What will power your next car? Will it be gasoline, diesel, perhaps mixed with biofuel? Or will it be electricity? In case electricity will power your next car, how will it be produced? From coal, natural gas, nuclear or renewable energy?
If you ask me, there's a good chance that your next car will be powered by electricity generated from solar panels on top of the buildings where it will be parked. In case you doubt this, you're not alone... The Energy Information Administration, at least, does not appear to share my view. Last month, it released the 2007 figures on US energy consumption and supply.
Of the energy consumed in 2007, 85% was produced from fossil fuel and 8.3% from nuclear power, while a mere 6.7% came from renewable sources. The tiny orange sliver on the bottom left is solar energy. Solar/PV energy represented a meager 0.081% of the energy produced in 2007, barely more than the 0.066% back in 2000.
The figures show that, while total energy consumption increased, the amount of energy produced from renewable sources actually fell compared to 2006, mainly due to drought causing a decrease in hydroelectric power generation.
Renewables would have fallen even further, had there not been a 26% increase in ethanol, which has received steady subsidies under the Bush administration.
EIA does not appear to see this picture change much, at least 
that seems to be the view presented in its projections to 2030, released March 2009 and shown on the image on the left.
As I've been saying for years, this picture should change dramatically! There should be a massive shift to renewables. Furthermore, ethanol is not the best way to power cars. Growing corn to produce ethanol requires large amounts of land, fertilizer, water and energy, while competing with food production and placing extra burdens on the environment.
As a recent study points out, it would make more sense to convert biomass to electricity, rather than to ethanol. But as said, there are better ways to produce electricity, such as with solar or wind power, rather than by burning biomass. The Bush administration's subsidies for ethanol have produced little or no benefits and have only held back the car industry from making the necessary switch to electric cars. Where we do need oil, e.g. to power airplanes, this could be better produced in algae bags.
The best way to facilitate the necessary shifts is by implementing a framework of feebates. Fees on sales and registration of gasoline cars could fund local rebates on new electric cars and on conversions of existing cars to electric. Furthermore, fees on fossil fuel could fund rebates on local purchase and installation of facilities that produce electricity in clean and safe ways. 
Such fees could be accompanied by import tariffs and export credits to avoid domestic industries becoming disadvantaged. Details should be worked out in an agreement later this year in Copenhagen to affirm the global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.
When looked at in isolation, the technologies associated with electric cars, solar energy, wind turbines and wave power may each not seem commercially attractive at the moment. Combined, however, they can be more viable, e.g. surplus power from wind turbines can recharge the batteries of electric cars at night.
Moreover, clean technologies have in many respects already been price-competitive for quite some time. For years, CETO has claimed that its wave power facilities can generate zero-emission base-load electricity at a cost comparable to existing wind power. GE has also claimed for years that, with a cost of approximately 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt-hour and declining, wind is a low-cost renewable energy source that is less expensive than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation.
Solar concentrators on 1% of the world's deserts could generate more electricity than the world uses, without competing for land with food or urban use. PV-panels can now be made for under $1/watt. Solar, wind, geothermal and wave energy are clean, they don't compete for agricultural or urban land, and they are already price-competitive, while costs will come down further with innovation and economies of scale, as I discussed in numerous articles, such as Reinventing the Wheel, and in the comments underneath.
By contrast, the cost of non-renewable fuel will only rise, when taking into account the harm to the environment and to our health. Furthermore, it requires extensive mining, transport and waste disposal provisions, in addition to government supervision to ensure safety and security. The cost of all that is huge and can only be expected to rise in future - we just cannot keep borrowing and keep sending further money and jobs abroad.
In conclusion, we should change all this, if not for the sake of the environment or our health, then simply for economic reasons and to become less dependent on imports, or for the sake of creating more domestic job and investment opportunities. We can change all this and the sooner we do so, the better.
So, as said, there's a good chance that your next car will be an electric car powered by solar panels on the rooftops of the buildings where it will be parked. Why solar panels? Well, utilities may purchase electricity at a few cents per kWh, but currently peak rates for the end-user with, say, Pacific Gas and Electric Company can be as high as $0.35/kwh. At such rates, it becomes a lot more attractive to use rooftop solar panels to power your car.
The average age of cars and trucks is under 10 years, and so is the median age. Typically, it takes less than a decade for a vehicle to be replaced, so the switch to electric vehicles could be completed in less than a decade, when taking into account that existing vehicles can also be converted to electric.
Well over 80% of US emissions are caused by fossil fuel, i.e. the mining of fossil fuel and burning it in power plants and in transportation. So, by entirely switching to electric vehicles over the next decade or so, and to electricity produced from renewable sources, the U.S. could achieve an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 45 ( 1 removed by Sam Carana )
I would love to have one of these! Great for intown.
I love it too, Diane, thanks for commenting!
Good info Sam, I do like the way you'll present facts that you don't like just to ensure full treatment of issues.
My next car will be gas powered as I am in the process of selection now.
If I can't have a fuel-free magnetic motor, I'll take a "Flintstones" car that we can power with our feet.
I'd like to look into a electric car more
I will be looking at a plug-in hybrid the next time I buy a car. I get 62.2mpg now, and hope to top 100 mpg with my next car. Eventually, solar will be much cheaper than coal, so I fully expect that electricity will power our cars - hopefully by 2020.
It will take an infrastructure investment on the part of companies to provide plug-in capability to those who park in their lots for this to work, and while it would be great, I'm not sure it will happen any time soon. What I'd like to see is an increase in efficiency on the surfaces of solar cells that allow them to shrink in size (we did it with computer chips) so we could mount charging strips on car roofs. Those of us who don't have a garage are less likely to buy plug-ins (no refueling potential) until that happens.
Hi Sam: Interesting page. Two distinct but related issues here: 1) replace petroleum-loving cars and trucks with efficient electric vehicles to wean us off dwindling supplies of soon-to-be-expensive and problematic oil, and also, 2) make the electricity needed by those cars as cleanly as possible: conservation, co-gen, renewables. Electric cars and clean energy are valuable - and complimentary - goals. I think that the migration to electric cars and trucks will really pick up steam in the next few years when oil shoots above $150/bbl AND STAYS THERE!
There's a big difference between states - generally, the western states generate electricity in much cleaner ways. Of electricity generation, the share of hydro energy is nearly three-fourths in Washington and more than one-half in Oregon. In 2005, only 1% of electricity in California was generated by coal, as opposed to 50% for the U.S. at large.
Ford Taurus! And gasoline!
I cant live my life driving a tuna can
Traumatized by that Ford Pinto, huh? Perhaps, you could up-date your information on fuel efficient cars.
Excellent post, Sam, well written, documented and presented. I do hope most cars will be electric by 2020, powered by renewable energy.
Thanks all for commenting!
I just bought a 1997 Mazda protege for $4000 because our family needed an extra car. It is of course gasoline powered of course, and does not even get great mileage, only around 28 miles per gallon. I feel quite guilty buying this, but right now the plug in hybrids are not on line and we don't realy have enough money anyway.
next car will be either a plug in or a high efficiency hybrid.
I think you are going to find that gasoline is going to power the big majority of cars as long as their is a drop of oil left in the ground.
People talk about the value of plug ins but as long as we are using conventional sources of energy to make electricity its a useless gesture.
I don't know, Jack. More people are realizing the hidden costs of oil - mideast wars, "to protect our vital national interests in the region," and the major funding souce for terrorism.
I'm barely an above minimum wage paid worker bee, so I will never be able to afford to buy any of this. Glad I got a bicycle for xmas, buy even then, I'll have to get up awfully early to peddle to work in the rain, cold, or heat, on my bike, since I live 18 miles outside of town.
I hope whatever alternative fuel is developed, I can pay for it by trading some of the treasures stored in my bulging garage attic!
how about water!
GM & Chrysler are dead
others will soon follow
time for someone to think outside the box
Looking at the electric rates which are continually rising what do people think it will cost to plug a car into their home for 8 hours or so? Electric rates are going to keep rising and people are hard pressed to keep their lights on now so how will anyone be able to put the burden of charging an electric car on their plate. Vacation, does anyone think they will plug into a motel for free?
Just the scam of carbon credits to corporations are already guaranteed to increase your power bill by 50%.
We have the technology to start getting rid of carbon based fuels so why don't we put the horse in front of the cart for a change.
Steve terrorism stops when America stops creating it. Investing money in blood for oil wars to dominate the energy market should not be our goal. Our goal should be to gain clean energy independence.
I should add that the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) is scheduled to increase the non-hydroelectric part of renewables over the next few years. EIA has updated its outlook to 2030 accordingly, as shown in the image below, from the Department of Energy's FY 2010 Budget presentation.
Nonetheless, the share of renewables will remain small by 2030, even in the updated projections. At a recent lecture at MIT, Steven Chu, secretary of energy, said that "solar power, for one, is still far too expensive to compete with conventional power plants (except on hot summer days in some places, and with subsidies). Making solar cheap will require 'transformative technologies', equivalent to the discovery of the transistor", he said.
I disagree with that, as explained in the article, and call for a huge investment in renewables, funded as part of a framework of feebates.
Any fees taxed on to energy such as carbon credits just raises the cost to the public and is just more political cronyism with Obama and energy corporations.
Cap-and-trade, carbon taxes or fees, any such policy will increase the price of fossil fuel, that's the very idea - backed both by Obama and McCain during the election.
Now is the time for Obama to back the most effective way to facilitate the much-needed shift to renewables, which in my view is a framework of feebates. The proceeds of fees on fossil fuel should fund rebates on local facilities that produce electricity in clean and safe ways. Similarly, fees on sales and registration of gasoline cars could fund local rebates on new electric cars and on conversions of existing cars to electric.
Its just another scam Sam that is going to be put on the public. Why not come up with something that makes the energy cons pay their own way for using fossil fuels?
Feebates will do precisely that, Jack, and more. Fees should be imposed on fossil fuel, with the proceeds used to fund rebates on local renewable alternatives. This should be complemented by further feebates, such as on vehicles to facilitate electrification of transport. In my view, such a framework of feebates constitutes the most effective way to facilitate the shift to renewables, but if you have another proposal, Jack, feel welcome to post details.
Feebates just encourage corporate hacks to keep using carbon based fuel sources at the public expense and will not solve anything.
Jack. I don't agree with your apparent pessimism about cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and feebates. Indeed, pessimism is an obstacle to any successful approach to limiting the consequences of climate change. All of these approaches have problems, no doubt. However, cap-and-trade has a history of success with other forms of pollution (and is endorsed by Environmental Defense). And feebates, IMO, are the best solution because the revenue raised is specifically targeted toward renewable energy or efficiency projects or products. The idea is to discourage fossils, while encouraging renewables. So I don't understand the logic of your above statement.
Feebates are the most effective way to achieve the shifts that need to take place, and feebates should therefore be part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with global warming. That's my view, Jack, but as I said before, if you believe you have a superior proposal, feel welcome to post details.
Electric cars may get a boost from a new kind of battery. This article says the researchers expect the battery to be commercially available in 5 years.
Air-fueled Battery Could Last Up to 10 Times Longer
Fascinating, Steve, thanks for posting! This shows again the importance of keeping feebates broad, i.e. to be eligible for rebates, alternatives merely need to be clean and safe; market mechanisms can further sort out what works best. This avoids that the policy feeds a bureaucracy and that politicians subsidize companies in return for political donations.
Pessimism has nothing to do with it. Its fact that people cannot afford to pay their rising electric bills now and taxing the public to pay for corporate pollution is nothing but political cronyism.
Staying with conventional carbon fuels is not the answer to environmental destruction.
Putting fleets of electric cars on the road before their is a clean energy source to power them is a failure to take the right steps in the right order Something government is very good at.
In any case you are going to find that their will not be any meaningful legislation to clean up the environment as proven by Obama and his continued wars to dominate the carbon based energy market.
Global warming is accelerating at a rapid pace and it will continue to move faster as long as global warming is allowed to be a political issue.
More people are starving worldwide because of the increase of arid land that cannot be farmed, our own water supplies are being decimated and polluted thanks to chemical fertilizer.
We need real legislation that does not allow more corporate welfare from the public not burdens that the public can no longer afford.
Use of fossil fuel should be discouraged, and that's precisely what fees will do. With feebates, the proceeds of fees will then pay for rebates that encourage the use of better alternatives. Such rebates make these alternatives more affordable. The combined fees and rebates are doubly effective in making alternatives comparatively more attractive.
Electric cars cause less pollution, even when powered by electricity produced by coal-fired power plants. Feebates can also help tackle desertification, by encouraging better water management, enrichment of soils and vegetation, a better diet, use of solar cookers, etc.
Where the Obama administration does not go far enough, we should come up with better proposals. In my view, feebates should be part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with global warming, but - as I said before - if you believe you have a superior proposal, feel welcome to post details. What "real legislation" are you calling for, Jack?
Using available technology that will make us independent of coal. Taxing the public to continue the use of carbon based fossil fuels is nothing but political cronyism and does not move us one step closer to becoming energy efficient or cleaning up the environment.
Politics has taken place of scientific fact and as usual the public is the big loser.
Feebates can halt the construction of further coal-fired power plants, as they make better alternative more attractive. What do you propose instead, Jack? How do you propose to build up the alternative energy facilities that we need?
By putting public lands and public tax money into green energy in place of paying corporate hacks to continue to destroy the environment.
Rather than putting bureaucrats in charge of business, Jack, I'd prefer to see market mechanisms at work, within the constrains of feebates. And rather than seeing hard-working people taxed, I'd prefer to see polluters taxed to help get the changes we need.
That's the whole problem Sam bureaucrats are in charge and who do you think these fee bates are going to be paid by? They will be paid in the form of a 50% cost increase on every taxpayer bill. Fee bates are just a scam to make the public pay for corporations to keep destroying the environment.
Obama needs to get off his soap box and start putting green technology to work and get off the phony clean coal scam that is detrimental to the atmosphere and all life.
No Jack, feebates are NOT funded by the average taxpayer and the proceeds are NOT given to polluters. Instead, the fees are imposed on users of polluting products and the proceeds go to users of clean alternatives.
As I often said, Jack, to reduce greenhouse gases, we need global commitment and local implementation, i.e. with each area deciding how to achieve the minimum reduction targets of a global agreement.
Having said that, I remain convinced that a framework of feebates is a more effective way to achieve reductions than the standards-and-subsidies approach that you appear to call for.
Subsidies constitute a burden on the taxpayer and raise prices for all consumers. Furthermore, the companies and projects receiving the subsidies are typically hand-picked by politicians, which risks bribery and feeding a wasteful bureaucracy with interests counterproductive to the stated aims.
By contrast, feebates can be self-funding. Fees on polluting cars can fund local rebates on clean cars. So, those who switch to clean cars are not burdened by fees, but instead benefit from the fees, in the form of rebates.
great article. im not sure if I can afford to buy anything other than a 4th or 5th hand car next, but the one after that, hopefully will be a "green" car.
This shows that such regulations aren't the most effective way to accomplish the shift we need. In some respects, they are counterproductive, as they keep coal-fired power plants alive, at the expense of better alternatives. The best way to facilitate the shift we need is by means of feebates, e.g. by imposing fees on fossil fuel, while the proceeds are used to fund rebates on local facilities that produce electricity in ways that are clean, safe and secure, such as solar, wind, geothermal, tide and wave power.
That doesn't mean that we should stop using biomass as a source of energy altogether though, in fact we need to use more biomass as input for pyrolysis, which can produce both biochar and hydrogen.
you are a wonderful advocate for all these new technologies. You are helping us understand how to move the US into the 21st century.
thanks!