(this post is partially recycled from a post I made to the MacRumors discussion of this topic)

The Silver-Zinc batteries supposedly provided by ZPower (funded by Intel, hint hint) have a high, 200Wh/kg rating. Meaning for every kg (2.2 lbs) of weight, it can store 200Wh. How much is 200Wh? Well the current MBs are shipping with 45Wh battery, and the 15″ MBPs a 50Wh battery. So in a 1 lb internal battery, the ZPower Silver-Zinc could store just under 100Wh. After you factor in the larger screen, (probably) faster CPU, etc, you’d probably see a 60-75% increase in battery life over the 15″ MBP if they were to go this route.

The reason to make it non-removable would be the very high price of the battery, due to the price of silver. By requiring Apple to service the battery when the cycle life expires, Apple can recycle the battery and recover the expensive silver, as well as have a “trade-in” policy to recover some of the price of the new, replacement battery.

ZPower indicates that users can get 200 cycles out of their Silver-Zinc batteries, typically that is a measurement to 80% of original capacity. This means power users who discharge their battery 5 days per week would need to replace their battery every 40 weeks, or 9 months. For users like myself, who uses about 2-3 cycles per week would see the need to replace the battery every 18 months. What also should be factored into the equation is that a battery cycle is defined as a complete discharge and recharge. If the battery in a MacBook Pro 17″ is 7-8 hours on the new Silver-Zinc battery and its only 4 hours on a Li-Ion battery, the 200 cycles in a Silver-Zinc battery provide the same or possibly longer battery only time (200 cycles x 7.5 hours is 62.5 days) when compared to a Li-Ion battery (300 cycles x 4 hours = 50 days). ZPower also touts that recharge times are quicker, though given the larger battery capacity it will probably take the same amount of time to charge a Silver-Zinc battery as a Li-Ion battery, but your runtime will be longer.

I could even see this become part of the normal laptop line-up (if they figure out how to use less silver and get the price down) - that the batteries are non-removable because Apple wants to force people to come back into the store to replace the battery when it wont hold a charge anymore, and Apple can recycle the battery and be more “green”. The next, most obvious target is the MacBook Air because its battery is already not user replaceable, and would allow for a big boost in battery life and pushing the weight down - the MBA could lose a tenth or so of a pound, and still get much longer battery life, perhaps 3.5 hours under intensive use, up from just over 2 hours, and 6-7 hours under basic web/office use.

Intel has pushed hard for “all day computing” for a while now. Every rev of their laptop chips are designed to use less power, from both the chip fabrication process improving as well as the effort devoted to putting the chip in various sleep states to minimize usage when the CPU is idle, between every keystroke you type the chip can go in a deep sleep and save more power. Better batteries are the other side of that equation - putting more power into a smaller form factor.

I’m sure Apple is exploring this for the iPhone as well, though cost considerations become much more important when you’re selling a $400 phone (unsubsidized), and the cost of the battery could be disproportionally higher in a phone than a $2500 laptop. This is why its starting with the 17″ MBP - because the base price of the laptop is so high already, going from a $100 to a $200 battery (with some of that cost recoverable due to recycling) isn’t such a big deal. Even if the battery for the iPhone is a fraction of the size and capacity (4Wh vs 50Wh), the cost difference is still significant over a traditional Li-Ion battery. Though the nerd in me is ecstatic about the idea of a Broadcom 618 3G chipset (65nm fabrication) and a Silver-Zinc battery in the Fall 2009 or Spring 2010 version of the iPhone - 8 hours of 3G talk time, 10 hours of movies and 36 hours of music (enough for the longest plane rides on a 777LR).

Sources: 9to5Mac, ComputerWorld (both by the same author, just different websites)

Energy

• Obama’s administration pushes hard on solar and wind, geothermal doesn’t get the love it deserves, but it still does well, even in the face of the bad economy
• Wind power starts to take off in the inter-mountain west - places like Idaho, Wyoming, etc. As plans and deals are finalized to provide for the construction of transmission lines from these remote areas down to the population centers of the west and southwest (Denver, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix), plans scale up for installation.
• Solar does OK, the financial crisis hurts solar the most, hurts being a relative term. Obama pushes solar, especially rooftop solar in low to middle income areas to allow residents to not have to worry about the volatility of energy prices (modeled after the million rooftops initiative in California). Utilities don’t like it because distributed generation makes their demand patterns irregular.

