Chinese Electrics Beat the U.S.

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

With Chevrolet’s decision to power their hybrid electric car with batteries made in China, the globe’s greatest polluter may also become the world leader in zero-emission cars. At the 2009 Detroit car expo China shocked the auto industry presenting 3 different working models of electric cars that use the same battery as the Chevy Volt, which doesn’t arrive until 2010 or later.

We are not kidding. Not only does China have 3 working models that will be sold in the mainland this year, but their batteries really are going to be used by GM despite the fact that Detroit vowed that they were going to invent their own battery,

The story gets even stranger when you look at why China is building electrics. Not to save the environment and not to fight pollution although these cars will help with both. China simply has too much coal and imports most of it’s oil. So they can make a lot cheap electricity building more and more dirty coal-fired plants and feed their new middle class, hungry for transportation, by selling them electric cars.

Add that to the fact that the Chinese, as a culture, famous for their low standards of safety, will build those electrics to crash safety standards far below those established for the US. Which is why in the short term we will not see the Chinese electric cars in the US even though they will be available far ahead anything GM, Chrysler or Ford can actually put on a car lot for sale.

What's Really Behind That Changing Price of Gasoline?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

In October of 08 we reported that the Saudi’s believed the wild fluctuation in oil prices was based on commodity market speculators. This week, “60 Minutes” reports that the same investment bank that got billions in bailout money also used commodity trader techniques from Enron to hyper-inflate the price of oil last summer when supply was high and demand was actually diminishing.

And it gets worse. 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft points the finger at Morgan Stanley, claiming that the same company that needed billions in US government bail-out funds also took advantage of deregulation pushed through the Bush Administration’s first term by lobbyists from Enron. Remember Enron, the largest contributor to the Bush 2000 campaign, the oil and gas company that created artificial rolling blackouts in California to successfully raise electricity rates? It’s the same corporation that created fake companies to boost its stock price. Well, according to the CBS news story, those loopholes for oil commodities trades still exist and those techniques used by Enron in California were used to buy and sell oil contracts for a company, Morgan Stanley, that is not in the oil business.

Connect the dots and you have a scenario in which one of the greatest contributors to the global financial meltdown also made the strongest contribution to the world recession by artificially boosting oil prices during a time of increased oil supply and lagging demand.

And what does the Bush administration do? Send them to jail like Ken Lay? No, they receive a $20 billion bailout from the US government.

Clean Coal: The New Weapon of Mass Delusion?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

You heard McCain talk about it, you heard Obama support it in the presidential campaign as well. The clean burning of coal by means of capturing and sequestering its carbon exhaust. Let’s be clear. There is no tested technology existing today to produce "clean coal". Scientists don’t even know if it will work. It’s just a concept brought to you by the coal industry.

Keep in mind that coal plants supply roughly one-half of all electricity in the US! And since it is a domestic source of energy, this dinosaur of energy production has been looking real attractive to our leaders.

The clean coal concept refers to an array of technologies that sharply reduce pollutant emissions from coal-burning power plants. In the 1980s and 1990s, efforts focused on reducing emissions of sulfur, nitrogen oxides and soot — which cause acid rain, damage forests and pollute watersheds.

The latest and larger concern about burning coal is the production of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. This has presented the coal industry with an engineering challenge it has not been able to pull off.

Traditional coal combustion emits far more carbon than other fossil fuels. Thus, maintaining coal as an option for power generation (electricity), will require dramatically reducing these emissions. A breakthrough is critical to the long-term energy needs of the US, which is considered the "Saudi Arabia of coal." Coal represents some 90 percent of the nation's recoverable fossil fuels, with reserves sufficient for 200 years, at current rates of use.

Clean coal depends on being able to ‘capture’ carbon dioxide emissions and then to safely dispose of them indefinitely underground, in a process known as sequestration, capabilities not expected to be commercially deployable until 2020.




There are two leading approaches to meeting the challenge. The first is an advanced steam cycle technology, known as ultrasupercritical (USC) cycles. The other is integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology.

USC promises significant efficiency gains, which could reduce carbon emissions by about a third. The US, long a leader in advanced coal combustion technology, has 170 supercritical units in operation.

IGCC, which is still a few years from commercial deployment, promises a potential quantum leap, approaching zero-emissions. Full-deployment, however, depends on overcoming another technological challenge — not just the ability to capture carbon but also to safely dispose of it indefinitely underground, in a process known as sequestration. This is not expected to be commercially deployable until 2020.

The choice of technology is hardly academic. In planning for new base-load (constant) power plants, utility companies must choose plants with carbon capture capabilities or face steep future costs under anticipated new laws establishing a cost to carbon.

There are just four commercial-sized coal-fired IGCC plants in operation. Two are in Europe and two in the US, one each in Florida and Indiana.

There have been significant capital and engineering investments made in IGGC technology in recent years by a small number of industry leaders, including Conoco Phillips, Shell and GE.

The federal government made a significant commitment to advancing this technology through its $2 billion FutureGen project, but support was withdrawn in January 2008 because of cost overruns and concerns the technology might quickly become obsolete. The next administration is expected to revive support.

Despite the compelling need, there are precious few IGCC projects still being pursued. Known plans include one by Duke Energy and a joint project undertaken by Hydrogen Energy and Edison Mission Energy, a subsidiary of Edison International.

Are there other potential solutions?

Anticipation of some form of carbon controls (most likely a market-based cap & trade system) has stimulated investment in other ways to capture carbon. Most are a variation on how other pollutants have been controlled.

For instance, liquids or solids (or static electricity) are injected into the plant’s flue gas exhaust to capture particles. Carbon is currently captured by exposing flue gas to an ammonium carbonate solution, which is then heated under pressure, reversing the absorption process so pure carbon is recovered. Georgia Tech University researchers recently reported using a solid adsorbent called "hyperbranched aminosilica" to capture seven-times more carbon. The substance can be recycled and reused.

Another capture method uses chilled ammonia, with which Alstom has demonstrated (in a lab) a capture rate of more than 90 percent and at a far less cost. The company is running a pilot project at Wisconsin Energy’s Pleasant Prairie Power Plant.

Technologically-based upstart companies — as well as infrastructure firms — offer investors limited entry into this sector, which is for the most part dominated by large firms.

Petrol Cheaper Than Ethanol?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

Yes, it’s true. The corn-sourced distilled ethanol that is mixed with gasoline is now more expensive than plain old gasoline. Gasoline blenders have always used more ethanol than required because it was cheaper than gasoline. Not any more. With today’s lower oil prices, ethanol will be blended with gasoline by decree from Congress for cleaner air, another finger pointed at a misguided national strategy for alternative fuel.

On a purely voluntary basis, gasoline blenders have always used more ethanol than the required minimum because increasingly high oil prices made ethanol an attractive fuel in its own right. This month with oil under $50/bbl and wholesale gasoline under $1/gal and ethanol at $1.60/gal it makes no economic sense to blend ethanol with gasoline. The national blending requirement will become binding for the first time in 2009. Gasoline blenders will have to use 11.1 billion gallons of ethanol because that is what the law tells them, not because it makes economic sense.

In our last program I shared what it cost the Saudis to extract 1 barrel of oil - $2/barrel or less 4 cents/gallon. Well, I stand corrected. The oil minister of Saudi Arabia was just interviewed by 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl ,and he told her on Dec. 7 of 2008 that it cost LESS than $2/ gallon.

This means that with US current laws, gasoline will be more expensive because of the mandatory blending with ethanol than by itself! This would be inconceivable in the summer of 08 and I don't think Americans have really taken it all in yet. As we talked about on several programs, oil commodity speculators poured billions into futures contracts that artificially raised the price of oil for years finally resulting in the $4+/gallon fiasco of the summer of 2008. When money left the stock market it fled the commodity markets as well forcing oil and gas prices to get closer to their actual Fair Market Value.

The other fear that drove prices up artificially was the notion that the Saudis had somehow reached peak oil production. They have consistently heartily denied this and demonstrated to 60 minutes in Dec. 08 how they intend to actually double their output at least for the next decade.

Today drivers are relieved to get was is essentially a $200/month economic stimulus package but they're also outraged that the stories about India, China, and the rest of the "increased demand" for oil really was only increased demand by speculators!

We also promised on our last program some insight as to what this means for renewables. The magic number for renewables to be competitive is for oil to sell at $35/barrel. It hasn't got there yet so the question we will explore next time is what happens now that gasoline is cheaper and how best to take advantage of it for clean energy. In the meantime, all those who told us that the era of cheap oil is over will have to eat those words at least for now.

Are you driving 75% less? If not, then why is gasoline so cheap?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

We want to know why no one is investigating the relationship between oil prices and oil demand. Unless the world is using 75% less petroleum, it appears that the sky rocket in prices this summer was driven purely by speculation in the energy stock markets. If that’s so, what is the real cost of oil?

We know that it costs about $2/barrel or 4 cents a gallon to pump pure crude oil out of an existing oil well. There also are relatively small transportation and refining costs involved in turning that oil into consumer gasoline.

We know that in America a new oil refinery has not been built in 30 years. And we know that 30 years ago those refineries were producing gasoline that sold for less than 75 cents/gallon. Add to that the fact that in some countries like Iraq, Iran, and Venezuela, gasoline sells for less than 40 cents a gallon right now.

What does it all mean? Certainly this points to the fact that there is no relationship between “demand” and the market price of oil anymore than the value of a company is represented by it’s stock value. Companies can be over- or under-valued in the stock market….So too in commodity markets.

Without speculation inflation, oil would sell these days for between $10 and $20 per barrel with the retail cost of gasoline under a dollar per gallon. Keep in mind that oil sold for $45/barrel in early December 2008, even though OPEC had lowered production by 60 million barrels/month in a vain attempt to create a $50/barrel floor through which prices would not drop. Short term predictions point to even lower oil prices. What does this mean for the consumer and for renewable energy? Stay tuned, we’ll talk about low fossil fuel prices and its effect on renewables in our next program…

Should US Tax Payers Bailout the Electric Car Killer?

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

While the US Treasury and Congress debate whether to save the Big 3 carmakers, environmentalists and renewable energy activists ponder whether General Motors, the Detroit auto manufacturing giant that killed their electric car 10 years ago, should be given a second chance. Some say that the 100 mile-per-gallon Chevy Volt promised in 2010 is too little, too late.

Tax payers are faced with a real dilemma. Should we support bailing out the Big 3 in Detroit? After all, investment banks got federal money to cover credit default swaps, which are unsecured side-bets on imaginary financial instruments. GM, Ford, and Chrysler are real brick-and-mortar companies that build real goods and employ millions of Americans. The news pundits warn that the challenged economy can't tolerate a shut down this large in the Midwest. Imagine hundreds of thousands of auto workers marching on Washington, with the fierceness and fury of Martin Luther King, demanding that Uncle Sam save the most powerful symbol of American manufacturing from extinction and mass layoff of over a million people.

Patriotism aside, how did GM and the rest get themselves in this mess? We may be quick to assume that like the Dow, Detroit is going down with the sinking ship the banking and mortgage crisis. The timing of the sudden run on government bailouts may suggest that the Big 3 are just another victim of the financial fiasco of Oct 08. No, it's just odd timing. Detroit's demise, if it comes to that, is by it's own doing – decades of poor decisions, culminating in it's most recent choice to continue making low mpg cars and trucks, even as gas prices hit $4+. Folks couldn't unload their SUV's and find enough high mpg cars to replace their daily driver. When they did, most of them were made in Asia.

GM made big cars because their ad consultants told them that big cars made drivers feel powerful. When city folks I know, who only drive in the city, purchased SUV's, their excuse to me was always that in a crash, big cars are safer. Physics would support that until every American seemed to be driving bigger and bigger cars.

Instead of making advances in hybrids and eletric vehicles, GM not only discontinued their only electric car after making only 1100, they decided that even less than a thousand on the road offered too much of a challenge to their gas-guzzing hegemony and actually had them towed away from their clinging lessees -- who offered GM millions just to keep the cars -- and crushed them!

Should we really have sympathy for car company that decided it was better to sue the State of California and overturn it's 10% zero-emission law rather manufacture a constantly improving electric car?

And what about this Volt? This hybrid sounds promising: You plug it in to power the first 40 miles, after which a gasoline powered generator makes just enough electricity to keep you going. 100 mpg or more is predicted for the car. Though GM would have you think it's breakthrough technology, it isn't, really. Every diesel locomotive ever made operates on the same principle: generate electricity to power the electric motors pulling the train. They are the most fuel efficient system in the world. When were they invented? 1920. So the Volt, we discover, is an old technology that GM finally decided the American driver was ready for.

The conclusion we come away with is that there is some kind of collusion between oil companies and domestic Detroit Iron. And somehow the wild and wacky speculation in oil futures (which was solely responsible for the dramatic gasoline price hike earlier this year), threw things out of control and drivers got spooked.

The car companies have known about the threat of high gas prices and shortages since the mid 1970's, but to hear the CEO's of these companies talk today, you would think that this problem suddenly occurred in the last few weeks. In a separate story we will talk about the real purpose of GM's introduction of the Chevy Volt - and it's not about getting good gas mileage or lowering our carbon footprint. Stay tuned.

The Company That Killed the Electric Car Brings It Back

Bill Georgevich reporting

Hear the 1 minute show:

General Motors, after having re-introduced the electric car as the E-V1 then sending every one of those cars to the crusher, is now pretending it never happened. Ten years after the death of the E-V1, GM has gone green again, perhaps this time not as begrudgingly. The Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid, is being touted by Chevrolet as not just "gas friendly" but "gas-free", since the first 40 miles can be traveled without the use of any fossil fuel.

Below is a review of the Chevy Volt from Bryan Walsh.

I can see the future of the automobile — I just can't quite hear it. I'm riding around General Motors' secure proving grounds in Milford, Mich., in what from the outside looks like an ordinary Chevrolet Malibu. But inside it couldn't be more different. The test car isn't powered by a gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine, like nearly every automobile since the first Model T rolled off Henry Ford's assembly line in 1908. Nor is it a hybrid like Toyota's fuel-efficient Prius with a gas engine assisted by an electric motor. This Malibu is electric, powered by a 400-lb. lithium-ion battery nestled beneath the floorboard — an energy source that is not only silent but entirely emission-free.

Actually, what we're driving is not a Malibu at all but a "mule," a stunt double for what will become the Chevrolet Volt, a new plug-in electric car that could save a struggling GM and, not incidentally, change the way we drive — just as long as they can make it work in time. "Developing this car is not something for the lighthearted," says Alex Cattelan, the Volt's assistant chief vehicle engineer, from behind the wheel. "But it's so much fun."

To understand why the Volt could be so important to two once dominant institutions that have hit hard times — General Motors and the United States — all you need to do is visit your nearest gas station, where a gallon of unleaded now costs an average of $3.64. We're spending around $700 billion a year to import oil, with much of that money being shipped to countries that don't like us very much. When we burn all that imported oil, we release nearly 2 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, heating up the planet. Those twin trends can't continue, and the solution "is to move away from oil as quickly and as devastatingly as possible," according to former CIA director turned green warrior James Woolsey.

GM is hardly the only major automaker to explore electrics as the way to make that happen; in recent months every major international automaker has announced plans to produce plug-in hybrids, semi-electric cars that can be recharged from a wall socket, like the Volt. But it is GM — which has seen revenues vanish as Americans stampede away from SUVs and other gas gluttons — that is pursuing the most ambitious program. The company does not have a happy history with electrics, having produced the battery-powered EV1 in the 1990s only to discontinue it in 1999. But this time GM has staked its future on the Volt, promising to have it in showrooms by the end of 2010 — far quicker than the pace of development for a standard car, let alone one whose battery does not technically exist yet. "This is not a choice," says Rebecca Lindland, an auto analyst for the research firm Global Insight. "This is necessary for their survival." And in a warming world, perhaps ours too.

Under the hood, Bob Lutz is not your typical green. The former Marine pilot — who owns a pair of surplus military jets he likes to fly — probably has a carbon footprint half the size of Michigan. But it is the gravelly Lutz, GM's vice chairman for global product development, who is the driving force behind the Volt. Lutz worked in the auto industry for decades, left to run the battery company Exide Technologies and returned to GM in 2001 full of ideas. His dream was to develop an all-electric car that would be powered by lithium-ion batteries similar to the kind now used in cell phones and laptops. Most current hybrids use nickel-metal-hydride batteries — less expensive, but also less powerful. In 2003 a Silicon Valley start-up named Tesla Motors announced it would produce a $100,000 lithium-ion-powered sports car, and that helped galvanize Lutz. "If some guy in California can do it, to me it shows that this is certifiable technology," he says.

GM as a whole shared that confidence and at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show unveiled an early concept-car version of the Volt. To the surprise of even Lutz, it was the hit of the show. Other hybrids may offer fuel efficiency, but the Volt would go several steps further. A traditional hybrid like the Prius has two means of propulsion: one electric motor run by a battery and one engine run by gasoline. The battery can't take you very far — maybe 7 or 8 miles — which is why the gas engine kicks in so often. But as you drive, the battery does pick up extra juice, mostly courtesy of what's known as regenerative braking — collecting the heat generated every time you hit the brakes, converting it to electricity and storing it in the battery. The result: less gas used on every trip.

The Volt will rely on its electric motor, powered by its new battery, and will go up to 40 miles without using a drop of gas. For the nearly 80% of Americans who drive less than 40 miles a day, that would mean they could effectively eliminate gasoline from their lives. After 40 miles, the Volt's gas engine switches on, but unlike the Prius', it doesn't make the car move an inch. Rather, it generates electricity and feeds it to the battery, much the way an emergency generator in a hospital keeps the lights on during a blackout. This allows you to go an additional several hundred miles before you need either a fill-up or a charge-up. "With [past electrics] people had to change the way they lived," says Andrew Farah, the Volt's chief engineer. "I want a vehicle that doesn't ask them to change at all."