Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Plug-In Hybrids: The New Focus for the Future of Transportation

By Prof. Andrew Alfonso Frank, Univ. of Ca.-Davis
March 3, 2006   |   18 Comments
New approach, available today, allows renewables to address transportation needs.

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"In contrast, to the much touted hydrogen economy, there is no need for massive infrastructure development and construction. The PHEV allows us to immediately transition from our dependence on oil for transportation to one where we can begin to transition to cleaner and more efficient electricity without a need for new infrastructure."

- Prof Andrew Alfonso Frank, Director of Hybrid Vehicle Research,

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

18 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 18
March 8, 2006
Wow. Thought provoking. When can I buy one? In response to Luke's analysis, the good doctor has pointed out that a small green energy generator (wind and/or solar) can also be used to supplement both the grid and the PHEV. A truly excellent idea! Thus CO2 generation is reduced both by the car and by the system that charges the batteries. Why not add a solar panel to the top of the car, so that the batteries can charge during the day, when it is typically parked by a day-time worker?
Comment
2 of 18
March 8, 2006
While I agree with the author that changes are needed, and right away in the US. Some things to consider: The US has 4.5 percent of the world population, but has 35 percent of the world's cars and trucks.The percentage of Americans living in suburban areas has risen from 23.3 percent in 1950 to 49.9 percent as of 1998. CO2 emissions are the single largest man made contributor to global warming. US autos alone are the fifth largest producer of CO2 worldwide. The four larger sources CO2 emissions are; 1. US (total CO2 emissions) 2. China. 3. Russia. 4. Japan.

I think we need a systematic solution, not a patch.
Comment
3 of 18
March 8, 2006
What this article fails to regard is that the oil supply is running out around the world. Focussing on a switch to a system that is dependent STILL on oil is an unsustainable choice. The world needs to move to another technology. While I agree that the use of eletricity is a great idea, we also have to consider where the electricity comes from. If all the autos in just the U.S. magically became hybrids in the next five years, this would be a great step to reducing AUTO emissions. However, electricity use would definitely rise, and the current system of electricity production is very much focussed, unfortunately, on coal and nuclear resources. I would not encourage the increased use of electricity given the current state of things.

more in next comment
Comment
4 of 18
March 8, 2006
With X million more cars "plugged in" by year 2020,it would NOW be practical to raise the house by a further 3mtrs,from the rising tides.

Rising emissions would have the US Trade Sanctioned, by year 2015.

I have already ordered by Honda FCX for year 2009 delivery,plus their HESS home hydrogen system !
Comment
5 of 18
March 8, 2006
A very well developed practical approach that is practical rather than idealistic.

This is an approach that can support us in the transition as we work towards developing the practicalities, read infrastructures and distribution, of other renewable technologies.
Comment
6 of 18
March 8, 2006
An excellent article by a very well qualified author on a timely subject. Finally, we are beginning to see the outlines of real possible solutions to transportation.
Our present situation is essentially stalemated and an abomination. We must move forward. Time is of the essence.
GO PHEVS. GO RENEWABLES. Your time is NOW.
Comment
7 of 18
March 10, 2006
I like the conclusion There is no silver bullet so if you are not part of the many solutions you are part of the problem.
Dedefinitely if we shal not consume oxigen to get stupid artifact we shal sustain life and maybe that life will find the optimum sollution.
I think Romania is a very interesting place where such an investment could have instant succes.
Comment
8 of 18
March 10, 2006
I read at www.evworld.com that if all cars in the USA become EVs US's electricity output must be increased by 250% to meet the demand.
If you think 250% is too much. Even if it is 30-50% it is difficult to achieve without sacrificing the Earth.
Comment
9 of 18
March 10, 2006
Because "Great Leeps Forward" don't work, I tend to agree with stepwise approaches like the plug-in hybrid: Incremental behavior change and meaningful step forward environmentally. However, I have some issues with the article:

1) Cost: The comparison of fully taxed gasoline (federal excise, state excise, state tax) at $2.50/G against the untaxed incremental cost of electricity ($0.08/kWh) is dishonest or uninformed.
2) Show the CO2 numbers: The author claims to calculate very large CO2 reductions. Please link to the data and analysis! My thought is that *ALL* incremental load on the grid is *100%* fossil - not the grid blend. Why? Because renewable (and large hydro) sources connected to the grid always output their max. All incremental load is supplied by dispatchable generators like nuclear, coal, and gas-fired (as well as hydrothermal as an exception).
Comment
10 of 18
March 10, 2006
I hope I am able to first get my solar panels for my home, then I can get my hybrid car so that they don't go building more Nukes in order to fuel the electric car. Yucca mountain is still a disaster area acording to Barbara Baxter the Senator of California and this issue is still bad news. She has just written about is in her news letter on her home page. Senator of CA.
Comment
11 of 18
March 10, 2006
I am a bit concerned that Professor Frank doesn't seem to keep up in this field, let alone not knowing that you never say never. The infrastructure is already in place for the distribution of a hydride slurry. You pull in the "gas station" and pump up as usual. the only difference is that you exchange the "charged" hydrogen slurry for the depleted slurry. The energy content is just a bit less than gasoline and it is non-explosive. You could even recharge the slurry from onboard PV or plug in to any renewable source as the good professor suggests. The advantage is zero CO2 emissions and lower consumer costs.
Comment
12 of 18
March 10, 2006
Toyota needs to make a plug in version of the prius. They could call it the Prius EV. New battery technology is constantly improving. It may be possible at a later date to upgade the battery pack and load new software. The software would take advantage of the larger battery capacity. The problems is the electric motors output only 22 horsepower. The other is the electric drive can only propel the car at a top speed of 41 mph on level ground.
So to make the car more friendly to drive electric motor horse power must increase. Also gearing on the electric motors must change to allow for higher speed opperation.
Toyota could offer dealer installed retrofit kit. But would be limited to the current electric motor horse power.
Comment
13 of 18
March 10, 2006
Sounds great at first look but I feel this is just another band-aid fix. Can't you just see all of us driving around with a 500 foot extension cord looking for some poor fools unlocked electrical outlet. I think we had better stick to those energy sources that do not depend on non-renewable hydrocarbon. The problems of using hydrogen can and will be solved.
Comment
14 of 18
March 10, 2006
PHEVs may play a useful role in the future, but fuel prices will have to go much higher than they are in Europe today before PHEVs become economically competitive. I'm disappointed at the misleading treatment of the economics in the article, which emphasizes the low operating costs while ignoring the very high capital costs. I expect this kind of one-sided presentation from the nuclear industry, but not from my fellow renewable energy proponents.
Comment
15 of 18
March 10, 2006
I agree wholeheartedly with the report. I am waiting to get my hands on the PHEV's. My one concern about PHEV's is the battery. I am involved in Lithium Ion Polymer battery applications and development, and these batteries certainly can meet the power requirements more effectively than nickel metal hydrate, but there are some significant problems with life cycle durability and cost of the Lithiums. In my opinion, they are not here yet and will not be for some 2-5 years. Nickel metal hydrate on the other hand, have already acheived 150,000 miles in Toyota Prius taxis, but they again will be expensive at the 20KW level needed for PHEV's, and they are not nearly as efficient as Lithium's. It will be interesting to see if the Toyota's, Ford's and Mazda's of the world will build the units. Certainly the Toyota Prius is the only one that could be easily converted to PHEV operation. Sleep on, General Motors.
Comment
16 of 18
March 10, 2006
You loose 3/4 of electric or CNG energy by converting it to get Hydrogen. No Hydrogen infrastructure, prohibitively expensive vehicles that require exotic fuel cell replacement and most important, the 3/4 reduction in effective energy use will bankrupt us.

Off peak cheap electricity, solar, wind, biodiesel and ethanol are here now. We need efficient stewardship of that energy thru PHEV vehicles. Contact http://www.pluginamerica.com/ and http://www.pluginpartners.org/
Comment
17 of 18
March 10, 2006
A Honda FCX with a Plug Power fuel cell and fuel processor are not the answer. The FCX uses three times the total energy per mile of a good EV or PHEV and this particular system depends on an already short supply of natural gas. Let's quit nit picking and get PHEV's going in a big way as we continue to increase public transport and efficient rail freight shipping along with all the hundreds of other solutions. There is no silver bullet so if you are not part of the many solutions you are part of the problem.
Comment
18 of 18
March 14, 2006
I don't know where the good professor lives but electricity rates in most of California (PG&E, SDGE, SCE) are at least 12 cents per KWh...and rising. Furthermore, you need to incentivise plugging in at night during off-peak hours. Conversely, penalize those who would plug in during peak hours.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

OTTI - Ostbayerisches Techn. Transfer Institute Zep Solar Alpha Technologies Solar Electric Power Association Intertek Nextronex, Inc. Ambient Technologies, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters