Solving the Energy Crisis, with No Energy Investment
1 January 2007Those who read SNS, or who attended our Second Annual SNS New York Dinner, are aware of this rather stunning news/report. Since most readers of this blog may fall outside of those groups, I thought I had better bring this to your attention, if you have not yet seen it:
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, managed since its inception as part of the Department of Energy by private contractor Battelle, released a report a week or two ago, which is so simple in its conclusions, and so amazing in its repercussions, that everyone interested in energy should be talking about it.
The report, in summary, says this:
There are about 220MM vehicles in service in the US today. IF all of those were converted to Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (a technology already available), the existing US electrical grid system has enough unused off-hours generating capacity to power 84% of US transport of cars and light trucks.
Today.
That is, no other investment in energy would be required (although I have no doubt that much would occur).
Given that this technology adds about $6k per car, it is realistic to ask whether a tax subsidy by the government (which, until a year ago, was similarly subsidizing 12 mpg light trucks) would not be enough to hasten the transition.
Is there anyone in this country who would not like to get off the Oil / War treadmill as soon as possible? Brazil proved it could be done, in a different way, in a decade.
This is pretty simple. And it isn’t about driving golf carts around: companies like Tesla Motors have sold out production for two years, promising production this spring of a 250-mile overnight-charging zero to 60 in four seconds roadster.
Here is the report:
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
We will have Elon Musk, chair of Tesla Motors, with the CEO and a demo vehicle, at FiRe 2007:
This is so simple that it ought to become a national priority. I’d like your comments.
5 Responses to “Solving the Energy Crisis, with No Energy Investment”
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Mark: National priority? Do you think we could find a President who gets that concept. How far could we have developed new energy technologies for the approx. $1 Trillion we will spend in Iraq? Put aside truly new technologies; how about if we only worked on relatively clean-burning liquid fuel from coal or a cost-effective and ecologically responsible way to extract and refine the couple of trillion barrels of Kerogen locked in Oil Shale [funny name, since it's neither oil, nor shale] in the Western US?
Also, I’m wondering if you are familiar with anyone who has calculated what we really pay for a gallon of gas in the US, if you add in the portion of our Defense and related budgets dedicated to “protecting” Middle East oil fields. I’m guessing it’s around $8 -10/gallon. This, I think, is a real cost, unlike the prices paid in Europe, much of which consists of tax, which, presumably, gets recycled into their own economies.
I can’t wait to get my Tesla. Since GM scrapped the EV-1 [it was a great little daily commuter] after spending God-knows-what on it, do you think they have the sense to buy Tesla?
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:24 pm
[...] On More Effectively Using Our Current Energy Supply Author: Garrick Van Buren Published: 02 Jan 2007 Tags: Environment(t) “There are about 220MM vehicles in service in the US today. If all of those were converted to Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicles (a technology already available), the existing US electrical grid system has enough unused off-hours generating capacity to power 84% of US transport of cars and light trucks.” – Mark Anderson, Strategic News Service | Email It | Digg It | Del.icio.us It [...]
January 7th, 2007 at 2:34 am
What does “No energy investment” even mean?
No new infrastructure will have to be built, but upgrading/replacing all those vehicles is going to cost trillions.
January 7th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Ah, eas, but ANY change will involve vehicle costs. From that perspective, this costs nothing.
March 8th, 2008 at 7:15 am
I suspect that even a Bentley Continental GT could get into the mid 30’s mpg (imperial) if it were a hybrid and other slated improvements were introduced. Porsche Panamera is also being touted as going to have a hybrid option if market conditions indicate it would be required. You bet they will.
Stuttgart. Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG, Stuttgart, will also be building a hybrid drive version of the new Panamera. This four-door Gran Turismo with sporting driving dynamics so typical of Porsche will boast the proven components featured in the Cayenne Hybrid entering the market at the end of the decade. And thanks to its newly developed full parallel hybrid, Porsche’s Sports Utility will offer average fuel consumption of less than 9 litres/100 kilometres.
The new Porsche Panamera will be the first four-door sports model to feature particularly fuel-efficient full parallel hybrid technology. At the same time the Panamera will also benefit from the experience then gained by the Porsche Cayenne as a pioneer in hybrid drive.
The newly developed full parallel hybrid system will consist primarily of the battery unit positioned in the luggage compartment, the power electronics, and the hybrid module between the engine and transmission comprising an additional clutch and the electric motor. Depending on driving conditions, the hybrid module is able to disengage either the combustion engine or the electric motor, or to combine both drive systems as one joint power unit. Hence, the Panamera may be driven in a number of different modes ranging from all-electric drive absolutely free of emissions all the way to the sporting style of motoring so typical of a Porsche.
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/02/ban-all-cars-wi.html
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/luxury-mastered.html