Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

[GRA]

^^^ Yes, and I've seen similar ones recently, along with synfuels.

Re an earlier post of mine, via IEVS:

This Is How Plug-In Hybrids Could Be Fixed To Be Less Polluting Cars

https://insideevs.com/features/456629/plug-in-hybrids-fixed-less-pollutant-cars/

. . . According to Anna Krajinska, emission engineer at T&E, there are three aspects that PHEV manufacturers have to address urgently: motors, battery pack, and charging capacity.

“The average electrical power of PHEVs on sale is less than half – 43 percent – of the power of the internal combustion engine fitted to the car. That means that current PHEVs are closer to conventional ICE cars than BEVs. To improve PHEVs, manufacturers should ensure that the electric power of the car is at least equal to the power of the internal combustion engine by fitting more powerful electric motors to PHEVs. The car should be able to drive at least 80 km electrically, stay in electric-only operation under all conditions, and be capable of fast charging.”

As you are probably aware, very few PHEVs have a fast-charging capability, and most of them fire up the combustion engine just to make up for their small battery packs. This is one of the reasons why PHEVs have emitted carbon in T&E’s emission tests, even if not the only one.

“During T&E's tests, it was found that both the XC60 and X5 switch on the engine when more power – due to faster accelerations – is demanded, decreasing the EV-only range by up to 76 percent. Similarly, while it was not seen on T&E's tests, the Outlander PHEV manual states many conditions under which the engine can turn on automatically, including if the car is not regularly refueled, despite having a charged battery.”

Apart from these situations in which the car demands the engine to work, T&E made its tests under the RDE (Real Driving Emissions) test procedure for 92 km (57.2 miles). That is a longer distance than most PHEV ranges, which implies they will have to switch their engines on anyway, as Krajinska told InsideEVs.

“After 75 km (X5), 37 km (XC60), and 48 km (Outlander), the internal combustion turned on, and therefore CO2 emissions were measured on this test. . . .”

I disagree with much of this, as it assumes all PHEV drivers have the same use case and driving style, not to mention income, and none of that's true.

For example, re power split, the only time I'd be using the battery alone is on surface streets or short freeway trips within the AER; neither requires that the electric motor provide half the total power. For longer distances I want the ICE to have enough power to allow cruising at say 85-90 mph (80 mph, plus some extra power for moderate grades and/or headwinds plus hotel loads); the battery just provides some extra oomph for passing or sustained high speed climbs.

Similarly, requiring 80 km/50 miles of AER is excessive for many people, including me, adds to cost, may reduce cargo/passenger space and, due to added weight, reduces efficiency in both CS and CD modes.

Nor do I see any need to require QC capability, as most of these batteries are so small that charging rates would quickly taper, eliminating much of the advantage of QC and likely hastening degradation. If people want it, by all means give them the option, at least on the larger packs. Personally, given the choice of QCing for 1/2 hour so I can go maybe 40 miles, versus gassing up in <5 minutes so I can go 300 to 600, I know which one I'd pick. L2 is plenty for most PHEV packs.

Certainly, allowing the owner to fully control when the battery is used is a good idea regardless of how someone drives, even though many people won't take advantage of it.

 

[jlsoaz]

There was an announcement, a few years ago, about algae that can produce a gasoline analog from biological waste.

Yes, and this is a little bit of the sort of thing that I am referring to. It is possible that ultimately some of the answers may not lie in any particularly biological process and may just be about some sort of completely synthetic process, sourcing hydrogen and carbon from wherever (the air, water, etc.) and splicing them together, using solar and other zero-carbon energy sources, and then using the end product in existing combustion engines. Existing petroleum refining competencies could be leveraged nicely into manipulating the molecules efficiently. Oil and Refining companies could be thrown an economic bone. My frustration here in part is that they have not taken this bone more aggressively.

A wildcard worth mentioning is that the IPCC seems to have recently started to emphasize Carbon removal and some of that probably means some of the same chemical processes as negative carbon fuel synthesis.

Another frustration point is when folks dismiss too quickly the entire topic as too expensive or not-there-yet. Both Carbon Removal and the related artificial negative-carbon fuel synthesis are (probably) PRESENTLY too expensive and PRESENTLY not there yet technologically. Much the same was said of batteries in the 1990s, and 2000s and 2010s, and is probably still said today by many serious auto industry participants. Yet, we need to discuss these technologies and figure out if/how/when we can get to affordable and workable solutions.

Anyway, as to PHEVs and ICEVs, a true zero-carbon drop-in fuel replacement (which I am guessing could compete somewhat better economically if carbon taxes were imposed vigorously on fossil fuels) could in theory have an advantage over BEV in that in order to be zero carbon (or close) it does not require a new car deployment. In fact, if one does full LCA on vehicles, then by avoiding replacing a vehicle, one could argue that revising the fuel of an in-place PHEV or ICEV could make it, sort of, lower carbon than a BEV, at least for a time. I'm not sure that argument would work fully (PHEV and ICEV are still problematic and inefficient in various ways) but just noting the argument can be explored.

 

[SageBrush]

Both Carbon Removal and the related artificial negative-carbon fuel synthesis are (probably) PRESENTLY too expensive and PRESENTLY not there yet technologically.

I'll bet both my wisdom teeth on this: carbon removal will NEVER be anywhere near as cheap as not dumping it in the air in the first place. Place a $200 per tonne carbon tax now, and feel free to reduce it as carbon removal makes pollution cheaper.

 

[jlsoaz]

Both Carbon Removal and the related artificial negative-carbon fuel synthesis are (probably) PRESENTLY too expensive and PRESENTLY not there yet technologically.

I'll bet both my wisdom teeth on this: carbon removal will NEVER be anywhere near as cheap as not dumping it in the air in the first place. Place a $200 per tonne carbon tax now, and feel free to reduce it as carbon removal makes pollution cheaper.

Isn't pollution prevention often or always cheaper than pollution cleanup? So what? We should in my view simultaneously work on both pollution prevention and cleanup, particularly in a case that involves so much risk to so much capital and life and well-being. We should simultaneously work our asses off at getting a better handle on better innovative improved policy such that the rebound effect doesn't ruin our expensive efforts, should we be fortunate enough to put good effective cleanup in place.

 

[LeftieBiker]

The issue in this case is that it is one or two orders of magnitude harder to remove free CO2 from the air than it is to prevent its release in the first place. Sure, keep carbon capture technologies in development, but it would be a huge waste of money to try to deploy them now, in place of limiting release*. And it would be in place of that, because both are very expensive.

* Capture from smokestacks should be doable economically and on a fairly large scale, soon.

 

[SageBrush]

So what? We should in my view simultaneously work on both pollution prevention and cleanup,

Who is "we" ?

I'll spend my money on using only clean energy, and not pay a carbon tax
You, of course, are more than welcome to spend yours on carbon capture R&D + a carbon tax

 

[jlsoaz]

The issue in this case is that it is one or two orders of magnitude harder to remove free CO2 from the air than it is to prevent its release in the first place.

There are a lot of lives on the line. There is a lot of personal well-being and property on the line. I"m not sure of the meaning of "harder" here, but if we mean more costly in dollars, or more costly in MJL, or more difficult in some other harder to define way, then c'est la vie, but I think we've still got to tackle this in a big way, and soon, and if I'm not mistaken, some increasing noise along those lines has been coming from the IPCC. To be sure, the entropy aspect of why this is hard has always been there, but when assessing pollution cleanup urgency, the questions are not just "is this going to be hard" but "is it possible millions more people will die if we do not do this immediately than if we do?"

Sure, keep carbon capture technologies in development, but it would be a huge waste of money to try to deploy them now, in place of limiting release*. And it would be in place of that, because both are very expensive.

* Capture from smokestacks should be doable economically and on a fairly large scale, soon.

I think we may be a bit closer than you realize to lower-cost more-energy-efficient hydrocarbon synthesis from sustainable sources. However, even if you have the measure of it, we still need to approach this more strongly than kind of keeping it on the back burner. Taxes, which already exist in some places, should be increased, and in my view bonuses or bounties should be offered. Since the end product can either be used as a fuel in a PHEV or ICEV, or used in some other way, or sequestered, then we have our tie-in to the topic at hand. Instantly an existing combustion engine vehicle would become more competitive with a BEV in a zero carbon economy.

As to capture from smokestacks, if the emissions are from non-renewable sources, then it's not something that interests me that much though I suppose it is an initial/obvious low hanging fruit example where all the waste is kind of gathered into one area for easy removal.

By the way, not that you've said this, but if someone else was then going to talk about gaseous carbon dioxide sequestration underground, please do not do so. It is in my view an awful idea and has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Here is why I don't support putting a lot of resources into atmospheric carbon capture: just like the research into fuel cell cars, it's used as an excuse by an industry to drag their feet, while sucking up government funding. I wholeheartedly agree that things are dire, and this is also why I think we should be acting now, rather than researching now...

 

[SageBrush]

Here is why I don't support putting a lot of resources into atmospheric carbon capture: just like the research into fuel cell cars, it's used as an excuse by an industry to drag their feet, while sucking up government funding. I wholeheartedly agree that things are dire, and this is also why I think we should be acting now, rather than researching now...

Exactly

 

[LeftieBiker]

Wow: two Blue Moons in one season.

 

[jlsoaz]

I'll spend my money on using only clean energy, and not pay a carbon tax
You, of course, are more than welcome to spend yours on carbon capture R&D + a carbon tax

that is more or less how a Carbon tax is supposed to work. So, on this narrow issue of fossil fuel taxes, as EV drivers, we would both avoid the tax and watch others pay it, or they could pay high prices for net-zero drop-in replacement fuels. Eventually those prices might come down and we might be envious, but in any event, we would not be particularly involved with that whole thing. Still, we would pay for the higher priced carbon indirectly, since a carbon tax would send price signals throughout the economy. For example, some of the food I buy might not be from the local community and might be trucked in by fossil fuels... and some of those price hikes would likely be passed along to the prices at the supermarket.

 

[jlsoaz]

Here is why I don't support putting a lot of resources into atmospheric carbon capture: just like the research into fuel cell cars, it's used as an excuse by an industry to drag their feet, while sucking up government funding. I wholeheartedly agree that things are dire, and this is also why I think we should be acting now, rather than researching now...

My frustration levels are not just with the lack of drop-in replacement zero-carbon fuels, but with the lack of solid informed productive interchange of ideas that I am able to find on certain topics. In this case, I would ask that you at least inform yourself of the IPCC's approach on this point I have raised of carbon removal into synthetic hydrocarbons Around 2018 there seem to be a number of articles pointing up that just about any of the IPCC scenarios that shows any hope for the future involves carbon removal. For example:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-ipccs-special-report-on-climate-change-at-one-point-five-c

"....To limit global temperature rise to 1.5C without overshoot, some use of NETs will be needed, the SPM notes:

“All pathways that limit global warming to 1.5C with limited or no overshoot project the use of CDR on the order of 100-1,000GtCO2 [billion tonnes] over the 21st century.”...."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-10-ways-negative-emissions-could-slow-climate-change

and
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf

"....The Role of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) All analysed pathways limiting warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot use CDR to some extent to neutralize emissions from sources for which no mitigation measures have been identified and, in most cases, also to achieve net negative emissions to return global warming to 1.5°C following a peak (high confidence). The longer the delay in reducing CO2 emissions towards zero, the larger the likelihood of exceeding 1.5°C, and the heavier the implied reliance on net negative emissions after mid-century to return warming to 1.5°C (high confidence)...."

 

[LeftieBiker]

One “key finding”, says chapter two of the report, is that there are many different ways to meet the 1.5C limit under a wide spread of assumptions about future human and economic development. These pathways reflect different futures in terms of global politics and societal preferences, implying different trade-offs and co-benefits for sustainable development and other priorities.

However, all 1.5C pathways share certain features, including CO2 emissions falling to net-zero and unabated coal use being largely phased out by mid-century. They also include renewables meeting the majority of future electricity supplies, with energy use being electrified and made more efficient.

Investment in unabated coal is “halted” by 2030 in “most” 1.5C pathways, says chapter two. It adds:

“Some fossil investments made over the next few years – or those made in the last few – will likely need to be retired prior to fully recovering their capital investment or before the end of their operational lifetime.”

The chart below shows how CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use change by 2030 and 2050 in 1.5C pathways, versus 2010 levels. For example, global CO2 emissions are cut by around 45% by 2030 and to net-zero by 2050 (dark blue bars). Unabated coal use falls close to zero by 2050 (red bars).

Any scenario that says that carbon capture and sequestration must be a substantial part of the mix is essentially saying "It can't be done with current technology." I think that the case is more "The will to do what is required is NOT THERE - not there in industry, and not there in public thinking." I may be just a slack-jawed ignoramus, but I'm a mouthbreather with some understanding of human nature. Look at what is happening with mask wearing during the pandemic. Now imagine a scenario in which the people dying are in subsequent generations and/or decades into the future, rather than people who are alive today. How many people are going to support carbon capture and the vast expenditures required to implement it, just to save the lives of people in 30 years?

 

[SageBrush]

So, on this narrow issue of fossil fuel taxes, as EV drivers, we would both avoid the tax and watch others pay it,

No, you would pay the carbon tax. That payment would pay for carbon sequestration R&D, which *might* in the future mitigate the global warming pollution you are responsible for through consumption of dirty electricity today

 

[jlsoaz]

So, on this narrow issue of fossil fuel taxes, as EV drivers, we would both avoid the tax and watch others pay it,

No, you would pay the carbon tax. That payment would pay for carbon sequestration R&D, which *might* in the future mitigate the global warming pollution you are responsible for through consumption of dirty electricity today

Thanks, look, in the scenario described, one pays the tax if one buys a product with the carbon tax imposed on it. I had in mind an extra tax on gasoline, which is why I mentioned EV drivers would not pay it. Taxes, whether excise taxes or income taxes or what have you are, by their nature, not some voluntary matter.

It's overdue for me to say a couple of things:

- I'll be trying, at least temporarily, the "foe" feature so I no longer have to read through your unfortunately consistently not very useful comments on my threads. Unfortunately, my understanding is that this feature only hides your comments from me and not the other way around, so it's possible you'll still be able to carry out what appears to be your campaign to throw confusion into my threads.

- To others I'd say if you do decide to respond to me on some point I've made, please respond directly to my comment, and not to Sagebrush's spin.

I should add that I think it's important we each make an effort throughout our entire lives to address our own faults and to allow for those we may think we see in others. If there is indication that you would make some commitment to revising your approach to my threads, I would consider at some point revising my approach on this.

Thanks,

 

[jlsoaz]

One “key finding”, says chapter two of the report, is that there are many different ways to meet the 1.5C limit under a wide spread of assumptions about future human and economic development. These pathways reflect different futures in terms of global politics and societal preferences, implying different trade-offs and co-benefits for sustainable development and other priorities.

However, all 1.5C pathways share certain features, including CO2 emissions falling to net-zero and unabated coal use being largely phased out by mid-century. They also include renewables meeting the majority of future electricity supplies, with energy use being electrified and made more efficient.

Investment in unabated coal is “halted” by 2030 in “most” 1.5C pathways, says chapter two. It adds:

“Some fossil investments made over the next few years – or those made in the last few – will likely need to be retired prior to fully recovering their capital investment or before the end of their operational lifetime.”

The chart below shows how CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use change by 2030 and 2050 in 1.5C pathways, versus 2010 levels. For example, global CO2 emissions are cut by around 45% by 2030 and to net-zero by 2050 (dark blue bars). Unabated coal use falls close to zero by 2050 (red bars).

Any scenario that says that carbon capture and sequestration must be a substantial part of the mix is essentially saying "It can't be done with current technology." I think that the case is more "The will to do what is required is NOT THERE - not there in industry, and not there in public thinking." I may be just a slack-jawed ignoramus, but I'm a mouthbreather with some understanding of human nature. Look at what is happening with mask wearing during the pandemic. Now imagine a scenario in which the people dying are in subsequent generations and/or decades into the future, rather than people who are alive today. How many people are going to support carbon capture and the vast expenditures required to implement it, just to save the lives of people in 30 years?

Ok, sure, thanks, we're up against it, in terms of want-to. We were also there 15-25 years ago with EV battery and other EV tech. Hydrocarbon synthesis tech already exists in many forms, but there's a lot of work left to be done. Trying to decide it's one or the other, as to finance for renewables or finance for cleanup, is missing the point. The message of the IPCC reports is that at least some of both need to happen simultaneously.

In any event, regardless of whether we agree or disagree, the point for PHEVs and ICEVs is that low carbon (if not zero carbon) drop-in replacement fuels have, as far as I know, existed for awhile, but they are expensive and distribution is poor. Assuming at least some progress, whether financed as part of policy programs or not, they are though an answer, to an extent, to whether one might be able to find at least some solution to run one's old piston engine vehicle without badly running afoul of anti-carbon laws of the future.

The last couple of months, Honda has announced exiting from Formula 1 (gasoline powered) but staying with Indycar (E85?). I am unable to track down if Indycar is staying with an ethanol mix, or if Honda took Indycar fuel renewability into consideration. They did take carbon/sustainability it into consideration I believe in the exit from F1. It's not a great example, but I couldn't resist noting the contrast.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Trying to decide it's one or the other, as to finance for renewables or finance for cleanup, is missing the point. The message of the IPCC reports is that at least some of both need to happen simultaneously.

I'm saying that we need to expend most of the available resources on preventing carbon emissions, while continuing to research, on a much smaller scale, atmospheric capture and various forms of sequestration - NOT including injection into oilfields and mines. We need to do what we can do right now, RIGHT NOW. The time for assessing science fiction scenarios that may work in 30-50 years is long passed. Biofuels like algae-produced gasoline analogs are worth pursuing. Fighting deforestation is worth doing. E-85 tech, though, was always a sop to the North American corn growers and to US auto makers who wanted to kick the can down the road - and get paid for doing so. It is the filtered cigarettes of climate change modification.

 

[GRA]

FWIW, via GCC:

Porsche, Siemens Energy and partners advance climate-neutral eFuels development; Haru Oni pilot in Chile

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/12/20201203-haruoni.html

. . . Electrolyzers will use wind power to produce green hydrogen. In a second step, plans call for filtering CO2 out of the air and then combining it with the green hydrogen to form synthetic methanol. The result is renewable methanol, which can be converted into climate-friendly fuel using an MTG (Methanol To Gasoline) technology to be licensed and supported by ExxonMobil.

In the pilot phase, e-Methanol production will initially reach around 750,000 liters per year by 2022. Part of the e-Methanol will be converted to e-Gasoline (130,000 liters per year). In two further phases, capacity is then to be increased to about 55 million liters (14.5 million gallons US) of e-Gasoline a year by 2024, and around 550 million liters (145 million gallons US) by 2026. . . .

The problem, of course, is the energy required to "filter CO2 out of the air," but as jlsoaz noted we may have no choice.

 

[jlsoaz]

FWIW, via GCC:

Porsche, Siemens Energy and partners advance climate-neutral eFuels development; Haru Oni pilot in Chile

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/12/20201203-haruoni.html

. . . Electrolyzers will use wind power to produce green hydrogen. In a second step, plans call for filtering CO2 out of the air and then combining it with the green hydrogen to form synthetic methanol. The result is renewable methanol, which can be converted into climate-friendly fuel using an MTG (Methanol To Gasoline) technology to be licensed and supported by ExxonMobil.

In the pilot phase, e-Methanol production will initially reach around 750,000 liters per year by 2022. Part of the e-Methanol will be converted to e-Gasoline (130,000 liters per year). In two further phases, capacity is then to be increased to about 55 million liters (14.5 million gallons US) of e-Gasoline a year by 2024, and around 550 million liters (145 million gallons US) by 2026. . . .

The problem, of course, is the energy required to "filter CO2 out of the air," but as jlsoaz noted we may have no choice.

Thanks for noting all of this. I can see it enabling someone to hang on to their Panamera PHEV (for example) for awhile longer, rather than having to ditch it (with all the attendant carbon that would cause, in changing out vehicles).

 

[SageBrush]

Trying to decide it's one or the other, as to finance for renewables or finance for cleanup, is missing the point. The message of the IPCC reports is that at least some of both need to happen simultaneously.

I'm saying that we need to expend most of the available resources on preventing carbon emissions, while continuing to research, on a much smaller scale, atmospheric capture and various forms of sequestration - NOT including injection into oilfields and mines. We need to do what we can do right now, RIGHT NOW. The time for assessing science fiction scenarios that may work in 30-50 years is long passed. Biofuels like algae-produced gasoline analogs are worth pursuing. Fighting deforestation is worth doing. E-85 tech, though, was always a sop to the North American corn growers and to US auto makers who wanted to kick the can down the road - and get paid for doing so. It is the filtered cigarettes of climate change modification.

You are not leaving anything to write, other than I agree with you once again. I'm reading Mark Jacobson's book these days. He takes the time to deconstruct these "alternative" solutions as mixtures of impractical, inefficient, or (my words) green-washing. If you would like to read the book, let me know and I'll send it your way when I am finished. Your only obligation would be to pass it on to somebody else when you finish ...

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WWSBook/WWSBook.html