The looming "Carmageddon" in Los Angeles made the front page of today's Wall St. Journal, as residents there brace for the two-plus day closure of ten miles of the famed San Diego Freeway (I-405) this weekend. The disruption is apparently required to allow for some demolition necessary for the construction of new high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on the 405. As locals assess their alternate routes--there are many--they might also want to spend some time thinking about who will be allowed to drive in those new HOV lanes. California recently decided to deny ordinary (non-plug-in) hybrid cars that privilege, in preference to plug-ins and other alternatively fueled vehicles. The new policy and the one it replaces both reflect muddled thinking, but I would argue that abandoning hybrids at this juncture is a mistake, at least if saving gas is still a priority in the Golden State.
I routinely commuted on that stretch of the 405 between the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) and the Ventura Freeway (US-101) when I lived on the West Side and worked in Mid-Wilshire and later in the San Fernando Valley. I carpooled for part of that time but for most of it, like most other Angelenos, I drove alone. I would have found the option of going solo in the HOV lanes a very appealing way to avoid the frequent stop-and-go traffic, and that's why offering that right to hybrid cars has been a useful non-cash incentive to boost their sales. State officials apparently concluded that normal hybrids are now commonplace, so the incentive should be shifted to the even more efficient cars now becoming available. They have emissions data on their side, because California's electricity mix is dominated by hydropower, nuclear and efficient gas turbines, plus a growing contribution of non-hydro renewables, though it also includes some imported coal-fired power from the Four Corners region. A plug-in should indeed emit less CO2 (directly and indirectly) than a Prius-type hybrid under those conditions.
What I think the state's regulators have missed, however, is that simpler hybrids, which currently enjoy no other incentives, still look like an equally effective way to save gasoline. That's particularly true if most buyers of plug-in cars are choosing them in preference to non-plug-in hybrids, rather than instead of gas-guzzling conventional cars. It comes down to the simple, but often counter-intuitive math of fuel economy the way we calculate it in the US, yielding diminishing gallon savings for increasing miles per gallon (see chart below.) Consider a 50 mpg hybrid that replaces a 25 mpg conventional car. Driven 12,000 miles per year, this choice saves 240 gallons per year. Trading in that hybrid for a plug-in like a Nissan Leaf only saves an additional 240 gallons per year, while a Chevy Volt would save somewhat less than that, unless it were never filled up.
Moreover, plug-ins didn't lack for incentives already. In addition to the federal tax credit of up to $7,500 per car, California offers its own rebate of up to $5,000 for qualifying plug-ins, which also receive discounted rates for electricity. Then there's the money the state is investing in recharging infrastructure. Whether or not the aggregate level of incentives is justified on grounds of economics, environmental and energy security benefits, throwing the HOV benefit on top of them seems like an unnecessary gilding of the lily. The 85,000 hybrids that were given the sticker allowing HOV access for solo drivers still represent a tiny fraction of the state's 39 million registered motor vehicles, and offering 40,000 new stickers for EVs won't make a noticeable dent in California's emissions, or its 40 million gallon-per-day gasoline consumption.
I don't know whether this weekend's Carmageddon will live up to its name, or like L.A.'s 1984 Summer Olympics result in lighter-than-normal traffic because motorists had enough notice to allow them to plan ahead. Yet it does seem that continuing to offer HOV access for non-plug-in hybrids would provide a meaningful incentive for a class of gas-saving vehicles that still represents only around 3% of US car sales, at no cash cost to the state. And if the state is truly concerned that a growing hybrid population could choke the HOV lanes and make them less useful for everyone, an even better option would be to auction the stickers, with only buyers of hybrids, plug-ins and other alternative fuel cars eligible to bid. The proceeds might be sufficient to relieve the state's battered budget of a large portion of the cost of the cash subsidies they're already paying on plug-in cars.
