Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Business / Technology »

May 10, 2007 12:00 AM | last updated May 10, 2007 10:31 AM
A smart car.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Could plug-in cars end the age of oil?

A remarkably diverse coalition is emerging that sees the Northwest as a leader in developing a new weapon against oil dependency and global climate change. The players were on display at a conference sponsored by Cascadia Center and Microsoft. Buckle your seat belt.

By David Brewster

Ostensibly, the gathering this past Monday at the Microsoft Conference Center was about a cute little niche of the automobile market, dual-mode cars you plug in for electrical recharge of their batteries. A colorful bunch of them were lined up outside on the sunny day, looking like a futuristic auto lot. Inside were about 350 utility folks, government types, and businesspersons smelling a lucrative new market.

Sounds harmless. In fact, the TransTechEnergy conference, sponsored by Microsoft and Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute, was a fascinating glimpse into what one key leader of the session, a former utilities lawyer named Steve Marshall, calls "the premier bipartisan issue of our time." Those funny little cars are symbols and possible cures for something as big as the industrial revolution — the replacement of an oil-based economy with electrons. The stakes are huge, and the thinking was there to match.

Marshall could be a key actor in this story, and he looks like a mild-mannered attorney who somehow stumbled into a high-stakes poker game. The son of a former city manager of Olympia, Marshall grew up with a commitment to public service, went off to Harvard Law School, and spent 30 years at the Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie, working on the Boeing and Puget Power accounts. Later came a stint with Snohomish Public Utility District, recovering from its Enron scare, where he started looking at ways that electrical utilities could solve their power needs without doing bad things like building coal plants.

About two years ago, Marshall went to a conference in Los Angeles and began hearing about an unusual silver bullet, those funny little electric cars. The wonky term for them is Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, or PHEV, which sounds like somebody spitting out the idea in disgust. They are hybrids, able to burn gasoline or biofuels; they have batteries that recharge while coasting downhill and power the cars until their charge runs down (about 20 miles or so); and they can be plugged into normal electrical outlets for recharging overnight or while parked during the day. (Two-way PHEVs, which can send unneeded battery power back into the grid, are the holy grail.) All this does wonders for gas mileage, producing cars that might go 500 to 1,000 miles on a gallon of gasoline. And that in turn does a lot to control carbon emissions and global warming.

Ideas like this have been kicking around for decades, since the technology is of the sort that college engineering students can readily produce. (Some were in the Microsoft parking lot.) The usual story is that we have an oil crisis that drives the price of gas up so high that the automakers and others turn to these hybrids, make a few, and then OPEC drives the price of oil back down and bankrupts these little experiments by destroying the markets for them. This has happened twice since the 1970s, and the automakers are naturally gunshy about going through this again.

But Marshall found that three new factors are in play, and taken together they might produce a mighty change in the oil-based economy. The first is the Iraq War, and the realization by such people as James Woolsey, former head of the CIA under Bill Clinton, that America's dependency on oil means we are financing our enemies, notably the Saudis who spread jihad philosophy all over the Muslim world and who have made us economically dependent on them. This is no way to win the war on terror. The second new factor is the general understanding, finally, that we do indeed face a crisis in global climate change and that cars, 97 percent fueled by gasoline, are a huge contributor to the problem.

The third factor is where Marshall came in — electrical utilities. Assuming that you are not going to solve the global warming issues with biofuels (which take a lot of carbon to produce, denude rain forests, soak up precious water), you are going to need electrons. How to produce more electricity without spewing coal into the air? The answer suddenly appeared to Marshall and others. It's millions of little batteries in millions of little cars.

The key is two-way electricity. These cars recharge their batteries at times when our power plants are off-peak, especially at night, or when clean but intermittent sources of new power (solar, wind, tidal) are making electricity and need some place to store it for peak demands. Car owners may pay more for these new vehicles, but they actually make some money by selling some power back to the utilities during their times of high demand.

That's a pretty fine trifecta. You win the war on terror, avoid catastrophic climate change, and reward a nation addicted to autos with rebates that never stop giving.

