Articles by Gar Lipow

It’s not the key to making renewables work

In his post on the potential of our current grid to support electric cars, John McGrath mentioned V2G in passing.

Electric cars (either hybrids or full EVs) have the potential to be a real-life silver bullet. Anyone who advocates for increased use of renewables is inevitably confronted with the problem of intermittency. With wind, the rule of thumb is that if grid energy supplied by wind grows to more than 25-30%, utilities need to spend prohibitive amounts on "spinning reserve" to even out supply.

Well, a nation driving plug-in hybrids makes for a spinning reserve of amazing proportions according to one estimate (PDF), the U.S. fleet would power the U.S. electrical grid seven times over.

What these estimates neglect is the capital costs of the batteries themselves. The assumption seems to be that since car owners have the batteries anyway, the economics can be calculated based on operating costs -- electricity and inconvenience.

Read and be dazzled by the techno-futurism

David asked contributors for end-of-year lists. Since I normally focus on conservative assumptions, I thought I'd use it as an excuse to look at future breakthroughs and cost improvements.

I was going to weasel by calling these "possibilities," but instead I decided to use the time-tested technique of public psychics: I'll call them predictions, crow over any that come true, and pretend the rest never happened.

1. Power storage that will make electric cars cheaper than gasoline cars.

Ultracapacitors, various lithium systems, lead carbon foam (PDF), and aluminum are among the candidates. The first storage device with a price per kWh capacity of $200 or less, mass-to-power ratio as good or better than LiOn, and ability to retain 75% or more of capacity after 1,000 cycles in real world driving temperatures and conditions wins.

Is hydropower really low-carbon? Time will tell

Back in early November, I noted information suggesting hydropower may not be as carbon neutral as we thought. The word "may" was deliberately chosen.

At the time, I received an angry email from a leading hydropower supporter, which included links to some studies suggesting the data for high emissions was cherry-picked, or didn't take net emissions into account adequately.

I soon found other studies dealing with these objections and suggesting significant net emissions from hydropower. At this point, I was reminded of the debate between warming deniers and climate scientists, except I was not sure which side was which.

The December 2006 issue of Nature contains a fascinating article on the subject: "The green image of hydropower may have been seriously overstated, warn Scientists." The key paragraphs:

Carbon trading it too easily gamed

"Mommy, where do carbon offsets come from?"

"Well, you see sweetheart, when a major polluter and a consultant love money very, very much, they express that love in a special way. Nine months later, the consultant produces an extremely large paper packet."

In theory, carbon taxes and carbon trading yield similar results.(Carbon taxes raise the price of fossil fuels by taxing it. Permits raise the price of fossil fuels by requiring people to buy permits for each unit burned) So why do so many people who support carbon taxes oppose carbon trading? Because in practice they differ catastrophically, something we have good reasons to expect.

The real world record of carbon trading includes: