E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
David Mcnew / Reuters
A 2011 Chevy Volt is seen at a dealership in Northridge, Calif.
By Paul A. Eisenstein
A spectacular flop, or just a slow start?
One thing is certain, the battery car is going to have to gain some serious momentum if it’s going to have a real impact on the U.S. automotive market -- or come anywhere close to meeting the White House’s target of putting 1.5 million battery-powered cars on the road by mid-decade.
Despite widespread coverage in both the automotive and mainstream media – and the introduction of a number of new models – battery cars barely showed up as a rounding error on the automotive sales charts in 2011, plug-in hybrids and pure battery-electric vehicles collectively generating less than 18,000 sales, or about as many Accord sedans Honda sold in December alone.
Proponents insist that the technology shouldn’t be measured by 2011 results and will need a few years to build momentum, particularly to see the sort of improvements in cost and range needed to become more directly competitive with the time-tested internal combustion engine.
But skeptics are questioning whether so much money and effort should be focused on battery power when there are other potential alternatives to the combustion engine in the offing.
“This is how the auto industry itself started out 125 years ago, taking very slow, stuttering steps,” cautioned Rebecca Lindland, research chief with IHS Automotive. While some of her colleagues have dubbed the battery car a failure, she says it’s “too early to panic.”
The year ended with the much-ballyhooed Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid (Chevy prefers “extended-range electric vehicle”) logging just short of 8,000 sales. The carmaker insists it actually met its goal of building 10,000 Volts, but it clearly fell short of its plan to sell that many last year. Early in 2011 Nissan crowed about logging over 20,000 advance deposits for its electric Nissan Leaf but barely reached 10,000 in sales. Again, the carmaker considers that a success.
Others aren’t so upbeat.
“I’d say they failed,” proclaimed Joe Phillippi, chief analyst with AutoTrends Consulting.
Phillippi also admits it may be too early to write battery cars off entirely. Consider the experience of the Toyota Prius, today the world’s most successful conventional hybrid-electric vehicle. When it made its debut a decade ago it sold less than 6,000 units in its first year on the U.S. market. But last year it was the world’s best-selling hybrid and accounted for roughly half of gas-electric model sales in the United States.
Then again, add all hybrids together and sales totaled just 274,927 last year, or barely 2.1 percent of the 12.78 million cars, light trucks and crossovers sold in the U.S. in 2011.
Tesla Motors founder and Chairman Elon Musk insists the electric side of the industry will slowly ramp up as batteries get better and costs come down. He points to the California-based start-up’s new Model S sedan, due later this year, which will offer buyers a choice of 160-, 230- and even a 300-mile battery pack. Currently, most models get less than 100 miles per charge.
Ford’s global product chief Derrick Kuzak is not quite as enthusiastic about electric cars, but he’s still an advocate, suggesting Ford’s goal is “to drive up scale” to bring down costs and improve the limiting factors of an electric vehicle, like range and charging times.
Ford has just launched a lithium-ion-powered version of its Focus model and, in the coming months, will add both conventional hybrid and plug-in versions of the new C-Max “people mover.” There will be no gas-only version.
Kuzak expects battery power to account for anywhere between 10 and 25 percent of the car market by 2020, with factors ranging from technological breakthroughs to government mandates impacting the actual tally. He cautions that Ford anticipates conventional hybrids will account for three-quarters of all battery-based vehicle sales, followed by plug-ins and then battery-electric vehicles, or BEVs.
The numbers could actually become notably larger if one were to include more basic battery-based technologies -- such as start-stop, which briefly shuts off a vehicle’s engine instead of letting it idle, and then automatically restarts the engine when the driver’s foot lifts off the brake. Many experts predict that feature alone could become near-ubiquitous by 2020.
Part of the problem for the battery car is that the aging internal combustion engine is getting so good.
Emissions are barely 1 percent of what they were before government regulations were first enacted in the 1960s. The latest turbochargers, direct injection and advanced transmission systems are yielding phenomenal improvements in fuel efficiency, even as they boost performance.
But these improvements to the internal combustion engine likely won’t be enough, according to Lindland, who notes that government fuel economy mandates will require a host of solutions.
“There’s a lot of activity around the world that suggests people realize the battery isn’t the only way to get there, however,” stressed Peter Hoffmann, editor and publisher of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Letter.
Fuel cell technology is sometimes referred to as the refillable battery because it uses hydrogen to create electric current that can run the same electric motors as a battery car. The only exhaust gas is pure water vapor.
But there are numerous problems producing, distributing and storing hydrogen, and that has led the Obama administration to initially shift research dollars away to battery development. Recently, however, the Department of Energy has put more money back into hydrogen efforts.
That reflects what is happening in other parts of the world, notably in Germany, where the government has laid out long-term plans for a network of perhaps 1,000 hydrogen refilling stations along the nation’s vaunted Autobahns. (Those stations would also feature battery chargers.)
A new study by KPMG, based on responses from 200 auto industry leaders, shows that eight in 10 anticipate increased research spending on various electric vehicle componentry. Much of that investment could go toward fuel cell vehicles, too. And the study found 65 percent expect more spending on fuel cell research.
There are other possible solutions, including advanced diesel power. Current applications already account for about half of the vehicles on the road in Europe. There are also novel uses of compressed air, rather than batteries, for storing energy in hybrid vehicles.
The coming year will see a flood of new hybrids and more advanced lithium-based vehicles coming to market. Indeed, it will be the rare carmaker that won’t have a battery car on the road over the next two to three years. Whether consumers will reward or ignore them remains to be seen.
Related stories:
GM to fortify electric Volts amid fire risk
Lies, damned lies and fuel economy numbers
Leave a Comment:
I'm not really sure the battery car is the way to go. First you don't really get that many miles out of it before you have you charge it again. And how long do you really have to wait for a full charge. Hours? Who's going to wait that long?
They'd be a great commuter car, but not for $40K.
Or put another way, the only people who can afford them are the one's who dont care about gas prices in the first place.
As just a commuter car it may be fine, but now I have to also have a long haul car if I want to drive more then 45 minutes from home. Any further and I would not be able to return with out a charge. And as far as being green, fossil fuels are still being used to generate the electricity needed to charge the car, but not the emissions are in someone else back yard.
And how much more will your electric bill be? Electricity is expensive as it is. I drive a hybrid and am very pleased with the gas mileage and the performance. I don't relish the thought of driving a puddle-jumper that can't take a trip without a plug.
Truth be known, most people probably couldn't make it to work and back on one charge.
If the Volt can lay rubber??? I might consider one.
I spend all night at home, as do most people, which is plenty of time to charge the car. With my current truck I fill-up once a month on average, everything I need is nearby because I planned it that way when I was looking for a place.
As for all those who moan about price, my guess is you drive an beater box, because lots of cars and trucks cost far more than any main stream car companies electrics or hybrids.
Grumpy,
If you do a lot of long drives, then a Volt is for you, drive as far as you want, but never put in gas on week days.
I am a fairly liberal/tree-hugger type. I don't believe battery cars are a good idea. We have a superb infrastructure built around trucking and distributing gasoline. Why waste it? Rather, we should be spending far more effort on making clean gasoline.
Even now, we're starting to make baby steps towards algae that can make gasoline out of mostly sunlight, water and air (well, the carbon in the air.) If we can get this going, what difference does it make whether we get 50 miles to the gallon or 15?
Battery cars are a con job. They have been pressed upon the public by car manufacturers trying to sell another product of dubious value.
Car charges at night...or do you drive in your sleep?
Paul Eisenstein is a paid propagandist for Detroit's auto industry. After fifty years of feeding propaganda to the American car consumers, even the Detroit's auto maker CEOs started believing their own nonsense and the phony notion of the 'Big Three.' Then reality hit. GM and Chrysler went bankrupt. Ford went on life support.
Pure electric powered cars are here to stay. Pure electric cars from Leaf, Tesla,Mitsubishi, Coda, Ford and others are going mainstream. Plug-in hybrids, which is a regular hybrid with increase battery capacity for extended pure electric range, will expand the wider acceptance of electric powered vehicles.
Instead of protecting Detroit's Small Two auto companies, GM and Ford, Eisenstein should lead the way by calling for better hybrids and EVs from these two remnants of a once powerful and dominant American car industry.
The electric grid will not handle the extra load of electric cars being recharged.
We already have rolling blackouts in the summer months...
How much do the replacement batteries cost & can they be replaced by the owner??
When they sell an EV with 150 mile range for $25,000 they might have something. Throw in a deal with car rental companies for great rates on the weekends and work with employers on charging stations, they could have a winner.
Charging load has already been studied and is not a problem since most charging is at night when many plants are idling. Ford has intelligent charging that communicates with the grid to optimize performance. Charging is NOT an issue.
Battery cars are the future, but as pointed out, it will take time. Compare TV's now to a decade or two ago, cell phones, computers, etc. People of the "I want it NOW!" generation need to get real, innovation takes time.
Electricity may be expensive but filling up the battery costs 10% of what filling up the tank costs. Charging a 24KWH battery even at $0.25/KWH would be less than $4, (battery packs are never discharged completely, the car shuts down long before that to extend battery life).
SJC_3 -- You're right. Better range, better prices and easily accessible charging stations. If I could rent one, I wouldn't mind trying one out for a week or so. I have yet to find out how much it usually costs to charge one of those cars, e.g., a Chevy Volt.
Battery powered vehicles are a fluke that will never replace anything. For what you get in performance, the price is much too high and in reality, the carbon foot print for manufacturing these things is ridiculous. Just wait for the first serious round of replacing batteries and disposing of the used ones!!! That will hurt and create new problems that will impact the carbon foot print and resources considerably. Besides being impractical, the performance just plain sucks.
Hydrogen is wher the government needs to invest money. But no, the Dumbamanites and associated jerks support batteries because they are stupid and short sighted and, let's not forget it, fill their pockets.
While I believe pure electrics represent a viable FUTURE power train for privately owned vehicles, until there is a revolution in battery storage capacity or electric motor efficiency they will remain ALTERNATIVE modes of transportation. The Volt and Kharma represent the evolutionary step toward pure electrics but are less viable and cost effective than a parallel hybrid (Prius, Fusion Hybrid, etc.).
Until there is a pure electric with a 300 mile battery range for $30k, they will remain on the outside looking in toward the mainstream automobile market !!
Electric Motor efficiency is not the major problem. Battery energy density per pound is still the stumbling block. Cost is the other. Until hybrids and electrics are available at equal or less cost than gasoline powered vehicles, and have the same or less operating costs, gasoline will prevail. Diesel power has a better chance of succeeding in the near term, since cleaner and more efficient diesel engines are available. GM's past effort to diesel-ize gas V8s failed miserably, due to poor engineering. A lot has changed between then and now. Some V8 powered Corvette versions can approach 30MPG (Highway). This shows that a "modern" V8 gasoline engine can be built to deliver both power and good mileage.
I'll buy an electric car when I can drive 300-400 miles per "tank," and charge (fill) her up in 3 minutes like I can when I put gas in my car. I'd even be willing to wait 5 minutes for a charge if that makes it possible. But unless I can be charge and go, then electric cars will not get my money.
I suspect the only way to make electric cars that quick to charge is if instead, batteries are made standardized, and when you pull up to a charge station, they actually replace your battery with a charged unit. If everybody has their own version of a battery pack, then I don't ever see battery power being king.
Questions that I've never heard discussed:
1) For how long do current-day battery packs last before they must be replaced?
2) How much does it cost to replace a current-day battery pack?
I'm concerned that, after several years, the cost of replacing a battery back may outweigh the value of the car itself, rendering the car worthless.
Specially when they catch fire. Anyway battery powered cars are NOT COST EFFECTIVE!
Marvin,
No car, repeat no car is cost effective. And as for fire last I checked gas still burns, that is why you can't leave engine running or smoke while you fill it up.
Electrics aren't cost effective NOW. They will be less expensive than gas cars by the end of the decade.
Again, innovation takes time. It took solar modules half a century to become economically viable. As of last year they are cheaper than nuclear.
If these goals are met it will be at least another generation before it is a reality. Don't buy one of these experimental vehicles until they are proved to be reliable, cost effective and convenient to use. Don't believe the claims made for the level of performance to expect ; the industry and government will and are deceiving you.
Obamamobiles are silly. Especially in colder climates where the range becomes ridiculously low and dangerous since they will strand their green-crazed drivers.
Keep your Obama hating to yourself, and quit blaming him for everything you don't like, you racist bahstard!
You are the racist. A black has every right to be just as incompetent as a white. Obama/Carter, peas in a pod. Do you honestly think we'd be less critical if Gore or Hillary were in the oval office? Grow up.
I wouldnt want to be caught out on the road with a dead battery and I wont be because i wouldnt give a dime for a dozen of them...in 3 years they just be wore out trouble.
Joe66 Get a horse.
