AutoblogGreen

PHEVs are a drop in the bucket to solving the GHG problem. It's been stated many times that if we could close down the coal-fired power plants; that would solve the GHG problem immediately with all other things the same. Of course we can't do that unless we get the resources of the federal government involved and perhaps buy them out, etc.

So the only thing we can do at this point is not build any more new ones and seek other alternatives like solar heat and light power production.

Reply

Both the author and the Toyota Rep are right. PHEV40 vehicles will not do much to reduce CO2 levels. They are, however, one element of a mix of both technology and policy changes that are necessary to reduce CO2 levels.

We can't keep producing electricity with our current mix of energy sources and we can't keep fueling our vehicles with the current mono culture of vehicle fuels and expect to reduce carbon emissions.

Reply

I could NOT care less about the Co2.

E-REV40s like the Volt and pure electric cars would reduce my COST of driving by 90% when you factor in the cost differential of energy, maintenance and downtime.

This reminds me why I never liked Toyota.

Reply

Hybrids are an expensive solution to reduce energy use and by switching we are experiencing diminishing returns. It is and an inefficient on a cost basis to reduce energy use. We would be better off investing the money in reducing stationary energy users. Consider how many homes in this country do not have any insulation and single pane windows. That is where the most bang for the buck is at.

Reply

It all depends on where your electricity comes from. Some people use solar panels, others get their juice almost entirely from coal. Some countries generate electricity with a tiny fraction of the CO2 output of the US generators. If any steps ever get taken to stop global warming, getting rid of the coal plants would have to be #1.

In any case, you are still saving gasoline, and the oil it comes from. Unless the Bakken Formation saves us, it looks like the future for oil is going to be one of increasing scarcity. One news report says the Ghawar field is already up to a 30% water cut. The 7.7 billion barrels up in ANWR is only a 100 day world supply. Sure we could use that, but then what are we gonna do in another 100 days? I guess junkies don't like to think that far out.

Reply

Tim I agree, i want to reduce my cost, and our dependence on hostile governments for our energy needs. If I am also reducing CO2 great but that is not my priority.

Reply

2Snowboard, the ozone layer did not just magically come back. Concerted efforts were taken to stop the use of ozone-damaging chemicals, and it had a chance to heal itself. This is one reason why "greenies" are so excited about making all these changes to our CO2 output. We know it can make a difference. Thus there are many environmentalists, who rather then being depressed, guilt-ridden Chicken Littles, are optimistic and excited about the possibilities we are capable of.

But you are wrong to assume that CO2 is the single issue to environmentalists. It is a pressing issue, maybe the most pressing. Example, one of the reasons that a lot environmentalists do not embrace diesels as a way of decreasing CO2 emissions is because of all the other environmentally damaging aspects of those engines- NOx, PM, destroying landscapes and seas to extract and transport oil, etc. Being a concerned citizen of Earth means making a variety of wise choices to heal our planet's myriad ills, only some of which are directly related to CO2 reduction.

Reply

Even taking everything at face value, isn't a 20% to 30% reduction in energy consumption a pretty good start?

Especially compared to the pie-in-the-sky idea of using hydrogen fuel cells? How much energy would THAT take compared to what's consumed today?

Reply

"In any case, you are still saving gasoline, and the oil it comes from. Unless the Bakken Formation saves us, it looks like the future for oil is going to be one of increasing scarcity."

Lol. I love how everyone latches onto the latest news trend. The Bakken is just one of many, many oil sources in the world that are minimally tapped. People tap sources in order from cheapest to most expensive, assuming they're found and known about at the time (a very big "if"). At the same time, advancing tech lowers the price of production, especially from the harder to reach areas.

But, if you want specifics, read about bitumen, Orinoco Belt ultra heavy crude, the dozen deep-water supergiants found in the past decade, Greenland's 50B barrels, the Falkland's 60B, Bohai Bay's nearly 200B, Iraq's who-knows-how-much-but-90%-of-the-country-is-unexplored-due-to-war, oil shale and other keragen sources, GTL, thermal depolymerization, coal liquefaction (including in-situ, including oceanic coal), CO2 injection for ~80-400B extra in the US alone, steam injection, solvent injection, fracturing of strata, horizontal drilling in places other than the Bakken, algae farming, biomass gassification with Fischer-Tropsch, and even CO2 capture plus Sabatier synthesis given an external energy source. And I'm sure there's several dozen other methods that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

"One news report says the Ghawar field is already up to a 30% water cut."

Even if that's true, which I doubt, they'll keep hitting Ghawar until they're getting almost all water out. And then they'll switch to injecting CO2 or whatever else they can to hit it up for more. It's a beautiful field. Something like 35% porosity, light sweet crude, etc. They're not leaving Ghawar until it's bone dry.

"The 7.7 billion barrels up in ANWR is only a 100 day world supply."

Bah, ANWR's nothing. Try Carioca/Sugar Loaf or Ferdows/Mounds/Zagdeh on for size. Lots of real biggies, some of the largest ever found, have been found in the last decade, and they show no sign of slowing. Remember: most of the world is almost entire unexplored for oil.

Sorry -- "peak oil" is not going to save us from our oil dependency. We can only save ourselves.

Reply

Here here Tim, this fetishized fixation so many Greenies have on CO2 reminds me of the pop-science chicken-little mentality of the 90's regarding the "disappearing Ozone layer" that itself seems to have magically floated away.

