You are here: Home / Environment / Carbon Emissions / Study: Electric Cars Produce 30% More Emissions Than Ethanol Cars

Study: Electric Cars Produce 30% More Emissions Than Ethanol Cars

October 14, 2009 by 81 Comments
Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Digg Email Reddit Tumblr

[social_buttons]

An analysis done by Biofuels Digest has come to the very surprising conclusion that an electric car will produce 30% more carbon dioxide emissions over its lifetime than a car powered by E85 corn ethanol. Not only that, the study also found that the same electric car will produce 21% more carbon dioxide than even a gasoline powered car.

These claims assume that 100% of the electricity for the EV comes from coal-fired power plants and that a comparable car would get 35 mpg—both of which seem like unrealistic assumptions. So I dug around the internet today to try and come up with more realistic numbers.

I have a lot of respect for Biofuels Digest, and I really hope they don’t take this post the wrong way. I imagine that the study was prompted by several issues, including the fact that public opinion has been steadily shifting to adopt a future filled with electric cars instead of biofuels and the impression within the biofuels industry that biofuels are being shut out of the lion’s share of stimulus funding due to a shift in political opinion from an increasingly EV-hungry public.

Certainly the recent half-billion dollar stimulus loans to Tesla and Fisker did nothing to assuage the biofuel industry’s anxiousness.

Problems With the Study

Biofuels Digest deserves credit for thinking hard about the big picture, but, after all of my research and thinking today, I feel they’ve left out some details that make the study difficult to swallow. Namely the following:

  • The future of electric cars is not based on the Tesla Roadster, it is based on sedans that seat 4-5 people. When comparing cars you need to compare apples to apples. Comparing a hypothetical 35 mpg car to an electric car doesn’t seem logical. That 35 mpg car would be a Toyota Yaris or Chevy Aveo. If you want to compare an electric car to a fuel-powered car, compare that EV to a 27 mpg 4 door gasoline sedan (and I’m being generous on mpg there). CAFE standards are fleet-wide standards. It’s not that every car in the US will get 35 mpg when CAFE takes full effect.
  • There is nowhere in the country that you can obtain 100% of your electricity from coal (even if you are a crazy, twisted soul and really wanted to). In the US, coal accounts for roughly 51% of all electricity generation. In some areas, such as where I live in the Pacific Northwest, hydropower accounts for 80% of electricity generation. Coal-fired power plants are far and away the largest CO2 emitter in the US. In fact, when just looking at electricity generation in 2007, coal accounted for about 81% of all CO2 emitted by power plants.
  • Total CO2 emissions from all kinds of US electricity generation in 2007 was 2,433 teragrams and the total electricity generation was 3,828 billion kWh. When you do the resulting calculations and conversions you find that, on average, the US is emitting 1.4 pounds of CO2 for every kWh of electricity generated—much better than the 2.09 pounds CO2/kWh cited in BD’s study.
  • On average, regardless of size or type, electric cars go about 4 miles per kWh (mpkWh) of electricity. BD’s study used a value of 3.12 mpkWh because that is what Tesla used to get some time ago. Newer electric cars will get at least 4 mpkWh, and that number is getting better all the time.

Electric Cars Actually Produce 40% Fewer Emissions Than E85 Powered Cars

If you download Biofuels Digest’s results spreadsheet and plop in some corrected numbers accounting for the above criticisms, you find that electric cars produce 40% fewer CO2 emissions than E85 powered cars and 52% fewer emissions than gasoline powered cars. Even if you don’t change any numbers except for the pounds of CO2 emitted per kWh of electricity generation, electric cars still do better than E85 powered cars. These are much more realistic numbers. And the great thing about electric cars is that, as our electricity becomes cleaner over time, so do all of our cars.

Even so, I’ve always felt that for our country’s security and for the benefit of the environment, it is important to have as diverse an energy/transportation portfolio as possible. There are many reasons to have both electric cars and biofuels. Both improve on the environmental impacts of living and both fulfill different needs. Personally I think electric cars make a lot of sense and they will eventually win out over combustion engines naturally, but it will take some time. In the meantime we need biofuels to increase our energy security and lower the environmental impact of our current fleet.

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Filed Under: Carbon Emissions, Electric Vehicles, Ethanol Tagged With: , , , , , ,
  • Greg

    Great article, very thoughtful conclusion. It’s amazing that investigative journalism is gone from most of the official sources and has been rediscovered in blogs.

  • Greg

    Great article, very thoughtful conclusion. It’s amazing that investigative journalism is gone from most of the official sources and has been rediscovered in blogs.

  • Greg

    Great article, very thoughtful conclusion. It’s amazing that investigative journalism is gone from most of the official sources and has been rediscovered in blogs.

  • Alex

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if the ethanol study underestimated the CO2 and other negative effects of the inputs in the process of growing corn and producing and distributing ethanol. The CO2 equation for making and moving ethanol is also different in different regions of the country.

    You always have to look at who finances a study when interpreting at the results.

  • Alex

    I also wouldn’t be surprised if the ethanol study underestimated the CO2 and other negative effects of the inputs in the process of growing corn and producing and distributing ethanol. The CO2 equation for making and moving ethanol is also different in different regions of the country.

    You always have to look at who finances a study when interpreting at the results.

  • http://www.technologyslice.com.au Tech

    I agree. It is important to have a diverse range of energy options for transportation. Better not to put all your eggs in one basket. We’ve been relying solely on petrol for many year and look what that got us.

  • http://www.technologyslice.com.au Tech

    I agree. It is important to have a diverse range of energy options for transportation. Better not to put all your eggs in one basket. We’ve been relying solely on petrol for many year and look what that got us.

  • http://www.technologyslice.com.au Tech

    I agree. It is important to have a diverse range of energy options for transportation. Better not to put all your eggs in one basket. We’ve been relying solely on petrol for many year and look what that got us.

  • http://theclutterwar.blogspot.com/ Christopher DeMorro

    Even though I like me my combustion engines, this is a damn good analysis. Goes to show you that just about any study can be skewed to give the desirable results.

  • http://theclutterwar.blogspot.com/ Christopher DeMorro

    Even though I like me my combustion engines, this is a damn good analysis. Goes to show you that just about any study can be skewed to give the desirable results.

  • http://theclutterwar.blogspot.com/ Christopher DeMorro

    Even though I like me my combustion engines, this is a damn good analysis. Goes to show you that just about any study can be skewed to give the desirable results.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-14333-Green-Transportation-Examiner David Herron

    Why do you think a publication about biofuels would be truthful about electric cars? Don’t they have their own axe to grind here? Maybe they have a lot of credibility, I don’t know that. This just seems akin to asking an MSNBC to have a fair and unbiased opinion of Fox News.

    Another consideration you’re ignoring here is land use requirements and other well-wheel sort of issues. The farming activity required to produce the biomass that produces biofuels means huge huge tracts of land. Further farming activities has its own carbon footprint. I recently read a study by Mark Johnson (a researcher at Stanford Univ) saying the land required to grow enough ethanol to power every car in the U.S. is larger than the size of California. The same study showed the land required for wind power to produce enough electricity to power every car (if every car were an EV) is a miniscule fraction.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-14333-Green-Transportation-Examiner David Herron

    Why do you think a publication about biofuels would be truthful about electric cars? Don’t they have their own axe to grind here? Maybe they have a lot of credibility, I don’t know that. This just seems akin to asking an MSNBC to have a fair and unbiased opinion of Fox News.

    Another consideration you’re ignoring here is land use requirements and other well-wheel sort of issues. The farming activity required to produce the biomass that produces biofuels means huge huge tracts of land. Further farming activities has its own carbon footprint. I recently read a study by Mark Johnson (a researcher at Stanford Univ) saying the land required to grow enough ethanol to power every car in the U.S. is larger than the size of California. The same study showed the land required for wind power to produce enough electricity to power every car (if every car were an EV) is a miniscule fraction.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-14333-Green-Transportation-Examiner David Herron

    Why do you think a publication about biofuels would be truthful about electric cars? Don’t they have their own axe to grind here? Maybe they have a lot of credibility, I don’t know that. This just seems akin to asking an MSNBC to have a fair and unbiased opinion of Fox News.

    Another consideration you’re ignoring here is land use requirements and other well-wheel sort of issues. The farming activity required to produce the biomass that produces biofuels means huge huge tracts of land. Further farming activities has its own carbon footprint. I recently read a study by Mark Johnson (a researcher at Stanford Univ) saying the land required to grow enough ethanol to power every car in the U.S. is larger than the size of California. The same study showed the land required for wind power to produce enough electricity to power every car (if every car were an EV) is a miniscule fraction.

  • Nick Chambers

    David,

    I know the publisher of Biofuels Digest. He is a smart, deep thinking guy. Certainly they have an audience that cares more about biofuels than EVs and it wouldn’t be right if they didn’t try and defend biofuels… But they are not even in the same ball park as FOX or MSNBC when it comes to bias. All of us are biased in some normal sort of way, and my experience with BD is that their bias is a normal type of bias.

    The issues we are talking about are incredibly complex and leave much room for interpretation. Your concern about well-to-wheel issues is good, but if you read through BD’s study, they used a widely accepted government model for well-to-wheel emissions from E85. I don’t think it takes into account land use considerations (that’s something that California has tried to breach, with little success), but it does take into account things such as the environmental impact of growing corn.

  • Paul

    I’d give this post 10 points!

    That’s what we like to see, some researched FACTS to counter the negative propaganda.

    Good job!

  • Paul

    I’d give this post 10 points!

    That’s what we like to see, some researched FACTS to counter the negative propaganda.

    Good job!

  • Paul

    I’d give this post 10 points!

    That’s what we like to see, some researched FACTS to counter the negative propaganda.

    Good job!

  • evnow

    Even if you beleive this – we can all sleep easily knowing noone goes hungry because I drive an EV – unlike corn ethonol where poor people’s food is used to drive cars.

  • evnow

    Even if you beleive this – we can all sleep easily knowing noone goes hungry because I drive an EV – unlike corn ethonol where poor people’s food is used to drive cars.

  • evnow

    Even if you beleive this – we can all sleep easily knowing noone goes hungry because I drive an EV – unlike corn ethonol where poor people’s food is used to drive cars.

  • http://www.zoomilife.com Aaron

    Well done. I have no problems with biofuels, just where they tend to come from. Ethanol is great, except that most of it is made from corn. If you factor in the energy used and emissions expended to get the seeds into the ground, grown, harvested, distilled, then burned as fuel, you’re talking about a barely break-even proposal on emissions.

    I think electrics are great too, but I don’t see them as the end-all, be-all of our foreseeable vehicular future. I see a mix of things. I see battery, hydrogen fuel-cell, biofuels, etc. all having a place in our transportation future.

    Unless EESTOR can truly deliver on their claims and then doesn’t go the way of the pharmaceuticals with their patents, EVs will not be a long-range solution in the next fifty years.

    Bio fuels, unless they clean up their image (and stop receiving double and triple subsidies as corn-based ethanol does) will not get much further than it already has. We need more Bio Willie’s and fewer BioUSDAs.

  • http://www.zoomilife.com Aaron

    Well done. I have no problems with biofuels, just where they tend to come from. Ethanol is great, except that most of it is made from corn. If you factor in the energy used and emissions expended to get the seeds into the ground, grown, harvested, distilled, then burned as fuel, you’re talking about a barely break-even proposal on emissions.

    I think electrics are great too, but I don’t see them as the end-all, be-all of our foreseeable vehicular future. I see a mix of things. I see battery, hydrogen fuel-cell, biofuels, etc. all having a place in our transportation future.

    Unless EESTOR can truly deliver on their claims and then doesn’t go the way of the pharmaceuticals with their patents, EVs will not be a long-range solution in the next fifty years.

    Bio fuels, unless they clean up their image (and stop receiving double and triple subsidies as corn-based ethanol does) will not get much further than it already has. We need more Bio Willie’s and fewer BioUSDAs.

  • http://www.pluginrecharge.com Mark Thomason

    Nice post and analysis Nick…and nice display of diplomacy…if only our politicians would work this hard to build bridges between ideologies.

    My 2c would be that you could have subtracted from the EV column the GHGs of trucking fuel to our gas stations. Also, there are several petroleum based fluids that aren’t used in an EV…thus you could subtract out from the EV column 90% of the GHG emissions of the creation, transportation, and usage of these fluids. But like you said, comparison of these systems is very complex…especially when you consider the lifecycle of smaller components. The rabbit hole is very deep.

    There’s no contest to me…EVs are way cleaner in every category. Especially when you consider the economy of managing the environmental impact of thousands of power plants vs. hundreds of millions of vehicles.

  • http://www.pluginrecharge.com Mark Thomason

    Nice post and analysis Nick…and nice display of diplomacy…if only our politicians would work this hard to build bridges between ideologies.

    My 2c would be that you could have subtracted from the EV column the GHGs of trucking fuel to our gas stations. Also, there are several petroleum based fluids that aren’t used in an EV…thus you could subtract out from the EV column 90% of the GHG emissions of the creation, transportation, and usage of these fluids. But like you said, comparison of these systems is very complex…especially when you consider the lifecycle of smaller components. The rabbit hole is very deep.

    There’s no contest to me…EVs are way cleaner in every category. Especially when you consider the economy of managing the environmental impact of thousands of power plants vs. hundreds of millions of vehicles.

  • http://www.pluginrecharge.com Mark Thomason

    Nice post and analysis Nick…and nice display of diplomacy…if only our politicians would work this hard to build bridges between ideologies.

    My 2c would be that you could have subtracted from the EV column the GHGs of trucking fuel to our gas stations. Also, there are several petroleum based fluids that aren’t used in an EV…thus you could subtract out from the EV column 90% of the GHG emissions of the creation, transportation, and usage of these fluids. But like you said, comparison of these systems is very complex…especially when you consider the lifecycle of smaller components. The rabbit hole is very deep.

    There’s no contest to me…EVs are way cleaner in every category. Especially when you consider the economy of managing the environmental impact of thousands of power plants vs. hundreds of millions of vehicles.

  • Brian N

    Good analysis Nick and good comments too.

  • Brian N

    Good analysis Nick and good comments too.

  • drivin98

    Doesn’t sound like a study at all. I’d say what it sounds like but since everyone’s being so civil, I’ll keep it to myself.

    You might also mention in rebuttal to this that overnight charging can take advantage of excess power generation and is not adding to CO2. Also, electric cars may also save extra CO2 generation in the future via V2G.

  • drivin98

    Doesn’t sound like a study at all. I’d say what it sounds like but since everyone’s being so civil, I’ll keep it to myself.

    You might also mention in rebuttal to this that overnight charging can take advantage of excess power generation and is not adding to CO2. Also, electric cars may also save extra CO2 generation in the future via V2G.

  • drivin98

    Doesn’t sound like a study at all. I’d say what it sounds like but since everyone’s being so civil, I’ll keep it to myself.

    You might also mention in rebuttal to this that overnight charging can take advantage of excess power generation and is not adding to CO2. Also, electric cars may also save extra CO2 generation in the future via V2G.

  • http://GlobalPatriot.com Global Patriot

    Sadly any report can come to whatever conclusion you want, depending on the data used and how it’s presented. In this case, the assumptions are faulty and the effect on both water supply and the food equation are not addressed. It would be interesting to see such a report prepared by a neutral organization.

  • http://GlobalPatriot.com Global Patriot

    Sadly any report can come to whatever conclusion you want, depending on the data used and how it’s presented. In this case, the assumptions are faulty and the effect on both water supply and the food equation are not addressed. It would be interesting to see such a report prepared by a neutral organization.

  • Paul Scott

    Excellent post!

    I’d like to provide a little perspective based on experience. I’ve owned a Toyota RAV4 EV since 2002. We’ve driven about 75,000 miles, all of it on sunshine. I don’t make comparisons to the national grid, because I choose not to get my energy from there, or any regional grid for that matter.

    The beauty of EVs is that you have the CHOICE to get your energy from renewable sources, therefore making your vehicle 100% clean, well-to-wheels. The writer comes from the Pacific NW, as did I way back when. The grid mix there is among the cleanest in the country. California, where I live now, has an exceptionally clean grid because of some great environmental efforts of the past and present. Driving an EV on that clean electricity is 8-10 times cleaner than driving a Prius

    If you don’t own a home, or the one you do own is shaded, then solar isn’t for you, you’ll need to get your renewable energy from your utility. If they don’t already have such a program (usually based on wind and geothermal, but more and more, solar is adding to the mix), then your job is to be an activist and pressure your utility to provide the program.

    Switching from oil to electricity is going to bring us amazing changes.

    The $500-$700 billion we currently send to other countries for oil will gradually all stay here.

    We’ve never fought a war over electricity and we never will.

    You can easily generate enough kWh to run your house and car (and a really fast motorcycle!) from the sunlight falling on your roof. Our 3 kW PV system does just that, and our electric bill is about $100 per year.

    We haven’t been to a gas stations in 7 years.

    Every car company in the world is in development on plug-in cars. There will be thousands available to buy one year from now.

    First, get your home running on clean renewable energy. Then, save your money for a year and buy one of the first EVs on the market (the Nissan Leaf is a great choice!).

    Oh, one more thing… my work allows me to see how much energy people use. It’s pretty clear that most people waste more kWh then they would use in an EV.

    Think about the implications of that.

    Cheers

  • Paul Scott

    Excellent post!

    I’d like to provide a little perspective based on experience. I’ve owned a Toyota RAV4 EV since 2002. We’ve driven about 75,000 miles, all of it on sunshine. I don’t make comparisons to the national grid, because I choose not to get my energy from there, or any regional grid for that matter.

    The beauty of EVs is that you have the CHOICE to get your energy from renewable sources, therefore making your vehicle 100% clean, well-to-wheels. The writer comes from the Pacific NW, as did I way back when. The grid mix there is among the cleanest in the country. California, where I live now, has an exceptionally clean grid because of some great environmental efforts of the past and present. Driving an EV on that clean electricity is 8-10 times cleaner than driving a Prius

    If you don’t own a home, or the one you do own is shaded, then solar isn’t for you, you’ll need to get your renewable energy from your utility. If they don’t already have such a program (usually based on wind and geothermal, but more and more, solar is adding to the mix), then your job is to be an activist and pressure your utility to provide the program.

    Switching from oil to electricity is going to bring us amazing changes.

    The $500-$700 billion we currently send to other countries for oil will gradually all stay here.

    We’ve never fought a war over electricity and we never will.

    You can easily generate enough kWh to run your house and car (and a really fast motorcycle!) from the sunlight falling on your roof. Our 3 kW PV system does just that, and our electric bill is about $100 per year.

    We haven’t been to a gas stations in 7 years.

    Every car company in the world is in development on plug-in cars. There will be thousands available to buy one year from now.

    First, get your home running on clean renewable energy. Then, save your money for a year and buy one of the first EVs on the market (the Nissan Leaf is a great choice!).

    Oh, one more thing… my work allows me to see how much energy people use. It’s pretty clear that most people waste more kWh then they would use in an EV.

    Think about the implications of that.

    Cheers

  • Paul Scott

    Excellent post!

    I’d like to provide a little perspective based on experience. I’ve owned a Toyota RAV4 EV since 2002. We’ve driven about 75,000 miles, all of it on sunshine. I don’t make comparisons to the national grid, because I choose not to get my energy from there, or any regional grid for that matter.

    The beauty of EVs is that you have the CHOICE to get your energy from renewable sources, therefore making your vehicle 100% clean, well-to-wheels. The writer comes from the Pacific NW, as did I way back when. The grid mix there is among the cleanest in the country. California, where I live now, has an exceptionally clean grid because of some great environmental efforts of the past and present. Driving an EV on that clean electricity is 8-10 times cleaner than driving a Prius

    If you don’t own a home, or the one you do own is shaded, then solar isn’t for you, you’ll need to get your renewable energy from your utility. If they don’t already have such a program (usually based on wind and geothermal, but more and more, solar is adding to the mix), then your job is to be an activist and pressure your utility to provide the program.

    Switching from oil to electricity is going to bring us amazing changes.

    The $500-$700 billion we currently send to other countries for oil will gradually all stay here.

    We’ve never fought a war over electricity and we never will.

    You can easily generate enough kWh to run your house and car (and a really fast motorcycle!) from the sunlight falling on your roof. Our 3 kW PV system does just that, and our electric bill is about $100 per year.

    We haven’t been to a gas stations in 7 years.

    Every car company in the world is in development on plug-in cars. There will be thousands available to buy one year from now.

    First, get your home running on clean renewable energy. Then, save your money for a year and buy one of the first EVs on the market (the Nissan Leaf is a great choice!).

    Oh, one more thing… my work allows me to see how much energy people use. It’s pretty clear that most people waste more kWh then they would use in an EV.

    Think about the implications of that.

    Cheers

  • http://www.biodiversivist.com Russ Finley

    I’ve seen studies that show electric cars, given today’s mix of coal, gas, nuclear, will produce more GHG than hybrid cars. If we don’t stop using coal for power it really does not matter what we drive. Your point about the doubling effect of cleaning up our power grid is a good one. An electric car charged by solar energy is a zero emission vehicle.

    Nice job on the article. Blogs rule.

    This chart shows how funding has been spent for renewable energy (although corn ethanol is at best 1/3 renewable):

    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img28.gif

  • http://www.biodiversivist.com Russ Finley

    I’ve seen studies that show electric cars, given today’s mix of coal, gas, nuclear, will produce more GHG than hybrid cars. If we don’t stop using coal for power it really does not matter what we drive. Your point about the doubling effect of cleaning up our power grid is a good one. An electric car charged by solar energy is a zero emission vehicle.

    Nice job on the article. Blogs rule.

    This chart shows how funding has been spent for renewable energy (although corn ethanol is at best 1/3 renewable):

    http://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img28.gif

  • Lorryn Young

    It is interesting to read this article and comments from within the States, as I am an American living in South America.

    The first thing that always strikes my mind when reading about new energy sources for autos, etc., is that in the case of electric cars, where is all the additional electricity coming from? Has anyone really addressed this issue? Are we simply trading gas autos for electricity that also must be fueled by conventional sources, as least at this time?

    In order to meet higher demands, we are only continuing the same old course of our past history.

    New electric energy sources are going to include our vast coal and now more recently shale stores, but the demands keep rising in the States due to an energy hungry country that enjoys many products that require electricity. The future will make many demands on our water resources so run of the river type dams will come under intense pressure. Dams are supposedly a cheap source for electric production, but the damage they cause far out weighs their use.

    You cannot separate the two situations. If you are going to make electric cars, you are certainly going to increase the electric demands.

    As far as biofuels go, there is a way to make full use of such, but not with crops normally used for food. Even in South America we are turning to profitable crops that use plants strictly for bio-fuel purposes-and they are being extremely successful.

    Because these “bio-plants” are extremely hearty, they can be raised in areas generally not suitable for food crops. They are resistent to saline in water, and can easily be grown in desert conditions. In planting them, shade is produced to support other activities on the land where they could not use before. These “bio-Plants” produce multi-yields yearly, usually in the three to four crop range per year. They become contributors to our “system” while not taking away valuable areas where food crops do well. Ands valuable lands that are part of the world ecosystem are not destroyed for marginal use.

    Their fuel yields can be used for multi-purposes, including autos, electricty production, etc.

    Too, because it is a new fascet for fuel sources, it gives small, poorer farmers of every region in the world an opportunity to make a modest living before the big agro or oil guys try to step in.

    It is indeed an error to repeat past mistakes by relying on any one type of fuel source in any case.

    As a progressive nation we must learn to curtail our lust for energy consumption as many nations are already doing. We must step up to the plate and demostrate our ability to use our intelligence for all the world to admire and try to replicate. In short turn to leading, not following on important choices, such as fuel usage.

    Lorryn

  • Lorryn Young

    It is interesting to read this article and comments from within the States, as I am an American living in South America.

    The first thing that always strikes my mind when reading about new energy sources for autos, etc., is that in the case of electric cars, where is all the additional electricity coming from? Has anyone really addressed this issue? Are we simply trading gas autos for electricity that also must be fueled by conventional sources, as least at this time?

    In order to meet higher demands, we are only continuing the same old course of our past history.

    New electric energy sources are going to include our vast coal and now more recently shale stores, but the demands keep rising in the States due to an energy hungry country that enjoys many products that require electricity. The future will make many demands on our water resources so run of the river type dams will come under intense pressure. Dams are supposedly a cheap source for electric production, but the damage they cause far out weighs their use.

    You cannot separate the two situations. If you are going to make electric cars, you are certainly going to increase the electric demands.

    As far as biofuels go, there is a way to make full use of such, but not with crops normally used for food. Even in South America we are turning to profitable crops that use plants strictly for bio-fuel purposes-and they are being extremely successful.

    Because these “bio-plants” are extremely hearty, they can be raised in areas generally not suitable for food crops. They are resistent to saline in water, and can easily be grown in desert conditions. In planting them, shade is produced to support other activities on the land where they could not use before. These “bio-Plants” produce multi-yields yearly, usually in the three to four crop range per year. They become contributors to our “system” while not taking away valuable areas where food crops do well. Ands valuable lands that are part of the world ecosystem are not destroyed for marginal use.

    Their fuel yields can be used for multi-purposes, including autos, electricty production, etc.

    Too, because it is a new fascet for fuel sources, it gives small, poorer farmers of every region in the world an opportunity to make a modest living before the big agro or oil guys try to step in.

    It is indeed an error to repeat past mistakes by relying on any one type of fuel source in any case.

    As a progressive nation we must learn to curtail our lust for energy consumption as many nations are already doing. We must step up to the plate and demostrate our ability to use our intelligence for all the world to admire and try to replicate. In short turn to leading, not following on important choices, such as fuel usage.

    Lorryn

  • Lorryn Young

    It is interesting to read this article and comments from within the States, as I am an American living in South America.

    The first thing that always strikes my mind when reading about new energy sources for autos, etc., is that in the case of electric cars, where is all the additional electricity coming from? Has anyone really addressed this issue? Are we simply trading gas autos for electricity that also must be fueled by conventional sources, as least at this time?

    In order to meet higher demands, we are only continuing the same old course of our past history.

    New electric energy sources are going to include our vast coal and now more recently shale stores, but the demands keep rising in the States due to an energy hungry country that enjoys many products that require electricity. The future will make many demands on our water resources so run of the river type dams will come under intense pressure. Dams are supposedly a cheap source for electric production, but the damage they cause far out weighs their use.

    You cannot separate the two situations. If you are going to make electric cars, you are certainly going to increase the electric demands.

    As far as biofuels go, there is a way to make full use of such, but not with crops normally used for food. Even in South America we are turning to profitable crops that use plants strictly for bio-fuel purposes-and they are being extremely successful.

    Because these “bio-plants” are extremely hearty, they can be raised in areas generally not suitable for food crops. They are resistent to saline in water, and can easily be grown in desert conditions. In planting them, shade is produced to support other activities on the land where they could not use before. These “bio-Plants” produce multi-yields yearly, usually in the three to four crop range per year. They become contributors to our “system” while not taking away valuable areas where food crops do well. Ands valuable lands that are part of the world ecosystem are not destroyed for marginal use.

    Their fuel yields can be used for multi-purposes, including autos, electricty production, etc.

    Too, because it is a new fascet for fuel sources, it gives small, poorer farmers of every region in the world an opportunity to make a modest living before the big agro or oil guys try to step in.

    It is indeed an error to repeat past mistakes by relying on any one type of fuel source in any case.

    As a progressive nation we must learn to curtail our lust for energy consumption as many nations are already doing. We must step up to the plate and demostrate our ability to use our intelligence for all the world to admire and try to replicate. In short turn to leading, not following on important choices, such as fuel usage.

    Lorryn

  • ChuckL

    Dear Nick,

    Just as you have decided to discount Biofuels Digest’s numbers, so do I discount your numbers. With a million dollars split between Fisker and Tesla while less than $50,000.00 has been awarded to biofuels is a clear indication that the current administration has chosen the industry that it wishes to take over in the same manner that it took over GM. These government subsidies should be terminated as monetary grants and changed to tax exemptions for a period of five years. If the total exemption from taxes is not an adequate subsidy, perhaps the technology is not near enough to maturity to be competitive. In such a case we taxpayers should not be required to support an industry that can not sustain itself.

    Biofuels, on the other hand, as evidenced by the United States Air Force’s recent purchase agreement for 100,000 gallons of bio-jet fuel and an option for another 100,000 gallons from a company that has not received a subsidy indicates that biofuels are viable and cost effective without subsidies.

    Did Biofuels Digest stretch things to their advantage? Of course they did. Did you go to the other extreme? Of course you did. Biofuels Digest chose to consider only coal fired power plants. You chose to rely on vapor cars. Vapor cars are those not yet in production. You also chose to correctly report that the CAFE standards are an average and that many vehicles will get less than the 35 MPG required, but you left out that many will also get much better than 35 MPG. And you chose to ignore that the full sized Ford Fusion hybrid gets 41 MPG in the city and 36 MPG on the highway. And this is not a vapor car, but an actual production car that you can buy right now from a company that did not accept a government subsidy.

    You said, “And the great thing about electric cars is that, as our electricity becomes cleaner over time, so do all of our cars.” Well, the same thing can be said about fossil fuel vehicles. In the 70′s shortly after the first pollution controls were mandated on automobiles, there was a syndicated science article in newspapers that reported that cars were now so emissions clean that driving your car through the Great Smokey Mountains actually cleaned the natural pollutants from the air. We’ve come a long way since then, and we will go a long way further.

    In some vehicular applications electricity makes good sense right now. The applications will increase as electrical power storage systems improve naturally over time. But I doubt that the time will ever arrive when all combustion power sources are eliminated with a more efficient system.

    Come on Nick. Gas 2.0 is a good source of information, but your advocacy is getting to be “a bit much”. I also believe that we need to develop more efficient power systems, but the fact is that now with the government developed recession (?depression?) most of the taxpayers of this country can not afford the taxes needed to support any experimental system. Nor can we afford to have the government develop these sources while neglecting the national defense.

  • ChuckL

    Dear Nick,

    Just as you have decided to discount Biofuels Digest’s numbers, so do I discount your numbers. With a million dollars split between Fisker and Tesla while less than $50,000.00 has been awarded to biofuels is a clear indication that the current administration has chosen the industry that it wishes to take over in the same manner that it took over GM. These government subsidies should be terminated as monetary grants and changed to tax exemptions for a period of five years. If the total exemption from taxes is not an adequate subsidy, perhaps the technology is not near enough to maturity to be competitive. In such a case we taxpayers should not be required to support an industry that can not sustain itself.

    Biofuels, on the other hand, as evidenced by the United States Air Force’s recent purchase agreement for 100,000 gallons of bio-jet fuel and an option for another 100,000 gallons from a company that has not received a subsidy indicates that biofuels are viable and cost effective without subsidies.

    Did Biofuels Digest stretch things to their advantage? Of course they did. Did you go to the other extreme? Of course you did. Biofuels Digest chose to consider only coal fired power plants. You chose to rely on vapor cars. Vapor cars are those not yet in production. You also chose to correctly report that the CAFE standards are an average and that many vehicles will get less than the 35 MPG required, but you left out that many will also get much better than 35 MPG. And you chose to ignore that the full sized Ford Fusion hybrid gets 41 MPG in the city and 36 MPG on the highway. And this is not a vapor car, but an actual production car that you can buy right now from a company that did not accept a government subsidy.

    You said, “And the great thing about electric cars is that, as our electricity becomes cleaner over time, so do all of our cars.” Well, the same thing can be said about fossil fuel vehicles. In the 70′s shortly after the first pollution controls were mandated on automobiles, there was a syndicated science article in newspapers that reported that cars were now so emissions clean that driving your car through the Great Smokey Mountains actually cleaned the natural pollutants from the air. We’ve come a long way since then, and we will go a long way further.

    In some vehicular applications electricity makes good sense right now. The applications will increase as electrical power storage systems improve naturally over time. But I doubt that the time will ever arrive when all combustion power sources are eliminated with a more efficient system.

    Come on Nick. Gas 2.0 is a good source of information, but your advocacy is getting to be “a bit much”. I also believe that we need to develop more efficient power systems, but the fact is that now with the government developed recession (?depression?) most of the taxpayers of this country can not afford the taxes needed to support any experimental system. Nor can we afford to have the government develop these sources while neglecting the national defense.

  • ChuckL

    Dear Nick,

    Just as you have decided to discount Biofuels Digest’s numbers, so do I discount your numbers. With a million dollars split between Fisker and Tesla while less than $50,000.00 has been awarded to biofuels is a clear indication that the current administration has chosen the industry that it wishes to take over in the same manner that it took over GM. These government subsidies should be terminated as monetary grants and changed to tax exemptions for a period of five years. If the total exemption from taxes is not an adequate subsidy, perhaps the technology is not near enough to maturity to be competitive. In such a case we taxpayers should not be required to support an industry that can not sustain itself.

    Biofuels, on the other hand, as evidenced by the United States Air Force’s recent purchase agreement for 100,000 gallons of bio-jet fuel and an option for another 100,000 gallons from a company that has not received a subsidy indicates that biofuels are viable and cost effective without subsidies.

    Did Biofuels Digest stretch things to their advantage? Of course they did. Did you go to the other extreme? Of course you did. Biofuels Digest chose to consider only coal fired power plants. You chose to rely on vapor cars. Vapor cars are those not yet in production. You also chose to correctly report that the CAFE standards are an average and that many vehicles will get less than the 35 MPG required, but you left out that many will also get much better than 35 MPG. And you chose to ignore that the full sized Ford Fusion hybrid gets 41 MPG in the city and 36 MPG on the highway. And this is not a vapor car, but an actual production car that you can buy right now from a company that did not accept a government subsidy.

    You said, “And the great thing about electric cars is that, as our electricity becomes cleaner over time, so do all of our cars.” Well, the same thing can be said about fossil fuel vehicles. In the 70′s shortly after the first pollution controls were mandated on automobiles, there was a syndicated science article in newspapers that reported that cars were now so emissions clean that driving your car through the Great Smokey Mountains actually cleaned the natural pollutants from the air. We’ve come a long way since then, and we will go a long way further.

    In some vehicular applications electricity makes good sense right now. The applications will increase as electrical power storage systems improve naturally over time. But I doubt that the time will ever arrive when all combustion power sources are eliminated with a more efficient system.

    Come on Nick. Gas 2.0 is a good source of information, but your advocacy is getting to be “a bit much”. I also believe that we need to develop more efficient power systems, but the fact is that now with the government developed recession (?depression?) most of the taxpayers of this country can not afford the taxes needed to support any experimental system. Nor can we afford to have the government develop these sources while neglecting the national defense.

  • Leo

    And of course making ethanol out of corn is not without other issues.

  • Leo

    And of course making ethanol out of corn is not without other issues.

  • Leo

    And of course making ethanol out of corn is not without other issues.

  • Martin K

    I can’t say either is entirely accurate or one more accurate than another. It does give plenty of food for thought though. EVs do not guarantee lower carbon emissions. It’s important to diversify in the realm of energy conservation and not rely on any one technology or energy source.

  • Martin K

    I can’t say either is entirely accurate or one more accurate than another. It does give plenty of food for thought though. EVs do not guarantee lower carbon emissions. It’s important to diversify in the realm of energy conservation and not rely on any one technology or energy source.

  • Flahooler

    Kudos for the final paragraph of your analysis. People can crunch numbers all day long and eventually come up with a set of assumptions that produces the result they’re after. However, it’s absolutely true that there is no single solution going forward. A robust infrastructure takes advantage of energy from many different sources. Biofuels, hydrogen, electricity, etc. The key is to extract all available energy from a given set of raw materials, and to apply that energy where it is most efficient to do so … zero waste!!!

    Electric vehicles are an excellent choice for many applications, but there are some environments where it is simply not practical and may never be practical in our lifetimes. For example, long-haul trucking, heavy aircraft, off-grid or emergency vehicles. For these types of applications, it makes sense to develop renewable liquid fuel sources in parallel with effort to develop EV infrastructure. Today’s second and third generation biofuels fit the bill nicely.

    Instead of competition, it would be nice to see the EV and biofuels industries start to work together to determine where each one can be most effective. They both share a common goal … to displace petroleum dependency. There’s a big enough pool of money out there for everyone, once that goal is achieved.

  • Flahooler

    Kudos for the final paragraph of your analysis. People can crunch numbers all day long and eventually come up with a set of assumptions that produces the result they’re after. However, it’s absolutely true that there is no single solution going forward. A robust infrastructure takes advantage of energy from many different sources. Biofuels, hydrogen, electricity, etc. The key is to extract all available energy from a given set of raw materials, and to apply that energy where it is most efficient to do so … zero waste!!!

    Electric vehicles are an excellent choice for many applications, but there are some environments where it is simply not practical and may never be practical in our lifetimes. For example, long-haul trucking, heavy aircraft, off-grid or emergency vehicles. For these types of applications, it makes sense to develop renewable liquid fuel sources in parallel with effort to develop EV infrastructure. Today’s second and third generation biofuels fit the bill nicely.

    Instead of competition, it would be nice to see the EV and biofuels industries start to work together to determine where each one can be most effective. They both share a common goal … to displace petroleum dependency. There’s a big enough pool of money out there for everyone, once that goal is achieved.

  • Flahooler

    Kudos for the final paragraph of your analysis. People can crunch numbers all day long and eventually come up with a set of assumptions that produces the result they’re after. However, it’s absolutely true that there is no single solution going forward. A robust infrastructure takes advantage of energy from many different sources. Biofuels, hydrogen, electricity, etc. The key is to extract all available energy from a given set of raw materials, and to apply that energy where it is most efficient to do so … zero waste!!!

    Electric vehicles are an excellent choice for many applications, but there are some environments where it is simply not practical and may never be practical in our lifetimes. For example, long-haul trucking, heavy aircraft, off-grid or emergency vehicles. For these types of applications, it makes sense to develop renewable liquid fuel sources in parallel with effort to develop EV infrastructure. Today’s second and third generation biofuels fit the bill nicely.

    Instead of competition, it would be nice to see the EV and biofuels industries start to work together to determine where each one can be most effective. They both share a common goal … to displace petroleum dependency. There’s a big enough pool of money out there for everyone, once that goal is achieved.

  • sheckyvegas

    Great article and comments, all!

    The way I’m seeing the BIG PICTURE, is that EV will be the basic mode of transport for public commuting. Even for cross-country travel, once we get the battery problem solved.

    Municipal transit will resort to NG or Bio-fuel, due to the varying bulk-loads issue, regional environmental requirements, and large-scale, long-term contracts that generally follow any municipal agreement.

    Bio-fuel will have its place in bulk transit – trains, planes, ships – as electric, at this point, cannot compete on the tonnage requirements for large-scale delivery systems. (If any of you saw that little post about the all-electric train recently, I’m sure you realized there was no consideration of that train actually PULLING anything…)

    So, as Nick and Aaron have stated, we’ll end up seeing a mix of alternative fuel systems used in the transportation sector, dependent upon what type of transport is needed.

    Now, don’t get me started on home heating!…

  • sheckyvegas

    Great article and comments, all!

    The way I’m seeing the BIG PICTURE, is that EV will be the basic mode of transport for public commuting. Even for cross-country travel, once we get the battery problem solved.

    Municipal transit will resort to NG or Bio-fuel, due to the varying bulk-loads issue, regional environmental requirements, and large-scale, long-term contracts that generally follow any municipal agreement.

    Bio-fuel will have its place in bulk transit – trains, planes, ships – as electric, at this point, cannot compete on the tonnage requirements for large-scale delivery systems. (If any of you saw that little post about the all-electric train recently, I’m sure you realized there was no consideration of that train actually PULLING anything…)

    So, as Nick and Aaron have stated, we’ll end up seeing a mix of alternative fuel systems used in the transportation sector, dependent upon what type of transport is needed.

    Now, don’t get me started on home heating!…

  • sheckyvegas

    Great article and comments, all!

    The way I’m seeing the BIG PICTURE, is that EV will be the basic mode of transport for public commuting. Even for cross-country travel, once we get the battery problem solved.

    Municipal transit will resort to NG or Bio-fuel, due to the varying bulk-loads issue, regional environmental requirements, and large-scale, long-term contracts that generally follow any municipal agreement.

    Bio-fuel will have its place in bulk transit – trains, planes, ships – as electric, at this point, cannot compete on the tonnage requirements for large-scale delivery systems. (If any of you saw that little post about the all-electric train recently, I’m sure you realized there was no consideration of that train actually PULLING anything…)

    So, as Nick and Aaron have stated, we’ll end up seeing a mix of alternative fuel systems used in the transportation sector, dependent upon what type of transport is needed.

    Now, don’t get me started on home heating!…

  • Aureon Kwolek

    Good job with your analysis Nick. Yes – It’s a complex subject. A lot of great comments – thanks. We’re definitely learning way more about this, discussing it openly, than reading a slanted article or study. I am a biofuel researcher and advocate, yet even I don’t believe the conclusions of this study.

    I also advocate EVs, although I favor Plug-in Hybrids with range extender engines powered by domestic biofuels.

    The comment about exploiting unused power to charge EVs at night is a good one, but that will only go so far. If everyone starts charging their vehicles at night, that will require more power than just standby. V2G – good point. Plug-in Hybrids can play V2G too and also run on biofuels when needed.

    How credible is the study, if coal is used as the only source of electric power for EVs? That’s twisting the data.

    Then on the other hand, you also have to use dirty fossil fuels to mine, load, ship, unload and handle coal before you even burn it. And, if it’s a strip mine, there are land use effects – deforestation and a long payback for the CO2 emissions released in the process of disturbing CO2 out of the trees and the soil. I’ll bet that the CO2 emissions for coal are much higher than the study estimated. And likewise, I’ll bet the study low-balled the emissions for the ethanol, and used old information for the footprint of the 15% gasoline component.

    The carbon footprint of biofuels is improving rapidly. The trend is to produce ethanol and biodiesel with renewables, instead of fossil fuels. Also, in just the past 2 years, the output of corn ethanol has gone from 420 gallons per acre to about 480 gallons per acre per year. The yield per acre is going up on a regular basis. The corn oil and livestock feed produced from that same acre is also going up and represents about a third of the inputs. Producers are now starting to use the cobs and part of the stover to make several hundred gallons more fuel per acre. That will also redistribute the inputs across a higher output and improve the carbon footprint of corn based food and fuel.

    Year after year, our corn crop is about the same number of acres it was 60 years ago, and no other land or food crops are being displaced. No one went hungry because we took the starch out of 25% of our non-edible feed corn crop, recycling CO2 to make ethanol, and then had roughly 30 million tons of high protein distillers grains livestock feed left over. Even after we export 20% of our feed corn crop, we still have a surplus, and you can buy it anywhere in the world for about 7 cents a pound. The big factor is not the cost of the corn. It’s the high cost of shipping it. This fuel vs food thing is way overblown. Fuel-Shipping costs, Speculation, and the 70% overhead that food retailers have are much bigger factors in the price of food.

    Ethanol is now about a 2 to 1 return and going higher. It used to be a pretty marginal return, but not any more. A lot of new technology is being implemented and in the works. Renewables that replace foreign oil, including ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, synthetic fuels, etc. are worth pursuing during the transition period.

    We should fund EVs, Plug-in Hybrids, Biofuels, and other renewables – but we shouldn’t twist the facts either way. It’ll play out.

    More power to the people who charge their EVs and Plug-ins off of solar panels!

  • Aureon Kwolek

    Good job with your analysis Nick. Yes – It’s a complex subject. A lot of great comments – thanks. We’re definitely learning way more about this, discussing it openly, than reading a slanted article or study. I am a biofuel researcher and advocate, yet even I don’t believe the conclusions of this study.

    I also advocate EVs, although I favor Plug-in Hybrids with range extender engines powered by domestic biofuels.

    The comment about exploiting unused power to charge EVs at night is a good one, but that will only go so far. If everyone starts charging their vehicles at night, that will require more power than just standby. V2G – good point. Plug-in Hybrids can play V2G too and also run on biofuels when needed.

    How credible is the study, if coal is used as the only source of electric power for EVs? That’s twisting the data.

    Then on the other hand, you also have to use dirty fossil fuels to mine, load, ship, unload and handle coal before you even burn it. And, if it’s a strip mine, there are land use effects – deforestation and a long payback for the CO2 emissions released in the process of disturbing CO2 out of the trees and the soil. I’ll bet that the CO2 emissions for coal are much higher than the study estimated. And likewise, I’ll bet the study low-balled the emissions for the ethanol, and used old information for the footprint of the 15% gasoline component.

    The carbon footprint of biofuels is improving rapidly. The trend is to produce ethanol and biodiesel with renewables, instead of fossil fuels. Also, in just the past 2 years, the output of corn ethanol has gone from 420 gallons per acre to about 480 gallons per acre per year. The yield per acre is going up on a regular basis. The corn oil and livestock feed produced from that same acre is also going up and represents about a third of the inputs. Producers are now starting to use the cobs and part of the stover to make several hundred gallons more fuel per acre. That will also redistribute the inputs across a higher output and improve the carbon footprint of corn based food and fuel.

    Year after year, our corn crop is about the same number of acres it was 60 years ago, and no other land or food crops are being displaced. No one went hungry because we took the starch out of 25% of our non-edible feed corn crop, recycling CO2 to make ethanol, and then had roughly 30 million tons of high protein distillers grains livestock feed left over. Even after we export 20% of our feed corn crop, we still have a surplus, and you can buy it anywhere in the world for about 7 cents a pound. The big factor is not the cost of the corn. It’s the high cost of shipping it. This fuel vs food thing is way overblown. Fuel-Shipping costs, Speculation, and the 70% overhead that food retailers have are much bigger factors in the price of food.

    Ethanol is now about a 2 to 1 return and going higher. It used to be a pretty marginal return, but not any more. A lot of new technology is being implemented and in the works. Renewables that replace foreign oil, including ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, synthetic fuels, etc. are worth pursuing during the transition period.

    We should fund EVs, Plug-in Hybrids, Biofuels, and other renewables – but we shouldn’t twist the facts either way. It’ll play out.

    More power to the people who charge their EVs and Plug-ins off of solar panels!

  • Aureon Kwolek

    Good job with your analysis Nick. Yes – It’s a complex subject. A lot of great comments – thanks. We’re definitely learning way more about this, discussing it openly, than reading a slanted article or study. I am a biofuel researcher and advocate, yet even I don’t believe the conclusions of this study.

    I also advocate EVs, although I favor Plug-in Hybrids with range extender engines powered by domestic biofuels.

    The comment about exploiting unused power to charge EVs at night is a good one, but that will only go so far. If everyone starts charging their vehicles at night, that will require more power than just standby. V2G – good point. Plug-in Hybrids can play V2G too and also run on biofuels when needed.

    How credible is the study, if coal is used as the only source of electric power for EVs? That’s twisting the data.

    Then on the other hand, you also have to use dirty fossil fuels to mine, load, ship, unload and handle coal before you even burn it. And, if it’s a strip mine, there are land use effects – deforestation and a long payback for the CO2 emissions released in the process of disturbing CO2 out of the trees and the soil. I’ll bet that the CO2 emissions for coal are much higher than the study estimated. And likewise, I’ll bet the study low-balled the emissions for the ethanol, and used old information for the footprint of the 15% gasoline component.

    The carbon footprint of biofuels is improving rapidly. The trend is to produce ethanol and biodiesel with renewables, instead of fossil fuels. Also, in just the past 2 years, the output of corn ethanol has gone from 420 gallons per acre to about 480 gallons per acre per year. The yield per acre is going up on a regular basis. The corn oil and livestock feed produced from that same acre is also going up and represents about a third of the inputs. Producers are now starting to use the cobs and part of the stover to make several hundred gallons more fuel per acre. That will also redistribute the inputs across a higher output and improve the carbon footprint of corn based food and fuel.

    Year after year, our corn crop is about the same number of acres it was 60 years ago, and no other land or food crops are being displaced. No one went hungry because we took the starch out of 25% of our non-edible feed corn crop, recycling CO2 to make ethanol, and then had roughly 30 million tons of high protein distillers grains livestock feed left over. Even after we export 20% of our feed corn crop, we still have a surplus, and you can buy it anywhere in the world for about 7 cents a pound. The big factor is not the cost of the corn. It’s the high cost of shipping it. This fuel vs food thing is way overblown. Fuel-Shipping costs, Speculation, and the 70% overhead that food retailers have are much bigger factors in the price of food.

    Ethanol is now about a 2 to 1 return and going higher. It used to be a pretty marginal return, but not any more. A lot of new technology is being implemented and in the works. Renewables that replace foreign oil, including ethanol, biodiesel, biogas, synthetic fuels, etc. are worth pursuing during the transition period.

    We should fund EVs, Plug-in Hybrids, Biofuels, and other renewables – but we shouldn’t twist the facts either way. It’ll play out.

    More power to the people who charge their EVs and Plug-ins off of solar panels!

  • ChuckL

    The commentor who doubts the ability of an electric train to carry a large load should travel to Europe. The electric trains there have much better acceleration and speeds on short trips than any of our domestic trains. And just for his information, our domestic trains ARE electric. The slow acceleration is a result of supplying the electricity from the on board diesel engine generator systems. If supplied as in Europe or as the old trolley cars did when I was a youngster from overhead power wires the energy delivered could be much greater. Point to point passenger and freight systems are great opportunities for a wired electric trolley system. i.e. B.A.R.T. or the electric trains at the more modern airports in the world. Don’t knock them. They will be back.

  • ChuckL

    The commentor who doubts the ability of an electric train to carry a large load should travel to Europe. The electric trains there have much better acceleration and speeds on short trips than any of our domestic trains. And just for his information, our domestic trains ARE electric. The slow acceleration is a result of supplying the electricity from the on board diesel engine generator systems. If supplied as in Europe or as the old trolley cars did when I was a youngster from overhead power wires the energy delivered could be much greater. Point to point passenger and freight systems are great opportunities for a wired electric trolley system. i.e. B.A.R.T. or the electric trains at the more modern airports in the world. Don’t knock them. They will be back.

  • ChuckL

    The commentor who doubts the ability of an electric train to carry a large load should travel to Europe. The electric trains there have much better acceleration and speeds on short trips than any of our domestic trains. And just for his information, our domestic trains ARE electric. The slow acceleration is a result of supplying the electricity from the on board diesel engine generator systems. If supplied as in Europe or as the old trolley cars did when I was a youngster from overhead power wires the energy delivered could be much greater. Point to point passenger and freight systems are great opportunities for a wired electric trolley system. i.e. B.A.R.T. or the electric trains at the more modern airports in the world. Don’t knock them. They will be back.

  • Crush

    “If you want to compare an electric car to a fuel-powered car, compare that EV to a 27 mpg 4 door gasoline sedan (and I’m being generous on mpg there).”

    I assume Biofuels Digest took a snapshot of ethanol today and EVs today in their comparison for many of those numbers.

    If you want to talk about hypothetical vehicles and assume that family-sized sedans with reasonably sized batteries and efficient mileage exist, you shouldn’t compare it to a snapshot of current ethanol production. Corn ethanol has become more efficient each year. Also, I hardly think it’s more of a leap to say we’ll have cellulosic ethanol, with all the pilot plants operating today, than it is to say we’ll have standard family-sized battery-powered sedans operating at anything close to Tesla efficiency, of which we don’t even have similar prototypes today.

    I’m just saying you can’t compare the “future of electric cars” to the “present of ethanol.” You’re taking a guess vs. reality. If you want to compare the “future of electric cars,” you need to compare it to the “future of ethanol,” and factor in improved efficiency from cellulosic ethanol plus documented rates of improvement in corn-based ethanol production.

    On the issue of coal, I agree that it is not right to assume 100 percent coal. However, I think it’s fair to say that any rapid ramp-up in electric capacity would come primarily from coal. It’s the cheapest and easiest way to improve our electric capacity. I do not think it’s anywhere close to accurate to simply take our current coal vs. hydro vs. whatever ratio and extrapolate that out. Again, that is taking reality (ethanol production today) vs. “the future” (vastly expanded electric capacity at exactly the same mix of fossil and renewable sources).

    I see problems with both analyses. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I’d bet they have pretty similar environmental footprints, which is actually pretty eye-opening given the current public opinion regarding biofuels.

  • Crush

    “If you want to compare an electric car to a fuel-powered car, compare that EV to a 27 mpg 4 door gasoline sedan (and I’m being generous on mpg there).”

    I assume Biofuels Digest took a snapshot of ethanol today and EVs today in their comparison for many of those numbers.