The issue I have is the range. If you have a 100 mile range on a charge, you'll need to know exactly how many miles it is to each of your errands that youre running, and how many miles it is back home. Otherwise you're stranded..
and if you do something crazy like turn on the headlights, heater or A/C, kiss that 100 miles goodbye.
They have these things called gauges just like gas engine cars do. God forbid you might actually have to think when driving.
Think yes, but at night one still needs to use headlights. Electric vehicles are nothing more than toys at this point for city people. I'd like to see a separate class of internal combustion engine small car that doesn't need to meet the same safety standards as a large one. Something very light (sub 1500 pounds) that gets 70-100 mpg.
Yep the gauges will just confirm to you that you will get stuck far away from home. Not like they can bring you a can of electricity to get you home. You think electric cars are not going to get stuck in traffic. Go look at the numbers running the heater or worse the AC uses more power than the motors do. I sure wouldn't want to be one of those stuck in my electric powered metal can in the hot sun in arizona where it is 110 in the shade some days.
Only morons would limit tomorrow's technology to todays capability. The Leaf is an improvement over the Tesla, the Ford Focus is an improvement over the Leaf, and so it goes.
Do you still watch that silly 9" round black and white snowy picture tube in your front room? No, you have 35, 45, 55, even up to 87" full color HDTV instead. Remember what cell phones were a decade ago? How long their charges lasted? We are leaps and bounds better now. That's technology for you!
I love my Volt, I do buy some gas about once a month , but back and forth to work it is al on the charge. The fire issue is a joke, any cars battery can catch fire if hit the right way.
Give it 3 more years and more turmoil in the middle east. You'll see how fast they are accepted.
The concept is good but flawed. With the EPA shutting down lots of U.S. coal fired power plants with new regulations and the need for a widespread power grid to plug these vehicles in, we are in a catch 22. How fast can the U.S. replace outdated power plants with cleaner alternatives? Can you just plug the vehicles in anywhere? How can you go on out of state trips on such a limited range?
Accepting the "Battery Car" is not an issue. It's accepting the "Battery Car" PRICE!
If these had a base price of $20k, they wouldn't be able to keep them in stock.
The point of an electric car is not just the environment, but to SAVE MONEY! If the car costs $20k MORE than a comparable gasoline car what money are you SAVING? Answer: NONE! It would take so long to recoup the gas savings it's not worth it. So then what's the point? The ONLY positive is you can be "Green". Sorry, but that's just not enough!
And that's the issue for most folks who would consider an electric vehicle!
You may be an "opinionated high horse", but you hit the nail on the head!
Prices will come down as the technology matures. This is how all new technology is -- the first ones are for early adopters, then the price comes down and more people buy.
The technology has been around for over 100 years now. Some of the first automobiles were electric.
However we are not using the same technology, so that is a moot point.
Just because they are both battery-powered does not make them identical.
Also, you need to take into consideration economies of scale.
Good point! The EV-1 failed because of the battery. The only reason these cars are expensive is because of the battery. Lead-Acid ruled battery's for a century but they are not viable. Li Ion is relatively new and ultra capacitor technology is state of the art. Comparing today's electric technology to a century ago is absurd.
I considered a used 2001 Honda Ingight some time ago. It was going to need a new IMA battery along with a couple of electronic modules replaced at the same time. Cost to do that - $5000. Needless to say I decided to pass. Picked up a 1999 3 cylinder Chevrolet Metro and have gotten as much as 53 mpg with it. I had to work at that though, usually it gets in the mid 40's. The 2001 Insight got 70 mpg, but when you figure in the high maintenance costs associated with these hybrids the cost per mile really add up.
He shops at dealer always gets ripped, you can get that done today for half that cost, but first check for warranty, it was 10 years on that battery.
Ed
Let me see here. I don't think that you can buy and replace the Battery and Controllers as a DIY Project. The Battery Pack for a Tesla weighs in around 900 POUNDS!! I don't think that the Insight Pack would weigh any less.
You don't think the battery pack for a full electric vehicle with a 300 mile range would be any bigger than the battery in a 2001 hybrid car which has no battery only range? Really?
Aussie
How much do you think they weigh?? How much do you think a replacement costs?? Can you do it yourself?? Can you buy a battery pack at your local Auto Parts Store or is it a DEALER ONLY part??
Come on THINK!!!
