$7 per gallon before a hybrid is worth it

[DarrinS]

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/transportation/gas-would-have-to-cost-7-a-gallon-for-hybrids-to-break-even/205/





While there are plenty of environmental (and political) reasons to buy a hybrid car, money isn’t one of them — at least for now.

According to a study from Cargurus.com, gas prices would have to reach about $7 in order for some hybrids to break even in terms of expense as compared to their non-hybrid cousins.

The website analyzed 43 hybrids from 2003 to 2010 and found that on average most hybrids cost 17 percent — about $6,400 — more than their gasoline-powered counterparts.

That said, with gas prices increasing the way they are currently, investing in a Toyota Camry Hybrid or a Ford Escape Hybrid would actually be the most cost-efficient thing to do in the long run.

The Toyota Camry Hybrid would need gas to rise to about $4 a gallon — which it’s already at in some parts of the country — to break even. The Ford Escape Hybrid showed a break even point of $2.50 per gallon.

Currently the Camry hybrid costs about $3,300 more than the non-hybrid version, while the Ford Escape Hybrid is $3,500 more than the conventional model.

On the other hand, gas would have to cost $15 per gallon for the cost of a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid to break even.

Curiously, the Prius was not included in this study because it doesn’t have a gas-powered equivalent.

While cost is something that always comes up when there is a discussion about hybrids and electric vehicles, it is important to note that at a time of increased political and environmental uncertainty, fuel-efficient cars have plenty of advantages over their gasoline-powered counterparts, beyond just price. They produce less emissions (for the same distance traveled) and they help cut our dependence on foreign oil (eventually allowing us to become energy-independent as a country).

As U.S. president Barack Obama said at a press conference last week, “We’ve got to make our economy more energy-efficient and energy-independent over the long run.”

Update: The total cost of ownership for the hybrid and non-hybrid models was compared for each vehicle to determine the total cost of ownership premium for hybrids. This total cost of ownership included the initial purchase price, lost value in terms of depreciation and total gas costs over the time period analyzed.

Via Detroit Free Press

[Halberto]

*waits for the pro-republican spin*

[LnGrrrR]

What about it Darrin? Do you have a personal take on the article?

[ChumpDumper]

So one hybrid is already "worth it" and another is a few cents away from being "worth it."

Thanks, Darrin, for running away from this so quickly.

[coyotes_geek]

I wish the article said what kind of timeframe got assumed for the analysis, or at least gave a years to break even point using today's gas prices. Without that it's hard to know how much value to put in these numbers.

[ElNono]

Agreed. Plus things like costs of the vehicles/batteries are not necessarily constant either...

[ploto]

The numbers just do not add up the way they have them presented unless a person only keeps a car for a short time.

For example, it says the Camry hybrid costs $3300 more and then claims gas would have to be $4 per gallon to break even. That means that over the life of the car, the person would only be buying about 825 fewer gallons of gas. I buy about 50 gallons per month, or 600 gallons per year. My use would be say 2/3 of this with a hybrid- or 400 gallons per year. Saving on 200 gallons per year at $4 per gallon, I break even at just past the 4 year mark. I keep cars much longer than that.

[Phenomanul]

The numbers just do not add up the way they have them presented unless a person only keeps a car for a short time.

For example, it says the Camry hybrid costs $3300 more and then claims gas would have to be $4 per gallon to break even. That means that over the life of the car, the person would only be buying about 825 fewer gallons of gas. I buy about 50 gallons per month, or 600 gallons per year. My use would be say 2/3 of this with a hybrid- or 400 gallons per year. Saving on 200 gallons per year at $4 per gallon, I break even at just past the 4 year mark. I keep cars much longer than that.

It might also be factoring the cost of electricity required to charge the vehicles (when plugged in)...

i.e. Lower operating gasoline budget but higher electric bill...

[Cry Havoc]

Maybe it's just me, but why would consumers worry about the "average" price of a hybrid?

If you have 30 hybrid models and 28 of them are $70,000 or more, but the remaining 2 are competitively priced, do you really care about those other models or their influence on the mean price? You still have two viable options for hybrids that don't cost appreciably more than their ICE-only counterparts.

[boutons_deux]

The numbers just do not add up the way they have them presented unless a person only keeps a car for a short time.

For example, it says the Camry hybrid costs $3300 more and then claims gas would have to be $4 per gallon to break even. That means that over the life of the car, the person would only be buying about 825 fewer gallons of gas. I buy about 50 gallons per month, or 600 gallons per year. My use would be say 2/3 of this with a hybrid- or 400 gallons per year. Saving on 200 gallons per year at $4 per gallon, I break even at just past the 4 year mark. I keep cars much longer than that.

The lithium batteries may not last that long, $5K to replace, totally wiping out even best-case savings. Early adopter Prius buyers have already been whacked.

And try to sell a 3-year-old hybrid with dead battery replacement looming in less that 3 years.

4-cyl diesel gets better mileage and longer range than hybrids. Check out drivers' reports on VW Jetta diesel for the last several years.

[DarrinS]

What about it Darrin? Do you have a personal take on the article?


I think hybrid vehicles are one of the few technologies where an inferior product actually costs more.

[DMX7]

Did you even read this before you posted it?

[SnakeBoy]

4-cyl diesel gets better mileage and longer range than hybrids. Check out drivers' reports on VW Jetta diesel for the last several years.

Hybrids are for fools, clean diesel is the future. Hopefully our govt will pull it's head out of it's ass and make it happen sooner rather than later.

[MannyIsGod]

Hybrids are for fools, clean diesel is the future. Hopefully our govt will pull it's head out of it's ass and make it happen sooner rather than later.

Purely electric cars are the future.

[SnakeBoy]

Purely electric cars are the future.

Yeah that's what I keep hearing for the last 30 years. What kind of purely electric car do you recommend I go out and buy?

[MannyIsGod]

We're a lot closer today than we were 30 years ago. 30 years ago we didn't have a Volt or all of these hybrids. 30 years ago we didn't have the technology we have today and 30 years ago we didn't have the oil situation we have today and we certainly didn't have 4 dollar gasoline 30 years ago.

10-15 years from now will almost certainly see purely electric cars on the market - especially with improvements in solar cells.

[boutons_deux]

"Hopefully our govt will pull it's head out of it's ass"

huh? don't you hate govt? expect nothing good from it?

[boutons_deux]

The govt tax policy to encourage a switch to diesel is a high tax on gasoline, so diesel is cheaper per gallon (as well as getting better mileage).

Of course, the Europeans and Japs are way ahead of the UCA on diesel tech, because those countries' govts encouraged by tax policy switching to diesel a long time ago, and the car companies research came up with small, quiet, efficient, clean burning diesel.

The UCA does what's best for corps (don't switch to diesel, keep using/wasting lots of oil for increasingly expensive(windfall profitable), dead-end gasoline) rather than what's best for the country (reduce oil imports by reducing fuel usage).

[Marcus Bryant]

Shit. I'm going to have to trade in my diesel before the VRWC finds out I have one.

[boutons_deux]

MB is marked man. The VRWC knows where you live.

[ploto]

The lithium batteries may not last that long, $5K to replace, totally wiping out even best-case savings.

The article claimed they based their calculations on the cost of the vehicle, the price of gas, and depreciation, so that is how I calculated my numbers without knowing depreciation comparisons.

[Sportcamper]

I really liked the South Park Prius episode ….

[Drachen]

It might also be factoring the cost of electricity required to charge the vehicles (when plugged in)...

i.e. Lower operating gasoline budget but higher electric bill...

This article is about Hybrids, not Plug in EVs

[clambake]

i think the purpose is to cut back on oil.

[clambake]

forgot to blue that.

[Wild Cobra]

The numbers just do not add up the way they have them presented unless a person only keeps a car for a short time.

For example, it says the Camry hybrid costs $3300 more and then claims gas would have to be $4 per gallon to break even. That means that over the life of the car, the person would only be buying about 825 fewer gallons of gas. I buy about 50 gallons per month, or 600 gallons per year. My use would be say 2/3 of this with a hybrid- or 400 gallons per year. Saving on 200 gallons per year at $4 per gallon, I break even at just past the 4 year mark. I keep cars much longer than that.
Except by 4 years, the battery efficiency will be degraded and the numbers will change.

[CosmicCowboy]

We're a lot closer today than we were 30 years ago. 30 years ago we didn't have a Volt or all of these hybrids. 30 years ago we didn't have the technology we have today and 30 years ago we didn't have the oil situation we have today and we certainly didn't have 4 dollar gasoline 30 years ago.

10-15 years from now will almost certainly see purely electric cars on the market - especially with improvements in solar cells.

No way you can stack enough solar cells on a car to power it. The physics don't work. If there was that much energy in that square footage it would cook us like a steak when we walked outside.

That being said, I can see electric cars being the norm with a constant rpm diesel turbine/generator as a backup to keep the batteries charged.

Electric cars are cool. I've got four golf carts at the ranchito now. There are weekends that I park my truck when I get there and never move it until I leave.

[jacobdrj]

CNG seems to be the logical answer. Cleaner combustion, can be converted from existing engines, and is plentiful. Oh, and the infrastructure exists to have it distributed EVEN in one's home...

[Cry Havoc]

No way you can stack enough solar cells on a car to power it. The physics don't work. If there was that much energy in that square footage it would cook us like a steak when we walked outside.

No offense, but I'm sure at one point they thought it would be impossible to make a huge variety of things that now exist in abundance today. Can you imagine explaining a microprocessor to a computer scientist in the 1950s? He would likely tell you the same thing.

Saying that something, "Just can't work" usually only looks at the current situation and discounts any potential scientific breakthroughs down the road that can completely revolutionize an industry.

[boutons_deux]

"CNG seems to be the logical answer. Cleaner combustion, can be converted from existing engines, and is plentiful."

Nope, just cost-shifting. Extractors shift the external cost of poisoned ground and surface water, poisoned earth to water consumers. Nothing clean about fracking.

[CosmicCowboy]

No offense, but I'm sure at one point they thought it would be impossible to make a huge variety of things that now exist in abundance today. Can you imagine explaining a microprocessor to a computer scientist in the 1950s? He would likely tell you the same thing.

Saying that something, "Just can't work" usually only looks at the current situation and discounts any potential scientific breakthroughs down the road that can completely revolutionize an industry.

The physics don't work. Period. There are some things that are just universal truths. Moving X amount of pounds Y distance at Z speed requires a certain minimum amount of energy input. Sunlight won't cut it.

[MannyIsGod]

Obviously it doesn't need to power the car entirely. That being said, supplemental power from solar on a car would be a good thing.

[Drachen]

The physics don't work. Period. There are some things that are just universal truths. Moving X amount of pounds Y distance at Z speed requires a certain minimum amount of energy input. Sunlight won't cut it.

Maybe not ONLY PV, but perhaps a system which captures electricity using PV, as well as the heat energy. Also the electricity produced in the braking system (like the hybrids). Combine that with lighter materials used in making a car and I think it would eventually be possible. Plus you could have a battery pack somewhere in there to compensate for cloudy days.

(BTW, I am no scientist, so I don't have a procedure for how you would be able to capture and use the heat energy. It just seems that as we get better and better at extracting energy, that we will start expanding the types of energy we can capture and use)

[SnakeBoy]

"Hopefully our govt will pull it's head out of it's ass"

huh? don't you hate govt? expect nothing good from it?

I've never said I hate government even though you like to view everyone who isn't a progressive raving lunatic as the same. It is however govt. policy that is preventing diesel from dominating the US market.

[DarrinS]

Purely electric cars are the future.

Hopefully, you won't have to drive across the desert in one.

[DarrinS]

Obviously it doesn't need to power the car entirely. That being said, supplemental power from solar on a car would be a good thing.


How much power do you think you can get from PV the size of a typical car roof?

[coyotes_geek]

I've never said I hate government even though you like to view everyone who isn't a progressive raving lunatic as the same. It is however govt. policy that is preventing diesel from dominating the US market.

Yep. During the 90s the Clinton administration and the EPA (both noted VRWC advocates) were pretty much on an anti-diesel crusade.

[Blake]

Hopefully, you won't have to drive across the desert in one.

why would it be worse than driving a gas car across the desert?

[DarrinS]

why would it be worse than driving a gas car across the desert?

range

[Wild Cobra]

Obviously it doesn't need to power the car entirely. That being said, supplemental power from solar on a car would be a good thing.

Try doing the power calculations sometime. The solar energy hitting the profile of a car is a very small percentage of the power required for transportation.

[Blake]

range

I just read that the British Vauxhall has a 300 mile range.

Not as good as gas, but it's getting there.

[Wild Cobra]

I just read that the British Vauxhall has a 300 mile range.

Not as good as gas, but it's getting there.

As far as I know, the Vauxhall Ampera is a Volt!

wiki: Volt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vauxhall_Ampera):

Also called:

Holden Volt
Opel Ampera
Vauxhall Ampera

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Purely electric cars are the future.

The future is finding the catalyst so you can burn hydrogen in the atmosphere without producing nitrates. Electric is not economical because storage sucks. Now that nanotube weaves can hold hydrogen in storage , that is no longer a hurdle.

[CosmicCowboy]

I just read that the British Vauxhall has a 300 mile range.

Not as good as gas, but it's getting there.

Did you guys read anything back during the cold weather about the Volts up north? They were getting about 20 miles on a charge when it was below freezing.

[Wild Cobra]

Did you guys read anything back during the cold weather about the Volts up north? They were getting about 20 miles on a charge when it was below freezing.
LOL....

I completely forgot about battery efficiency and temperature...

LOL...

[CosmicCowboy]

Volt Range Shrinks in Cold Weather

By Julie Wernau
Chicago Tribune
CHICAGO — It's a tough week to be the guy who led development of the Chevy Volt's battery. Consumer Reports said its tests showed the battery's range at a paltry 23 to 28 miles in cold weather, far below the 40 miles originally promised.
"The financial payback is not there," said Jake Fisher, a senior automotive engineer at Consumer Reports Auto Test Center.
A hybrid, he said in an interview, would make more sense. (The Volt — which runs as a fully electric plug-in vehicle and switches to gasoline power once that battery is depleted — cost Consumer Reports $48,000 at a dealership before a $7,500 federal tax credit. Toyota's Prius is about half that price.)
Then, Ford Motor Co. seized on the negative press for the Volt by issuing its own news release: "Weather Climates No Problem for Ford Focus Electric's Liquid-Heated Battery System."
But Bill Wallace, director of global battery systems for GM, didn't flinch.
"It turns out batteries are like people: They love room temperature," Wallace said Thursday at an energy forum at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.
"Nobody — Ford, Nissan or anybody — has anything better," he said. "
Consumer Reports concludes the Volt is an expensive way to go green.

Read more: ABQJOURNAL BIZ: Volt Range Shrinks in Cold Weather http://www.abqjournal.com/biz/0522560biz03-05-11.htm#ixzz1HSXbUqiD
Subscribe Now Albuquerque Journal

[Drachen]

Would ultra-capacitors be immune to the effect of temperature? I only ask because I saw an article that said that the president of tesla stated that ultra-capacitors, not more efficient batteries are the future of electric cars.

[Blake]

Did you guys read anything back during the cold weather about the Volts up north? They were getting about 20 miles on a charge when it was below freezing.

Huh, that's interesting.

Have you read anything on how far a Volt can go in a desert by any chance?

[CosmicCowboy]

Huh, that's interesting.

Have you read anything on how far a Volt can go in a desert by any chance?

I have no idea. Why don't you go buy one for $48,000 and find out?

[ElNono]

The lithium batteries may not last that long, $5K to replace, totally wiping out even best-case savings. Early adopter Prius buyers have already been whacked.

And try to sell a 3-year-old hybrid with dead battery replacement looming in less that 3 years.

4-cyl diesel gets better mileage and longer range than hybrids. Check out drivers' reports on VW Jetta diesel for the last several years.

The vast majority of hybrids use NiMH (the Prius definitely does), IIRC, so longevity of the battery is not that much of a concern. Most of them also come with 6/8 years warranty included on the battery (I think the Volt is 8, Prius 6).

[ElNono]

The future is finding the catalyst so you can burn hydrogen in the atmosphere without producing nitrates. Electric is not economical because storage sucks. Now that nanotube weaves can hold hydrogen in storage , that is no longer a hurdle.

The problem with hydrogen is that it's expensive to produce and the infrastructure to support it would be also be expensive when compared to electricity, IIRC.

I think advanced development in batteries is probably where the money is going to go, seeing that you can deploy and test that more rapidly on a plethora of devices. There has been some advances in nanotubes recently on the battery side also that look promising. We're in the middle of a revolution with all that.

[ElNono]

Did you guys read anything back during the cold weather about the Volts up north? They were getting about 20 miles on a charge when it was below freezing.