Technology

• BluRay doesn’t take off because of the bad economy. People aren’t going to give up their cheaper DVDs until 2010 or 2011.
• The prices of LCDs comes down 25% by year’s end, but mostly because factories want to get them out the door to try and pay for the facilities they built to handle the LCD ramp up.
• Nothing big comes out - no big technological revolution (iPhone, etc). Everyone is trying to tool up for the exit of the recession and hope they can pounce at the right time.
• The Web 2.0 comes to a grinding halt - companies have a hard time finding VC. And sadly, one of the casualties is a major site.

Apple

• Apple doesn’t reveal an iPhone nano. They might reduce the price of the current iPhone devices, and add a 32GB iPhone, but the current rumormill is really just to ferret out leaks, I don’t think Steve was too happy about the iPhone 3G leaks.
• Nehalem/Core i7 Mac Pros are released, possibly using desktop parts in a glueless 2-socket system using the X58 chipset. This would reduce costs and bring the price down.
• Notebooks and the iMac (and the mini) don’t get Nehalem chips this year, set to land early/mid 2010. They cruise along on Intel’s incremental speed bumps over the course of 2009.
• A MacBook Air refresh in the first half of the year, cheaper SSDs and the new Intel 2.13Ghz SFF processor. This increases the Air purchases because it doesn’t look like its hobbled in terms of processor speeds.
• No Netbook, no xMac (mid-range desktop tower), no new media server/media center/htpc (the new Mini might be a good HTPC, but nothing specifically targeted at that niche).
• Apple TV continues to not make waves in the mainstream, gets hardware rev to go to the Ion platform. Gets lots of attention in the hacker/modder community for apps like Boxee.

Anything Else

• I’m still single this time next year. Mom gets on my case more about finding a girl, getting married, having kids, etc.
• My stock picks in tech and renewables give me a 50% increase in 2009. Too bad I didn’t invest more.
• I cant stick to my 30 month stock picking plan ($2,000 each into 5 emerging stocks, on 2 or 3 of the stocks hoping for returns measured in multiples).

While I generally applaud wind power (its probably closer to grid parity than solar is right now), this one seems a little odd. Yes, the wind farm will be not too distant from the Hoover Dam and its high capacity power transmission lines (40 miles as the crow flies) when compared to building wind power elsewhere in Nevada (east-central area, near Ely). But there are a few other questions the use of wind brings up.

Most of the land around Searchlight is shown to be a class 3 site per the DOE, and the American Wind Energy Association states, “sites with a Wind Power Class rating of 4 or higher are now preferred for large scale wind plants.” This would indicate that the class 3 site they’re trying to use is marginal. There are some small pockets of class 4 and 5 areas near Laughlin, Nevada, and some small class 4 areas in the area near Searchlight.

Why not solar? Nevada has extremely abundant solar power resources. Nevada Solar One out near Boulder City in the Eldoado Valley, and building a similar facility (though hopefully air cooled and not water cooled) would be a more efficient use of resources - using mediocre wind resources vs abundant solar resources. Ausra is a local, Las Vegas based company that makes parts for solar thermal plants, and they could be worked into the equation to start making the necessary parts for another 100MW of solar thermal facilities.

However 300MW of wind power is a lot of steel and fiberglass for the hardware. More importantly for the struggling southern Nevada economy is jobs. While the O&M jobs will be fewer, the construction jobs will be a boost.

Whats the difference between normal geothermal and enhanced geothermal? Water. In traditional geothermal systems, the system relies on hot water coming out of the ground that was already in the ground. Meanwhile, enhanced geothermal relies on pumping water back into the ground at high pressures over hot, dry rock (which there is more of than hot, wet rock), and reclaiming that heated water through other wells and using that water to transfer that heat into energy.

One of the interesting side effects of the stark decline in the price of oil and the subsequent demand reduction is that the same type of equipment that you need to drill wells for oil is the same equipment you need to drill for geothermal wells. So if the oil company equipment suppliers have been ramping supply for drilling equipment the past few months as prices crossed $90, $100, $125, and up to $147, they’ll now be left with excess inventory after the price per barrel dropped in half. This makes a great time for geothermal companies to acquire the drilling equipment necessary to start drilling due to the dynamics of the oil market.

To get off the ground, companies can start in areas near existing traditional geothermal systems. This would allow for low risk projects - nearby access to roads, powerlines and other necessary equipment will allow them to test a few wells. Most of the land suitable for EGS is concentrated on the western US - states like Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, Utah and Colorado.

In Google’s recent report, they had estimated 80GW of geothermal - 65GW of which was enhanced geothermal. Because of the very high capacity factors however, that 80GW of geothermal outproduced solar and wind in terms of annual GWh.

I’m not buying it this time. I’ve been a Mac fan for a while now, and have been generally enthusiastic and optimistic of most of their product releases. But the products revealed today are grossly overpriced, especially in the face of economic turmoil.

Apple 24″ Cinema Display: Really a docking port with 3 wires (power, USB and video). At $899 for only 24″, it is overpriced by about $200. Dell’s top of the line 24″ LCDs are a little over $600 and come with USB ports, and the magsafe connection is trivial, and should only add $100 to the price, bringing the expected price to $719. Apple is way over target on this one.

15″ MacBook Pro: Looks great. The features match well with the price, though I was expecting slightly faster CPUs (2.53 with the top line 15″ having a 2.8) as well as a $200 price cut, but as you can tell, Apple is in no mood to cut prices today.

13″ MacBook Air: Nothing surprising here, bigger HDD/SSD options, same price. I’m interested to know if they’ll be using the new 45nm SFF chips - the delay until November makes me thing so, and hopefully this will resolve the CPU overheating issue that is a problem with current MacBook Airs.

13″ MacBook “Premium”: Starting at $1299 for only a 2.0GHz processor, even with the much improved video performance, is weak. Comparing this to the baseline $999 Plastic MB, you’ll get a slower CPU, more RAM (which is dirt cheap now), and no firewire. It seems like a huge $300 gap for an extra GB of RAM, nice case, slower CPU and no FW. What was I expecting? At least a $1199 MB at 2.26Ghz, 2GB and the same features (minus the backlit KB) for the new MB “Premium”.

13″ Plasti-Mac: A $100 price cut? I guess I was expecting more ($899), but I was also expecting the rest of the MacBook line to not be nearly as expensive as they are, so I guess it fits in the lineup. I will say the Plasti-Mac looks downright ugly next to the new MacBooks, which will either drive people to the $1299 MB or just turn them off entirely.

Summary: Just when everyone expected Apple to cut prices to move aggressively target the notebook market and grow its share more, Apple increased the prices on the “entry level” Apple laptops, Plasti-Mac not withstanding. For now I’ll hold on to my money. I’ve been waiting for this specific notebook refresh since January 2008 when the plans for Montevina and the new Penryn mobile chips were laid out. I had planned on purchasing a new MB today and had even arranged to sell my old MacBook to my sister, and she’d sell her old PC to my dad. Instead I’ll be holding on to my money and waiting until Apple reduces the rediculous price premium, probably some time next year.

The first, and biggest thing, is a reduction across the board, reducing energy consumption by 33%. From air conditioning and heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration, and entertainment.

If we figure a 1% per year efficiency increase every year in terms of air conditioners, heaters, refrigeration, etc, we’ll see a 22% decrease in power consumption compared to 2008 usage.

For things like lighting, entertainment, computing, we tend to see big steps rather than small ones. LCDs replaced CRTs - old 20″ CRTs used 100-150W, my 24″ LCD uses 65W. The next incremental upgrade is the LED-based LCDs, however power consumption can vary - some LED-based LCDs have power consumption higher than their traditional LCD counterpart, though most have lower power consumption, which is the drive to use them in laptops to save more power. The next major increase in efficiency we will hopefully see Organic LED (OLED) based displays start to show up in the next few years (though we’ve heard that for the last three or four years now). As OLED screen sizes start to increase and prices come down, larger flat panel displays will be available, driving down the energy consumption for home entertainment.

From there, OLEDs could even infiltrate lighting if they can manage to produce white OLEDs that have a long enough lifetime to further bring down the usage of lighting as a percentage of total electricity consumption.

Likewise, personal computing is getting smaller. While my 486 chip ran cool enough not to need a heatsink, my current quad core Q9450@3.2GHz requires a big heatsink and fan, and sucks a lot of power when at full load. But not everyone needs that speedy dual core. Intel has done a lot to reduce power consumption when idle, starting in notebooks back in the early Centrino days, and continuing today across all lines - servers, desktops and laptops. The days of a 2.4GHz dual core Intel Atom aren’t far away (2011?), and as for email, web, movies and video, that’s all people might need. Enthusiasts and gamers will always buy the fastest and the best, but that part of the market shrinks as more gamers move to consoles as well as the general movement away from power hugrier desktops to more efficient laptops.

Next up is the new energy demand on the grid - specifically plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, like the Chevy Volt. Google estimates they’ll be 42% of the US passenger vehicle fleet (also known as LDV or light duty vehicles) by 2030. Is it possible? Yes, but it requires PHEVs supplant 90% of LDV sales, which is feasible, if not higher - the only reason I can think of not buying an PHEV would be for the very cheap cars (sub $10K) and to those who live in very extreme rural environments where electricity is scarce (those who live off the grid) and its not worth it to use electricity instead of gas.

When it comes to energy consumption, I think Google is on track, and their plan is feasible. We will see increases in efficiency in things like household appliances, improvements in household lighting, and technology will provide for decreases in entertainment and technology. However, stand-by power is an important factor, and should be addressed as well (it doesn’t appear in their knol page about their plan).

Now we’re on to energy sources. The two biggest up and coming renewable sources are wind and solar, however, geothermal is lurking in the dark. Both have their obvious limits on usage. The issue from there is what to do about load matching, and how much backup capacity will be needed.

Lets start with solar. I’ve said before that I estimate grid parity will arrive sometime around the time that the freshly passed solar energy ITC expires at the end of 2017. Google is predicting 250GW worth of solar power installations, and an approximate 500TWh/yr worth of production (a capacity factor of 22%, which is entirely appropriate). Their forecasts show 66GW of domestic capacity being installed between 2010 and 2020, which might sound unreasonable - an average 6.6GW installed per year - but current research estimates that worldwide, there will be between 50 and 80GW of panels manufactured per year by 2015. I would venture to say that it would be more difficult to find the installers and construction workers required to install all those panels, whether they be in large or utility scale projects, or rooftop installations for homes and businesses. And nevermind the credit crunch when it comes to financing the projects. Recently, two leading solar power companies had their stocks downgraded because of expected oversupply in light of the worldwide economy and credit situation.

Next is wind, which is estimated at 380GW by 2030. The US DOE had done studies for 300GW by 2030, and they found it possible with a few minor issues. Google assigns a 30% capacity factor to the wind turbines, to generate approximately 1000TWh/yr. This seems slightly high, but assuming that turbine installers stick to the highest wind speed areas in the US and then sends the electricity to urban areas via 500kV lines, it seems feasible. A group of utilities have formed the Utility Wind Integration Group, who’s goal is to advance the technology and application of wind into the power grid. In a study from November 2003 they stated that,“…the results to date also lay to rest one of the major concerns often expressed about wind power: that a wind plant would need to be backed up with and equal amount of dispatchable generation. It is now clear that, even at moderate wind penetrations, the need for additional generation to compensate for wind variations is substantially less than one-for-one and is often closer to zero.” This bodes well for wind, since it will be possible to integrate wind into the grid without having to build a large standby capacity in case the wind decides to not blow.

Finally, with geothermal, Google invested $10M USD into Enhanced Geothermal systems. The difference between traditional geothermal systems, of which the US estimates there is a total of about 10GW worth of recoverable energy from traditional geothermal, is that with the EGS, you fracture hot rocks and pump water down into the earths surface, instead of depending on naturally occurring sources of water to be in the right place to become heated enough to turn into steam. Google predicts that of the 80GW of geothermal production in the US, 65GW will be from Enhanced Geothermal systems, and the total TWh produced from all Geothermal systems would exceed that of solar power because of the much higher capacity factor of Geothermal systems (between 89-97% CF, compared to solar’s 22% and wind’s 30% CF).

Still, the ultimate issue with solar and wind is availability - how do we use the power its putting out without a massive amount of overbuilding and tons of power lines to keep everything balanced between production regions and consuming regions. Discussions are up for everything from large scale batteries and Vehicle-to-Grid technology to potenial energy storage systems (water reservioirs, flywheels, etc). Google estimates this could add $20/MWh, compared to the pricing range between $35/MWh for off-peak power and up to $200/MWh for peak power under the highest demand periods (during the summer when the need for power for air conditioners is highest). While nuclear and geothermal power could be used for part of the base, wind  would also need to make up a part the total baseload. Solar (PV and concentrated with auxiliary thermal storage) would be well suited for matching peak demand, as well as shaving down the base usage during the 9 months out of the year its not summer.

The key to Google Energy plan energy efficiency as well as smoothing out the generation of intermittent sources like wind and solar. I’m confident the prices of wind and solar will come down enough and efficiency will go up, as we figure out how to make the products more robust, reduce overhead as production scales up, and material substitution to reduce the cost of parts.

The first thing I would applaud Chrysler for is keeping quiet. They state they’ve been working on this for a year, and having a Dodge EV all electric vehicle to drive around a track is proof positive of their efforts. It must have been very difficult for them to sit on the sidelines and let GM and the Chevy Volt hog all the credit for promoting electric vehicles (EVs), specifically range extended electric vehicles (RE-EVs).

The picked a good time to speak up - the push for tax credits for RE-EVs went through the Senate today (whether or not the Senators knew about their plans is a mystery, but it wouldn’t be unheard of if they did know).

Another interesting aspect is that they’re announcing three models. Two of which wont see the showroom floor in late 2010, but shouldn’t be long in following behind the others. One item the executives were sure to point out was that because the system is modular (the engine, batteries, etc) they can push it from one vehicle to another, only having to worry about making enough space for the battery compartment.

Can they deliver? Well, GM has had a huge head start on them, but GM also built the Volt from the ground up. And in terms of battery technology, it appears that both LG Chem and A123 Systems will both deliver batteries around the same time frame (LG Chem will probably be first, followed by A123 shortly thereafter), so that doesn’t matter as much as everyone might think it will - its not like Chrysler has to develop every part in the car themselves, they don’t even do that for their current crop of gasoline vehicles. So as the infrastructure to support the supply chain for RE-EVs and EVs ramps up in 2010, GM and Chrysler will both be there to take the parts and put them into cars.

The first vehicle is the Dodge EV - the car is 100% electric like the Tesla Roadster. And similar to Tesla, it appears that Chrysler is using a Lotus basis to form their EV (the powertrain for the Dodge EV was in the Lotus-made body). The Telsa Roaster is based on the Elise, while the Dodge EV looks like its based off of the Lotus Europa model. The vehicle gets approximately 150-200 miles, and has a top speed of over 120 miles per hour.

Following that was the introduction of the Jeep EV, based off the Wrangler, and the Town and Country EV Minivan. Both models are range extended electric vehicles (RE-EVs), and get 40 miles from battery power, and the rest of the 360 mile range from the electric generator that runs on gasoline.

Two conspicuous details that were missing from today’s unveiling was price of the three models, as well as the battery pack details. Pricing can expect to be high - because Chrysler has taken two existing models and thrown in batteries and an electric drivetrain, the aerodynamic performance that the Volt was tuned for will not be there, and larger, heavier batteries will be required when compared to the 16kW battery pack the Volt is using.

Chrysler specified the battery pack for the EV Minivan at 22kWh of which, 11kWh is usable if they use the same techniques as GM to extend the cycle life of the battery, which provides for an average consumption of 275Wh/mi, compared to the Volt’s 200Wh. Granted, the Minivan can carry 7 people to the Volt’s 4, but its important to note that regardless of how the cars are configured, the batteries will cost more than what GM has to put in the Volt. I would estimate this battery pack to cost around $15,000 (given the Volt’s estimated cost of $10,000 for 16kWh). This would probably have a starting price of $45,000 before any government rebates or incentives, and before any crazy dealer markup.

For the Jeep, Chrysler’s goal is to have in-wheel electric motors, however those appear to be a bit further out, when the first generation has standard mechanical linkage from the electric motor to the wheels. Likewise, as the heavier duty vehicle in the EV lineup, the Jeep Wrangler is rated at 27kWh for the battery (closer to $17,500 based on the Volt’s battery price), and doesn’t quite hit the 100mph top speed - the brochure says “more than 90MPH”. It will also hit 400 miles total range, with an estimated 10 gallon fuel tank.

GM and now Chrysler have announced EVs, and Ford looks lonely over there in the corner. What will they counter with? Do they bring us the RE-EV Escape? (YES PLEASE) The small SUV and crossover categories seem to be the only workable niches that are not covered by the four electric vehicles unveiled so far (I wouldn’t expect a large SUV or luxury sedan models out until the battery costs are more managable).

The Volt was revealed to much fanfare, but no new technical information has been released. Some new videos have surfaced of the Volt driving around a test track, presumably GM’s.

But now we can say the countdown officially begins - come fall of 2010 the Volt is due to be on showroom floors. Though with only 10,000 units to be made, not only will it be tough to get on the first year, the prospect of actually saving money compared to a gasoline vehicle will be tough due to the insane dealer markup I’m expecting. And I don’t expect it to subside until the end of the second production year (end of 2011). Hopefully by that time GM will have figured out what it’ll take to put out 100,000 units per year.

One of the interesting problems facing the Volt is that the price of gas will determine how quickly the buyer will make their money back. Or if they’ll make it back at all. I’ve done the math and for me, the breakeven point is about $4/gallon over the course of 7 years. This includes government tax rebates and total vehicle finance costs, compared to the vehicle I’d normally buy (an Escape). Seven years might sound like a long time, however the warranty on the powertrain on the Volt is 10 years, so it should have usable life that far (assuming GM doesn’t collapse).

The renewables and drilling bill passed in the house, mostly on party lines. It heads to the Senate. The bill includes a 3 year extension for wind power (until the end of 2012) and an 8 year extension for solar (until the end of the 2017). I’m hoping that this will be the last set of incentives - that by 2012 wind is at grid parity for areas with wind resources at grade 5 and above. There is positive economic impact with this bill too - a number of projects tied to renewable energy, both generation and transmission projects are depending on this bill to pass so they can move forward and begin construction. So those in the renewable energy sector as well as power transmission could be looking up at the increased amount of work coming their way. Lets hope it makes it through the senate and Bush decides that he wont break out that Veto pen.

Volt & Gas Prices

The Volt is scheduled to be unveiled at the GM centennial this Tuesday. It wont be much of a celebration due to the huge losses they’ve been incurring as of late. But its still a very important milestone - and sets the stage for 2009 as they roll out a fleet of test vehicles for the commercial sector.

With gas prices falling somewhat, the pressure on people’s pocketbooks is easing, but I really don’t see a swing back to fuel inefficient vehicles (SUVs, trucks) unless prices fall dramatically - and by that I mean $40/bbl, which is not likely at all. I’m estimating the bottom to be around $75/bbl, though I wouldn’t mind a figure much lower (~$50/bbl or $2/gal after taxes). The interesting thing is what will diesel prices do - since those prices also have an impact on the consumer’s wallet in terms of prices for just about everything we buy. The same goes for airlines, will $75/bbl prices help, or will some airlines like Continental who hedged their future oil prices at around $115/bbl and are now stuck with even a bigger fuel bill than before (paying the loss on the $115 barrel of oil vs current cost).

When it comes to the Volt, you’ll still save money all the way down to $1/gal, its just a question of whether or not its worth it to pay the extra money for a PHEV or just buy a cheaper hybrid vehicle (the new Honda Insight will have a starting price of $18,500, however that’s subject to dealer markup based on demand - in other words, good luck getting it for that price).

If the Volt sells for $40,000, and you get a $7500 tax credit for buying one, that brings it down to $32,500, or about $15,000 more than a 31MPG Toyota Corolla. The Volt has a 10 year warranty on the powertrain and battery, so if you calculate the ROI over 10 years, excluding the cost of money, you have to save $1,500 every year. The Volt will only save about 470 gal. per year over the Corolla (40 miles per day, 365 days per year). Driving 31 miles for the Volt would cost $0.85, while it costs the Corolla whatever the going rate for gas is. At $2/gal, you’d only save $540/yr, or $5,400 over 10 years, far short of the $15,000 required. Now at $3/gal, things get better - over those 470 gallons you save $1,198 per year. Closer, and possibly in the range for those who drive over 40 miles per day and would also benefit from the cheaper price of E85 Ethanol over gasoline as well as the Volt’s better MPG rating over the Corolla. It turns out that on that 470 gallons, the price of gas has to average $4.05/gallon over the next ten years - which is not unreasonable to assume. Be sure to note that the calculations above don’t include any gasoline based driving for the Volt as well as a few assumptions about the charging efficiency and usage patterns on the Volt.

Volt Mileage Sticker

Last entry, I mocked up a Chevy Volt MPG window sticker. Since then I’ve thought about it a little more and have come up with a modification at the bottom. Rather than show just the cost, also show the amount of energy and fuel used in kWh and gallons, respectively. This way, people can start to look at the gallons per 100 miles figure, rather than just the MPG number. The MPG can be deceptive - a jump form 20 to 25 MPG is bigger than the jump from 25 to 30 MPG. This is because, over the course of 12,000 miles per year, 20 MPG is 600 gallons, 25 MPG is 480 gallons, and 30 MPG is 400 gallons. The difference between 20 and 25 MPG is 120 gallons, while the jump from 25 to 30 MPG is only 80 gallons. It gets amplified as the numbers go up - the difference between 30, 40 and 50 MPG is dramatically deceptive, at 400, 300, and 240 respectively. The first jump is 100 gallons, and the second jump is only 60 gallons. This goes to show why the gallons per 100 or per 10,000 miles is much more accurate for the consumer rather than MPG.

Algae Fuel

Solazyme has announced that they’ve produced aviation fuel that meets the standards required. While its welcome, it might be a long while before they can start producing meaningful amounts at quantities worth selling. But its something to keep an eye on - the aviation industry struggles every year under fluctuating gas prices, and even the star of the industry wouldn’t have been profitable last quarter without its fuel hedging strategy, and there is a distinct possibility it’ll miss profitability this quarter (along with every other airline) due to high fuel prices. The volatility is whats killing the industry - airlines are unique in that they raise prices based on current fuel prices. This means that today’s ticket purchasers are paying for the fuel for today’s flights, and not the fuel for their own flights down the road. Its a pay as you go system, much like Social Security is. So when fuel costs go down, prices go down. Thats good, but when prices go up, and fewer people can afford to fly, there are more open seats on an airplane. This causes airlines to cut flights and cause the price of tickets to go even higher. The payments on a 737 don’t go down just because the plane does one less flight during the day or is grounded completely.

A steady price for fuel would go a long way in helping the industry stabailze and return to profitability. Which, if this algae-based fuel can be produced in significant enough quantities, it can provide some stability to the fuel market - as it wouldn’t be affected by geopolitical instabilities, and it would be less vulnerable to weather events like a hurricane. Solazyme’s main source of materials is sugarcane. This is one area McCain is actually ahead of Obama - he plans on ending farm subsidies and dropping import restrictions on sugar cane (which is primarily produced in Brazil, it doesn’t grow all that well in the US). They do plan to switch out to non-food competitive sources eventually, but thats an indefinite period of time.