Comments by Steve Frazer Subscribe

On Willing to Pay Extra Tax to Drive an Electric Vehicle?

Bob - please forgive the delay, I run 7 firms on 4 continents. The other thread became too thin, but the comments contain your references vs. the references of others. I did not see any reference to start/stop technology for advanced diesel, EV power needs to consider power generation + fuel + impact from facility construction and also, there is no reference to 2nd generation feedstock off-sets - advanced diesel engines running 2nd generation feedstock sourced biodiesel are CO2 emission negative. Actually, there are labs suggesting that advanced diesel engines running 2nd generation feedstock with additives could clean the air while running within the coming years. Briefly, let's talk solar arrays. The necessary solar array scale to power a 30% EV migration is, well, ridiculous. Even the vast majority of CA is a poor choice for solar panel arrays due to humidity based on the inconceivably massive volume of rare earth and heavy metals required to manufacturer these solar panels. ALL arrays should be installed in <10% humidity climate regions to maximize our remaining resources. This then requires long haul transmission from the southwest, or the return to the National Smart Grid discussions and $T's in wiring and infrastructure. I've volleyed much of this many times before - 1 link below - please review. Basically, your arguments are superficial as are the majority of the research papers you are citing. To understand the problem you must embrace the entire, multi-tiered challenge of where we are today, the resources remaining, the economics of these issues and evaluate our short-term vs. long-term options. The cop-out that someone will invent something does not work here. EV's effectively "burn" minerals that we don't have. Even a 90% recyclable EV burns 10% per cycle and that is not sustainable (as if we had the minerals to manufacture that number to begin with). If you are not willing to take on a wider scope then this effort is moot. I will address your EV vs. ICE weight issue; when I stated that EV's weigh more than a comparable advanced diesel vehicle, that was not an off-the-cuff statement. While a Leaf is only a few hundred pounds heavier than a Jetta TDI, when you get into trucks and SUV's the difference becomes substantial due to the batteries vs. fuel that is burned during use. When you burn the fuel, the vehicle's efficiency increases due to less weight, while an EV still has to haul around its dead batteries. EV's that run off of grid power via wireless charging is an interesting direction, but again, likely to be a double digit $T price tag and this would require still more rare earths and heavy metals. Battery technology is mature which in industrial circles means single digit improvements in efficiency is to be expected per decade rather than some factor or radical leap forward in battery advancement at this point. Frankly, due to reduced mineral availability - therefore radically higher costs - battery efficiency may start to fall in the coming years. Massive migration to EV's simply has no chance when all the factors are considered. We may mine the minerals of Mars and the asteroid belt sooner than most believe. Regards http://etcgreen.com/general/blogging-on-renewableenergyworld-com

On Willing to Pay Extra Tax to Drive an Electric Vehicle?

Again, we respect your good intentions, but your information is far from reality. We are engineers, several of whom also hold MBA's in Finance and Economics. We have an Aerospace Division and build aircraft for the government. We have a Mining Division and hold 57 mining claims and maintain Federal Mining ID's and MSHA safety standards in adverse conditions. We are serious people. 1. The U.S. grid has 4 basic components: source generation, transmission, power distribution units (PDU/sub-stations) and target customers. While it is true the source generation may be able to support possibly a 100% EV migration today, the transmission, PDU network and customer service lines would have to be upgraded - as yours likely was when you installed your high capacity charger. There is a section about this in the article - the price tag is estimated at $14T. 2. Why would you make such a statement to suggest any 4 wheeled, enclosed vehicle cost only $.04/mile to operate. The cost per/mile of any vehicle includes the purchase price, taxes, insurance, maintenance, fuel costs, recycling costs, (subtract the fair market value) all divided by the number of miles traveled in the vehicle. Sorry to be the one to break the news, but studies show that a Leaf is running about $.85/mile at the end of its life cycle (est. 130,000miles) while a VW Passat will cost about $.22/mile at the end of its life cycle (est. 300,000miles). Your EV will cost about 4x as much as a comparable advanced diesel vehicle. 3. An EV uses 2x - 10,000x the amount of rare earth and heavy metals (we have compiled the matrix) than an advanced diesel vehicle. This is unsustainable, the impact to the planet is staggering, the Chinese death toll to support this effort is horrific, the coal emissions to recharge EV's is 1,000x that of an advanced diesel running biodiesel from 2nd generation feedstock, ... 4. Computers for EV are still a specialty control system on a limited number of vehicles. While advanced diesel computers have matured from the sale of over a hundred million vehicles already. EV's and plug-in hybrids experience mass electrical failures which require the replacement of this on-board computer. Over 300 replacements are documented in our research records. 5. In this case, your specific private vehicle transportation needs are not in-line with the general public and we salute your choice of lifestyle. An advanced diesel such as a VW Passat has a range of over 800miles per tank if you feel trapped by the limited range of your Leaf. It is not a matter of "taking on" EV's, it is a matter of accurate information to the public about EV's. If your EV works for you, it is a free country, but the information you are publishing is simply incorrect and you need to better research the reality of EV's. If environmental issues are important than you will stop driving an EV very quickly when you realize the impact of your purchase. If you find yourself in the southern Nevada area, look us up, be happy to educate as to the future of transportation in the world. Join the Migration - http://etcgreen.com U.S. Migration

On Willing to Pay Extra Tax to Drive an Electric Vehicle?

Thomas - Wishing? http://etcgreen.com/blog/general/etc-green-crd-jeep-performance http://etcgreen.com/biofuel/jeep-to-offer-diesel-in-u-s-for-2013-models http://etcgreen.com/biofuel/chrylser-is-making-history-2013-ram-1500-diesel If you believe the issue is the availability of the 2nd generation feedstock biodiesel. We have 374,000 acres in management and taking orders at $1.50/gallon at a profit and we are not alone.

On Willing to Pay Extra Tax to Drive an Electric Vehicle?

Bob, Speaking for my entire team of environmental engineers, we thank you for your good intentions. However, you are the victim of a great deal of marketing hype. Please read the article. It is exhaustively researched. Replacing liquid fueled vehicles with electric powered vehicles directly increases the most health impacting emission particulates into the air and our oceans - heavy metals from coal burning power plants. So while the over-all volume of emissions from EV's is lower than gasoline and petroleum diesel vehicles, US power plants are significantly if not still primarily coal powered and so an increase in electricity generation for EV's is worse from a health perspective than emissions from 2nd generation feedstock sourced biodiesel powered vehicles by 3 orders of magnitude (the emissions of one EV that is recharged from a coal powered plant have a greater negative health impact than thousands of advanced diesel vehicles burning B100). Very simply, until EV's are only charged from renewable sources, they will be the direct catalyst for the health issues and deaths of many more people. Please consider a migration to EV's shifts the pollution from a highly regulated, very low emission source, the car engine, to one that is much less regulated and much more polluting in most cases. It's a poor, uninformed choice for a true environmentalist. ....and we run our vehicles on 2nd generation feedstock sourced biodiesel - so, no sir, your EV has the potential (variable power source - Worst Case Mode) of creating 1,000x more emissions than our full-sized, AWD, SUV's and trucks. The U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality uses a testing method labeled, "worst case mode" to determine the true emissions of any vehicle. To explain the basic premise by example: Consider a diesel powered vehicle that will run on B100 with emissions of "X". As with all vehicles operating on U.S. roads, it must be tested for its EPA emission certification. If this vehicle has the potential of running on petro diesel, then the EPA will only test and rate the emissions of that vehicle as if the vehicle would only be operated on petro diesel which would present far less desirable emissions ratings (B100 burns 87% cleaner than petro diesel before additives - 97% cleaner with additives). These undesirable petroleum sourced fuel emissions test results dictate the EPA requires an emissions control system for this diesel vehicle - based on the petroleum diesel only emission tests. Actually no B100 fuel emissions testing is ever performed. This "worst case mode" model has cost the U.S. public in the range of $2T in the purchase of higher volumes of fuel over the past 10 years in that the rest of the world's industrialized nations migrated to diesel and adopted biodiesel fuel mandates over a decade ago and this "worse case mode" regulation has kept the U.S. primarily on gasoline. To apply this "worst case mode" model to an EV and plug-in hybrid as the regulations require, the emissions of an EV are based on the energy generation source. Since EV's are mobile, their emissions per this EPA methodology must only be rated as if the electricity generated for that EV (not limited to the electricity delivered) is sourced from the worst emitting coal plant in the U.S.. My credentials? Undergrad/Grad in Stat Analysis/Modeling 6 years with DoD as an Analysis 2 years with the largest Electric Utility in the U.S. as an Analysis 4 years with DoE as an Analysis 6 years at 2 major universities as a Research Engineer 5 years as CEO of renewable energy corp

On Encouraging Advanced Biofuels Development in a Low Carbon Economy

"As a practical matter, it is very unlikely for advanced biofuel crops to bring greater income to farmers/growers than food crops; and thus unlikely that that food crop would be planted elsewhere. Farmers are most likely to grow what is most financially rewarding. They aren't going to replace high value food with feedstocks for low value fuel. In addition, many other factors influence what is grown where, such as cost of transportation, market availability, land owner preferences (They might prefer to build houses, commercial properties or recreational facilities such as golf courses or horse farms and attendant hay fields.) and most important, soil type, weather (maybe changing weather/climate), altitude, etc. There is little, if any, scientific evidence of indirect land use change related specifically to the increased use of biofuels. See articles by Bruce Dale of Michigan State University and others who have searched for empirical evidence, not relying on economic models designed not for agricultural purposes and with unsubstantiated assumptions about land use." Joanne - It is these types of statements that are causing so much confusion in the masses (and lack of financial support of your organization). All of the crops that ETC grows produce both a food crop and biofuel so the differential has no meaning. Your data will be more up to date, but I believe there were 3 million acres of corn for ethanol in 2002 and 42 million acres of corn for ethanol grown in 2012. Since this about 50% of the entire corn crop of the U.S., I am thinking, yes, biofuels have displaced a radical amount of food production. There is likely a War Room at Langley directing this funding to reduce grain exports to north Africa and the Middle-east which has resulted in the Arab Spring - those people are now starving. Please research Dr. Colin Campbell (Ph.D., Oxford Geologist - Energy Adviser to the IMF and dozens of nations - his long and celebrated career virtually defined petroleum exploration). One interviewer mentioned the challenge of food production per the rising cost of petroleum to feed the current 7 billion world population as it grows to 9 billion. Dr. Campbell's response was to state that his projection was a total world population of 3.5 billion by the end of this century. The interviewer was dumb founded. How does a current 3.5 billion population mass cease to exist in 80 some-odd years? Resources wars, famine, natural disasters, ... Biofuels are not the answer to replace petroleum. Biodiesel from 2nd generation feedstock specifically is the answer. The rest is just migration noise (and evidently population control strategies).

On Encouraging Advanced Biofuels Development in a Low Carbon Economy

The article is written by someone with a limited academic perspective which is not uncommon in the universities and National Labs. Even some of the USDA Agents are surprised when they discover there are hundreds of farmers growing 2nd generation feedstock for biodiesel that are also producing a food product. I use to say, "One tree at a time", but then we purchased 3 more automated tree planters. We are targeting 500M trees by 2020 and with economy by scale we will achieve about $40/barrel equiv. http://etcgreen.com/general/american-greatness-letter-to-rachel-maddow

On Willing to Pay Extra Tax to Drive an Electric Vehicle?

The American car buyer ultimately understood the issues as the Volt production plant shutdown (though I am embarrassed for all those poor souls who spoke well of the Volt in the commercials). When a plug-in Hybrid's battery runs low, the liquid fuel engine kicks in and at that point, that engine has to also move hundreds of pounds of dead battery. Even worse, if the on-board computer is set to recharge the battery, then the engine is moving the car, its contents, the dead battery and recharging the battery. To apply this energy model to the Chevy Volt, the battery with structural framework and recharging electronics weighs over 700lbs. So when that battery runs out of power, the vehicle in recharging mode will achieve about 24mppg (Miles Per Petroleum Gallon). If not in recharging mode, the vehicle achieves about 36mppg. Why not drive an advanced 4 door sedan diesel powered vehicle that is engineered to run B100 and achieves 45mpbg (Miles Per Biodiesel Gallon) and never use any petroleum sourced fuel? This is more Green by some factor. ETC Green's AWD, full-sized SUV, Jeep Grand Cherokees achieve 52mppg, provide lower emissions than a Toyota Prius and we never have to plug them in.

On Willing to Pay Extra Tax to Drive an Electric Vehicle?

What an odd perspective to hold on the world around you. Those who use a service need to pay for the service; roads and bridges. Actually, EV drivers need to pay a significantly higher road tax than diesel vehicle drivers as the batteries result in more weight, therefore more damage to the road. May I suggest you review this article and catch up with our future? http://etcgreen.com/general/ev-tech-postmortem

On Natural Gas Vehicles Driving in a Vicious Circle

When we researched the various transportation infrastructure options, we did a complete minerals to recycling (vehicle in between) and fuel source to emissions and $T's would be the correct cost estimate to build the necessary nationwide infrastructure to support even a 10% migration to CNG for the U.S. light fleet. One of the dark secrets that the CNG industry does not advertise is leaks. We reviewed the contracts of 5 conversion companies and all included a caviate that the resulting converted CNG vehicle would never be stored inside a structure; ie a garage. We thought this odd so we interviewed various firms and determined that fleet managers of CNG no longer were "filling up" at 5pm when the trucks/cars were coming back from the work day, but rather would fill up the next morning right before the next shift to minimize the volume of CNG that would leak. The last interview was with the Fleet Manager of Southwest Gas. They do the same for the same reason. The price of NG will hit $6 this year and likely over $8 again by 2015, while the price of advanced biodiesel blends is dropping from increased production. Our direction is clear. Join the Migration http://etcgreen.com U.S. Migration

On Natural Gas Vehicles Driving in a Vicious Circle

I respect that people will have opinions and their preferred mode of transportation might even have a higher viability for their specific needs than the main stream path we are projecting. However, the good folks on this website - virtually all of whom are well educated and worldly in their knowledge and experience - have so many notions for primary transportation solutions and infrastructures. Per my training, this is not a case of cultural or economic differences, this is a case of limited perspective. Our team has worked with thousands of individuals from Scientists in National Labs to high school kids and we are constantly amazed at how little most understand about mineral mining, milling, refining and recycling, fuel processing, logistics, etc. EV's, hybrids, CNG, LNG, compressed air, and gasoline powered vehicles from this point forward will generally receive less support and lower sales. The recent rapid Migration from gasoline to biodiesel powered vehicles in India is a good example. This has been the standard Migration in all industrialized nations over the past 10 years. The only reason it did not occur in the U.S. before now is due to U.S. Federal petroleum subsidies. When they are removed - as the IMF is now demanding of all nations - then too will the U.S. Migrate to advanced biodiesel blends. Join the Migration - http://etcgreen.com U.S. Migration

On Natural Gas Vehicles Driving in a Vicious Circle

CNG requires high maintenance compressors, a multi-$Trillion distribution system, serious environmental impact for extraction (fracking) and is not only the most volatile (unstable and explosive) transportation fuel, but also has the most volatile price history of any energy source over the past 10 years. CNG is a fossil fuel with a finite volume available. It has little future for achieving large scale production status. [2010 - $75 barrel equiv.; 2008 - $340 barrel equiv.; 2006 - $225 barrel equiv.]

For Bob Meinetz:  EV's and Hybrids are not economically feasible or finite resource viable (Batteries/Grid Issues and Peak Minerals) - they have no near future, large scale production potential.  For more information:  EV's and Hybrids are not our Future (http://etcgreen.com).

Considering current options and technologies, biodiesel from 2nd generation, high yield feedstocks (800-14,000 gallons/acre/year) is our only sustainable and economically viable, large scale solution for petroleum replacement. The fact that it is a drop-in fuel saves literally $T's in infrastructure expenditures:

Join the Migration - http://etcgreen.com  U.S. Migration

On Jet Fuel from Trees (or Almost Anything Else)

The author speaks with common sense based on current variables.  However, in the coming years, biodiesel is an absolute reality.  Today's 2nd generation feedstocks are now approaching 1,000 gallons/acre/yr and some are also human and animal food sources. 

There is a massive planting of orchards around the world with blending targets of B5, B10, B20, B40, ..., B100 over the next 20 years.  It will happen as this is the only scalable, environmentally friendly, economically viable and totally sustainable solution we have to petroleum on the table today for all forms of transportation.

Join the Migration - http://etcgreen.com  U.S. Migration