Inspired by some early signs of a grand coalition of interests, Marshall put on a conference on the subject last year when he was head of the Municipal League and then repeated and greatly enlarged the scope at the Cascadia/Microsoft conference last week. The advocates, helped by Discovery's connections with the Bush administration, got an executive order from the President that puts the federal fleet on the road to mass conversion to flexible fuel vehicles. Bipartisan coalitions started forming in the Senate and the House to push for PHEVs and more non-oil fuel choices. The group pushing for PHEVs consists of Senators Maria Cantwell of Washington, Barack Obama (who gave a tough speech this week in Detroit, criticising the automakers for getting nowhere in fuel efficiency), and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

The conference speakers demonstrated the zany eclecticism of the coalition. There were angry green voices furious at the timidity of Congress and Bush. Automakers eyed each other nervously, saying they were doing lots of great research but hoping they didn't actually have to produce these new vehicles. (Once someone breaks from the pack, likely Toyota, and introduces the new cars, Marshall predicts, all the automakers will be slapped with mandates, and fleet-average fuel standards will shoot upward.) Microsoft was there, though pretty quiet, since the company has an active division working on software for advanced products in cars, such as how to maximize the timing for plugging in. (Bill Gates and Bill Ford have a friendship that has led to a business deal.) Electrical utilities were there, glimpsing a sunny uplands of revived electrical power, perhaps including nuclear.

Hovering around all this were some venture capitalists, sensing that if there is going to be a huge shift, by which the electrical utility becomes the new "gas station" of America, there are going to be huge opportunities for those who get in early. John Doerr, the king of Silicon Valley venture capitalists, was quoted as saying that sustainable technologies will be "the mother of all markets." Once these new technologies develop strong enough American markets to induce new companies to form, the winners will be able to export to a global market, so the payoff in climate issues as well as greenbacks will be amazing.

California leads the charge in most of these issues, but the Northwest is trying to leapfrog into the lead. Cascadia is hoping to have a big auto rally of the new cars next year, with celebrities driving the hybrids to add to the general coolness factor and cars winning not on speed (though they are fast) but on mpg. Marshall is pushing for a Northwest pilot project to study and demonstrate how PHEVs can work. The relevant federal agencies are talking to each other, for once, about these issues. And the Northwest advantage in hydropower, hence clean electricity, helps make the case for plugging in; elsewhere, many environmentalists fear the rise of electric cars will unleash a rash of coal-powered power stations and nukes. The coalition is seeking federal funding for a pilot project, as well as help in assembling an early, large market of federal and governmental fleets, so that automakers will sense a secure enough market to take the plunge. Gates Foundation and Microsoft might also join the funding.

Seattle as a leader in a worldwide transportation revolution? The city that remains vexed by all kinds of transportation issues? Leading a bipartisan coalition when all Republicans have been driven out of town?

Well, maybe. Marshall is a key person, and he's got both religion and the trust of the utilities as well as considerable political skills that go back to his early admiration for the Dan Evans gang. And there were numerous other self-starters on the panels, such as a Texas utility executive who wondered how to harness all that nighttime wind around Austin and so started putting together Plug-in Partners of governments all over the country making the pledge to buy PHEVS (Ron Sims is, naturally, an early adopter), or Felix Kramer of CalCars, pushing to get automakers to go ahead right now with "good-enough" technology and finding ways to convert existing cars. Marshall has gotten to know them all in the past two years, and they all seemed excited about each other's pet ideas.

Most of all, I sensed at this remarkable burst of brainpower and political optimism about solving big problems something of that good old Boeing spirit in the region. Engineers with sliderules in their pockets, tackling great big integrated problems. If there were ghosts of WPPSS's amateur nuke-builders walking around the halls, so too there were ex-Microsoft entrepreneurs with a dauntingly brilliant grasp of the whole network of interconnected forces, virtually vibrating with a desire to "deploy."

So maybe we can't build a monorail. That doesn't mean we can't end the age of oil.

Comments
Can do!
Report a violationPosted by: Stuka on May 10, 2007 12:52 AM
I love it.
Ending Congestion
Report a violationPosted by: transitman on May 10, 2007 8:47 AM
At the PHEV Conference last Monday, there was nary a mention of Congestion, a more In Your Face problem facing citizens daily.
And no one mentioned that it takes almost as much (foot-pounds) of ENERGY to move a 3500-lb car with a 200-lb person aboard.

The thrust of my work over the past 15-years has been on Congestion Relief. I recommended to Cascadia Project's Agnew that Congestion be the theme next year.
Using the Fischer-Tropsch system, coal could produce
Report a violationPosted by: Will of Horse's Ass on May 10, 2007 8:54 AM
enough 100 percent clean burning diesel fuel to power these little cars or the biggest big rig. Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is behind this big time.

Montana has a huuuuge amount of coal just under the surface. When coal is pressurized into a gas, the pollutants can be taken out. That gasified coal can then be be made, using the Fischer-Tropsch system, into clean-burning diesel fuel. And this system isn't even experimental. Oil-poor countries have used this method to produce diesel.

