural gas powered transportation has been around for decades. it is simply a *policy* matter. nobody wants to pay any taxes, yet no one seems to understand that the deficit that bush has rung up are simply crushing and yet, we have absolutely nothing to show for it. my suggestion is a mere $0.02 tax, which no one will even notice now that gas has dropped below $2/gallon (from over $4...), and, the US and its people will actually GET something for it. i am certainly NOT in favor of doing anything unconsititutional...an... who has read me knows that i was in favor of impeaching bush in his first term for doing exactly that. i am afraid you took my words too literally. what i was proposing is for congress to pass legislation such that this tax is NOT thrown into some general spending fund, but is *specifically* tied to the expenditures that i itemized.

Time to Fill Up on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

i'm back...

fran: i read "brave new world" so long ago i cannot remember somma and feely passes...but i think i catch your drift.

kunst: oh, i agree completely that we will, as you say, HAVE to get along with less. in addition, in my opinion, we face economic and social ruin if we don't prepare for this day, with a comprehensive, long-term, strategic energy policy:

thefitzman.blogspot.co...

certainly conservation and efficiency is a part of such a plan, and is stated in "STEP 2: Conservation" of my plan...after "STEP 1: Acknowledge the Problem", which is where i fear we will regress to now that oil has dropped (albeit short-term) under $60.

CW Man: thanks for the kind words., thanks also for the typo correction. not sure if i did that or the SA editor, anyhow, most people that read my stuff know these energy symbols in their sleep.

Third Party Guy: i hate labels..they are so unhelpful. but if you want to label me green, it is a label i wil be glad to wear. instead of "stealing" your tax dollars like Bush has been doing for the past 8 years, please note the tax i am recommended would bypass Congress and go directly to jobs and infrastructure to make America more energy dependent and KEEP our money at home rather than sending it to countries that hate us. if this is green, then it's green for MONEY, which will be staying HERE. what happened to free market capitalism and enterpreneurship? it died with the bush administration. the US is now totally Fascist, with a Kaptial "F". and i am not "crying" about it, i am trying to educate you because you obviously have fallen victim to the government and media so that you think only the gasoline powered car is sufficient for you. THINK MAN, THINK. Nafta is not the sole problem here. Mexican oil production is dropping rapidly due to depletion rates and lack of investment in infrastructure. Canada has high cost tar sands. do you really want the US to hang our future oil supply on that? get real dude. i am all for stopping the subsidies to oil companies and it is the first real point you have made. so, then, after banging me for trying to get nat gas solutions in place, you end with telling me how much US nat gas is available. i can't follow your logic at all.

wizard: good point on the totals as i left out part of what is included in "STEP 3" of my energy policy, is that gasoline taxes increase over time. 2 cents this year, 4 next year, etc. now, according to my calculations, the US uses 390,000.000 gallons of gasoline per day (EIA data), which correlates to $7.8 million dollars a day of revenue, or, 2.8 billion dollars per year. that builds alot of natural gas infrastructure! also, this is not the only source of funds...gas guzzler taxes as well as income from natural gas taxes, etc. etc. we need to get creative. if we just took half of the money bush is spending in iraq and on the bailout, we wouldn't need iraqi oil and could buildout *everything*. we have to start somewhere.

Time to Fill Up on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

longoil: well, there are huge reserves in the US as well. also, plz note my energy plan supports a trans-canadian pipeline to bring nat gas from alaska to the lower 48. at the same time, look how much nat gas new drilling techniques have brought online just in the last 3 years in the lower 48. put LNG terminals on both coasts and in the gulf, and we have enough nat gas to power cars and trucks for decades to come. i cannot say the same about oil. also please note my energy policy supports electric cars, which should be used by those in cities who drive less than 40 miles a day to and from work. bottom line is, we'll need every gasoline alternative.

kreg: you must have missed the discussion on CO2 emissions the first time i explained it in this forum. the reason you can get 19 lbs of CO2 from a single gallon of gasoline (~6.3lbs) is because only the carbon (the "C" in CO2) comes from the gasoline. oxygen, the "O" in CO2, comes from the air via the intake manifold of the internal combustion engine. when gas burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate, the hydrogen combining with oxygen to form water. the carbon combines with oxygen to form CO2. carbon has an atomic weight of 12, oxygen has an atomic weight of 16 and CO2 therefore has an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon, 32 from oxygen). a gallon of gasoline is roughly 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen. therefore the amount of carbon in one gallon of gas is (6.3 x .87)=5.5lbs. to calculate the amount of CO2 produced by a gallon of gasoline, you multiply 5.5 x (44/12), which is over 19 lbs of CO2. you can check these figures out for yourselves, and since it IS science, the answer is a fact. so, you are welcome for being accurate with my figures. hopefully, now that bush is gone, science will be back in vogue. which is good, since i am an engineer.

Time to Fill Up on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Thanks once again for all the comments. As usual, I like to jump in....

Respirate: hello - your adage is most appropriate. thanks for the supporting comments as well.

longoil: NG is a short term solution only if we get started now. that said, there are huge reserves of natural gas all over the world, which can power the worlds cars and trucks for 50 years or more. i'm not against biofuels, but if we can't even get the country to turn on to nat gas powered vehicles, how in the world can we get biofuels going? nat gas powered transportation is just a no-brainer. as far as the economy goes, i would agree we are in for a very very long haul. the concentration of wealth into the hands of the 0.001% of most the most wealthy (and well connected..) in the last 8 years can only have disastrous consequences.

johnsgordon: and then when the saudis run out? what then?

long_on_oil: i'd hate to have been in charge of energy hedging at a major corporation. i would have made terrible bets. as much as i have bashed george bush's economic policies and his administration's lack of competency, in my wild dreams i never foresaw the financial system meltdown which has led to energy demand dropping off a cliff worldwide. sorry for the CHK symbol and thanks for correcting my typo.

bluesmoke: i've sent the Obama campaign my energy policy at least 3 times. i started back at the beginning of his campaign when i could tell his advisors were slow to pick up on the energy priority. i'd would love to talk to Obama about energy..and the first thing i would tell him is that windfall profits taxes are a BAD idea and will lead to the next oil spike being even bigger than i think it is going to be now (which is *big*). anyhow, i was just dreaming thinking they would ever listen to me. but thanks for the vote of confidence. i do believe obama will at least begin an energy policy, which is something we certainly do not currently have. wish they would call me though, i need a job now that my investments have all tanked...

kreg: of course gasoline powered internal combustion engines are contributing to CO2 in the atmosphere - in fact, it is at the rate of 19 lbs of CO2 per gallon of gasoline burned (!).

engineer: thanks - i'm an engineer too. i agree with your comments.

iThinkSmall: folly? you act as though natural gas cars don't exist. they do exist and the technology has been around for decades. countries like iran and brazil (oil exporters i might add..) see it in their interest to buy and/or convert their cars to it. there are millions of nat gas cars and trucks all over the world (just not int he US). so, why is it "folly" to think that a country that imports 12,000,000 barrels of foreign oil a day (70% and i am speaking about the US in case you are not keeping up) should do likewise? There is only one nat gas car for sale available in the US today, the Honda CIvic GX:

automobiles.honda.com/.../

but i can't even buy it in my state and it is generally not practical since the home refueling appliance is $4k and you can't fill it up anywhere. thus, my recommendations in the article. it is not folly to believe that the US can continue to wave a wand and get all the foreign oil it needs in the future. it is lunacy. that is reality. it is insane that the US has such large reserves of natural gas and we, due to ignorant policies, prefer to send our dollars to our enemies overseas. absolute insanity.

c300man: i wish "we all know we have to employ all available energy sources and develop new and better ones." perhaps you can go to washington and clue congress and the administration in on this self-evident fact. there sure as hell aren't listening to me, and i have been bangin on em for 8 years now.