    If you want to talk about hypothetical vehicles and assume that family-sized sedans with reasonably sized batteries and efficient mileage exist, you shouldn’t compare it to a snapshot of current ethanol production. Corn ethanol has become more efficient each year. Also, I hardly think it’s more of a leap to say we’ll have cellulosic ethanol, with all the pilot plants operating today, than it is to say we’ll have standard family-sized battery-powered sedans operating at anything close to Tesla efficiency, of which we don’t even have similar prototypes today.

    I’m just saying you can’t compare the “future of electric cars” to the “present of ethanol.” You’re taking a guess vs. reality. If you want to compare the “future of electric cars,” you need to compare it to the “future of ethanol,” and factor in improved efficiency from cellulosic ethanol plus documented rates of improvement in corn-based ethanol production.

    On the issue of coal, I agree that it is not right to assume 100 percent coal. However, I think it’s fair to say that any rapid ramp-up in electric capacity would come primarily from coal. It’s the cheapest and easiest way to improve our electric capacity. I do not think it’s anywhere close to accurate to simply take our current coal vs. hydro vs. whatever ratio and extrapolate that out. Again, that is taking reality (ethanol production today) vs. “the future” (vastly expanded electric capacity at exactly the same mix of fossil and renewable sources).

    I see problems with both analyses. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. I’d bet they have pretty similar environmental footprints, which is actually pretty eye-opening given the current public opinion regarding biofuels.

  • http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/05/hybrid-electric-bike-with-afterburners.html Russ Finley

    Argonne did a study back in 2003, page 20:

    http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/281.pdf

    and neither study included GHG emissions from land displacement.

    This study shows we have plenty of electric charging capacity:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211221149.htm

    This study shows that even plug in hybrids beet regular cars using all coal:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080425163711.htm

  • http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/05/hybrid-electric-bike-with-afterburners.html Russ Finley

    Argonne did a study back in 2003, page 20:

    http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/281.pdf

    and neither study included GHG emissions from land displacement.

    This study shows we have plenty of electric charging capacity:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211221149.htm

    This study shows that even plug in hybrids beet regular cars using all coal:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080425163711.htm

  • http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/05/hybrid-electric-bike-with-afterburners.html Russ Finley

    Argonne did a study back in 2003, page 20:

    http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/281.pdf

    and neither study included GHG emissions from land displacement.

    This study shows we have plenty of electric charging capacity:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061211221149.htm

    This study shows that even plug in hybrids beet regular cars using all coal:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080425163711.htm

  • John Jakson

    Great article and comments from both sides.

    I follow the EV industry much closer than the bio because I come from the semiconductor area. Having seen Moore’s law apply to microchips over 3 decades with at least 10K fold improvements in processor speeds, I expect a tiny part of that exponential function to also apply to battery and super cap development and that is all we need. EVs need this technology now, so too does the computer industry.

    Right now the EVs that are imminent to the market, Leaf, Miev and so on are only offering around 100 mile ranges or less. From all the advances I see in storage development, it seems very reasonable to expect at least 2-4x range increases in a decade or so, and then were are basically satisfied. If EESTOR is for real, then we are in really good shape for the future.

    I am also expecting that my first EV purchase will allow its degraded battery to be replaced by something at least 2x as good a decade out. It seems like yesterday that we used to upgrade x86 chips with a faster chip every few years without replacing anything else.

    On the Bio side, its good to read about improvements there too, those will be needed for range extenders, hybrid trucks, ships, trains, and planes. But I do not expect to see the same rate of improvement as in EV storage.

    It is really a question of which field of science is moving faster, physics-electronics vs agri-biology. Today science is more interesting than ever across the board.

  • John Jakson

    Great article and comments from both sides.

    I follow the EV industry much closer than the bio because I come from the semiconductor area. Having seen Moore’s law apply to microchips over 3 decades with at least 10K fold improvements in processor speeds, I expect a tiny part of that exponential function to also apply to battery and super cap development and that is all we need. EVs need this technology now, so too does the computer industry.

    Right now the EVs that are imminent to the market, Leaf, Miev and so on are only offering around 100 mile ranges or less. From all the advances I see in storage development, it seems very reasonable to expect at least 2-4x range increases in a decade or so, and then were are basically satisfied. If EESTOR is for real, then we are in really good shape for the future.

    I am also expecting that my first EV purchase will allow its degraded battery to be replaced by something at least 2x as good a decade out. It seems like yesterday that we used to upgrade x86 chips with a faster chip every few years without replacing anything else.

    On the Bio side, its good to read about improvements there too, those will be needed for range extenders, hybrid trucks, ships, trains, and planes. But I do not expect to see the same rate of improvement as in EV storage.

    It is really a question of which field of science is moving faster, physics-electronics vs agri-biology. Today science is more interesting than ever across the board.

  • http://Daimler Brian McBeth

    Hi,

    Daimler has developed an online tool that can be used for well-to-wheel analysis: Optiresource

    http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-943594-1-932626-0-0-0-0-0-0-8-876574-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html

  • E. Floman

    What a great post! I am writing my bachelor’s thesis (BSc) about the requirements for widespread use of different alternative fuels and the environmental and financial impacts they would have. It’s a shame that I can’t use this post as a reference in an academic context, while the article with the distorted facts at Biofuels Digest would probably be ok to use. Does anyone know a credible source for statistics like these?

    Thanks for the links Russ!

  • E. Floman

    What a great post! I am writing my bachelor’s thesis (BSc) about the requirements for widespread use of different alternative fuels and the environmental and financial impacts they would have. It’s a shame that I can’t use this post as a reference in an academic context, while the article with the distorted facts at Biofuels Digest would probably be ok to use. Does anyone know a credible source for statistics like these?

    Thanks for the links Russ!

  • John
  • John
  • John
  • BBHY

    I love the way that 100% of electricity comes coal, which completely denies reality, but both gasoline and ethanol spring magically right from the ground without any energy required at all all to produce them! They are magic fuels!

    Of course magic fuels beat non-reality electric power every time!

    This “study” is a load of bull manure.

  • BBHY

    I love the way that 100% of electricity comes coal, which completely denies reality, but both gasoline and ethanol spring magically right from the ground without any energy required at all all to produce them! They are magic fuels!

    Of course magic fuels beat non-reality electric power every time!

    This “study” is a load of bull manure.

  • BBHY

    I love the way that 100% of electricity comes coal, which completely denies reality, but both gasoline and ethanol spring magically right from the ground without any energy required at all all to produce them! They are magic fuels!

    Of course magic fuels beat non-reality electric power every time!

    This “study” is a load of bull manure.

  • Josh Bootz

    Well said. Both the general public and policy makers need a accurate picture of the total cost of energy in transportation, and other sectors. This learning curve is a big hurdle, and in many cases a dynamic one. Complete and accurate energy comparisons are crucial. Sadly, there will always be those who twist data to support their agendas while ignoring the bigger dangers and the greater common good. Glad to see you’re here and pressing on.

  • Josh Bootz

    Well said. Both the general public and policy makers need a accurate picture of the total cost of energy in transportation, and other sectors. This learning curve is a big hurdle, and in many cases a dynamic one. Complete and accurate energy comparisons are crucial. Sadly, there will always be those who twist data to support their agendas while ignoring the bigger dangers and the greater common good. Glad to see you’re here and pressing on.

  • Josh Bootz

    Well said. Both the general public and policy makers need a accurate picture of the total cost of energy in transportation, and other sectors. This learning curve is a big hurdle, and in many cases a dynamic one. Complete and accurate energy comparisons are crucial. Sadly, there will always be those who twist data to support their agendas while ignoring the bigger dangers and the greater common good. Glad to see you’re here and pressing on.