With only a fraction of the subsidies currently handed out to corn farmers, the coal-to-diesel industry could be off the ground and running, fueling everything from semi trucks to the Volkswagon Jetta TDI.
RE: Using the Fischer-Tropsch system, coal could produce
Report a violationPosted by: Matt on May 10, 2007 10:36 AM
(shiver) That's what we're afraid of - "clean" coal. Pull all of the SOx, NOx, and particulate you want out of the stuff, but it still creates a fixed amount of CO2. I would suggest passing on any offers for cheap oceanfront property.
You need to take a look at this before you slag it off
Report a violationPosted by: Will of Horse's Ass on May 10, 2007 11:32 AM
It's not "clean coal" techonology. It's not the burning of coal. During the gasification process, the pollutants are taken out. Carbon dioxide, instead of being pumped into the atmosphere, is then pumped 5,000 feet deep or so.

What is burnt is the clean diesel liquid that is derived from coal, without the pollutants and CO2.
RE: You need to take a look at this before you slag it off
Report a violationPosted by: Matt on May 10, 2007 11:52 AM
"What is burnt is..." Any time you burn a substance containing carbon, you create CO2. Unless you're talking about producing pure H2 with this process, you're dumping CO2 out of a car's tailpipe.

What's worse is the amount of energy required to even create this synthetic fuel: more here
RE: Using the Fischer-Tropsch system, coal could produce
Report a violationPosted by: Jim DiPeso on May 12, 2007 1:55 PM
If coal – cheap, abundant, and dirty – is to have a future powering a more crowded, consuming world, energy experts will have to figure out how to engineer the biggest rubbish pits that the world has ever known.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that, worldwide, there is enough capacity to store 200 billion to 2 trillion tons of CO2.

A 2006 report published by the Joint Global Change Research Institute estimates that capturing, moving, storing, and monitoring carbon dioxide would cost about $50 per ton. Not bad, considering that a $50-per-ton charge on carbon emissions would raise coal-fired electricity costs only about a penny per kilowatt-hour.

But sequestration is not being demonstrated at the colossal scale that is necessary for ensuring that CO2 burial will be a safe bet. U.S. coal-fired power plants alone emit 1.5 billion tons of CO2 per year. Think of all the coal plants, refineries, cement kilns, steel mills and other sources pumping out CO2 around the world, and one senses the magnitude of the sequestration undertaking.

If coal use is going to grow, sequestration had better work reliably at a reasonable cost if a climate disaster is to be averted. Many devils will have to be extracted from the details. What national and international arrangements will be necessary to sequester the quantities of CO2 necessary to keep the climate stable? How will sequestration sites be selected, financed, and monitored? Who will be responsible for them?

Moreover, as a recent MIT study pointed out, it is not yet clear which of the various coal combustion technologies are best suited for carbon capture. Gasification is the leading candidate because its cost for capturing carbon is thought to be cheaper, but the study said it’s too early to award gasification the crown. There may be ways to give a technological makeover to pulverization, the dowdy incumbent of coal combustion. Pulverized coal technology has some advantages – the technology well understood by utilities and it is not finicky about using lower quality coals.

Economic issues add further complexity to the picture. Utilities are not likely to invest in CO2 capture and sequestration until there is a charge on carbon dioxide emissions.

Once the U.S. has a climate policy, it is not yet certain which coal combustion technologies the market would prefer. No one knows for sure how much it would cost to retrofit power plants to capture CO2 because it hasn’t been tried at a sufficient scale. Much will depend on the price that carbon regulation, most likely cap-and-trade, will put on CO2 disposal into the atmosphere.

So, do utilities spend more on gasification plants now and bet that it will be cheaper to retrofit them when carbon caps are imposed? Or, do they invest in lower cost pulverized coal now and take a chance that retrofit won’t cost as much?

There would be less uncertainty if the federal government would get on with the task of adopting a climate policy that puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions.

The sooner that uncertainties are resolved, the better. If sequestration is not workable for whatever reason, human society would face one of two consequential choices: accepting the acute necessity of expanding carbon-free energy sources – renewables, nuclear, and aggressive efficiency – at heroic scales, or taking a reckless gamble of burning ever larger quantities of cheap coal and throwing climate caution to the angrier winds.

