Category Archives: energy

Plug-in electric car sales in Canada, January 2013 (via GreenCarReports)

My column on plug-in car sales in Canada for January 2013, is now up at GreenCarReports.  Since it’s hard to write ~600 words about sales statistics in the very small Canadian market, I discuss how Quebec — not B.C.! — is the leading province for plug-in vehicle adoption, and reasons why this might be the case.  You can think of me as being “unpaid by the word”.  ;)

For Canada as a whole, the Chevy Volt retained a narrow lead, with the Nissan LEAF and Toyota Prius plug-in a close second and third — among reporting manufacturers.  Which is to say, if we ignore Tesla, which doesn’t divulge monthly sales statistics.  (They’ll be forced to cough up some numbers on Feb 20, though, in their quarterly conference call!)

Tesla may prove to have had the best-selling plug-in car in both Canada and the U.S. in January.  They claimed to have been producing about 400 vehicles a week in January, which would’ve been good for 1600 vehicles.  If true, they very well could have overtaken the Volt in January in both the U.S. (1140) and Canada (44).

When the Tesla results come out, I’ll update my public-access spreadsheet of EV sales statistics, which also contains the sales stats referenced in the aforementioned GreenCarReports column.

Our Renewable Future part 1: clearing “myth”conceptions

With Obama talking the talk on climate action in his State of the Union address yesterday, now seems a good time to start compiling a planned set of blog entries about renewable energy. Many many others have done so online already (as evidenced by the fact I’m linking to them!) but I’d like to communicate my cautiously nascent optimism in my own words.

I’m growingly confident that I’ll live to see renewables dominate global electricity production, as dominantly as oil dominates global transport today, with immense and commensurate environmental benefits.

That moment won’t come a moment too soon, either, given the calamities that we’ve “locked in” for our children — the last time CO2 levels were this high (about 396 ppm in Jan 2013), sea levels were 25 metres higher than they are today.  The only reason sea levels remain near pre-industrial levels is that the earth’s systems haven’t had time to equilibrate, yet.  To use a baseball analogy, we’re still in the first inning of seeing the effects of our emissions.

Now, when I talk about renewables, I mainly mean wind and solar, which tower over their cleantech cousins like redwoods over a meadow.  (While hydroelectric is renewable and dwarfs these two for now, it doesn’t get the sexy “cleantech” label, being a mature technology.)

But before explaining my new-found confidence — certainty, even — in “Our Renewable Future”, I wanted to address a few major myths, objections and misconceptions about renewable energy — the blogging equivalent of clearing the underbrush, I suppose.  :)

I’ll do so using a Q & A format based on the way John Cook at Skeptical Science addresses common myths about climate change.

Continue reading

Alberta oil selling at 50% discount to world price…

…which explains why the Canadian government is Hell-and-High-Water-bent on building a pipeline, any pipeline, anywhere.

First, the stats

Over the past few months, new stories have noted that Canada’s oil sector isn’t getting full price for its heavy oil — in large part because American pipelines are well-supplied with newly-flowing tight oil (“shale oil”) from North Dakota.

As a side note, I should clarify that heavy oil — termed Western Canada Select — is a somewhat-upgraded form of bitumen.  Removing the sulfur and upgrading the oil a bit more, would turn it into the “light sweet crude” used for the world’s billion automobiles.) 

Western Canada Select is more refined, and more value-added, than the diluted bitumen that Enbridge has proposed to ship to the coast of British Columbia.  The Kalamazoo River spill in 2010 that added $750+ million in cleanup costs to the local economy, involved diluted bitumen (and Enbridge).

The discount on Alberta heavy oil is measured relative to the North American benchmark price, which is for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude.  And said discount has been growing faster than a pimple before prom reaching a jaw-dropping $40 per barrel this week.  [2013-01-31: historically the discount has been about $20 per barrel  – Matthew]  WTI sells for $96 per barrel, and Alberta heavy sells for … $56.

One barrel of oil is about 160 Litres, so this means that Alberta is giving up 25 cents per litre on its oil exports.  By way of comparison, the current WTI price works out to a total price of only 60 cents per litre.  We’re talking some serious discounting, here.

Western Canada Select vs. Brent crude

Of course, the world benchmark price is Brent crude, traded in London.  And for various reasons, West Texas Intermediate Crude trades at a discount to it!  I’ve taken a snapshot of the Bloomberg Energy page below; you can see that the Brent price is $112 per barrel.

Bloomberg Energy Jan 18, 2013

We see that the price of Brent crude ($112/bbl) is exactly twice as high as the price we established for Alberta heavy ($56/bbl).  Alberta heavy crude is selling for half-off — it’s like a BOGO (buy one, get one) sale!

Oh, but it gets worse (for Alberta)

I’ve previously mused about the plausibility of US oil demand falling in the coming decade.  Which means Alberta will need to find other markets.  It will probably benefit from the building of an east-west pipeline across Canada (finally!) but wouldn’t be enough added consumption to justify expanding bitumen projects.  That would mean leaner profits for Calgary head offices, less construction work in the oil patch, and lower royalties for the Alberta government.  (Tales abound of Newfoundlanders leaving Alberta in droves, to ply their trade in their home province’s newly ascendant offshore oil sector.)

It’s a far cry from the Bow River bluster of five to ten years ago, when Alberta seemed assured of sustained, stupendous wealth — and provincial surpluses which would dwarf those of the Federal government.  (Despite the highest average yearly oil price in history, the province ran a deficit in 2012!  In basic terms, the oil sector has effected a regulatory capture of Alberta’s government, which allows them to export raw goods and perform the value-added refining elsewhere.)

The oil patch’s hopes now seem pinned on one of a few pipelines, all of which face strong opposition, and none of which can soak up the new production to which Alberta aspires.

a)  Keystone XL, by which Alberta heavy oil could be upgraded further in the US, and then exported.  Opposed by the worldwide 350.org movement.  (600,000 barrels per day)

b)  Enbridge’s Northern Gateway, by which the oil could reach the Pacific Coast.  Given the dozens of First Nations standing in the way, who have recourse to the courts and have sometimes reported dismissive treatment at the hands of Enbridge representatives, this seems unlikely.   (500,000 barrels per day)

c)  Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion, by which the oil would be exported via Vancouver — birthplace of Greenpeace and the David Suzuki Foundation.  (Added capacity: 600,000 barrels per day.)

Pipe dreams

CAPP, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, recently projected that Alberta would produce 3.2 million barrels per day of heavy oil, by 2020.  This represents an increase of 1.6 million barrels per day.  To accommodate this increase, all three of the above pipelines would have to be approved, up and running!!  Given the opposition each pipeline will face, a Beatles reunion would seem more likely…

(Yes, Alberta could of course use a *lot* of railcars, as they’re doing in the Dakotas right now.  This is doable, but more expensive — and would again cause Alberta’s oil to sell at a discount, to reflect the added costs of rail transport.)

To sum up, it doesn’t look like Alberta will enjoy another run of euphoric boom years, for some time to come.  Their product is currently selling at a deep discount due to a surge in production of US tight oil.  Meanwhile, US oil consumption is dropping (thanks largely to more-efficient vehicles) and all three pipelines face opposition.  (A Vancouver paper recently noted that opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline in rural British Columbia ran so high, it could prevent the Prime Minister from winning a majority in the next election.)  Industry shows no signs of wanting to locally refining the product further, meaning the province is locked out of adding further value, winning higher prices.  And perhaps most fearfully of all, the following words from the head of AIMCo, the Alberta Investment Management Company:

“The notion that oil is going to become more expensive because as Asia and India need more energy there’s going to be a demand-supply imbalance, well, it may not be as much of an imbalance as everybody thought it was.”

The bitumen barons’ triumphalism from roughly 2004 to 2008 was predicated on the belief that a rising tide of Asian oil demand would lift Alberta above its provincial peers.  If, maybe, China and India won’t need as much as everyone thought … the ebbing tide could leave them beached.  On the upside, its residents’ expertise with heavy equipment and drilling could help Alberta pivot into a wind turbine / geothermal powerhouse, if it chose to do so.

– – – – – –

[note: while environmental considerations — and generally, the desire not to befoul one’s nest — are also a factor in the future of oil production, I side-stepped the topic altogether, as the above factors are formidable enough on their own.]

Whatever foresight is, it’s not 20/20…

(originally written Jan 3, 2012.  Part of my Great Upload of 2013.)

Come December’s end, the nervy among us like to review what they got right in the past year. The nervier like to predict what’ll happen in the New Year. Ever the blithe contrarian, I figured I’d visit the Ghost of Predictions Past and see where I got things wrong.**  :)

I do this taking comfort that Great Men, like me, make mistakes sometimes. (Oh, it was tempting to “forget” those commas…!)

Take the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius — he almost ruined his reputation as an enlightened philosopher-king when, fed up with a particularly quarrelsome ethnic group, he set out to exterminate the… Germans. (Ha! Betcha didn’t see that coming! :) )  Historians also dock him points for leaving the Empire to his sadistic son Commodus, whose death the lightly-factual chopumentary “Gladiator” got wrong. Among many, many other things, Joaquin Phoenix should’ve died in his sleep. Strangled by a bodyguard, sure, but in his sleep none the less. ;)

Probably my biggest mistake in 2011 was thinking the Fukushima nuclear disaster wouldn’t be as catastrophically epic as it became. While there are no directly attributed deaths*, it’s estimated that the clean-up will take decades — at great cost of time, money, and confidence in Japanese public and private institutions. In conceitedly thinking that a serious nuclear accident would never happen “here” in the First World, I overestimated human knowledge and underestimated human nature. We do have a genius for corruption and corner-cutting…!

Overestimating human knowledge

A back-in-the-day Canadian example of overestimating human knowledge is that of the Dryden Chemical Company, which was responsible for an outbreak of mercury poisoning among the Grassy Narrows First Nation. The company made chlorine to bleach paper, using mercury in the reactors. Tonnes of mercury made their way into the lake over the years, probably with an engineering justification to the effect of “well, methylmercury is the bad stuff, but we’re dumping inorganic mercury, which is safe enough to drink. So it’s not ideal, but there’s no real problem”.

Not being biologists, the engineers would not have realized that some shellfish metabolize safe inorganic mercury into unsafe methylmercury — meaning that any mercury dumped in the lake became unsafe mercury, in short order. And remember, that’s just the techno-hubris of forty years ago; we’ve since moved on to bigger things!

Underestimating human nature

A recent American example of underestimating human nature is that of Monsanto’s Bt corn, engineered to produce an insecticide toxic to the corn rootworm, but harmless to most other species. Apparently rootworms are developing resistance to the insecticide faster than expected — in part because farmers aren’t following the recommended usage instructions. (I bet they don’t decrumb their toasters every six months, either.)

The rootworms will become resistant to the insecticide anyways (because the only rootworms having rootworm babies will be the Bt-tolerant ones) — it’s just that the rootworms are ahead of schedule because the engineering solution didn’t accommodate enough end-user misuse.  A definite lesson for us technically-minded folks.

Up next!  (maybe)

Next time: more Klippensteinian hubris, as we look at rising oil production!  Falling gold prices!  (Both temporary, I’m sure. ;) )

Or maybe I abandon this thread and muse about more interesting going-forward stuff, like the probability that activist groups will soon follow the example of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles (beefed-up radio-controlled model airplanes with decent cameras) to monitor their opponents.  Which also makes it likely that corporate interests will soon do the same every time there’s a protest.  Now, if I could just find a stock whose business plan consists of renting aerial drones to all parties…  ;)

————-

* A couple anti-nuclear campaigners (Mangano and Sherman) recently came out with a calculation that there were 14,000 excess deaths in the US in the weeks after the disaster, but they put the data through enough Cirque-du-Soleil contortions to earn a PhD in BS.  And not for the first time; in the summer, they’d alleged baby deaths in the US Pacific Northwest spiked after the meltdown…  conveniently ignoring data showing that death rates were even higher three months before the accident.  Which doesn’t exactly add credibility to reality-based concerns about the effect of persistent, low-level radiation exposure.

** alas, unlike conversations, my mailouts are checkable…  :)

Dilbert Jan 3 2012

3D electricity (“Great Upload of 2013”)

(written April 13, 2012.  Part of the Great Upload of 2013…)

As a guy whose birthday falls on the 13th, it always bugged me that my 13th birthday was a Saturday… those darned leap years!

———

EROEI

One of my concerns in the past several years has been the fact that “energy-return-on-energy-invested” (EROEI) for fossil fuels has been decreasing.  This is most evident in the petroleum sector: in the good old days, all you needed to do was stick a steel straw in the ground, and you’d get oil.  (As an Algerian colleague once told me, “back home, we drill wells looking for water, but all we get is oil.  It’s like, what the hell?  Oil again??”)

In the days of yore (and lost Lenores) for each unit of energy you “invested” to get the oil, you might have gotten 50x or 100x units of energy back.  Alas, this happens “nevermore”.

EROEI has been dropping because, while we’ve become more efficient at extracting oil, difficulty-of-extraction has gone up even faster.  The oil sands are the most extreme case: for each unit of energy you invest to turn the bitumen into oil, you might get… 5x units of energy back.  So if you want to extract 100 units of oil energy, your cost is no longer 1-2 units of energy… but 20 units of energy, plus a bunch up-front!  (This is why it takes many months and mammoth money to increase oil sands production.)

And while recent developments such as North Dakota’s “tight oil” probably have a better EROEI, they won’t reverse the drainward trend.  Coal is in much the same boat, though natural gas is a different story — we only started to tap the world’s largest natural gas field in the past few years, so its EROEI will probably stay high for awhile.*  Since the hydrogen for most fuel cells comes from natural gas, that’s good news.  (Plus, it’s easier to obtain natural gas equivalents from renewable resources, than liquid fuels…)

Declining EROEI is kind of depressing from a societal perspective, because it suggests that we’ll have to work harder and harder to acquire the energy we’ve accustomed ourselves to — as anyone who’s bought gasoline recently can attest.  ;)  (As if environmental damage, converging debt crises and aging populations weren’t enough!)

EROEI for renewables

Fortunately, EROEI is increasing rapidly in the renewables sector, helping it continue its exponential growth — and that is a cause for optimism.  At the end of 2011, there was enough installed solar and wind capacity to provide 3% of the world’s electricity.  (That number already factors in the fact that it’s sometimes nighttime, and windless.)  And the growth rate is high enough that it could hit 20% by 2020.  That’s a lot of coal plant closures!  Much beyond that, though, and you start to run into realistic limits for wind power**, though solar would still have a lot of “blue sky potential”, in the business parlance.  I hope to ramble about the physical laws governing whales and wind turbines sometime soon…

In terms of solar, the main energy input in making a solar panel comes from creating ingots of 99.999 999 9% pure silicon.  These parts-per-billion impurity levels are so low, you have a better chance of winning the jackpot on a lottery ticket, than randomly picking a non-silicon atom out of an ingot!  Companies slice thin wafers off using the industrial equivalent of a deli-meat slicer, and the wafers undergo post-treatment to become the solar panels US Republicans love to hate.***

About ten years ago, solar companies would use wafers about 0.33 mm thick (330 microns), and EROEI estimates for solar panels in reasonably-sunny areas were in oil-sands range, roughly 5:1.  Today’s photovoltaics are a bit more efficient, and based on wafers about half as thick (180 microns), meaning that for roughly the same starting energy input you can get two solar panels, and thus, twice the electricity.  So in the time since George Bush won election 5 votes to 4 in the Supreme Court, solar’s EROEI has doubled to about 10:1.  The physical limit is apparently about 20 microns, which two Silicon Valley startups already claim to be able to achieve… if given enough investor money.  :)  While most startups shut down, solar panels are almost certainly going to get thinner, meaning their EROEI will get better.

On the financial side, the panels aren’t even the cost-prohibitive component of solar arrays anymore: installing rooftop solar in the US will cost you roughly $6/Watt up-front, of which the panel only represents $1.  (The rest is associated electronics, and labour.)  That’s about double the cost in Germany, whose feed-in tariffs allow for project financing of the rest.  This means there’s a big incentive to figure out how to capture more solar energy from a given square metre of rooftop — people with a choice of $6 per Watt or $7 per 2 Watts, are inevitably going to choose the latter, eh?

Into… the third dimension!

Part of the solution will probably be to extend solar panels into the third dimension, in the manner these MIT guys did.  It’s a bit like the moment 400 million years ago when the first Cooksonia pertoni told a friend, “I’m tired of competing with lichens and mosses for sunlight in the x-y plane; imma grow me in the z-direction!”

As such, it’s possible that instead of flat slabs, solar-panelled houses of the future will have bristly, antenna-esque solar panels protruding from their roofs — kind of like the branches of trees.  The “treeing” of photovoltaic arrays makes sense, since trees have had a zillion generations to figure out how to maximize sunlight collection.  Of course you’d figure with all that time, some of them would’ve realized the evolutionary advantage of, oh, being able to move by now…  :)

And while such a future would be aesthetically great for those of us who enjoy the look of Gothic churches or Thai wats (Buddhist temples), for minimalists like Steve Jobs on the other hand…  ;)

– – – – – –

* that is, unless something destabilizes Qatar or Iran, but c’mon, how likely is that?  ;)

** alpha nerds can peruse this link; the rest of you can shake your heads in despair…  :)

*** technically speaking, Solyndra was a thin-film solar company using glass substrates, not silicon.  But such subtleties are not the stuff of Fox News…

EV stats for British Columbia (2012)

The kind people at CEV for BC sent over some statistics on Clean Energy Vehicle rebates issued by the provincial government.

While the CEV rebates were available for electric, natural gas, and fuel cell vehicles, my understanding is that the rebates break down as follows:

– 308x EV’s

– 0 NGV’s

– 0 FCV’s

>

Given the limited infrastructure and product offerings (apart from a natural gas Honda Civic, I’m unaware of other methane-based production vehicles) it’s unsurprising that natural gas vehicles didn’t capture any rebates.  Much the same can be said for fuel cell cars.  In contrast, almost everyone in Canada is connected to a grid, and all the major auto companies are making plug-ins, if in modest quantities.

It’s also worth noting that natural gas is becoming more common in the trucking industry (where centralized fueling depots provide sufficient infrastructure) but that the above rebates only apply to “light-duty” passenger vehicles.

More after the jump!

Continue reading

Of whales and wind turbines

(originally written June 20, 2012 — part of my Great Upload of 2013)

>

So I was reading up on my Ray Kurzweil last night, because it’s good to read people you disagree with once in a while — but preferably no more often than that.  ;)

– – – – –

Kurzweil

Ray Kurzweil is a futurist who believes we’re heading into a singularity where, in this century, life will transcend biology and we’ll reach some sort of a higher condition of life.  His ideas could probably be summed up as:

– it took billions of years to go from single-celled creatures to multi-celled ones

– then hundreds of millions of years to get to human-like creatures

– then hundreds of thousands of years for homo sapiens to create cities

– then thousands of years for us to start making upgrades (artificial hips, pacemakers and the like)

– and in a short span of time, we’ll transition from a biological-molecule-based form of consciousness to a silicon-based one

>

His ideas are pretty much distilled in this decade-old article/manifesto, which he wrote during the heady days of the dot-com bubble.  As such, though the trends in computing power have probably continued, economic progress… has not.