This is a problem with gasoline vehicles too though... Block heaters have been used forever to get the car warm in places with cold weather. I remember my sister having to plug her gas car overnight.

The second generation Prius actually innovated on this by pumping hot coolant into insulated thermos when you shutdown the car. The coolant remains hot for up to 3 days.

[ElNono]

Purely electric cars are the future.

I agree, but future is the keyword. The battery tech is not quite there yet, even though it has improved tremendously lately.

[Agloco]

The physics don't work. Period. There are some things that are just universal truths. Moving X amount of pounds Y distance at Z speed requires a certain minimum amount of energy input. Sunlight won't cut it.

Fortunately there are many more wavelengths in the EM spectrum than just visible light. I think we might see more success in the future by collecting more energetic frequencies.

[CosmicCowboy]

Fortunately there are many more wavelengths in the EM spectrum than just visible light. I think we might see more success in the future by collecting more energetic frequencies.

C'mon dude...are you REALLY trying to convince me that a solar collector on the roof of a car (even if it collected 100% of the potential energy of the entire spectrum) is going to provide enough energy to power the car?

Look, I'm a big advocate of solar energy in the proper applications but thats a square peg you are trying to pound into that round hole...

[Sportcamper]

Nice family photo Cosmic...That 1st horse looks tall...How many hands?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/image.php?u=207&dateline=1300821983

[CosmicCowboy]

Nice family photo Cosmic...That 1st horse looks tall...How many hands?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/image.php?u=207&dateline=1300821983

He's not super tall...mid 15's...just real stocky and athletic...

[CosmicCowboy]

C'mon dude...are you REALLY trying to convince me that a solar collector on the roof of a car (even if it collected 100% of the potential energy of the entire spectrum) is going to provide enough energy to power the car?

Look, I'm a big advocate of solar energy in the proper applications but thats a square peg you are trying to pound into that round hole...

BTW, thats the problem with all of the renewables as it applies to personal transportation...none of them are really portable except for biofuels.

[coyotes_geek]

He's not super tall...mid 15's...just real stocky and athletic...

An equine Dejuan Blair if you will. :)

[Sportcamper]

An equine Dejuan Blair if you will. :)

No Blair is fat...:lol

[CosmicCowboy]

An equine Dejuan Blair if you will. :)

:lol

Good description!

[Wild Cobra]

Would ultra-capacitors be immune to the effect of temperature? I only ask because I saw an article that said that the president of tesla stated that ultra-capacitors, not more efficient batteries are the future of electric cars.

They probably have similar thermal coefficients.

[LnGrrrR]

Somebody needs to invent a solar-absorbing paint... :p:

[Blake]

I have no idea. Why don't you go buy one for $48,000 and find out?

I don't care about it that much.

You were giving out the other info for free, just thought I'd ask.

[Nbadan]

I'm not sure that a person who is going to spend $50-$75K for a car just because it gets close to 50MPG is worried about overall costs savings, of course, don't tell conscienceless wing-nuts that or their heads are likely to explode....

...for the avg consumer, a Honda or Hyndai which get about 40MPG, but costs between 20-28K, are much more financially sensible....

[DarrinS]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/03/chevy-volt-nissan-leaf-show-lackluster-sales-in-february/71963/

Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf Show Lackluster Sales in February



Autoblog reports that the Chevy Volt sold 281 units in February, down from 321 in February. Meanwhile, sales of the Nissan Leaf dropped from 87 to 67. The trend seems pretty dismal:



. . . here's the big scorecard for all sales of these vehicles thus far:

Volt: 928

Leaf: 173

Ouch.


It's going to take a long time at this rate to hit their sales target. Here's Charles Ghosn, the CEO of Renault, saying that he's going to sell 500,000 electric cars a year by 2013:



On the eve of the market debut of the Nissan Leaf electric car, Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of the Renault-Nissan alliance, said the only constraint on sales for the next three years will be how many battery packs the factories could churn out.

Deliveries of the Leaf are scheduled to start next month. Mr. Ghosn, speaking to reporters in Washington on Monday afternoon, did not say just how many he expected to sell in the first three years. He said, however, that the Leaf would hit 500,000 units a year in three years. Mass production, he explained, would lower costs enough to make the car a sales success without subsidies sooner than once expected. He said he once thought that number was a million cars a year, but now believed it was from 500,000 to 1 million.

173 down, 499,827 to go.


The planning for the Volt has been similarly optimistic flights of fancy:



Production of Chevrolet's Volt was supposed to be limited to 10k units this year, a target GM has already set its sights on surpassing. With 2012 volume projections now reaching 25k units, the next step in The General's quest to prove that the Volt is a viable vehicle is a staggering goal: doubling its 2013 production target from 60k to 120k units of production. According to Bloomberg, GM has not officially announced the 120k volume goal and may not build that many Volts in 2013 at all, if energy prices and supplier challenges don't allow it. And though supplier issues could well leave the goal out of reach, even if GM is able to ramp up production to fulfill its 120k unit goal by next year, there are no signs yet that the market will support those production levels. After all, GM is essentially banking on the kind of volume-to-price niche that BMW has taken years to cultivate with its 3 Series... which starts at prices slightly below the Volt's $41k, and still moved fewer than 110k units last year.


As Autoblog says, the question is: "Why?" Is this just the slow ramp-up of new production? Are the dealers falling down on the job? Did weather and the short month keep buyers off the lots? Did we simply need to see higher gas prices to goose demand, meaning that sales will now take off? Or did two major auto manufacturers dump huge sums of money into a technology that is struggling to get its sales volumes into the four figures?


It certainly wouldn't be the first time that companies have made this sort of colossal misjudgment. It wouldn't even be the first time an auto company has done so. (Remember the Edsel)? March and April sales volumes should be telling: gas prices are high, and the Leaf is supposed to hit 4,000 production units this month. If volumes remain low, we may be looking at green elephants.

[Drachen]

Somebody needs to invent a solar-absorbing paint... :p:

I believe this already exists. It is just not yet economical to deploy.

[DarrinS]

Somebody needs to invent a solar-absorbing paint... :p:


Already exists. It's called -- black.

[LnGrrrR]

Already exists. It's called -- black.

*rimshot*

I knew that was coming, hence my smiley. Of course, I meant one that can convert said solar energy into a useful form of energy.

[Drachen]

*rimshot*

I knew that was coming, hence my smiley. Of course, I meant one that can convert said solar energy into a useful form of energy.

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/04/10/cheap-solar-paint-takes-a-giant-step-closer-to-reality/

[DarrinS]

*rimshot*

I knew that was coming, hence my smiley. Of course, I meant one that can convert said solar energy into a useful form of energy.


I guess you could gen enough power to recharge your laptop or phone.

[LnGrrrR]

I guess you could gen enough power to recharge your laptop or phone.

Every little bit could help. But more importantly, it could possibly "charge up" the car while stuck in a parking lot somewhere on a sunny day, extending the possible range/usage.

[Wild Cobra]

*rimshot*

I knew that was coming, hence my smiley. Of course, I meant one that can convert said solar energy into a useful form of energy.
There probably is a way to do that already but I'll bet the conversion to electricity is real low.

[LnGrrrR]

There probably is a way to do that already but I'll bet the conversion to electricity is real low.

Oh yeah, most likely.

[RandomGuy]

At about a 7% yearly increase in prices, that means we will pass $7/gal in about 8 years.

Given that prices on the hybrids, and their technology efficiencies are getting lower and better respectively, that mark is probably less.

[RandomGuy]

Every little bit could help. But more importantly, it could possibly "charge up" the car while stuck in a parking lot somewhere on a sunny day, extending the possible range/usage.

That is one thing about distributed PV systems. It would be another revenue stream for a parking garage.

With efficiency jumps in Photovoltaic and/or wind, that would allow someone to build a multi-level garage, prop some wind/solar on the roof, and offer some way of plugging in to charge up.

Think about any large parking lot for simlar. Throw in some covered parking and put a quickie PV unit on top.

There are a lot of reasons I think that we are on the verge of a real paradigm shift in energy, and the research strongly suggests the costs of PV systems coming down in the near future. The implications are quite profound.

Unless of course one has certain ideological blinders on that filter this information out. Then you will be caught unawares. Those that don't have such mental hobbles will stand to make oodles of cash from this major change.

[boutons_deux]

Imagine all the millions of acres of BigBox chain stores, malls, Wal-Marts covering their roofs and parking lots with solar systems, solar thermal or voltaic. Make a lot more sense than baking the asphalt.

Shielding buildings' roofs from direct sunlight would probably reduce their (sun-belt) a/c bills.

Such green initiatives would probably win their brands good will from intelligent, adult customers ("Wal-Mart People" excluded :) ).

[DarrinS]

At about a 7% yearly increase in prices, that means we will pass $7/gal in about 8 years.

Given that prices on the hybrids, and their technology efficiencies are getting lower and better respectively, that mark is probably less.



I'm sure there's some point where the pain of gas prices will FORCE us to choose a vehicle we ordinarily wouldn't buy, but doesn't that suck?

This country and the automobile go way back. Americans don't want to drive egg-shaped wussmobiles --- unless that have no choice.

I've pretty much already succumed to this. If gas was dirt cheap, there's no doubt I would drive a giant crew cab pickup. I've been driving a fairly fuel efficient sedan for the better part of a decade. <sigh>

[RandomGuy]

The physics don't work. Period. There are some things that are just universal truths. Moving X amount of pounds Y distance at Z speed requires a certain minimum amount of energy input. Sunlight won't cut it.

Link?

I say that mostly facetiously, because that strikes me as awfully close to a blanket dismissal of the sort that have a habit of turning out to be proven wrong.

Sunlight is insufficient to power most cars as they are running, that is quite plain.

But when you get a larger area, and a long enough time, you can store a lot of energy to charge batteries and so forth.

It sounds to me like you are buying into Darrin's "density" argument without thinking critically about it first, no offense.

There are some rather promising technologies that offer the potential of tripling the amount of energy stored per unit weight of battery, and that will allow plenty of "density" after you have concentrated a diffuse source like sunlight.

[RandomGuy]

The ion engines being used in spacecraft are a good example of how the dimension of time has to be considered when thinking about energy.

The ion engines use a very tiny amount of fuel, and give out only a tiny amount of thrust. No one would say they are powerhouses by any stretch. But what makes them useful is the time factor, as you can apply that force over 24/7.

Similarly, a solar panel can only catch a certain amount of energy at any given instant, but when you add up that energy over 8-12 hours of daylight, especially in sunny places, it starts to accumulate, especially when you start talking about large areas.

I just don't buy the "sunlight doesn't cut it" argument at all. It seems to be ignoring both technological progress and likely developments, as well as some more basic concepts like time and area.

[Drachen]

I'm sure there's some point where the pain of gas prices will FORCE us to choose a vehicle we ordinarily wouldn't buy, but doesn't that suck?

This country and the automobile go way back. Americans don't want to drive egg-shaped wussmobiles --- unless that have no choice.

I've pretty much already succumed to this. If gas was dirt cheap, there's no doubt I would drive a giant crew cab pickup. I've been driving a fairly fuel efficient sedan for the better part of a decade. <sigh>

Reality forcing us to improve sucks?? Why? It seems that reality is the only thing that can force us to improve since humans seem to be creatures of comfort (i.e. the idea that we should wait until gas prices are crippling in order to begin research on an alternative). Why do we have to squeeze a stone until its dry when there are rivers available if we just take the time to get there?

[boutons_deux]

Darrin lives a fantasy world, believing all the LIES the VRWC feeds him, while denying the reality that Western civilization's energy consumption, destruction of soil, water, air is on unsustainable trajectory to disaster. He's all freedom, with no responsibility.

[Cry Havoc]

Link?

I say that mostly facetiously, because that strikes me as awfully close to a blanket dismissal of the sort that have a habit of turning out to be proven wrong.

Sunlight is insufficient to power most cars as they are running, that is quite plain.

But when you get a larger area, and a long enough time, you can store a lot of energy to charge batteries and so forth.

It sounds to me like you are buying into Darrin's "density" argument without thinking critically about it first, no offense.

There are some rather promising technologies that offer the potential of tripling the amount of energy stored per unit weight of battery, and that will allow plenty of "density" after you have concentrated a diffuse source like sunlight.


The ion engines being used in spacecraft are a good example of how the dimension of time has to be considered when thinking about energy.

The ion engines use a very tiny amount of fuel, and give out only a tiny amount of thrust. No one would say they are powerhouses by any stretch. But what makes them useful is the time factor, as you can apply that force over 24/7.

Similarly, a solar panel can only catch a certain amount of energy at any given instant, but when you add up that energy over 8-12 hours of daylight, especially in sunny places, it starts to accumulate, especially when you start talking about large areas.

I just don't buy the "sunlight doesn't cut it" argument at all. It seems to be ignoring both technological progress and likely developments, as well as some more basic concepts like time and area.

Well said, though it will fall on completely deaf ears, sadly. Anytime someone is willing to make such token statements about technology with that kind of certainty, you can safely assume a couple of things: 1) They don't know much about the field they're speaking of, and 2) it's going to be practically impossible to convince them of anything except their opinion-as-fact bias.

[boutons_deux]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

[CosmicCowboy]

Well said, though it will fall on completely deaf ears, sadly. Anytime someone is willing to make such token statements about technology with that kind of certainty, you can safely assume a couple of things: 1) They don't know much about the field they're speaking of, and 2) it's going to be practically impossible to convince them of anything except their opinion-as-fact bias.

Of course you can increase the size of the solar panel exponentially and the storage capacity of the battery and make an electric car "work". I never said you couldn't.

[TDMVPDPOY]

i own a prius, watch out the hidden costs of maintaining one and the costs of replacing the lithium batteries...

[LnGrrrR]

Of course you can increase the size of the solar panel exponentially and the storage capacity of the battery and make an electric car "work". I never said you couldn't.

That's not really what I said though. I was talking about using photovoltaic paint as an additional way to gather energy for the car, not a primary one.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course you can increase the size of the solar panel exponentially and the storage capacity of the battery and make an electric car "work". I never said you couldn't.

PV efficency is increasing at an exponential rate. I confess I know jack shit about batteries but PV panels are getting smaller and producing more energy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Bottom line is 1 square foot in full sunlight at the equator receives about 100 watts of total energy from sunlight in 12 hours. Thats with 100% recovery. It is what it is.

[Drachen]

Bottom line is 1 square foot in full sunlight at the equator receives about 100 watts of total energy from sunlight in 12 hours. Thats with 100% recovery. It is what it is.


100 watts/hour average not per day.

[CosmicCowboy]

100 watts/hour average not per day.
correction duly noted

[DarrinS]

Reality forcing us to improve sucks?? Why? It seems that reality is the only thing that can force us to improve since humans seem to be creatures of comfort (i.e. the idea that we should wait until gas prices are crippling in order to begin research on an alternative). Why do we have to squeeze a stone until its dry when there are rivers available if we just take the time to get there?



I take issue with your use of "improve".


Full-size pickup or SUV -> Small, egg-shaped hybrid : not an "improvement"

[MannyIsGod]

Bottom line is 1 square foot in full sunlight at the equator receives about 100 watts of total energy from sunlight in 12 hours. Thats with 100% recovery. It is what it is.

Engine efficiency has improved. Battery efficiency has improved. Cars have continued to get lighter (this is interesting http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-car-of-future-made-from-coal-ash). Its inconceivable today but not in the future.

[MannyIsGod]

I take issue with your use of "improve".


Full-size pickup or SUV -> Small, egg-shaped hybrid : not an "improvement"

Its a shame no one is trying to make hybrid trucks or SUVs.

[DarrinS]

Its a shame no one is trying to make hybrid trucks or SUVs.


Eh, they are. But people that drive trucks and SUVs don't want to buy the more efficient, less powerful versions. I can supply sales data if you want.

[MannyIsGod]

Eh, they are. But people that drive trucks and SUVs don't want to buy the more efficient, less powerful versions. I can supply sales data if you want.

You're telling me that if you had two equal SUVs and one was a hybrid you wouldn't want it because it was a hybrid?

:lmao

Actually, I wouldn't doubt that the general public actually feels that way, but I don't think you'd find anyone with an actual brain who thinks that a smart way of going about things. Its such a completely stupid mindset. Wanting inefficiency for the fucking sake of inefficiency is amazingly ridiculous.

[DarrinS]

You're telling me that if you had two equal SUVs and one was a hybrid you wouldn't want it because it was a hybrid?

:lmao

Actually, I wouldn't doubt that the general public actually feels that way, but I don't think you'd find anyone with an actual brain who thinks that a smart way of going about things. Its such a completely stupid mindset. Wanting inefficiency for the fucking sake of inefficiency is amazingly ridiculous.


I guess you missed the word "power".

[MannyIsGod]

You're the one assuming the hybrids will never provide the same power rates as non hybrids. Its a complete strawman in order to give yourself a way to approve of regular engines over hybrids.

