http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 09/ john-mccain-to-support-drilling-in-anwr.html

Sorry, I’ve been busy. But yes. PHEV’s first, ANWR second. ANWR is temporary. Phev’s (or anything else but oil) are the future.

That’s the prescription that Joe Romm has been offering at this site. There are quite a few companies with plans to make products like this available around 2010. We will soon know if this will catch on. I think it will.

I didn’t send you the ORNL study to justify my PHEV model; you cited the article quoting from it, and expressed frustration that you couldn’t find it on their website, so I provided a pointer. The article is a very terse, high-level summary of some work they did. I presume there is a better write-up somewhere.

Have you read the PHEV FAQ published at this site?:
http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 07/ 11/ plug-in-hybrid-faq/

The primary attraction of wind and solar is that they can be planned, designed, permitted, and built in 2-5 years instead of 10-19 years for nuclear, and they are much cheaper. They also have the lowest lifecycle CO2 emissions–about one tenth of nuclear and very short energy payback times (measured in months).

Stats said, “Regardless, oil is still going to be a part of the equation. If not here then elsewere. If we ain’t using it, we could sell it, so why don’t we?”

It is not my intent to debate the wisdom of ANWR drilling, but if I see points I am pretty sure are incorrect, I usually say so. The US trade deficit vs. ANWR is best left to others.

Stats said, “My number one goal is energy independance. If opening up ANWR only frees us by 6%, that’s 6% closer. I’m all for it.”

But if PHEVs do it better than ANWR drilling (and they do), you should be for PHEVs first and ANWR drilling second, right?

I went to http://www.ornl.gov/ info/ ornlreview/ v41_1_08/ article11.shtml, but I saw nothing about what % of vehicles would be ev or hybrid in the study in 2030.

Earl, just in case you are unaware of this, I am in no way against an all electric fleet. I just don’t see it happening any time soon( I think the price of oil may drop drastically). My personal views were that in the future we would drive electric cars with gas generators for longer trips. The idea of hot swapping battery packs is an alternative to this, but I was worried about the effects of dumping used batteries ( granted I didn’t think they last as long as they do). I figured that we would replace coal with nuclear (I’m sure I will get some fallout over this) and build nuclear plants to deal with excess capacity( which may not be needed). I look forward to learning more about wind and solar, they may be viable alternatives to nuclear. I plan on installing a solar grid on my roof as soon as I can afford it. Unfortunately, I don’t live in an area where I can sell my excess back to the utility company, but that may change soon.

Regardless, oil is still going to be a part of the equation. If not here then elsewere. If we ain’t using it, we could sell it, so why don’t we? Even by your numbers, market penetration by 2030 would only be 27%. Bottom line, the rest of the fleet would run on oil. If 85% of our vehicles were EV, regardless of whether there would be costs of additional power, foreign oil dependancy still only drops by 50% according to the EIA. My number one goal is energy independance. If opening up ANWR only frees us by 6%, that’s 6% closer. I’m all for it.

As I explained earlier, negwatts can be much larger than what PHEVs require in any year.

California’s waiver requests to the EPA essentially create a second stricter set of standards that states can optionally sign onto. Thus what California does can affect a large fraction of the nation. The number of states supporting California’s lawsuit is an indicator, as is past adoption of its waivers.

I’m starting to get a little angry. I’ve gone to Oak Ridge’s site, but all they post is the press release itself, I want to see the study. I’ll keep looking.

All scenarios for 2020 used a mere 25% market penetration. That means that either:

1) 75% of cars still use oil, so we’ll still need quite a bit of the stuff

2) or, if more than 25%, these projections will have to modified accordingly. For example, if 50% of vehicles are replaced by 2020, then you’ll have to double the draw and go from there. I’m not at all slanting this, I’m just repeating the fact that this article states, in the best case scenario, that there is more than enough capacity to provide power if the fleet of hybrid cars if the fleet consist of only 25% of all cars. I would love to see the actual study to see how to escalate this to say, 50% of all vehicles by 2020. The article also states that there may be problems by 2030 when there is a higher percentage of electric cars, but never says what that higher percentage of vehicles is. Could be 35% could be 100. until I can see the freakin study, I have no way of knowing.

According to this site, it is still 25% in 2030, which contradicts the press release:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/ornl-study-expl.html

the more studies I see, the more comfortable I get, but as yet I’ve only really seen one.

IMHO California’s laws are just that, california’s laws. i don’t see them being adopted by many other states or by the fed anytime soon, although, of course, I’m basing that on my own views of the way california’s environmental laws usually play out on the national stage. Not being a californian, let me ask you is it fair to say that many of california’s laws are partially due to the prevention of air pollution that may or may not ( has it cleared up, I don’t know) exist around its major cities?

Other states may not have a similar problem that they feel a strong need to address, at this time.

The main reason I don’t see the fed passing any MAJOR CAFE laws is the big 3. As soon as detroit says, hey we can keep up with Japan, maybe, but until then…………………. Granted, there may be a token increase in standards, but it will be just that, token.

I’ll get back to you on the subject of how much foreign dependence will be reduced by ANWR. I need to look at that study again indepth. There must be a reason they put it below 50%. Not sure what it is.

I am excited, by the way about the battery life thing. I am thinking of buying a volt when they come out, but the battery thing had been a negative.

You could start at
http://www.awea.org/faq/

Example:

How much land is needed for a utility-scale wind plant?

In open, flat terrain, a utility-scale wind plant will require about 60 acres per megawatt of installed capacity. However, only 5% (3 acres) or less of this area is actually occupied by turbines, access roads, and other equipment–95% remains free for other compatible uses such as farming or ranching. In California, Minnesota, Texas, and elsewhere, wind energy provides rural landowners and farmers with a supplementary source of income through leasing and royalty arrangements with wind power developers.

A wind plant located on a ridgeline in hilly terrain will require much less space, as little as two acres per megawatt.

For more in depth stuff, I suggest the work of Jacobson and Archer:
http://www.stanford.edu/~lozej/publications.html
e.g. Supplying baseload power and reducing transmissions requirements by interconnecting wind farms

Jaconson has an article in-press that you should definitely look for when it is out: Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

You apparently did not read what you linked to, you would not have written the above, or you decided to selectively quote from it. They study said the grid could handle a lot more than you suggest. Allow me to quote from your link for you (some emphasis added):

In an analysis of the potential impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles projected for 2020 and 2030 in 13 regions of the United States, ORNL researchers explored their potential effect on electricity demand, supply, infrastructure, prices and associated emission levels. Electricity requirements for hybrids used a projection of 25 percent market penetration of hybrid vehicles by 2020 including a mixture of sedans and sport utility vehicles. Several scenarios were run for each region for the years 2020 and 2030 and the times of 5 p.m. or 10:00 p.m., in addition to other variables.

The report found that the need for added generation would be most critical by 2030, when hybrids have been on the market for some time and become a larger percentage of the automobiles Americans drive. In the worst-case scenario—if all hybrid owners charged their vehicles at 5 p.m., at six kilowatts of power—up to 160 large power plants would be needed nationwide to supply the extra electricity, and the demand would reduce the reserve power margins for a particular region’s system.

The best-case scenario occurs when vehicles are plugged in after 10 p.m., when the electric load on the system is at a minimum and the wholesale price for energy is least expensive. Depending on the power demand per household, charging vehicles after 10 p.m. would require, at lower demand levels, no additional power generation or, in higher-demand projections, just eight additional power plants nationwide.

In other words, what you did is quote the worst-case scenario, based upon charging at 5pm.

Please note that our 2002 Toyota RAV4-EV has a timer that starts charging at a time of your choice. This makes it trivial to shift charge time to 10pm, i.e. what ORNL calls the best-case scenario, or midnight or whatever. Hardly high-tech. What is even better is what is mentioned in the ORNL article (give it a read). It is extremely unlikely that our nation would go down a path of deploying a large fleet of PHEVs without charging feedback. The payback from letting the utilities control charging is great.