Knowing human nature, it is difficult to predict which path would be taken.
Car Bus Demonstrator
Report a violationPosted by: transitman on May 10, 2007 8:58 AM
Editor's Pick Congestion Relief with Car Bus for Electric Microcars
By David Petrie, PETRIE TRANSIT CONSULTANTS
Jump Start to a Secure, Clean Energy Future! May 7, 2007
Originally presented at the Canadian Transportation Research Forum, PEI, June 4-7, 2000
Abstract
The general solution to congestion in low-density urban areas will employ a Car Bus that transports the personal car at 130 km/h on a barriered inside lane of the freeway. Stations will be located above the freeway at 10-km intervals, accessed by ramps emanating from the outside lanes. Loading of occupied personal cars will be automated, 20 seconds elapsing from stop to restart of the Car Bus.
Since the Car Bus will be fuel-cell powered and the motors of the transported cars will be OFF during the freeway portion of a typical commute, pollution due to fossil-fueled transport will be roughly halved. It is anticipated that Car Bus will capture 40-70% of all commuter-miles.
The capacity of this guideway will be so enormous that many high-performance freight trucks, equipped with automation kits, can be interwoven with Car Bus via entrance/exit gates.
The transporters will be automated with a computerized safety control sub-system, effectively adding up to 20 lanes of capacity on a single dedicated guideway, as 2.5 meter long electric/hybrid microcars become available for general commuting and errands.

(Footnote: In 1994, Al Gore responded to my request that the feds sponsor a demonstration of Car Bus. He wrote back, promising that such would be pursued. In Clinton's 1998 state-of-the-union speech, he said that Advanced Transit (meaning Car Bus) wold be funded.)
Exclusionary reasoning
Report a violationPosted by: stan on May 10, 2007 1:52 PM
A proponent of these electrical vehicles must ask himself: Why isn't anyong manufacturing them on a large scale? No one's stopping any company who wants to capitalize on this miraculous device. (I find it amusing these things are promoted by people who have never actually manufactured automobiles.) Can they pass the federal crash standards? Doesn't look like it. How much is my electrical bill going to increase from having to charge it every night, particularly relevant in light of the fact that energy regulators have been discouraging more electrical usage for, what, over 30 years now? Where does that electricity come from? Predominantly from coal, or in the northwest from those evil, fish killing dams. And how exactly do I sell electicity back to the utility through the act of consuming it? Actually, General Motors is working on an electric car, the Volt, one that is designed meet the standards and practical realities of real-world driving. There are technological issues that need solving before it can be a reality, ones they're undoubtably intimately familiar with. Worth investigating.
RE: xclusionary reasoning
Report a violationPosted by: Matt on May 10, 2007 4:02 PM
Editor's Pick "No one's stopping any company who wants to capitalize on this miraculous device. "

Check this out. 0-60 in 4 seconds, 200 miles per charge, and, to answer one of your questions, $0.02/mile.

Yes, there are currently large issues with electric generation. But at least we have the option to change sources - anything from solar to wind to nuclear would fix the problem. Filling your tank with fossil fuels and complaining about the problems with electric cars certainly won't.

"And how exactly do I sell electicity back to the utility through the act of consuming it?" Let's say you and a few friends use 1,000kWh in a day - with a peak load of 200kW when the air conditioning's on along with lights, which goes down to 5kW when you're sleeping. The power company has to build 200kW worth of power plant to make sure your lights stay on. Now, if everyone's car gave back a little bit of energy during the peak part of the day and charged at night, the power company can get by with as little as 42kW worth of power plant. When you replace "power plant" with "wind farm", you can actually use that entire 42kW of power you're generating all night - instead of only use 5kW and have to dump the rest of the power.
Electric Miocrocar
Report a violationPosted by: transitman on May 11, 2007 10:17 AM
The ideal EV microcar for transport on Car Bus will be made of composites (similar to the 787 Dreamliner), have a curb weight of 800-lbs, have three-seats (the driver in a center-located business-class sized seat, flanked 14" aft on the sides by two economy-sized seats, canted 11-degrees outward, taking advantage of knees being narrower than shoulders), be 8-feet long, cost 1.5 cents per driven mile, 1.1 cents per mile while transported on a 125-mph Japanese Maglev train.

The ICV SMART microcar, 400/day being built in eastern France, has passed American crash standards, now being imported.

As most commuters will eventually commute in these cars, the kinetic-energy converted to damage at impact will be reduced to a fourth that of the 3500-lb cars we drive today.

The efficiency of converting energy from gasoline to the drive-wheels of the ICV is 14%. The conversion efficiency of the EV is 96%; the generation efficiency, using gas turbines at electrical utilities, is 46%.

The Bottom Line is, of course, a huge Win-Win for independence from foreign-oil, global warming, congestion-relief, safety, relaxed comfort during the transported portion of the commute, and parking facility efficiency.
RE: Using the Fischer-Tropsch system, coal could produce
Report a violationPosted by: Luckyschool on Jun 28, 2008 10:10 AM
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that, worldwide, there is enough capacity to store 200 billion to 2 trillion tons of CO2.
Play texas holdem - Texas Holdem game
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.
Advertisement