[Drachen]

I guess you missed the word "power".

2011 Chevy tahoe hybrid - 332 HP, 367 lb-ft. torque
2011 Chevy tahoe - 320 HP, 335 lb-ft. torque

DOH!

[MannyIsGod]

2011 Chevy tahoe hybrid - 332 HP, 367 lb-ft. torque
2011 Chevy tahoe - 320 HP, 335 lb-ft. torque

DOH!

:lmao !!!!!!!!!!

[DarrinS]

2011 Chevy tahoe hybrid - 332 HP, 367 lb-ft. torque
2011 Chevy tahoe - 320 HP, 335 lb-ft. torque

DOH!


The HIGHLY efficient 2011 Tahoe Hybrid gets 20 mpg city and 23 mpg hwy, while the regular 2011 Tahoe gets 15 city/21 hwy.

Not the "greenest" hybrid and hardly worth the extra $13K.


doh!

[MannyIsGod]

You move goalposts faster than a group of drunken fratboys after a huge college football upset.

No one is saying that Tahoe is worth the money TODAY. This has been explained to you several times in this thread but you're too god damn stubborn or stupid to realize it. However, there will be a time in the very short future where because of lowered technology costs and higher gas costs that it will be a smart purchase. Furthermore, you bitched about power and that hybrid shows you that your bitching is nothing more than bullshit (shocking - I know). No one said it was the greenest hybrid, but you're a fucking fool if you don't recognize that a 33% increase in city MPG is incredibly significant.

If you want to burn barrels of oil in your backyard then go ahead but don't be surprised when most people think you're an absolute fool. Oh, and make sure the amount of oil doesn't exceed the capacity of the superdome.

[coyotes_geek]

The HIGHLY efficient 2011 Tahoe Hybrid gets 20 mpg city and 23 mpg hwy, while the regular 2011 Tahoe gets 15 city/21 hwy.

Not the "greenest" hybrid and hardly worth the extra $13K.


doh!

A 33% improvement in city mileage without having to sacrifice power sounds pretty good to me. Any idea how that 33% stacks up against other hybrid/non-hybrid vehicle comparisons?

[Drachen]

The HIGHLY efficient 2011 Tahoe Hybrid gets 20 mpg city and 23 mpg hwy, while the regular 2011 Tahoe gets 15 city/21 hwy.

Not the "greenest" hybrid and hardly worth the extra $13K.


doh!

I wasn't talking to you... I was talking to the guy upstream who admitted that more power was his main concern and that if he had to pay more for it then cest la vie.

I do think that he posted under your screen name though, so I would check the password on your account.

[Drachen]

A 33% improvement in city mileage without having to sacrifice power sounds pretty good to me. Any idea how that 33% stacks up against other hybrid/non-hybrid vehicle comparisons?

33% increase in MPG AND more power with a 27% increase in cost.

[Cry Havoc]

33% increase in MPG AND more power with a 27% increase in cost.

Do you get tax breaks with that hybrid?

[Drachen]

No, it is expired.

[Wild Cobra]

PV efficency is increasing at an exponential rate. I confess I know jack shit about batteries but PV panels are getting smaller and producing more energy.
If in theory, you could reach an efficiency can reach 100%, you still only have so much energy from the sun over a given surface area.

[Wild Cobra]

That's not really what I said though. I was talking about using photovoltaic paint as an additional way to gather energy for the car, not a primary one.
Let's say you had a paint that did that and collected 0.5% of the solar energy as electricity. Parked in an unobstructed area, with a noon summertime sun the profile of the car might be what, 5 sq meters? Solar energy hitting the surface at 90 degrees is in the neighborhood of 950 watts/sq meter. This is under a 24 watt-hr charge, and that is peak. Over the course of the 24 hr cycle, and reducing profile and angle, you you be lucky to average 30% as around 35% is average for a profile that doesn't change. In the end, you get about a 172 watt-hours of energy over 24 hours. Raise this paint to a 25% efficiency, and you get about 8.6 kWh of energy. Is such a cost worth it for 86 cents worth of power? It only saves $314 annually under optimum conditions. The cost for the paint and power connections would be how much?

Someone check my math please. Did it on the fly. It would probably be a little higher anyway with a 3D profile. I did it the same way as a flat target on the ground. Probably double those power figures.

[Wild Cobra]

Bottom line is 1 square foot in full sunlight at the equator receives about 100 watts of total energy from sunlight in 12 hours. Thats with 100% recovery. It is what it is.Actually, it's about 100 watts when the solar cells are perpendicular to the sun. Six hours before or after, the angle is insignificant and the energy almost zero, without solar cells that track the sun.

approximate:

6 AM 0% (6 PM)
8 AM 50% (4 PM)
10 AM 87% (2 PM)
noon 100%

You end up getting about 35% of the max rated energy over 24 hrs. A 100 watt max solar cell design would yield about about 840 watt-hours of power per sq. ft. Not 1200 watt-hours per sq. ft.

[Wild Cobra]

2011 Chevy tahoe hybrid - 332 HP, 367 lb-ft. torque
2011 Chevy tahoe - 320 HP, 335 lb-ft. torque

DOH!
What do the power curves look like? That makes a big difference. Torque needs to be in the right place.

[RandomGuy]

Bottom line is 1 square foot in full sunlight at the equator receives about 100 watts of total energy from sunlight in 12 hours. Thats with 100% recovery. It is what it is.


100 watts/hour average not per day.

Off by a factor of twelve. An order of magnitude plus a bit.

It is though, an important point. There is a theoretical maximum and that is easy to see.

What that single factoid misses, is context, like cost per unit of energy, and cost per square area.

If a square foot were to cost $0.0001, then the costs of PV power would crush any competing form of energy at anything approaching current production efficiency, let alone experimental efficiency.

Context:
You get a lot of energy loss converting electricity into chemical energy in a battery.
You get a lot of energy loss burning gasoline.

The best way to really compare is to start doing some conversion.

First, let’s get some common units. A joule is the best way to go.
http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENERGY_POLICY/tables.html

Gallon of gasoline: 130,000,000 joules
Kwh: 3,610,000

Of course, out of any gallon of gas, only about 20% of any given gallon is actually converted into work, i.e. moving the car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

I get that most common electric motors can convert electricity to work at about 90% efficiency.
http://www.best-solar-energy.com/renewable/high-efficient-electric-motor/

So let’s dial back both joules to better reflect the percentage of both available to actually do work.

130000000*0.2= 26,000,000 joules
3610000*.9= 3,249,000 joules

Getting energy into/out of a battery is about 75%-80% efficient:
http://www.enviroharvest.ca/pv_efficiency.htm

3,249,000 *.75 = 2,436,750

So a gallon of gasoline, will get you roughly 10.66 times the amount of work that a kilowatt hour would.
26,000,000/2,436,750= 10.66

With 1200 watts being our theoretical maximum at the equator for a square foot in a day, but that converted at 50% to electricity, you get 600 watts. One watt = One joule.

Factor in storage losses, and that drops to 600*.75= 450

26,000,000/450= 57,777 square feet of PV at the equator. 240 feet by 240 feet, a pretty large area. Northward latitudes easily would require more.

This is the ultimate crux of the “density” argument that Darrin makes, albeit awkwardly.

It would be quite impossible to fully replace gasoline with PV, and keep our driving habits in terms of both distance of commute, and size of vehicle the same.

[LnGrrrR]

Let's say you had a paint that did that and collected 0.5% of the solar energy as electricity. Parked in an unobstructed area, with a noon summertime sun the profile of the car might be what, 5 sq meters? Solar energy hitting the surface at 90 degrees is in the neighborhood of 950 watts/sq meter. This is under a 24 watt-hr charge, and that is peak. Over the course of the 24 hr cycle, and reducing profile and angle, you you be lucky to average 30% as around 35% is average for a profile that doesn't change. In the end, you get about a 172 watt-hours of energy over 24 hours. Raise this paint to a 25% efficiency, and you get about 8.6 kWh of energy. Is such a cost worth it for 86 cents worth of power? It only saves $314 annually under optimum conditions. The cost for the paint and power connections would be how much?

Someone check my math please. Did it on the fly. It would probably be a little higher anyway with a 3D profile. I did it the same way as a flat target on the ground. Probably double those power figures.

You might be right WC, I don't know the physics. Perhaps it would be more useful to save the PV paint for large buildings. *shrug*

[RandomGuy]

The obvious implication is that, as gasoline gets less and less efficient to produce (the rough proxy of a cost of a gallon of oil is a good measure), something will have to change.

We will simply have to use less energy on transportation. Smaller cars, shorter commutes, or simply other forms that use less energy per person, think bicyles or mopeds.

One might also start considering mass transit.

(edit)

Although, there is some data that suggests mass transit like trains isn't the answer either.

Telecommuting anyone? :D

[DarrinS]

26,000,000/450= 57,777 square feet of PV at the equator. 240 feet by 240 feet, a pretty large area. Northward latitudes easily would require more.

This is the ultimate crux of the “density” argument that Darrin makes, albeit awkwardly.

It would be quite impossible to fully replace gasoline with PV, and keep our driving habits in terms of both distance of commute, and size of vehicle the same.



We just need to increase the size of driving lanes. :lol

[RandomGuy]

We just need to increase the size of driving lanes. :lol

You joke, but one of the most obvious implications is that long-term spending on new highway projects is probably a waste of money.

Shorter commutes means a LOT less traffic.

[lazerelmo]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/29/cash-clunkers-2-dumped-capitol-hill/

$7,500 tax break to become $7,500 rebate at the dealership.

[Drachen]

This is interesting (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/idUS81168260920110329)


About the size of a playing card, the solar cell - which uses inexpensive and widely available materials like silicon - is able to split water into its two components, hydrogen and oxygen. Placed in a gallon of water in bright sunlight, the device could produce enough electricity to supply a house in a developing country with electricity for a day.

I have read other better articles on this the last few days, but it is interesting considering the conversation that we are having. I would like to see some more data regarding its power output as well as how it works.

But one has to wonder, if one can power a home in the developing world off of only one of these, you have to imagine that 4 of these could power a car of ours.

[RandomGuy]

This is interesting (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/idUS81168260920110329)



I have read other better articles on this the last few days, but it is interesting considering the conversation that we are having. I would like to see some more data regarding its power output as well as how it works.

But one has to wonder, if one can power a home in the developing world off of only one of these, you have to imagine that 4 of these could power a car of ours.

Still ultimately limited by physics, as was noted earlier. You can ONLY capture 100% of the energy from the sun, as an upper boundary.

You have to remember that moving a 1,500- 2,000 pound object involves a lot of physical work, in the physics sense of the word.

Going back to the earlier figures, if you completely discount losses from storage and friction, and assume 100% capture, at the equator:

26,000,000 joules = 1 gallon of gasoline available work energy

One square foot can capture at this theoretical maximum per day: 1200 watts or 1200 joules

26,000,000/1,200 = 21666 square feet of capture in one day, the equivalent of ONE gallon of gasoline or an array of 148 feet on each end.

A good-sized home floor plan is about 2500 square feet, so that gets you a rough picture of what it takes to replace a gallon of gas on a daily basis.

It is worth noting though, that PV cells last a good 30+ years, with some drop off. We honestly don't know how long the lifespans are, because the first production PV cells are still producing power some 50 years later.

That means if you installed enough PV cells to replace a gallon of gasoline per day, they would replace just shy of 11,000 gallons of gasoline over 30 years, and keep on cranking. Things that don't have moving parts tend to last a loooong time.

If you figure the average commute consumes two gallons or more of gasoline (a guess on my part), you can start to see the difficulties involved in running vehicles using the sun only. Make the car smaller, and the distance shorter, and it becomes much more feasible.

Scale it down to an electric scooter, when even larger gas powered ones get close to 75 miles per gallon, and using PV to power transportation needs gets more feasible, but not by much.

We are simply going to have to live a LOT closer to where we work in 50 years.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.dailyfinance.com/media/2011/03/gas-prices-chart.jpg

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/gas-prices-world-high-low-country-pain-pump/19895547/

[Drachen]

Still ultimately limited by physics, as was noted earlier. You can ONLY capture 100% of the energy from the sun, as an upper boundary.

You have to remember that moving a 1,500- 2,000 pound object involves a lot of physical work, in the physics sense of the word.

Going back to the earlier figures, if you completely discount losses from storage and friction, and assume 100% capture, at the equator:

26,000,000 joules = 1 gallon of gasoline available work energy

One square foot can capture at this theoretical maximum per day: 1200 watts or 1200 joules

26,000,000/1,200 = 21666 square feet of capture in one day, the equivalent of ONE gallon of gasoline or an array of 148 feet on each end.

A good-sized home floor plan is about 2500 square feet, so that gets you a rough picture of what it takes to replace a gallon of gas on a daily basis.

It is worth noting though, that PV cells last a good 30+ years, with some drop off. We honestly don't know how long the lifespans are, because the first production PV cells are still producing power some 50 years later.

That means if you installed enough PV cells to replace a gallon of gasoline per day, they would replace just shy of 11,000 gallons of gasoline over 30 years, and keep on cranking. Things that don't have moving parts tend to last a loooong time.

If you figure the average commute consumes two gallons or more of gasoline (a guess on my part), you can start to see the difficulties involved in running vehicles using the sun only. Make the car smaller, and the distance shorter, and it becomes much more feasible.

Scale it down to an electric scooter, when even larger gas powered ones get close to 75 miles per gallon, and using PV to power transportation needs gets more feasible, but not by much.

We are simply going to have to live a LOT closer to where we work in 50 years.

My understanding here may be flawed, and I am sure I will be quickly corrected if it is, but from where I sit, there is a fundamental difference between what this "solar leaf" is doing and what a PV cell is doing. The SL seems to be a chemical process that derives its energy, not only from the sun, but from a chemical reaction using a catalyst and water. The way I am reading it is that this addition of these "chemicals" allows for greater energy harvesting in a much smaller package.


Edit: otherwise, it would seem, that this wouldn't be something to write an article about, instead it would just be a small card sized PV cell capable of what any PV cell is capable of (proportional to size)

[MannyIsGod]

My understanding here may be flawed, and I am sure I will be quickly corrected if it is, but from where I sit, there is a fundamental difference between what this "solar leaf" is doing and what a PV cell is doing. The SL seems to be a chemical process that derives its energy, not only from the sun, but from a chemical reaction using a catalyst and water. The way I am reading it is that this addition of these "chemicals" allows for greater energy harvesting in a much smaller package.

The point that is being made - and it is a correct one - is that you can only ultimately harvest 100% of potential energy from any particular source. I'm not sure what the potential energy from your source is if it is also relying on stored chemical energy but energy from sunlight is not enough to power TODAY'S vehicles.

Whether or not it would be enough for vehicles in the future is debateable, IMO, due to lower weights (cars today don't weigh what they did 40 years ago, for instance), better aerodynamics, and better engines and drive train systems.

I think solar definitely has a role and I think that eventually all of our planets needs will be solved with solar energy but it may require indirect production and transmission in some manner to vehicles. Even if thats as simple as having to plug in your car at night to recharge batteries.

We'll see.

[Drachen]

The point that is being made - and it is a correct one - is that you can only ultimately harvest 100% of potential energy from any particular source. I'm not sure what the potential energy from your source is if it is also relying on stored chemical energy but energy from sunlight is not enough to power TODAY'S vehicles.

Whether or not it would be enough for vehicles in the future is debateable, IMO, due to lower weights (cars today don't weigh what they did 40 years ago, for instance), better aerodynamics, and better engines and drive train systems.

I think solar definitely has a role and I think that eventually all of our planets needs will be solved with solar energy but it may require indirect production and transmission in some manner to vehicles. Even if thats as simple as having to plug in your car at night to recharge batteries.

We'll see.

But in this process there is energy being harvested from the water, catalyst, and sun as opposed to just sun. No?

edit: something like heat energy alone can't move my truck, but heat, fuel, and oxygen can. Once again, I may be misunderstand the premise of this solar leaf, but this is the way I am reading it.

[boutons_deux]

Correct, totally different physics: photo-voltaic energy conversion vs splitting water into H and O.

The hydrogen of course is then a fuel for a fuel cell, which reverses the splitting to produce pure water. Too good to be true. :)

The key problem with hydrogen economy is transport of the hydrogen fuel. Requires and entirely new infrastracture, can't use oil pipes. Pure hydrogen is explosive and corrosive (highly reactive, as is distilled water).

[Wild Cobra]

The SL seems to be a chemical process that derives its energy, not only from the sun, but from a chemical reaction using a catalyst and water. The way I am reading it is that this addition of these "chemicals" allows for greater energy harvesting in a much smaller package.

So....

You need a fuel for that chemical conversion. How much is the fuel and what type of waste does it generate?

[Wild Cobra]

OK, the solar leaf is still using the solar energy. You still cannot exceed 100% of the incoming energy. The one developed at MIT is said to be 10x more efficient than a real leaf.

[RandomGuy]

But in this process there is energy being harvested from the water, catalyst, and sun as opposed to just sun. No?

edit: something like heat energy alone can't move my truck, but heat, fuel, and oxygen can. Once again, I may be misunderstand the premise of this solar leaf, but this is the way I am reading it.

Water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen by running electricity through it. You get energy out by burning the resulting hydrogen (this results in water, completing the cycle).

In this case you can substitute the word "fuel cell" for "battery" to get the concept.

A fuel cell is, in essence, a battery, albeit storage of energy by slightly different chemical means.

This technology does seem to be a bit different, in that it uses sunlight and catalysts to cause the reaction, as opposed to the electrolysis method. My gut says this is much more energetically efficient than direct electrolysis.

The article is pretty short on details to be able to tell.

The law of conseravation of energy though is still an immutable law of physics and cannot be cheated even so. The 1200 watts/sq ft/day is the upper end, the only thing a catalyst does is get you closer to this theoretical maximum.

My chemistry professor likened reactions to pushing a ball up a hill, and then letting it roll down the other side. (energy of activiation). It requires a certain amount of energy into a reaction before you can get anything out. A gallon of gasoline does not spontaneously combust, but add a little spark or heat via a match and you get a lot out.

........___
...... /....\
....../......\
___/....... \
...............\
................\________


What a catalyst does is makes the top of the hill a lot shorter.

......._____
____/.......\
...............\
................\_________


The net energy you get out (i.e. the difference between the starting elevation and the ending elevation) hasn't changed, but you don't need as much to get the ball rolling.

Hope this helps. It is my understanding of it, and may not be 100% up, but I am pretty good with these things generally, much to mouse's dismay. ;)

[Drachen]

So....

You need a fuel for that chemical conversion. How much is the fuel and what type of waste does it generate?

The catalyst is made of nickel and colbalt. The chemical is water. It uses the sun to trigger the reaction.

Once again. Gasoline and oxygen do nothing until heat is added. The resulting reaction releases more energy than the heat alone provides. In this example the sun is the heat and is able to provide X amount of energy, but adding the sun to the catalyst and chemical can release more energy than the sun provides alone.

[DarrinS]

Water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen by running electricity through it. You get energy out by burning the resulting hydrogen (this results in water, completing the cycle).

In this case you can substitute the word "fuel cell" for "battery" to get the concept.

A fuel cell is, in essence, a battery, albeit storage of energy by slightly different chemical means.

This technology does seem to be a bit different, in that it uses sunlight and catalysts to cause the reaction, as opposed to the electrolysis method. My gut says this is much more energetically efficient than direct electrolysis.

The article is pretty short on details to be able to tell.

The law of conseravation of energy though is still an immutable law of physics and cannot be cheated even so. The 1200 watts/sq ft/day is the upper end, the only thing a catalyst does is get you closer to this theoretical maximum.

My chemistry professor likened reactions to pushing a ball up a hill, and then letting it roll down the other side. (energy of activiation). It requires a certain amount of energy into a reaction before you can get anything out. A gallon of gasoline does not spontaneously combust, but add a little spark or heat via a match and you get a lot out.

__
/ \
/ \
----/ \
\
\________


What a catalyst does is makes the top of the hill a lot shorter.

_____
----/ \
\
\_________


The net energy you get out (i.e. the difference in starting elevations) hasn't changed, but you don't need as much to get the ball rolling.

Hope this helps. It is my understanding of it, and may not be 100% up, but I am pretty good with these things generally, much to mouse's dismay. ;)



Isn't this just Brown's Gas (oxyhydrogen)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

By the way "The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it.".

[Wild Cobra]

The catalyst is made of nickel and colbalt. The chemical is water. It uses the sun to trigger the reaction.

Once again. Gasoline and oxygen do nothing until heat is added. The resulting reaction releases more energy than the heat alone provides. In this example the sun is the heat and is able to provide X amount of energy, but adding the sun to the catalyst and chemical can release more energy than the sun provides alone.
Got that, as shown by my post following that one. I replied before looking it up. When you said chemical reaction, I assumed there was more than just breaking down water. After all, a real leaf does do other chemical reactions which take carbon out of the air.

[RandomGuy]

Correct, totally different physics: photo-voltaic energy conversion vs splitting water into H and O.

The hydrogen of course is then a fuel for a fuel cell, which reverses the splitting to produce pure water. Too good to be true. :)

The key problem with hydrogen economy is transport of the hydrogen fuel. Requires and entirely new infrastracture, can't use oil pipes. Pure hydrogen is explosive and corrosive (highly reactive, as is distilled water).

An entire post without mention of the VRWC?

(feints)

[Wild Cobra]

An entire post without mention of the VRWC?

(feints)
Bouton's....

Don't do that....

I'm not ready for a heart attack!

[Drachen]

Got that, as shown by my post following that one. I replied before looking it up. When you said chemical reaction, I assumed there was more than just breaking down water. after all, a real leaf does do other chemical reactions which take carbon out of the air.

Sorry, I was typing when you posted that other one, I am going to go ahead an stop since A) I am outmatched (it seems RG has a better handle on it than I) and B) the articles that I have read a very short on details and therefore most of what I am suggesting are just guesses. Hopefully I guessed right, but I will have to wait for more info. I know they are licensing this tech to TaTa to make it commercially available so I guess when that happens, more info will be made available.

[Drachen]

An entire post without mention of the VRWC?

(feints)

This is why I don't put anyone on ignore. Boutons does eventually post some things that I consider to be reasonable and thoughful and Jack Sommerset posted something funny once.

Oh and before someone replies to this with "Link?" I don't have a catologous memory of everything I have read here so I don't remember. I just remember it happened. :lol

[LnGrrrR]

(feints)

Are you fencing Boutons now? :) [/snark]

[RandomGuy]

Are you fencing Boutons now? :) [/snark]

argh. Stupid, silly, pig-dog French words muddying up our nice Germanic-rooted language.

Feint faint.... whose to say which is falling over and which is a false attack?

[RandomGuy]

Isn't this just Brown's Gas (oxyhydrogen)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

By the way "The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it.".

Yes, exactly. That is one of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics.

Mmmm entropy.

[DarrinS]

Yes, exactly. That is one of the implications of the second law of thermodynamics.

Mmmm entropy.


Would it make more sense to use the solar energy directly, rather than waste some by producing the gas?

On the other hand, the gas can be easily stored and is portable.

[RandomGuy]

Isn't this just Brown's Gas (oxyhydrogen)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

By the way "The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it.".

This is what kills the "water car" out of the gate, in case anybody ever runs across that pseudo-scientific claptrap. A car that runs on water by using electricity to make this, then burning it. i.e. perpetual motion.

"They" are keeping the water car from us, 'cause they want us dependent on oil, or so the conspiracy theory goes.

That might make sense if it didn't defy the very laws of physics.

Sure there are cars that can run on burning hydrogen, but you still need to get the energy to get that hydrogen from *somewhere*. This little fact escapes some people.

[LnGrrrR]

argh. Stupid, silly, pig-dog French words muddying up our nice Germanic-rooted language.

Feint faint.... whose to say which is falling over and which is a false attack?

Surely, you mean "who's" to say... :D

[RandomGuy]

Would it make more sense to use the solar energy directly, rather than waste some by producing the gas?

On the other hand, the gas can be easily stored and is portable.

It would make sense that way, yes.

As noted before, you would not get the energy losses in storing/retrieving it from a battery.

Gasoline is an excellent fuel, as the energy content shows.

The problem with gasoline is in producing it. If you start from scratch you get a LOT of energy loss, and an inefficient process.

We have benefitted from not having to produce it from scratch, i.e. producing it from crude oil.

The big systemic problem is that it is taking more and more energy to get the next unit of gasoline, making it less and less efficient over time.

Take a barrel of sour crude and light sweet crude.

Sour crude requires energy up front to heat it to the point where you can extract it. It then requires energy to remove the sulfur, then you have the equivalent of light sweet crude, then you refine it further, and get gasoline.

Light sweet doesn’t require as much coaxing to get it out of the ground, then doesn’t require the extra refining steps (read: energy) to fully concentrate the energy of the oil into gasoline.

If you like a barrel of sour crude is much less “energy dense” than light sweet.

Our problem as a civilization is that the light sweet variety is being used up pretty quickly. This leaves sour crude to fill the gap.

I imagine it is virtually certain that battery/fuel cell technology may one day produce a battery that, volume for volume and pound for pound, stores more useable energy than gasoline, but that is beyond anything that mankind is capable of in my lifetime.

The concept of EROEI is important to think about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI

If you have the time, there is a VERY long, but comprehensive look at energy and what it means to our civilization here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387

Another one of my more favorite websites:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/transportable-fuel.php

[MannyIsGod]

Would it make more sense to use the solar energy directly, rather than waste some by producing the gas?

On the other hand, the gas can be easily stored and is portable.

That depends. You use the energy from your battery to cause a spark which then causes the combustion that fuels your car. But it doesn't make sense to just use the energy from your battery directly to fuel your car, does it?

Whether or not what was stated above was valid, that doesn't mean the principle you just stated is always correct.

[RandomGuy]

That depends. You use the energy from your battery to cause a spark which then causes the combustion that fuels your car. But it doesn't make sense to just use the energy from your battery directly to fuel your car, does it?

Whether or not what was stated above was valid, that doesn't mean the principle you just stated is always correct.

Take the time to read this bit:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387

Fascinating reading.


THE BOTTOM LINE:


1) Net energy is more important from a relative basis than absolute. A 3:1 EROI doesn't tell us much unless we know how that compares to what an organism/society has been built on/used to. A 2:1 EROI would have made stone age villagers incredibly rich. A 5:1 EROI may not be enough to power our society. (e.g. as fossil fuels get more expensive they will collapse the economy and no real recovery will ever happen as the high energy gain outputs are already gone)

2) Energy reserves are not as important as energy flow rates. We could have a billion mongo nut trees, but all that matters is the maximum flow that society is able to harvest in real time. (This obviously applies to oil as well)

3) Energy quality depends on the context. High BTU substances, like oil or coal, are clearly very useful to our society, but may not be to others. (the sasquatch colony valued and used Waybread, not oil)

4) Liebigs law of the minimum applies to an energy portfolio. Wind has a high EROI, but our system infrastructure relies on liquid fuels. The net energy of the weakest link matters more than the overall net energy of society. (Adding high EROI wind capacity while net energy of oil dwindles does not solve the problem, unless the energy mix changes from liquid fuels to electricity)

5) Using different boundaries in net energy analysis will lead to different conclusions. A society running at 5:1 EROI would be happy to develop a scalable technology with an 8:1 EROI, however, after environmental externalities are included, it might only be a 3:1 technology. (Coal-to-liquids and climate change comes to mind) The difficulties lie in making meaningful comparisons and valuing important life functions not priced in the market system.

6) Rather than pursuing the highest and most promising energy technologies, it might be prudent to pursue ones that are certain, and meet the net energy decline half-way by reducing energy footprints. As we decline in aggregate societal energy surplus, a great deal of remaining energy is going to be wasted, ostensibly going after 'more oil and gas', which will likely be unprofitable both monetarily and from energy perspective.

7) Since evolution has favored organisms that have the highest energy output energy input ratios, it will be a cognitive challenge for us (as organisms) to willingly reduce the numerator.

8) Consumption, in the sasquatch example, continued very high until late in the game, and was subsidized from borrowing from other aspects of society. Lack of energy gain was a phantom concept until the situation was much deteriorated. Similarly, in our current fiat based civilization, we might 'replace' the lower energy gain by printing money or relaxing financial requirements, but these measures will not be based on anything biophysical and make the eventual crash much steeper. In the end, it's not about how much energy we have but how much societies can afford via real inputs.

(some of the bits are referenced from the authors example of "sasquatches" and "mongo nut trees" that makes for some entertaining reading)

[RandomGuy]

New technology makes hydrogen more viable car fuel (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110331/lf_nm_life/us_energy_hydrogen_fuel_1)

There is a fairly steady drumbeat of news like this. Money is flooding into research at the moment, and while there are no doubt some technologies that will never reach widespread use or full production, something is bound to be a game changer.

[RandomGuy]

Hydrogen is often advocated as an energy medium. Here are some relevant facts.


Hydrogen is the lightest of the elements with an atomic weight of 1.0. Liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.07 grams per cubic centimeter, whereas water has a density of 1.0 g/cc and gasoline about 0.75 g/cc. These facts give hydrogen both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that it stores approximately 2.6 times the energy per unit mass as gasoline, and the disadvantage is that it needs about 4 times the volume for a given amount of energy. A 15 gallon automobile gasoline tank contains 90 pounds of gasoline. The corresponding hydrogen tank would be 60 gallons, but the hydrogen would weigh only 34 pounds.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html

Interesting. the new tech from the article posted above might change the volume requirements, if so, that would give gasoline a serious run for it's money.

[RandomGuy]

Take the time to read this bit:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/2/114144/2387

Fascinating reading.

By the by, even if you don't read this, there are two rather obvious implications:

Standards of living will fall and more people will have to be devoted to energy production.

Both are unavoidable over time.

Game changer of course would be energy sources. As noted in the article though, wind energy seems to have the potential to match oil in terms of invested energy/return on investment.

Any good economist will tell you that energy will be a mix of sources, and I would bet on wind followed by solar, after we get a lot more energy efficient.

[RandomGuy]

Spanish scientists search for fuel of the future (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110331/bs_afp/spainenergyalternativeenvironmentresearch)


US oil giant ExxonMobil plans to invest up to $600 million in research on oil produced from algae.


:wow

Interesting. Even algae are still limited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as to how much energy you can capture.

Even so, once you start getting a few hundred square miles of bio-reactors, you are talking about some serious amounts of fuel.

[Sec24Row7]

Spanish scientists search for fuel of the future (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110331/bs_afp/spainenergyalternativeenvironmentresearch)



:wow

Interesting. Even algae are still limited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as to how much energy you can capture.

Even so, once you start getting a few hundred square miles of bio-reactors, you are talking about some serious amounts of fuel.


Doesn't surprise me... long shot of getting it to work, good PR.

Just skimmed this... but why even talk about approaching a theoretical 100% conversion for solar?? That isn't possible.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think anyone actually said it was possible but rather people brought it up to show that even that impossible figure isn't enough to power today's vehicles or replace gasoline.

[RandomGuy]

Doesn't surprise me... long shot of getting it to work, good PR.

Just skimmed this... but why even talk about approaching a theoretical 100% conversion for solar?? That isn't possible.

It represents a useful "upper limit" to the amount of energy possible, a starting point, if you will.

As for whether the technology is feasible, I don't know enough about the technical aspects to pronounce anything a "long shot", but as I have said before, given the sheer number of promising technology that is attracting some pretty heavy R & D dollars, it is virtually certain that at least one or two will pan out.


May not be this one specifically, but sooner or later something will change the way we get/use energy, and that change will be greater than you would seem to think, in all due respect.

[Wild Cobra]

Spanish scientists search for fuel of the future (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110331/bs_afp/spainenergyalternativeenvironmentresearch)



:wow

Interesting. Even algae are still limited by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as to how much energy you can capture.

Even so, once you start getting a few hundred square miles of bio-reactors, you are talking about some serious amounts of fuel.
At least it's better than making ethanol from corn.

[boutons_deux]

100-plus mpg vehicles are possible but many carmakers need technical help

The Department of Energy’s $25 billion fuel-efficiency program has helped create a new generation of fuel-efficient hybrid and electric vehicles, but has struggled to provide engineering expertise to auto manufacturers working with new and complex technologies.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/daily_watchdog/entry/3097/

includes links to the corn ethanol boondoggle disaster and its BigFarma politics.

[RandomGuy]

At least it's better than making ethanol from corn.

Yup. Foolish and inefficient.

Ethanol subsidies are among the worst of the worst when it comes to government waste, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

100-plus mpg vehicles are possible but many carmakers need technical help

The Department of Energy’s $25 billion fuel-efficiency program has helped create a new generation of fuel-efficient hybrid and electric vehicles, but has struggled to provide engineering expertise to auto manufacturers working with new and complex technologies.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/daily_watchdog/entry/3097/

includes links to the corn ethanol boondoggle disaster and its BigFarma politics.

HOOOOOLEEE SHIT!

Wild Cobra and boutons agree on something. (ethanol)

I may keel over right now....

[Wild Cobra]

HOOOOOLEEE SHIT!

Wild Cobra and boutons agree on something. (ethanol)

I may keel over right now....
Dammit...

He better start supporting ethanol now, or I'm going to have to.

I feel real weird agreeing with him!