He made surprising choices in some graphs (e.g. patents issued over time) in that he didn’t factor in the huge effect of a rising population.  It looks like the number of patents issued per year went up tenfold from 1900 to 2000, but the US population also increased four-fold from roughly 70 million to 280 million.  So patents per person “only” went up 2.5x in a century.

There’s a big wrinkle though, which is that the US urban population went from about 40% to 80% in the century of 1900 to 2000, so the urban population probably rose about 8x [28 million to 200 million] in that century.  So in the past century, patents-per-urban-person might only have gone up… twenty percent?  A bigger wrinkle is the fact that half of US patents nowadays go to foreigners, and the biggest wrinkle is probably that patents aren’t a great way of measuring innovation.  They might be the best available measuring-stick, but that doesn’t mean they’re all that accurate…

>

Cities and Whales

The urban-population factor is important because recent research purports to show that as metropolitan areas get bigger, they tend to “speed up” — since Metro Vancouver has twice the population of Metro Calgary, one would expect Vancouver to have 15% higher per-capita mean income and patenting rates.  Of course, local factors like the tar sands mean that these general trends come with massive, massive margins of error.  :)

The reason for this trend might be that as cities get bigger, people can become more and more specialized, and nudge the boundaries of human knowledge just a bit further in one tiny area.  And with so many people around them, there’s a better chance they’ll run into someone who can make use of that knowledge.  And there is a symmetric downside: apparently per-capita crime and other social ills also tend to increase about 15% with each doubling in city size.

>

This “speeding up” with bigger size is the opposite of what happens in publicly-traded companies, which tend to “slow down” as they get bigger — fewer patents per person, lower per-person revenues, etc.  (The trend surely holds true for privately-held companies too, but since public companies release quarterly financial statements it’s waay easier to crunch public company data than private companies’.)  This phenomenon could elegantly, partially explain why public-sector bureaucracies often seem worse than private-sector ones: few private companies ever reach the size of governments!

A similar “slowing down” with size occurs in biology, a phenomenon known as Kleiber’s Law.  (Not to be confused with George Clooney’s girlfriend Stacy “Keibler”, or the cookie-making “Keebler” elves.)

>

In the critter world, when animals double in size, their metabolic (food) requirements tend to only increase by 70-ish percent.  To use math terms, the exponent describing the relationship between metabolic rate and mass, is between 2/3 and 3/4.  And before you ask, yes indeed, there is the usual academic bun fight over what exactly that exponent is!  :)  To use a better example than the one offered in Wikipedia, if we were to compare a 200 tonne blue whale with a 20 gram mouse, the whale weighs 10,000,000x more, but only requires about 10,000,000^0.7 = 80,000x as much food.

Another example of how life seems to “slow down” for big creatures is the reasonably-accurate factoid that many mammals, big and small, have a lifespan of about one to one-and-a-half billion heartbeats.  And indeed, whales live a lot longer than mice — in the absence of whalers.  And cats.  :)  I could imagine that for our earliest mammalian ancestors, this might have represented a good balance between “durable enough to have offspring” and “not so resource-intensive as to starve other important bodily functions of nutrients”, but then I imagine a lot of plausible-sounding, completely-inaccurate explanations.  :)

Rambling aside, as animals get bigger, they get more efficient with their food inputs.  Which brings us to wind turbines!

>

…and wind turbines

One of the few things I remember from my chemical engineering economics course is that the cost of components in a chemical plant increases more slowly than size, with the exponents generally in the 0.5-0.8 range.  We could think of this as a rough industrial analogue, or maybe even an extension, of Kleiber’s Law.

This trend applies to wind turbines, because if you scaled up a turbine so its blades and everything else were twice as big, you’d need more than twice the material, but you could probably extract quadruple the energy.  (Taller turbines can access stronger winds, and the blades would rotate through 4x the cross-sectional area, but various losses would eat away at that.)  The net effect is that bigger wind turbines are more efficient per-tonne-of-construction-material.  Not unlike that whale.  :)

>

And back to Kurzweil

Before setting sail on that cetacean tangent (ie. talking about whales) we were examining how a lot of the technological progress feeding Ray Kurzweil’s optimism might not have come from exponentially-improving calculation power, but from a one-time migration of people from the countryside to the cities.

If population growth and urbanization were big drivers for the extraordinary progress we made in the 20th century, it stands to reason that we might see a slowing-down of things in the 21st century, as world population (and world urban population) level off and start falling.  This would be a bit of a downer for techno-optimists’ utopian visions, but would fit the more pessimistic notion that the human condition is a cycle between harsher and milder dystopias.

As an admirer of the great Greek tragedies, I’m in the latter camp.  And while I’m as overconfident in my opinions as most men, I have an ace up my sleeve: as per page 3 of the TIME magazine article, people with mild depression are more accurate at predicting future events!  Nice of the universe to finally throw us folks a bone…!  ;)

VEVA: end-of-2012 stats updates, and Vancouver area charging station updates

(Cross-posted from the VEVA mailing list and LinkedIn group)

A few final updates, before the end of the year. :)

a) Metrotown’s charging stations — all 10 of them — should be up and running in January. I’ve been in touch with one of their project managers, who said he’d let us know when the official unveiling is. It’d be super cool if we could get a bunch of folks coming down for the grand opening, because then we could get some media mentions… maybe encourage some people to consider going electric… and who knows, maybe we’ll get a few new members too?  :)

b) I just found out that the super-polarizing local environmental titan David Suzuki, is a plug-in Prius owner. He’s not a VEVA member yet, but I know a, um, very eccentric mutual friend. It’d be nice if we could get him to join, eh? If nothing else, maybe we could convince him to get one of those “battery powered” stickers for his vehicle. :)

c) I’ve been doing some updates on the car sales statistics for the US and for Canada. Again, the spreadsheet is located here.

– – – – –

Canadian sales are running at around 0.1% of total car sales, but with the introduction of the plug-in Prius (and more aggressive LEAF promotion efforts by Nissan) our American cousins’ EV’s are now about 0.5% of the market.

It’s hard to know the best way to interpret those numbers, so in the next few weeks I’ll be trying to calculate what % of the market EV’s are in the US and Canada, among $30,000+ vehicles.

Prius: a Crystal Anniversary (15 years)

A few Prius-inclined websites noted last week that Dec 10, 2012 marked the 15th anniversary of the Prius’ introduction in Japan.  With the Prius (temporarily?) becoming the world’s 3rd-best-selling car brand in 2012, the anniversary probably deserves some reflection.  :)

Continue reading

The US once was, but will never again be, the Saudi Arabia of oil

[Update: slight revisions to the “…join us next time” paragraphs at the very end.  :)  ]

The idea that the US might one day produce more oil than Saudi Arabia, popularized by an International Energy Agency (IEA) report, has gone viral in recent weeks.  It’s like the “Call Me Maybe” phenomenon, but for Very Serious People!  :)

Alas, the idea that the US will out-produce Saudi Arabia is a vaporous mirage.  Well, unless Saudi Arabian production falls off a cliff, that is.  The projections are built on the kind of verbal trickery that transformed “47% of Americans don’t actually earn enough money to pay federal income taxes” into the “47% of Americans are lazy takers” meme that sank Mitt Romney’s campaign.  Did those World War II veterans think they could just beat Hitler and rely on handouts in retirement?  ;)

It’s said that where there’s smoke, there’s mirrors, so let’s find that disco ball, shall we?

Continue reading