A new Wired article says that electric cars cost too much, because the needed batteries cost $20,000 to $30,000.
The article is correct: Tesla tells us that their 52 KWH battery cost $20,000 wholesale a year ago (for about $400/KWH), so the article's estimate of a $20-$30K price is roughly ok. At that price, batteries are still too expensive for EVs to provide a driving range that is comparable to an ICE vehicle, at a comparable market price.
It's worth noting that this is probably not true if one includes non-market external costs - costs which are real, but not included in the market price), so for those buyers who are willing to pay for non-market costs even though they don't have to, the car pays for itself. That's a relatively small niche market, but it's real. It's also worth noting that the Tesla provides serious sportscar performance at a price that is lower than that of comparable ICE vehicles, so it's actually competitive in that niche.
But, all of the above doesn't matter, because...we don't need pure EVs. PHEVs like the Chevy Volt will eliminate 90% of liquid fuel consumption at a life-cycle cost which is comparable to, or less than, that of an ICE.
Take the Tesla battery and reduce it from 52KWH to 16 KWH, and we get a price of about $6,000. Apply the 8% annual price reduction that Tesla reports seeing in the markets (and which both NIMH and li-ion batteries have been experiencing consistently for the last 10 years) over the period 2008 to 2012 (when the Volt will get to serious volumes) and we get a price of about $4,000. That's about $300/KWH, as predicted here. "I do expect the price will come down to perhaps as low as $200 per kilowatt-hour when mass production begins in 2010 and 2011," she says." They'll use less expensive materials than 1st Gen li-ionbatteries; the larger format is much less expensive (Tesla uses about 7,000 batteries!); and they'll have very, very large production volumes relative to most 1st-gen li-ion. Large production volumes reduce costs very quickly.
The Volt's non-battery components won't cost any more than those of a Prius when manufactured in volume. Toyota is selling it a profit, at about $24K on average. It has an electrical drivetrain, and an ICE drive train. The only real difference in cost between it and a Volt is the battery. If the battery adds $4,000, that's $28K, or the average new ICE vehicle.
Here's what GM's CEO says about the Volt's costs: “My job is to get it out there and get it right the first time but then get it cost-effective so that we can do a huge number,” he said. “If I had to go with my first generation, we couldn’t really pencil a business case. Any new technology is expensive, but if you get to the second or third generation you find that the cost goes way down”.
Now, I think GM is over-pricing the Volt in order to capture the premium that early adopters re willing to pay, as well as the new tax credit. It's worth noting that he Volt was originally planned to sell at about $30K. Then, the federal government passed a $7,500 tax credit aimed at the Volt, and the expected price of the Volt rose to...the high 30's. Similarly, Mitsubishi plans to sell the iMiev for the high 40's in Japan (that's where the $50K price comes from - it's an estimate based on the price in yen, and is before Japanese subsidies - the price in the US is likely to be very different), where tax credits will bring the price back down to...about $30K. I see a pattern.
Didn't GM raise their expected cost long before a $7500 tax credit was passed?
The tax credit was in the planning stages well before that. The credit is clearly customized for the Volt (some people in Washington call it the "Volt-credit", or something like that) - GM was certainly involved in the planning.
Perhaps their earlier $30k price was just hopeful dreaming at an early stage of the design?
Well, a PHEV is no harder to cost out than an ICE. Keep in mind that EVs have been around for 100 years (GM sold electric trucks in large quantities from 1912-1918); that there are probably 100 million electric vehicles in use, albeit not highway legal; that electric motors are ubiquitous and extremely well understood; that GM designed and built the EV-1, which supplied much of the technology of the Volt; that GM has enormous experience in large electric drivetrains in electro-diesel trains; and that electric drivetrains are much simpler than ICEs. Heck, whenever a new generation of Prius came out, GM would tear it down and cost it out, down to every component. They know how to cost these things out.
Perhaps as the design got fleshed out their estimated break-even cost rose above $40k?
Yes, and they said the reasons were: unexpected costs to get high energy efficiency components ready for the 1st gen; and inclusion of the cost of two batteries, just to be safe. Even if you believe that GM really thinks they need to plan for 2 batteries, these aren't costs that will exist for later models.
And hasn't that estimated price gone as high as $48?
Well, Lutz once said in an interview that they might have to charge $48K to make a conventional profit. But again, that's for the 1st gen Volt. And, we have to remember that pricing is an artifact of accounting: GM is spending about $1B on R&D for the Volt: if you allocate that to the first 50K of vehicles, that's $20K per vehicle. If you allocate it to the fist 1M vehicles, it's only $1k.
Keep in mind that an EV is much simpler. It will cost substantially less when produced in volume. Look at the Prius: it costs about $24K, and it has two drivetrains.
July 13, 2009
June 5, 2009
Why don't we see EV's, especially in Europe?
Sometime people ask: if plug-in's and EV's are such a good idea, and if they're competitive at, say $3 gasoline prices, then why aren't they used more in Europe, where gas prices are higher?
There are a number of factors:
1) A different capital cost to operating cost picture.
EVs and PHEVs trade a higher purchase price for lower fuel consumption.
In Europe, fuel prices are 2-3 times as high as in the US, but due to historical factors (shorter distances, higher fuel taxes due to the high % of imports), average car in Europe uses about 1/3 as much fuel as one in the US. Further, European taxes on new cars are generally much higher in the US.
Thus, the economic case for EVs and PHEVs is actually worse in Europe, and the lack of EVs and PHEVs in Europe really doesn't add any useful information to the question of how competitive electric powertrains really are with oil in the US.
2) Pure EV's still can't compete on convenience with ICE vehicles. Even in Europe, fuel costs are only a part of driving costs, and the lower cost of an EV hasn't been quite worth the inconvenience. The logical transition from an ICE to an EV is the PHEV, which for some reason wasn't explored seriously until very recently when GM took that path. Now that GM is pursuing PHEV extremely seriously, they're planning an Opel version for Europe.
3) Europeans have fewer garages, as their housing is much older.
4) Tax preferenced diesel occupies the high-MPG niche.
and perhaps most importantly,
5) there were large barriers to entry (billions in R&D and retooling, as well as resistance from ICE oriented manufacturers) for PHEV's, and there wasn't an obvious need for them. There was resistance from people in the industry who's careers would be hurt. This ranges from assembly line workers and roughnecks to automotive and chemical engineers. And, you've got to give them respect and compassion: they're people, and deserve to be helped as much as possible during a necessary transition away from oil.
Until we find a way to help these people, they're going to desperately fight any proposals to transition away from their industries, by honest attacks or dishonest: whatever works. You can't really blame them: they're just trying to protect their lives and families.
Biofuels, fuel cells, nuclear power, carbon sequestration all involve more chemical/process engineering R&D, and building of plants and retirement of old technologies. Isn't reduction of greenhouse gases is gonna be a golden age for the Chemical Engineering?
I suspect that this kind of thing is much more attractive to students and professors than it is to engineeers with 10-20 years of experience, who've attained high salaries in large companies due to their narrow expertise in a particular area, in that company. For them, I suspect any change which threatens their company threatens them personally.
On the other hand, the momentum has now shifted: most of those R&D $ have now been spent; the technology is better tested; the cost comparisons have shifted; and there's enormous pressure for PHEV's from regulators.
There are a number of factors:
1) A different capital cost to operating cost picture.
EVs and PHEVs trade a higher purchase price for lower fuel consumption.
In Europe, fuel prices are 2-3 times as high as in the US, but due to historical factors (shorter distances, higher fuel taxes due to the high % of imports), average car in Europe uses about 1/3 as much fuel as one in the US. Further, European taxes on new cars are generally much higher in the US.
Thus, the economic case for EVs and PHEVs is actually worse in Europe, and the lack of EVs and PHEVs in Europe really doesn't add any useful information to the question of how competitive electric powertrains really are with oil in the US.
2) Pure EV's still can't compete on convenience with ICE vehicles. Even in Europe, fuel costs are only a part of driving costs, and the lower cost of an EV hasn't been quite worth the inconvenience. The logical transition from an ICE to an EV is the PHEV, which for some reason wasn't explored seriously until very recently when GM took that path. Now that GM is pursuing PHEV extremely seriously, they're planning an Opel version for Europe.
3) Europeans have fewer garages, as their housing is much older.
4) Tax preferenced diesel occupies the high-MPG niche.
and perhaps most importantly,
5) there were large barriers to entry (billions in R&D and retooling, as well as resistance from ICE oriented manufacturers) for PHEV's, and there wasn't an obvious need for them. There was resistance from people in the industry who's careers would be hurt. This ranges from assembly line workers and roughnecks to automotive and chemical engineers. And, you've got to give them respect and compassion: they're people, and deserve to be helped as much as possible during a necessary transition away from oil.
Until we find a way to help these people, they're going to desperately fight any proposals to transition away from their industries, by honest attacks or dishonest: whatever works. You can't really blame them: they're just trying to protect their lives and families.
Biofuels, fuel cells, nuclear power, carbon sequestration all involve more chemical/process engineering R&D, and building of plants and retirement of old technologies. Isn't reduction of greenhouse gases is gonna be a golden age for the Chemical Engineering?
I suspect that this kind of thing is much more attractive to students and professors than it is to engineeers with 10-20 years of experience, who've attained high salaries in large companies due to their narrow expertise in a particular area, in that company. For them, I suspect any change which threatens their company threatens them personally.
On the other hand, the momentum has now shifted: most of those R&D $ have now been spent; the technology is better tested; the cost comparisons have shifted; and there's enormous pressure for PHEV's from regulators.
May 15, 2009
Is solar cost competitive?
Not quite yet, but it's coming:
"The economics of solar power are changing rapidly. And if the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development (PI) is right that solar module prices will fall more than 50% by 2012, grid parity will be achieved across many parts of the US."
http://setenergy.org/2009/05/11/much-of-us-to-enjoy-solar-grid-parity-by-2012/
They assume rising electricity prices (which is pretty realistic, with CO2 pricing apparently on the way), but we don't need to focus on that.
The fact is, that PV grid-parity is beginning to emerge right now for a very few specific applications and locations. This will just expand over the coming years, and the assumption of rising power prices will only change the inflection point by 2-3 years.
Also, keep in mind that this is the unsubsidized price, which doesn't reflect any of the externalities, like CO2, sulfur, etc, etc.
The fact is, that solar is here: as production expands, prices will continue to fall, and demand will rise explosively.
"The economics of solar power are changing rapidly. And if the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development (PI) is right that solar module prices will fall more than 50% by 2012, grid parity will be achieved across many parts of the US."
http://setenergy.org/2009/05/11/much-of-us-to-enjoy-solar-grid-parity-by-2012/
They assume rising electricity prices (which is pretty realistic, with CO2 pricing apparently on the way), but we don't need to focus on that.
The fact is, that PV grid-parity is beginning to emerge right now for a very few specific applications and locations. This will just expand over the coming years, and the assumption of rising power prices will only change the inflection point by 2-3 years.
Also, keep in mind that this is the unsubsidized price, which doesn't reflect any of the externalities, like CO2, sulfur, etc, etc.
The fact is, that solar is here: as production expands, prices will continue to fall, and demand will rise explosively.
May 12, 2009
Why is talking about energy so hard?
It can be very hard to talk about the kind of big changes in our energy infrastructure that we really need. Traditionalists and activists talk past each other. Here's pretty good article
about that - it's also fairly realistic about what's most likely to happen, (though I think it discounts what we could do, if we wanted to...) .
"One executive decried the “cheap shots” taken at the oil and gas industry by climate change activists, and then a few moments later mentioned how much he liked a print ad that offered a false choice between offshore drilling and high gasoline prices."
"An attendee stood before a panel of major oil company executives and ask how the energy industry could engage more fruitfully with policymakers and the public on climate change, then admitted that she had boycotted a recent local presentation by T. Boone Pickens about his energy plan for the country simply because he was an oil baron."
"what I see is both sides—the green/climate change side and the fossil fuel side—retreating to their corners, throwing up walls of propaganda, and demonizing the other side."
about that - it's also fairly realistic about what's most likely to happen, (though I think it discounts what we could do, if we wanted to...) .
"One executive decried the “cheap shots” taken at the oil and gas industry by climate change activists, and then a few moments later mentioned how much he liked a print ad that offered a false choice between offshore drilling and high gasoline prices."
"An attendee stood before a panel of major oil company executives and ask how the energy industry could engage more fruitfully with policymakers and the public on climate change, then admitted that she had boycotted a recent local presentation by T. Boone Pickens about his energy plan for the country simply because he was an oil baron."
"what I see is both sides—the green/climate change side and the fossil fuel side—retreating to their corners, throwing up walls of propaganda, and demonizing the other side."
Do Electric Vehicles cost less to maintain?
Car manufacturers and dealers think so:
"Car dealers are nervous a shift from gas to electric cars will mean that they don't see their customers as often as they currently do.
The design of the electric car is really simple. There's not a lot of parts, so there won't be much need for maintenance says Mark Perry, Nissan (NSANY) Americas' head of Product Planning. When he said that, was speaking to a group of dealers at an event in New York to show off Nissan's upcoming electric. (We stood outside the circle of dealers and listened in.) "
I've heard a contention that transmissions are the most important cause of car scrappage (" you can call any wrecking yard sales clerk and ask him why most of the cars in his yard are there ,if not because of an accident that rendered them undriveable,and he will tell you the same thing. The used mechanical component that is most often sold out is the automatic transmission. Among working class people who drive older cars this is accepted as a given as certain as death and taxes").
So, what about transmissions?
Well, EVs (and Extended range EVs like the Volt) don't have them. EVs generally do have a reduction gear to reduce the ratio of engine rpm to wheel rpm, which is often called a transmission. However, it's not the multi-speed affair with a torque converter and one or more clutches that drive conventional vehicles, and so reliability will be very high.
Regenerative braking greatly reduces brake wear. Brake maintenance is a significant cost. Even Prius brake wear is greatly reduced, and it only has partial regenerative braking. Taxi drivers with Priuses are very happy about that cost reduction.
EV's have no starter motors, transmissions, mufflers, tuneups (plugs/injection, air filters), timing or other belts, fuel pumps, engine coolant (with fan, radiator, hoses and pump), valves, oil (with filter and pump), exhaust pipes or muffler, catalytic converter, supercharger, idle control, or fuel injection. The engine has only one moving part, almost no internal friction, and is likely to last forever.
Wouldn't all of this likely reduce maintenance costs by roughly 75%?
Jay Leno has a 1909 Detroit Electric model that's still working just fine - it's even still using the original battery.
--------
The Leaf’s service manual says the Leaf requires ABSOLUTELY NO SERVICE. No oil change, transmission fluid, spark plugs, tuneups, oil filter, gas filter, air filter, radiator leaks, muffler changes, power steering fluid, transmission radiator leaks, brake pads, emission control sensor failures, air care inspections...
The only recommendation: inspect/replace brake fluid every 30,000 miles.
--------
Fleet EV managers seem particularly aware of the potential maintenance savings:
“On an equivalent 100 mile-per-day diesel vehicle, we spend roughly $900 per year in preventive maintenance – oil changes, filter changes, anti-freeze adds, and eventually transmission oil changes. With the electric vehicles, we take that down to $250 per year.
The electric trucks are only equipped with four grease fittings and no engine or transmission oil. The truck must still be taken to look at brake lines and other wear components that may be cracked. Overall, there is virtually nothing that goes wrong with these things.” – Staples vehicle fleet manager
http://www.greenfleetmagazine.com/article/3201/what-staples-expects-from-all-electric-medium-duty-work-trucks/p/2
"Car dealers are nervous a shift from gas to electric cars will mean that they don't see their customers as often as they currently do.
The design of the electric car is really simple. There's not a lot of parts, so there won't be much need for maintenance says Mark Perry, Nissan (NSANY) Americas' head of Product Planning. When he said that, was speaking to a group of dealers at an event in New York to show off Nissan's upcoming electric. (We stood outside the circle of dealers and listened in.) "
I've heard a contention that transmissions are the most important cause of car scrappage (" you can call any wrecking yard sales clerk and ask him why most of the cars in his yard are there ,if not because of an accident that rendered them undriveable,and he will tell you the same thing. The used mechanical component that is most often sold out is the automatic transmission. Among working class people who drive older cars this is accepted as a given as certain as death and taxes").
So, what about transmissions?
Well, EVs (and Extended range EVs like the Volt) don't have them. EVs generally do have a reduction gear to reduce the ratio of engine rpm to wheel rpm, which is often called a transmission. However, it's not the multi-speed affair with a torque converter and one or more clutches that drive conventional vehicles, and so reliability will be very high.
Regenerative braking greatly reduces brake wear. Brake maintenance is a significant cost. Even Prius brake wear is greatly reduced, and it only has partial regenerative braking. Taxi drivers with Priuses are very happy about that cost reduction.
EV's have no starter motors, transmissions, mufflers, tuneups (plugs/injection, air filters), timing or other belts, fuel pumps, engine coolant (with fan, radiator, hoses and pump), valves, oil (with filter and pump), exhaust pipes or muffler, catalytic converter, supercharger, idle control, or fuel injection. The engine has only one moving part, almost no internal friction, and is likely to last forever.
Wouldn't all of this likely reduce maintenance costs by roughly 75%?
Jay Leno has a 1909 Detroit Electric model that's still working just fine - it's even still using the original battery.
--------
The Leaf’s service manual says the Leaf requires ABSOLUTELY NO SERVICE. No oil change, transmission fluid, spark plugs, tuneups, oil filter, gas filter, air filter, radiator leaks, muffler changes, power steering fluid, transmission radiator leaks, brake pads, emission control sensor failures, air care inspections...
The only recommendation: inspect/replace brake fluid every 30,000 miles.
--------
Fleet EV managers seem particularly aware of the potential maintenance savings:
“On an equivalent 100 mile-per-day diesel vehicle, we spend roughly $900 per year in preventive maintenance – oil changes, filter changes, anti-freeze adds, and eventually transmission oil changes. With the electric vehicles, we take that down to $250 per year.
The electric trucks are only equipped with four grease fittings and no engine or transmission oil. The truck must still be taken to look at brake lines and other wear components that may be cracked. Overall, there is virtually nothing that goes wrong with these things.” – Staples vehicle fleet manager
http://www.greenfleetmagazine.com/article/3201/what-staples-expects-from-all-electric-medium-duty-work-trucks/p/2
May 9, 2009
What about cultural obstacles?
Doesn't moving to renewable energy, greater efficiency, and a lower environmental "footprint" require a cultural change? Culture changes slowly - what hope is there for the change we need?
Change can come from surprising places:
Producers and advocates of green technology are taking note. The Defense Department derives 9.8% of its power from alternative sources and is looking to expand use of wind, solar, thermal and nuclear energy. Some believe that the military has the potential to become a catalyst, helping to turn more expensive power sources into financially viable alternatives to coal and petroleum.
"If the military were to go green, I think that this really could achieve some environmental goals, for a very simple reason: the military is so big," said Matthew Kahn, an environmental economist at the UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Although that remains to be seen, Kahn noted that it would not be the first time the military has had a transforming effect on technology. Cellphones, the Global Positioning System and the Internet all have roots in the military.
Some in the green energy sector hope that as the military adopts alternative power sources, the technology will gain broader acceptance among political conservatives.
""Just hearing that their military is embracing this new technology that was thought of as left-of-center is going to swing people's thoughts" about using it, said David Melton, president of Albuquerque-based Sacred Power Corp., which installed some of Ft. Irwin's photovoltaic panels and wind turbines.
Military officials concede that changing an institutional culture that until recently was far from green has sometimes been an uphill battle. But at a time of shrinking defense budgets, they say, commanders are finding that making their facilities more energy-efficient and generating some of their own power can yield significant cost savings."
The Army has more than 12 million acres, including large tracts that cannot be used for military, residential or commercial purposes because they are intended as buffers between bases and the civilian population. Some of that land, Eastin said, would be ideal for a solar array, wind farm or geothermal project. Within 15 years, he predicts, the Army "will be a net energy exporter."
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-army-green26-2009apr26,0,4417523.story?page=2&track=rss
Nate Hagens asks: A green 'military' is kind of an oxymoron don't you think? I suspect they would be green in peacetime and take whatever energy they need during war. Which I suppose is an ecological improvement over taking whatever energy they need during wartime AND peacetime...
Answer:
As far as the oxymoron goes..I know what you mean. That's the whole point: if the military does it, that takes it out of the realm of treehuggers, makes it a hard-headed business proposition, and gives conservatives permission to pursue it.
As far as the rest: aren't we involved in a war now? I mean, what war bigger than Iraq is going to come along? Russia? China? Canada?
If you read the whole article, I think you'll see that they're looking at a wide range of energy consumption, including energy efficiency. In fact, they're beginning to realize that their current immense refueling needs are a major strategic vulnerability, whether it's tanks, planes, or soldiers.
DARPA is funding R&D of batteries, PV, wind (wind provides 1/3 of Guantanamo's electricity), etc, etc. Everything.
All of this means that whatever they do, they'll use fewer Fossil Fuels.
Change can come from surprising places:
Producers and advocates of green technology are taking note. The Defense Department derives 9.8% of its power from alternative sources and is looking to expand use of wind, solar, thermal and nuclear energy. Some believe that the military has the potential to become a catalyst, helping to turn more expensive power sources into financially viable alternatives to coal and petroleum.
"If the military were to go green, I think that this really could achieve some environmental goals, for a very simple reason: the military is so big," said Matthew Kahn, an environmental economist at the UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Although that remains to be seen, Kahn noted that it would not be the first time the military has had a transforming effect on technology. Cellphones, the Global Positioning System and the Internet all have roots in the military.
Some in the green energy sector hope that as the military adopts alternative power sources, the technology will gain broader acceptance among political conservatives.
""Just hearing that their military is embracing this new technology that was thought of as left-of-center is going to swing people's thoughts" about using it, said David Melton, president of Albuquerque-based Sacred Power Corp., which installed some of Ft. Irwin's photovoltaic panels and wind turbines.
Military officials concede that changing an institutional culture that until recently was far from green has sometimes been an uphill battle. But at a time of shrinking defense budgets, they say, commanders are finding that making their facilities more energy-efficient and generating some of their own power can yield significant cost savings."
The Army has more than 12 million acres, including large tracts that cannot be used for military, residential or commercial purposes because they are intended as buffers between bases and the civilian population. Some of that land, Eastin said, would be ideal for a solar array, wind farm or geothermal project. Within 15 years, he predicts, the Army "will be a net energy exporter."
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-army-green26-2009apr26,0,4417523.story?page=2&track=rss
Nate Hagens asks: A green 'military' is kind of an oxymoron don't you think? I suspect they would be green in peacetime and take whatever energy they need during war. Which I suppose is an ecological improvement over taking whatever energy they need during wartime AND peacetime...
Answer:
As far as the oxymoron goes..I know what you mean. That's the whole point: if the military does it, that takes it out of the realm of treehuggers, makes it a hard-headed business proposition, and gives conservatives permission to pursue it.
As far as the rest: aren't we involved in a war now? I mean, what war bigger than Iraq is going to come along? Russia? China? Canada?
If you read the whole article, I think you'll see that they're looking at a wide range of energy consumption, including energy efficiency. In fact, they're beginning to realize that their current immense refueling needs are a major strategic vulnerability, whether it's tanks, planes, or soldiers.
DARPA is funding R&D of batteries, PV, wind (wind provides 1/3 of Guantanamo's electricity), etc, etc. Everything.
All of this means that whatever they do, they'll use fewer Fossil Fuels.
April 3, 2009
Is the Limits to Growth world simulation accurate?
The well known LTG model lacks energy as a discrete component - it only includes "non-renewable resources", which it assumes will become increasingly difficult to extract as limits are reached. In other words, Return On Investment will decrease.
Without an explicit analysis of energy, the model is invalid, as we see in a report of an attempt to add energy as a component here; http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5145 . It says the following: "in a world with unlimited energy, any chemical compounds useful as a raw material but not as an energy source could be easily obtained "
Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) is a key, foundational element to the energy component of this new model: "The available data on EROEI is very spotty, but it’s such a crucial concept to explain what may happen in the future with energy sources that I believe a model would be inaccurate if it didn’t include it in some way."
This new model assumes that renewable EROEI is low:
"Renewables aren’t used until the end of the 21st century, due to their low EROEI: "
The new model predicts serious problems in the medium term, in large part because renewables don't start to grow in a serious way until 2075, due to their low EROEI.
Wind and solar have high EROEI*, therefore, the energy component of the model is incorrect, and so is the overall model.
*Oddly, this model also makes the unrealistic assumption that nuclear fuel will be depleted within the 21st century.
Without an explicit analysis of energy, the model is invalid, as we see in a report of an attempt to add energy as a component here; http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5145 . It says the following: "in a world with unlimited energy, any chemical compounds useful as a raw material but not as an energy source could be easily obtained "
Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) is a key, foundational element to the energy component of this new model: "The available data on EROEI is very spotty, but it’s such a crucial concept to explain what may happen in the future with energy sources that I believe a model would be inaccurate if it didn’t include it in some way."
This new model assumes that renewable EROEI is low:
"Renewables aren’t used until the end of the 21st century, due to their low EROEI: "
The new model predicts serious problems in the medium term, in large part because renewables don't start to grow in a serious way until 2075, due to their low EROEI.
Wind and solar have high EROEI*, therefore, the energy component of the model is incorrect, and so is the overall model.
*Oddly, this model also makes the unrealistic assumption that nuclear fuel will be depleted within the 21st century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)