Carmageddon, Hybrid Cars and Diamond Lanes
Other Posts by Geoffrey Styles
E15's Problems Are Symptomatic of A Failing Biofuels Policy - May 22, 2012
Are Chesapeake's Problems A Red Flag For Shale Gas? - May 17, 2012
Where Gas is Already $10 per Gallon - May 9, 2012
Resources from Space? - May 4, 2012
US Natural Gas Price Nears $10 per Barrel Equivalence - April 30, 2012
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
BillWoods said:
It comes down to the simple, but often counter-intuitive math of fuel economy the way we calculate it in the US, yielding diminishing gallon savings for increasing miles per gallon (see chart below.)
It would be less counter-intuitive if we flipped the numbers, figuring fuel per distance (gallons / 100 miles, or whatever).
Geoffrey Styles said:
Having been exposed to that approach in Europe (liters/100 km) I found it facilitates much easier comparisons of fuel use among different vehicles. It might take us nearly as long as the entire energy transition to get there, though. Recall the efforts to convert to the metric system in the 1970s.
Amelia Timbers said:
I like gallons per 100 miles a lot! Why don't we do this?
Geoffrey Styles said:
We actually already are. If you look at the new EPA sticker for cars, you'll see the gallons per 100 miles shown in smaller numbers below the traditional mpg figures. It'll be interesting to see if this catches on with consumers.
RickEngebretson said:
I'm not a car expert. But it seems the real opening for new fuels is in hybrids. I do understand batteries, and seriously doubt EVs.
Old tractors have large pistons and lots of torque. And it seems most cars and fuels were derived from that model.
The electric drive-train hybrid potentially liberates both engine and fuel from the high torque burden.
It seems we might one day be able to generate electricity for both grid and transportation from the same engine and fuel technology.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Rick,
Spot on. One of the big pluses in the system GM used for the Volt is that its onboard generator could be anything: ICE, fuel cell, microturbine, or even a nuclear thermoisotopic generator. As I understand it, that's not true for the Prius, in which the pistons are still turning the wheels, with a little help from a traction motor tacked onto the transmission. However, as interesting as I find the Vehicle-to-Grid concept, the question I always come back to is whether you'd truly want to rent (and depreciate) your $30k car to your local utility for a few cents/kWh. That's one reason I'm intrigued by the Better Place concept, in which the company optimizing the battery between grid and car owns it, and just sells you the mobility it provides as you need it.
RickEngebretson said:
I have no plans to compete with utilities. Right now we have severe storms and when the power goes out we are helpless until some brave guy climbs a pole to restore a thousand(s) volt line so we can complain online about the utilities again. Try 20 years of blizzards with little kids, or milking cows by hand. I once generatead all my power, never again.
I like your outlook: we must evolve our energy system, VERY carefully. But we MUST.
When I was a kid we built an electric car with an extension cord and sold rides because it accelerated like NOW. My kid took me for drives in California in a Prius on roads I would never drive my first car, a 1960 Dodge. I went to the Black Hills with that "batmobile" and had all my strength on the brakes.
Lots of good progress and opportunity out there. As I'm sure you know.
Amelia Timbers said:
You could look at the denial, which- I agree is foolish- as an effort to ensure return on the investment in EVs that you mentioned.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Amelia,
If EVs need HOV lane priveleges to "ensure return on investment" on those cash subsidies of up to $15,000 per car (including home recharging) then the whole proposition is flawed. The effective cost per gallon of gas saved vs. a hybrid sums to around $6 per gallon. Not clear how either California or the US government can afford that today. Now if you were arguing for the HOV right in lieu of the state EV rebate, I'd say you were onto something.
EVs are a great idea, and I expect that eventually they'll make up a big portion of the car fleet and provide lots of benefits, but that doesn't mean we need to practically give them away. Many early adopters could afford to buy them with much lower incentives, particularly when you factor in the level of Adjusted Gross Income necessary to take full advantage of the federal tax credit.
willem Post said:
Amelia and Geoffrey,
Some time a go I wrote an article on EVs.
http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/50925/electric-vehicle-hoopla
I think there are MUCH less expensive ways to reduce gasoline consumption.
Some less costly and quicker measures to reduce CO2 are:
- high-efficiency diesel engines in passenger cars getting 40 mpg are widely used in Europe. This should be implemented in the US before PEVs; a fully mature technology, no-fingers-crossed situation and no subsidies.
- next hybrid/diesel-powered vehicles that get about 50 mpg; again a fully mature technology, no-fingers-crossed situation and no subsidies.
- next plug-in-hybrid/diesel-powered vehicles that have a 40-mile electric range; again a fully mature technology, no-fingers-crossed situation and no subsidies. The benefits are less diesel fuel consumption, but for at least the next 10-20 years more coal-generated power consumption to charge the hybrids, until renewables and natural gas become a greater percentage of US power.
- improving worldwide mpg of future gasoline-powered vehicles. This is an on-going effort that should be accelerated with subsidies. Cars with high mpgs usually are small and low-cost. If tens of millions/yr are sold worldwide, it will have a major impact on reducing CO2.
- increasing energy efficiency. See details below.
- a new annual gas-guzzler use tax on vehicles that get less than 25 mpg would get many of them to the junkyard and replaced with higher mileage vehicles or EVs; the lower the mileage, the higher the tax. The tax would be paid at the time of registration renewal.
Note: a significant increase in the federal gasoline tax was considered, but rejected, because it is too regressive.
The tax could be used to subsidize:
- EVs with battery capacity of 25 kWh, or less, to maximize CO2 reduction.
- gasoline/diesel vehicles that get 35 mpg, or greater; the higher the mileage, the greater the subsidy. The mpg should be gradually increased with time.
- implement increased energy efficiency.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/
https://solutions.mckinsey.com/climatedesk/getfile.aspx?uid=166ff77f-2a92-4ea1-a462-7f42baf125f5&fp=design%2fDownloads%2fPathwayToLowCarbonEconomy_ExecutiveSummary.pdf&ru=default%2fen-us%2fhidden%2fduplicatedownload.aspx
www.mckinsey.com/globalGHGcostcurve
http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1226616/Pathways%20to%20a%20Low-Carbon%20Economy,%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
PathwayToLowCarbonEconomy_ExecutiveSummary[1].pdf
Geoffrey Styles said:
Willem,
I'm a big fan of diesels, and I agree that if the goal is saving fuel and emissions, there are cheaper options than the current generation of EVs--or at least the current generation of EV incentives. However, I'm also mindful that vehicle electrification looks like a hugely important option for diversifying transportation energy away from oil, to the point that it starts to overcome my natural aversion to industrial policy, which is what our current subsidies for EV buyers and makers boil down to.
I'd rather see a more focused set of incentives for the production of electric-drive vehicles (EVs, hybrids, fuel cells, etc.), to avoid the problem of deployment incentives for wind and solar that end up incentivizing hardware built outside the US, and thus create at least as many "green jobs" outside the US as here. Then I'd prefer a technology-blind set of incentives for vehicle fuel economy, without the sort of gamesmanship that went into the latest EPA/NHTSA rules under which an EV counts twice towards fleet mpg. If we truly care about outcomes--saving gas and cutting CO2--let hybrids, diesels, nat-gas vehicles, plug-in hybrids and EVs compete on the same criteria with more efficient conventional cars and see what happens.
willem Post said:
Geoffrey,
It would be much better to set a performance standard. Performance standards worked well in the past. Fleet average as a standard should no longer be used.
It is time to stop having passenger vehicles with selling points, such as 500+ hp engines and 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds!
For example: Each and every passenger vehicle to get 50 mpg, including Ferraris, Porsches, Caddies, etc., by a certain date.
Manufacturers select whatever technology works best for them.
NO subsidies of any kind.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Willem,
I'm afraid I disagree completely on restricting consumer choice that far. What counts is the fleet average, and as long as that average meets the goals we need, why should we mind if a few folks want to spend up for a high-performance car? They should be prepared to pay the guzzler tax, which I expect would be expanded from current levels. And that tax should apply whether a performance car runs on gasoline, diesel, natgas, H2, or electrons. Using 2x the H2 or electricity seems no more virtuous than burning 2x the gasoline, until 100% of electricity and H2 come from low-GHG sources. (I'm not holding my breath.)
willem Post said:
Geoffrey,
Why should some people with big money be allowed to pollute and contribute to GW more than others with little money? If all people were to go from a to b in vehicles that get at least 50 mpg, it would create a feeling of solidarity regarding GW.
It would likely be much more expensive to have a vehicle that gets 70 mpg. Let people with big money spend it on those vehicles and outdo each other in that arena.
A fleet average mpg means a few people with money get to ride in gas guzzling caddies, say at 25 mpg, while hundreds get to ride in very small cars that must get more than 50 mpg to bring up the average.
Ed Reid said:
Pity the not-very-small people who must ride in those very small cars.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Willem,
You are obviously not a car guy. ;-) The simple answer is because we live in a country in which people are free to buy a huge house, or a fast car, or a yacht, or whatever else they want if they can afford it. (We've just gone through a shakeout on what "afford" means.) And the rest of us can either aspire to have that much money so we can do that, too, or regard those who do with indifference or disdain. If you want to campaign to change the values of wealthy car buyers to favor emissions over performance, go for it. And please note that although many countries in the EU tax the heck out of both fuel and big engines, they leave it to the discretion of consumers whether to buy them or not. Consider that Ferraris, Porsches and many other high-performance machines are built in countries that have committed to meet an emissiions standard equating to roughly 43 mpg by 2015 and 60 mpg by 2020. So we're going to see hybrid Porsches very soon, but they won't get 70 mpg unless they plug in and don't count the electricity in their MPGe calculation, as they should.
Amelia Timbers said:
Actually, even thinking as CA policymaker, I'd prefer ways to subsidize EVs that DON'T lead to tax revenue loss, like HOV. You're right too, that there's no need to do this at the *expense* of hybrids. :-/ it's more likely the redundancy is the result of agencies and legislators acting independently from one another without coordinating efforts.
To me, the core issue on hybrid and EV adoption is that the price of oil is still affordable, even in CA with the state markup. It'll take some shocks, which I am sure will come in enought time, to really wake that market up.
-
Baby You Can Drive My (Electric) Car
Posted May 11, 2012 by Scott Edward Anderson
-
Siemens develops ABS plastic alternative
Posted May 9, 2012 by Doris de Guzman
-
Reduce CO2 and Slow Global Warming?
Posted April 30, 2012 by Willem Post
-
WGC 2012 - 25th World Gas Conference
June 4, 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
-
Ecwatech 2012
June 4, 2012, Moscow, Russia
-
Intersolar Europe
June 11, 2012, Munich, Germany
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Marc Gunther is a writer, speaker and consultant, who focuses on business and the environment. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Jesse Jenkins is the director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. More »
Robert Rapier works in the energy industry and writes and speaks about energy and the environment. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
Dan Yurman is a nuclear energy blogger and writes regularly for Fuel Cycle Week. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Marc Gunther
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Jesse Jenkins
- Lynne Kiesling
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Robert Rapier
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- John Whitehead
- Dan Yurman
Hidroenergia 2012
When: Wed, 2012-05-23 09:00
NERC CIP Compliance Training
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 08:00
Webinar on Transported Asset Protection Association’s (TAPA) Freight Security Requirements and Trucking Security Requirements
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 14:00
Global JOJOBAWORLD 2012
When: Fri, 2012-05-25 09:00
NESCO Town Hall: Security Risk Management Practices for Electric Utilities
When: Wed, 2012-05-30 13:00
Ecwatech 2012
When: Mon, 2012-06-04 09:00

About Social Media Today




