Anyway, I don’t believe their numbers for CSP. The slight positive cost versus polluting technology is OK, but the amount of potential is ridiculous. Solar Base Load can go to any scale that is needed, and everything I’ve found so far points to a penny or two per kwh to move it 4500 km.

What else did they get wrong?

Mike

I appreciate the way you state the difference between a PHEV and a Prius. Thus, you avoid confusing the two different goals of (1) cutting use of foreign oil and (2)reducing the CO2 emissions. While these goals could be substantially complementary, the move to propel cars with electricity has serious consequences if your “expected” green sources do not pan out. At least you clearly state the condition whereby things could be ok.

For those of us who begin with the world as it is and form our expectations based on economic and political reality, it seems best to not get carried away with the plug-in until the “green” conditions come to pass.

It is anticipated that the use of electricity in the USA will increase significantly by 2030 and that 81% of the incremental load will be filled by coal fired generation. This is a DOE projection as reported in the McKinsey analysis report discussed above. Conversion of heat from coal to electric energy was 33% efficient in the USA in 2005 (see http://www.miastrada.com/analyses).

If anyone is interested in a definite analysis, the reference case of a production Prius versus a specific conversion is an interesting basis for discussion. The production Prius has a measured engine efficiency of 38% whereas as a Hymotion conversion reduces the efficiency of this engine to 32%. (These are measures by Argonne for a “UDDS” driving cycle.) Further, coal produces more CO2 per BTU than gasoline. Therefore, the effect of converting to plug-in operation will be to substantially increase the emitted CO2 whether it is operating on the battery or the engine.

Increasing the battery pack to get from a Prius to a PHEV would be quite expensive given today’s battery prices, but doing so would greatly reduce the amount of petroleum burned. And if, as expected, an ever larger amount of the replacement electricity comes from green sources a lot of carbon would remain under the ground where it belongs.

I look forward to reading a more substantial analysis.

“Borrowing could potentially finance many of the costs, thereby effectively limiting the impact on near-term GDP growth. In fact, depending on how new low-carbon infrastructure is financed, the transition to a low-carbon economy may increase annual GDP growth in many countries.”

Like any I/O or econometric model, there are myriad assumptions embedded within it. If we use smarter policies, we will get more carbon than projected, AT A LOWER COST.

The McKinsey findings are big — but the acknowledgment that smart, creative policies could get us even more carbon for less money — and that fiscal and financial strategies are at the core of getting more for less — is even bigger.

Note that MGI curve is for 2030. We’ve got a lot more to do by 2050. And then 2070. And then 2090.

Agreed. This is especially the case if we initially overshoot a particular stabilisation target, which is likely, given the political situation at the moment.