Its been my experience that reasoning with certain devotes is impossible because they desire to be miserable and guilt ridden.

Not that I oppose in any way reducing of CO2 emissions, in fact I want to put my $ down for it, I would like to buy a PHEV40 vehicle in 2010 and have more power plants built, not less. Having all those emissions in a concentrated place rather then in 100 million cars would be far easier to combat, such as using the CO2 from the coal plants to feed algea-oil infrastructure. Sorry, there I go again, trying to talk about solutions, I should just wring my hands and be depressed like a good boy.

Reply

Yes, plug-in hybrids would only reduce energy consumption by 20 to 30 percent, but that includes the electricity used. It would reduce petroleum fuel consumption by a far higher percentage!

H2 fuel cells would not reduce energy consumption by much, if any, when the energy needed to produce and store the H2 is taken into account.

Reply

I quantified the CO2 impact in this paper:

http://ohmexcited.googlepages.com/CO2.htm

It depends a lot on where you live, but it's generally better than a Prius.

If hydrogen were produced from high temperature nuclear reactors, then that obviously wouldn't produce much CO2, but those same reactors could produce electricity to charge batteries.

Reply

my CO2 would be reduced 99.9@. i have wind power (live in a normal condo in DC) and i drive no more than 40 miles in a week. i love how everyone tries to shift the goal posts without actually focusing on the fact that this would save CO2, period. and 20 to 30% would be better than anyone else has done...and would actually surpass the kyoto protocol don't forget....

Reply

The quote says "energy consumption", not CO2.

If he was saying CO2 though, it would probably be fairly accurate. Remember that Toyota's PHEV still uses the gas engine at higher speeds/power.

Reply

PHEV = marketing scam. Cheaper to drive eh? Too bad they'll cost 30-40 grand up front. That's $18-28k more than a Yaris. $18-20k buys a lot of gas even at $4 or $5/gallon. Doing your part to save the earth? Please. Defering your impact is not reducing it. Chances are, something is being burned to run that car one way or the other. If people really gave a shit they would be demanding better public transit. There is nothing green about using 2 ton piece of metal, glass, various plastics and chemicals to move a single occupant 40 miles a day.

Reply

A recent study on the projected effects of PHEVs directly contradicts what Toy is saying:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/study-meaningfu.html

Note that the graph indicates that both HEVs and PHEVs almost halve the lifetime emissions of a conventional vehicle, and that with low carbon electricity, PHEV's can halve that of an HEV (depending on all electric range). Provided that the PHEV spends the vast majority of its operation in all-electric mode (as serial PHEVs/E_REVs are capable of doing, unlike Toy's ≤60mph plug-ins), and uses solar power, emissions could be practically eliminated. Minus of course manufacturing emissions, maintenance emissions, occasional extended range operation.

A big thing to consider with this little "factoid" is that Toy is protecting its investment into HEVs and the reputation surrounding them. It could also be trying to throw cold water on other companies' progress with PHEVs relative to its own.

Or it could just be an example of a hydrogen zealot defending what they see as the fuel of the future.

Reply

"13. my CO2 would be reduced 99.9@. i have wind power (live in a normal condo in DC) and i drive no more than 40 miles in a week. i love how everyone tries to shift the goal posts without actually focusing on the fact that this would save CO2, period. and 20 to 30% would be better than anyone else has done...and would actually surpass the kyoto protocol don't forget...."

You drive no more than 40 miles a week and still use a car? Shame on you.

Reply

Hydrogen is a sham, but E-REVs or PHEVs are for real

I have a friend that works for Electric Power Research Institute (epri.com) and they have done extensive studies that PHEVs lifecycle cost is comparable to gasoline vehicles. EPRI has also discovered that even when charged with 100% old coal, GHG emissions. With new coal, GHG are about the same as HEVs. To me that means just one thing. We need to start ditching coal. A positive about coal is that it is domestic. If you don’t think this is important, you need to start listening to Jim Woolsey, former CIA director.

Good news for PHEVs and the Earth is that California does not use a lot of coal and by 2010, California will be generation 20% renewables.

Reply

Is Toyota's #1 goal to be a stick in the mud now?

Toyota, here's the thing. Once cars run on electricity (or even mostly electricity), we can then figure out how to make electricity in ways that make environmental sense.

Think of it this way, if all petroleum products disappeared overnight, most people couldn't get to work. Trains run on Diesel. Buses run on Diesel. Cars run on gas/Diesel. Motorcycles run on gas. If cars run on electricity, it'll still be a huge issue, we'd have an immediate shortage of electricity, but with the right levels of conservation and bringing up alternate sources of electricity generation, we'd be back on the roads.

Using electricity means flexibility most of all. Switchgrass? Hydrogen? Wind? Biomass? We can run cars off any of these easily if the cars are electric powered. If they're gas powered, we're at the mercy of big oil.

Reply

If you charge at night, "valley filling", we could fuel 90% of the current number of cars on the road today, with No need to increase the number of electric plants in production.

Human population has jumped from 300 million to 6.5 billion, from 1000 AD to Now.
______300,000,000
6,500,000,000,000

The last 1000 years has delivered this spike.

We've got an issue where we are at the limits of what the planet can sustain. We can either go to war and kill off a couple billion or find the most efficient means to sustain this population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg

Reply