How often have you seen surveys of "alternative fuels" that talk only
about the revolution in biofuels and the hydrogen dream? Two recent
reports show the impact of PHEVs -- advocates of other solutions see
how much attention electricity is getting and are starting to push back.


2 'green' technologies race for driver's seat
Fuel cells and plug-ins vie for funding and favor that could decide
what's on the road.
By Ken Bensinger Los Angeles Times Staff Writer December 8, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-garage8dec08,1,5837240.story?coll=la-headl\
ines-business
A provocative story, worth reading, though the author makes somewhat
arbitrary choices in which contentions from hydrogen and electricity
advocates he chooses to analyze or solicit responses to. It continue
a long-term theme we often encounter, where the reporter, unable to
evaluate assertions and counterclaims, seeks safety among those who
proclaim they are "above the fray," ecumenically "not picking
winners" but backing every horse.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/khosla-calls-plug-in-cars-toys-366.html
Khosla Calls Plug-in Cars 'Toys'
Greentech venture-capital star says meaningful climate-change
solutions won't come from plugging vehicles into electric outlets.
by: Rachel Barron, Greentech media, December 6, 2007
Long-time VC Vinod Khosla, heavily invested in conventional and
cellulosic ethanol companies, dismisses PHEVs and EVs. I was going to
post a comment, including the questions, "which would you rather
transport and store: electrons or molecules?" and "will batteries or
engines get much better sooner?" but I saw that the blog commentators
had already done a very good job responding.


At the same time, these stories raise important issues and have been
the spark for our related broad comments:

At this point, looking at the reality of the auto industry, the
15-year love affair with the IDEA of hydrogen fuel cells for cars
appears to be winding down. Just in time, alas, new mirages appear
and to enable the continuing evasion disguised by platitudes like
"let a hundred flowers bloom," and "there's no silver bullet."

Of course, diverse solutions are THEORETICALLY available. Saying so
enables advocates of a multitude of liquid fuels, most notably
especially corn ethanol, to try to extend for many more years the
benefits they get from today's unequivocally non-level playing field
of resources, incentives and mind-share. Advocates of the status quo
hold most of the cards because favored treatment for liquid fuels and
internal combustion engines is deeply embedded throughout the global
economy. Thus those who insist the government "not pick winners"
thereby continue as the de facto winners.

Three examples:
* In the still-barely pending Energy Bill, we may be grateful that
plug-in cars are starting to get some attention -- but the bulk of
resources go to liquid fuels, including production goals of 15
billion gallons of corn ethanol (a loser as a fuel from the
perspectives, among others, of energy balance, food vs. fuel and
water-use) and 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol (if and when
it's available, along with a new delivery infrastructure).
* We have to ask, what rational society would EVER consider funding
even research into coal-to-liquid technologies, when using
coal-powered plants even to fuel plug-in cars would result in far
less CO2 emissions?
* How can anyone bet the globe's future on the possibility that we
might in time be able to capture and sequester CO2 in ways that are
secure, available in geologic formations near power plants worldwide,
and cheaper than spending money now to reduce the cost of renewable fuels?

If we apply a highly practical standard, such as "what's achievable
during the four-to-eight years of the next President's
administration," plug-in cars will come out ahead of EVERY
liquid-fuel solution available. They require no new infrastructure
and no new technology -- though we'd have to build lots more motors
and extension cords and vastly ramp up battery production. A fraction
of the incentives proposed for liquid fuels, applied directly to
incentives to buyers and sellers for volume production and to a
federal battery guarantee program (as proposed by several
Presidential candidates and by Brookings' David Sandalow in "Freedom
From Oil: How the Next President Can End the United States' Oil
Addiction" -- available at http://www.calcars.org/books.html ) would
significantly improve battery economics. And continued near-term
research and pre-commercialization activities would bring better
batteries to market while the carmakers are increasing production of
PHEVs as primary family vehicles and EVs as second family cars.

If we commit to a goal of "more electricity in cars," it's also
possible to convert hundreds of thousands of Prius and other hybrids
and even to retrofit tens of millions of today's cars and trucks to
power the second axle electrically.

At the same time, we can offer some reassurance to those who want to
be sure we embrace a "silver buckshot" approach that doesn't preclude
any promising solution. Once we power commuting miles electrically,
there's definitely a place for low-carbon biofuels that have no
unintended negative impacts and don't consume vast resources. A
multiple-fuel approach is embedded in two ways within the
electrification of transportation: first, all plug-ins are powered by
a grid that can accept almost any energy source (and could even run
someday on biofuels), and second, PHEVs' range extension fuel can
evolve to be any liquid fuel.


-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer fkramer@...
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --