Perpetual Innovation

Category: RE100

  • EV v ICE, What’s the Price?

    EV v ICE, What’s the Price?

     Every couple months something pops into my news feed or email about how bad or expensive Electric Vehicles (EVs) are compared to the olde Internal Combustion Engine (ICE machines).  (See cartoon from Yale Climate Connection Don’t be fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate.)

    One that popped up was from a very biased web site (can’t call it a magazine or journal). The cost for EVs to operate were $17 per gallon, equivalent. It relied on an actual study, and then changed out all the facts.

    First, it assumed that you only charge away from home, never at home where it’s much cheaper. Some 99% of EVs are charged at home or (free? at the office) almost all the time. By this assumption, it would assume that the home did not use solar panels which would make the home charging costs even cheaper. Then, they added in all possible externalities for EVs including government subsidies. Wah-la, the magical cost per gallon for EVs is 5 to 8 times ICE machines. (non-news site intentionally not cited)

    Why then, wouldn’t the ICE machine side of the equation include government subsidies to oil and gas. Several studies show that coal, oil & gas get at least $1T in subsidies every year, and the equivalent of about $15T including indirect subsidies and extenalities. 

    If you really want to know the comparison between EVs & ICE vehicles, look at  SkepticalScience: https://skepticalscience.com/evs-really-better-climate.html  … they provide some of the best sources and best analysis. Because of the cost of production (an EV can weigh twice an ICE because of the batteries), it takes about 22 months before breakeven — emissions-wise. But after that the emissions are massively less for the EV. Figure about $1 per gallon equivalent.

    If you want to do an analysis of an EV and an ICE machine, consider how you will use the vehicle and check out these sources. 

    Total Cost of Ownership is a big question as well. The raw materials to make each type of car, where it is made, shipping, etc. There are a few sources that work on this. (Sites/sources on lifetime costs tend to be overly simplified or overly complicated.)

    Dealers don’t like EVs because there’s not really any maintenance. No urgent need to see the customer every 6 months to 1 year. No oil to change, no belts to replace. Only fill the windshield washer tank. The brakes have low usage because of regenerative power is used to slow the vehicle by generating power back to the batteries. The dealers will continue to lose touch with their customers, and the trade-in that comes with it.

    But the big reason for going EV is making a conscious and continuous effort to move away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. The air pollution from burning coal, oil and gas causes health issues and premature deaths of millions of people worldwide every year.  To move toward sustainable solutions, we have to move away from those that aren’t. 

    Two points that often come up is: 1) Renewable Energy (RE); and, 2) electric mix for the power grid and sources of materials like lithium & cobalt for EV. Renewable energy is growing at crazy rates and it is consistently far cheaper (even with battery augmentation) than coal, oil or nuclear. Battery technology (and such) will continue to improve, much like computer chips and hard drives. Products continue to be built with full life cycle designs so the materials in EVs will (soon) be completely recycled. 

    We need to electrify everything to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases. It took 120 years to build a world economy powered by coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro. Over time we need to completely replace fossil fuels. Many people thought we could simply wait until we started to exhaust the (readily available) supplies of fossil fuels and high prices would recalibrate the economy toward more sustainable methods of power and transportation. Waiting another 20, or even 5 years, to act is no longer an option.

    #EV #BreakingTheICE #Renewables #RE100 #CarbonEmmissions #CarbonFootprint

  • The EV Hurricane Disaster: a 1-sided scenario, part 2

    Read  The
    EV Hurricane Disaster: a 1-sided scenario     on our sister blog
    ScenarioPlans.com (also DelphiPlan.com). The EV disaster article analyzes a viral email
    that talks about how horrible it will be when a hurricane is storming into a
    population center and the electric vehicles are all stuck on the road with no
    possibility for charging.

    The unauthored and undated email makes the implied conclusion
    that we shouldn’t go to EVs because they could be problematic in a disaster, stuck in a mass exodus from a hurricane with dying batteries and no place to charge.

    There are at least three scenarios for analysis in that
    ScenarioPlans article (part 1). One is related to disaster planning related to
    EVs. Two is related to insisting on comparisons with “business as usual”
    comparisons so the non-sustainable and broken business models do not somehow
    become the gold standard. Three is combating bias and taking away the power
    from misinformation.

    It would be interesting to work through the scenario of a
    future with mostly EVs. That may be at best 30 years from now because of the
    time to turn over the existing internal combustion (ICE) fleet of vehicles. The
    average age of cars on road is currently 11 years.  In 2022 there will probably be only 5% new electric.
    It will take decades, under any EV adoption rate for EVs to overtake ICE
    machines.

    You first have to envision what the infrastructure will be
    in the future. (This, as we currently are building lots of large gas stations
    for gas and diesel, phasing out the small gas stations.) It would be reasonable
    to assume that all gas stations would start to add in charging stations in a few
    years.

    But with millions of people and businesses having charging stations,
    there should be no reason that those charging locations could not be
    incorporated to the charging grid options.  If the businesses and homes had solar (and
    battery backup) the resilience could be impressive. With solar and wind, many
    areas could have plenty of electricity for personal and commercial EV use
    indefinitely. No oil tankers needed.

    I’m thinking of kind of an Air B&B for charging, maybe
    and Air Charge & Go (Air C&G). Any superstore or parking lot with
    charging stations could offer to charge (pun intended) the mass exodus of EVs.

    Of course, we might be trying to find a solution to a
    problem that does not exist. In 30 years, the batteries and the charging
    technology will be much better. So, it may only take 5 to 10 minutes to charge
    (say 70%), not that much longer than it takes a car to get gas. And
    transporting gas around during disasters has its own set of problems.

    About 8% to 10% of the world’s economy is embedded directly
    and indirectly in energy, most of which is fossil fuels. All this money funds
    countries that are ruthless and unfriendly to us, as well as companies that
    have generally demonstrated a disregard for people, society, and the
    environment. Plus, fossil fuels are unsustainable. Period. Somehow, we have
    come to think of the broken business model of fossil fuels as “normal”. If it
    is not sustainable, then “business as usual” is not a viable option; yet in
    scenario planning, you should probably consider fossil fuels the “base case”.
    Shell has been a leader in scenario planning, including the energy future
    (check out Scenarios
    and The Energy Future from Shell    ).

    Recession has winners and losers, destructive innovation.
    An energy revolution will have winners and losers. There will be lots and
    lots of good paying jobs (in hydro, wind and solar). But there will be ongoing
    pain to the fossil fuel economy. Workers in mines and on rigs will have to
    transition. Investors will lose money as oil companies go out of business.
    Governments will have to pick up the expenses of hundreds of years of mines,
    pipes, refineries, and tanks. Orphaned wells are already a huge problem; many,  if not most, are leaking or will leak in the
    future.

    Of course, fear and uncertainty is actually the point of
    many of the misinformation initiatives. Imagine what happens to Russia, Saudi
    Arabia and oil companies when (not if) we get off of our addition to oil. Russia
    could no longer do as much mischief around the world when the major source of
    government funding (oil exports) dries up. Iran’s funding for nuclear weapons
    and terrorism would dry up… etc…

    So, when a one-sided meme or email comes flittering across
    your screen that trashes a renewable, ask them where is the other half of the
    discussion. No one would send out only one side of a discussion or a one-sided
    debate. And certainly no one would want to perpetuate one-sided propaganda? Right?
    !:-)

    #ScenarioPlans #BrokenBaseCase #Sustainability #EVs #100RE

  • Big winners of Renewable Energy: IP and Manufacturing

    Renewable Energy Patents in 2019

    As you look at the companies
    that are winners in Renewable Energy (RE) you have distinct winners (and
    losers, especially in the fossil fuel world). But there are entire countries
    that stand to win as well. Several countries have become exporters of energy,
    for example, when they produce more regional energy than they can use. I like
    the image set related to 25 areas/countries that are winners in Renewable
    Energy (at     LoveMoney.com,
    The world’s greenest nations that are reaping the rewards    ). Here’s Love/Money’s
    take on China, both in terms of the technology (Intellectual Property) and the
    manufacturing/exporting:

    “Of all patents for renewable energy issued globally, as of 2016 China
    has 29%. That’s more than 150,000 patents, which underlines the focus of
    China’s investment in the industry. So it’s not a shock that the country
    has been dubbed a “renewable energy superpower” in a recent report issued
    by the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation. The
    report argued that, as renewables come to fossil fuels globally, new energy
    leaders will emerge    .    ”
    The US had only 100,000
    patents (vs 150,000 for China) and Europe had 75,000 in renewables according to
    the Forbesanalysis in Jan 2019.  Overall,
    patents in renewables has made impressive progress, even though RE patents are
    only 1% of all patents (and other high-tech categories like computers are about
    6%). Check out the great article at the World Intellectual Property
    Organization (WIPO) on RenewableEnergy patents by James Nurton. More than half of the RE patents through
    the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) are in solar. Fuel Cell technology has
    consistently exceeded Wind in terms of patents. Fuel Cell (using hydrogen) is
    important because it can function as battery, battery backup, stationary power
    and portable power. Geothermal is trivial are of RE patent activity. When the
    RE “international” patents (PCTs) are registered at the national level the
    first three countries are: Japan, USA, and Germany.
    On the
    manufacturing/exporting side, China has been a huge producer of the world’s
    renewables (solar, wind and more). Here’s how LoveMoneysummarized Chinese production of RE:
     “China
    is currently the world’s largest exporter of solar panels, wind turbines,
    batteries and electric vehicles. The country is well-suited to wind power
    production, and it has an estimated potential capacity of 2,380 gigawatts.
    What’s more, many Chinese companies are investing in renewables    .”
    Keep in mind that many things sustainable are lower tech,
    not higher tech. Much, if not most of sustainable solutions does not require
    break-through solutions. Using less energy can be very low tech (turning the
    lights out when out). Driving less (by telework) can be no tech. But in the cases
    where leading tech can be a major competitive advantage, he owners of IP will
    win.
    Look also at GlobalTrends in Renewable Energy Investment in 2019 by UN Environment Program and
    Bloomberg. Where is RE coming from? The investment from 2010 through 2019 has
    been $2.6T with 52% in Solar and $41% in Wind.
    And the final question: how do we get to 100% renewable
    energy in a reasonably short period of time?
    #RenewableEnergy #REPatents #IntellectualProperty
    #IntellZine #SustainZine #WIPO #Sustainability #PCT #REInvestment #Solar #Wind
    #RE100