How Do We Get Out of Iraq?

Thanks Ray for directing our attention to the N&O article.

Here's the part I liked:

Wake County's motor fleet includes 20 Honda Civic hybrids, which get about 35 mpg in the city and 45 mpg on the highway. That's less than the 47 city mpg and 48 highway mpg estimated by the EPA, but fleet director Tom Kuryla is still pleased. "They're replacing a Crown Victoria, getting maybe 15 mpg, or a Ford Taurus, getting 18 to 20 mpg in town," Kuryla said. "I'm ecstatic."

That's more than a spoonful.

I haven't seen the N&O article yet, but Consumer Reports did an article on hybrids that seemed to reveal that the mileage they got was well below what the EPA tests showed. They did their own tests which turned out to be equally flawed.

I've talked with hybrid owners and they corroborate that the actual mileage is somewhere in the middle or a little higher. In some cases, the drivers corroborate what the RMI web-site says - that skillful driving with the goal of maximizing the hybrids' capabilities can actually meet or exceed the EPA's numbers.

Any hybrid drivers out there want to give us some experiential info?

Also, I'd encourage anyone who hasn't heard Amory Lovins before to come out on Tuesday, October 25 at 7pm at the Friday Center. Lovins is an incredible well of information. I guarantee that you will find his view refreshing and inspirational in these days of lowered expectations and political knottiness.

The Spreading Myth of Inefficient Hybrid Cars

http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Newsletter/NLRMIfallwinter05.pdf

Also, Patrick - you should check out the RMI web-site and see the references to smart growth and green development. You will find that your quick assessment of Lovins based on where he lives was not accurate.

According to dictionary.com, an alarmist is "A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe."

I am curious. What is a person called who out of a reasonable extrapolation of the future, or because of certain specialized or secret (or otherwise unknown, little known, or largely unheeded knowledge) does everything in his power to inform others of impending danger or catastrophe? A visionary?

Before the truth of his message is revealed such a person might be confused for an alarmist.

(Just for fun, let's say there's a false positive outcome, or a Type I error, when a person who at first appears to be an alarmist later appears to be vindicated, but that the basis of the vindication turns out to be untrue, that he or she was wrong after all. Let's further say, again just for fun, that there's a corresponding false negative, or Type II error, when a person who at first appears to be an alarmist continues to be seen as an alarmist despite the fact that he or she has held the truth all along. I introduce this in case someone wants to use these ideas shorthand in future comments).

In the 1950s M. King Hubbert created models which predicted that between 1965 and 1970 the production rates of oil would peak in the United States. This is an important event because there exists a relationship between that peak and the US's reliance on oil from abroad. Although his estimation fell short by a year (US oil production rates peaked in 1971), his estimate was much closer than any other attempt to predict this event.

Using his models Hubbert further estimated that the world's production of oil would peak at 2000. Although this prediction has again failed to be perfectly on mark, it remains accurate. Analysts, taking advantage of more refined techniques that couple advancements in modeling mathematics with computer simulations, range in their predictions from 2003 to 2032, but most predictions cluster around the year 2010.

Since the world's oil reserves are finite, the significance in the peaking of world oil production rates is that it marks the point at which no optimistic model of sustainability can be rationalized. It is not a merely psychological event, however. Economically, because prices have been evaluated on a short-term basis, and in some ways artificially (I won't get into externalities or the real costs of oil), it means that
when we reach the peak, prices will climb precipitously. The reason for this is that our consumption rates are greater than during the climb to Hubbert's Peak. In fact, thanks to China and other emerging economies, consumption rates are wildly out of sync from pre-1995 predictions.

Another consideration is that predictions of oil viability as an industrial fuel source should not be based on the assumption that oil will be completely used up before it ceases to become a viable energy source. There's no doubt that for economic reasons oil will stop being relied upon long before we get to the last 10 percent, maybe even 20 percent, of the earth's oil reserves.

Based on the most optimistic predictions of oil production rates, present consumption rates, the rising rates of consumption, and geopolitical forces (which I haven't discussed, but which are significant), it is evident that oil will very soon, within the next thirty years I predict, cease to be used as something we put into the tanks of our cars.

I am not claiming to be a visionary (too many of us like-minded thinkers for that accolade). I am just hoping to cloud the assumption that people like me are mere alarmists (or a Type I or II error, for those who have been following parenthetically).

So what are my best hopes for the future? That by conservation practices we might delay the inevitable petroleum doomsday long enough to have perfected the hydrogen fuel cell, and created green, sustainable productions of hydrogen to run those fuel cells. Automobile companies have made great inroads in the past few years in this regard, but I still see economically profitable, mass produced hydrogen fuel cell cars more than twenty years away.

What will happen in the meantime has me pacing the floors.

David, where does the hydrogen come from?

Hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is an energy transport mechanism, like electricity. For you to take electricity out of the wall, a power plant somewhere has to put electricity into the grid, and the energy of that electricity has to come from some sort of energy source.

By the same token, there is no natural source of hydrogen gas for us to tap into to power all those fuel cells. For a fuel cell to burn hydrogen gas, some plant somewhere has to produce hydrogen gas, and the energy of that hydrogen gas has to come from some sort of energy source.

What energy source?

Hydrogen is not a solution. Saying, "We should switch to hydrogen" is akin to saying "we should switch to electricity". It talks about how the energy gets delivered to us, but not about where the energy comes from.

Unfortunately, there are only three practical answers right now: oil and natural gas, coal, and nuclear fission.

What's your choice?

Terri,
When I was first driving, back in the late mid 80s, my family had a ... oh what was it. A Chevy Sprint. It was three cylinders o' power and it got 50 MILES TO THE GALLON!!! I know that one of the mid-80s civics also got 50 MPG.
It seems simple. All we need to do is TAX HUGE VEHICLES. If you want a Escalade instead of a CRV or smaller SUV, pay the tax, which will put solar panels on everyone roof.
I have often wondered what would happen if you took that old 1985 Ford Bronco II I had and built it today with lighter materials and a modern engine. It got 20 MPG back then, who knows now.

By the way, I deliberately left out two cult favorites in that list. Neither biomass nor solar cells are viable alternatives. Neither of them can be scaled up far enough to substitute for petroleum, coal, or nuclear.

And more importantly, does Steve know Gregor Samsa?

For whatever it's worth, I'm in San Diego. I found this thread in my refers when Ray Gronberg linked to a couple of my articles.

What am I? I'm a retired engineer who doesn't like to see people confuse fantasy or wishful thinking for concrete planning about engineering problems.

I've never heard of "Gregor Samsa". Who is he?

Steven,

I know that elemental hydrogen is rare on earth, which is precisely why I was careful to phrase the need of hydrogen as an intermediary need for to "create green, sustainable productions of hydrogen."

But to denounce hydrogen because it must be converted from another form for use would be as faulty a logic as denouncing oil because it has to be refined. Both require energy to accomplish. What is important with hydrogen--as it was in the earlier decision-making matrix as to whether the exploration, drilling, and refining costs for oil were economically worthwhile endeavors--is whether the cost of the energy required to convert water, hydrocarbons, or other energy into hydrogen iss less than the value of the final hydrogen product.

Case in point: it is possible to produce elemental hydrogen from electrolysis powered by solar. The advantages in automobile terms for doing this is that the energy density for hydrogen is greater than that of solar power. Thus, the value of the hydrogen would be greater than the value of the solar power because it is more dense and portable than solar power. In practice, even though it would never be feasible to power a car using photovoltaic panels, you would still have a solar component to the production of the fuel you use.

I will not pooh-pooh the crticisms that point to the large-scale requirements to make this feasible. I understand the scales of economy necessary to make the conversion of solar power to hydrogen economical. But suffice it to say that I can imagine such a large-scale production of hydrogen.

Imagine, for instance, enormous solar collectors floating on ocean tops collecting solar power, electrolyzing the ocean water, and placing the resultant hydrogen into floating tanks. Ships would periodically come out and collect tanks, replacing them with empty tanks.

Or imagine that everyone decides to use solar energy because they can therefore become producers of hydrogen, a fuel that requires no further refining. (remember that one of the criticisms of solar power is what to do with the excess energy that is produced during non-peak time. Replacing a reverse fuel cell that produces hydrogen would be more efficient than the best theoretical batteries).

But even this analysis fails to take into account fuel cells that can directly use hydrocarbons, even gasoline, and convert it to the energy to run cars, albeit it more efficiently (and thus for more miles per gallon) than present internal combustion engines.

You are no doubt informed by arguments similar to the ones Romm makes in his book "The Hype about Hydrogen", which I have read, and mostly agree with. But dire necessity will drive the need for the creation of green, sustainable production of hydrogen in ways he has not predicted or foreseen. I see his book more as a clarion call to action than the fatalist work some have attributed to it.

Steve, don't let the faulty "we must produce hydrogen by using non-sustainable forms of energy" or "it's impossible to store hydrogen in an economically sound way" arguments blind you to the possibilities of this emerging and valuable technology.

Ruby,

In deference as a guest on your blog I'll stop my debate on the energy policy issue, although I feel this has local issues content. I'll say no more, but I think this is an important discourse.

Robert,

I used to have a Mazda GLC that got 40 mph in town. I was shocked when I got a new brand new Mazda 323 and it got only 32 mph in town. Just doesn't seem right that we have to make a choice between air quality and fuel efficiency. Is this an engineering problem or a marketing decision?

Steve,

Let me leave you with these links, so you can see that real progress is being made in a lot of the hydrogen economy's "problem areas":

See http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm for an article on how to use solar power to create hydrogen

See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4177740/ for an article on the transition to a hydrogen economy

See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4184857/ for an article on how scientists are exploring nature's efficient engine for converting water into hydrogen

See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.htm to see how danish researchers have developed a novel way of storing large amounts of hydrogen in a small space.

I think 20-25 years is a good estimate for the hydrogen economy. I just hope we don't kill ourselves or destroy our environment too much before then.

I think 20-25 years is a good estimate for the hydrogen economy. And there you have the key to the problem: deployment ramp-up. It's not a question of whether it can be done, it's a question of how large it can be done, and how soon.

It cannot significantly offset our consumption of petroleum for the next ten years at least.

And it cannot end this war. In 20 or 25 years, one way or another this war will have largely come to an end.

The original point of this post was "How do we get out of Iraq?" The suggestion was made that if everyone just conserved and stopped using so much petroleum, then the war would come to an end.

There's no way that's true. If your true goal is to somehow bring this war to an end, don't look to energy policy as a way of doing it. Changing our energy policy may well be a good thing to do, but it won't significantly affect this war.

Steven,

While conservation may not be the way out of Iraq it is the one thing WE can do other than grumble and gripe. I haven't noticed anyone in Washington putting forth plans for immediate withdrawal. Plus, if enough communities take conservation seriously, it may prolong the inevitable energy crash until realistic alternatives can be found.

Hey, I'd be happy to drive 55 again. I did it in the late 70's; I can do it again! Heck, I'd be happy if everyone just drove the dang posted SPEED LIMIT. Been on 40 lately? Took DH to the airport this morning--I was doing 65 (the posted limit) and people were blowing past me like I was standing still.

I responded to a WIRED poll recently that asked if the cost of gasoline had changed my driving habits--and how high gas would have to go before I CHANGED my driving habits. Truth is, I've always conserved, planned my trips in loops, walked when I thought it feasible. So no, my driving habits HAVEN'T changed. But I think my answers might have skewed the poll....

melanie

I-40 is nuts. We drove to Raleigh Saturday night to hear a band and I was traveling at least 5 mph over the speed limit and getting passed on both sides by people doing probably 80-90.

I may be wrong, but to me it seems like once you drive East on 40 under the 540 overpass by the airport, this behavior becomes more common.

This is in response to the request for info from current hybrid drivers.

First, more on the inaccuracies of EPA mpg estimates, from an article in Consumer Reports. (emphasis mine) Looks like city MPG estimates are pretty far off across the board.

Ironically, hybrids, whose selling point is fuel thriftiness, had some of the biggest disparities with fuel economy, averaging 19 mpg below Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) city ratings. On average, our highway mpg more closely reflected the EPA rating. Still, hybrids won three of the best five spots for overall mpg in the magazine's testing.

I have a 2004 Hybrid Civic. Since I bought it, I've averaged slightly over 44 mpg by the car's own calculations. The mpg depends on the season (higher in the summer b/c the car warms up faster and I try to avoid a/c), where I'm driving, and how I drive. I suspect this is true for all cars.

For my current tank of gas, almost done, I'm averaging 48.8 mpg. My last tank was over 50 mpg; I went 600 mi before refueling.

In Jan 2004 I paid 19.3K for my hybrid. There's a lot of talk about how it doesn't make sense economically to buy a hybrid. One-to-one, talking about gas price, it doesn't yet even out. However, I try not to make my decisions purely economically, or I'd shop at Walmart all the time. For me, PERSONALLY, the extra $$ was worth the reduced emissions, higher MPG, and to encourage the development of new technologies. And yes, to make a statement while I drive.

I don't drive to work, and I try to bike/walk for errands around town. I am highly thankful for the free bus service around town. I use my car mainly for trips to Raleigh where my family lives, and road trips.

My .02.

Here's what Amory Lovins has to say about the urban myth of inefficient hybrids.

“This urban myth is based on Consumer
Reports tests which, like the Times's own tests,
mistakenly drive hybrids the same way as nonhybrids.
Consumer Reports refuses to disclose,
and might not realize, that this uniform and hence
seemingly reasonable test method unfairly disadvantages
hybrids, for reasons inherent in their
design.

And -

"I'm one of hundreds of Honda and
Toyota hybrid owners who consistently get within
1–2 mpg of EPA ratings, despite my area's cold climate,
mountainous terrain, and reliance on efficiency-
lowering snow tires. The similar powertrain
in the hybrid Accord (too new to have a user database
yet) should do the same, but non-hybrids
can't."