The IMA battery pack in the 2010 Insight weighs 45 pounds and costs $1968 to purchase and $900 for Honda to install, presumably self installation would be permitted as long as you own the vehicle outright however I imagine there may be warranty implications. There are several local independent mechanics who are doing replacements with cheaper battery packs from other hybrid vehicles for as low as $300 but buyer beware I guess.
You need to think less, and research more.
Don't think up scenarios for topics you are clueless about.
I own a Honda Insight and get 70 miles to the gallon. I do not have any high maintenance bills. In fact, Very little costs in maintaing the car. Awesome car.
And of course the batteries in hondas last as long as they promise...oh that right there is a class action lawsuit because they are failing in less than 3 years
The black coal powered cars have about 125 years, to catch up - accordiong to the industry expert somewhere in the article :)
I live close to the rail track and every hour 140 cars of "clean fuel source" (read: black coal), powered by four diesel engins are rolling down to the power plant.
Electric Vehicles powered by the dirtiest of Coal Power Plants still beat Petroleum-fueled vehicles on pollution. The reason for that is because of thermodynamics -- a huge coal fired plant will be able to produce about 2 to 3 times as much energy from burning coal than your (by comparison) tiny internal combustion engine.
When you also consider that electricity really needs no fuel to get from the power plant to your house (compared to gasoline which is shipped by truck/rail as you say vs. electricity which comes using wires), electricity again beats petroleum.
The entire "coal worse than oil" comes straight from the Oil Industry and nowhere else.
There is also nuclear, wind, and solar, thought the latter two are currently minuscule. My electricity mix is 84% hydro, can't get much cleaner than that! I also have 10KW solar on my roof, (payback less than 8 yr).
My next car will a be BEV.
It will take a recharging station network like the network of gas stations and the price to come down. This will happen when the greedy oil companies and the wall street speculators take the price of gas out of reach for the consumer. I think new battery development for a longer driving range will turn the consumer to electric cars.
Rich
Here in Ca. PG&E JUST raised their rates 2.5% for Residential users. One of the reasons given was the HIGH cost of RENEWABLE Energy!! PG&E is REQUIRED by State Law to buy a percentage of their power from Solar Farms and Wind Farms. Now just how much power is required to FULLY CHARGE a Battery Pack?? I can't seem to find that info ANYWHERE!!
If only there was a system in place to distribute electricity around the country to wherever people keep their cars, imagine how convenient it would be if the electricity was somehow piped into people garages or onto small parking meter type posts in the street, people call me a dreamer but I'm sure in the future such easy access to electricity will be possible.
As for the power to charge a battery pack well it all depends on the capacity of said battery pack plus a 10-15% charging loss. For example the Tesla's largest battery pack with a 300 mile EPA rated range is 85 kwh, this will take ~100kwh to fully charge from empty once charging losses are accounted for. With a national average electricity price in 2011 from the EIA off 11.2c/kwh that means a full charge of a tesla roadster costs $11.20. An equivalent gas vehicle might conservatively achieve 30mpg, the current average retail gas price is $3.30 and for the same EPA range of 300 miles ten gallons would be needed at a cost of $33. Put another way miles in the Tesla Model S will have a fuel cost of 3.7c/mile and in a 30mpg ICE the fuel costs are 11c/mile
Aussie
Now factor in the increase of electrical power plants needed to charge those batteries and your 3.7 per mile goes way up. Now take into consideration the power lines and right of ways involved. Then there is the EIR Reports to pay for. Also the permit fees,and cost of construction. Have you thought of those costs???
I just thought of another cost. To charge your Electric car you will have to upgrade the power to your house. In my area of Ca. PG&E supplies 100 AMPS of power. Now I will have to UPGRADE that to 125 amps to charge my Electric Car or shut everything down while it charges. WHO WILL PAY FOR THAT???
As for increasing power plants see my reply lower down in the threads. I presume you mean EIA or Energy Information Administration, sorry but your really clutching at straws if your trying to argue that electric cars should shoulder the costs for reports from a government agency which has existed and been fully funded since 1977.
No you don't have to upgrade the electric to your house necessarily, home charging is perfectly suited to slow overnight charging which is the best for preserving battery life and the most efficient as slow charging suffers less from charging loss. You can choose to upgrade your home electric to accommodate higher powered connectors to cut charging times down to below 3 hours for a full charge however that is entirely optional
Actually an 85HWH battery pack will not deliver 85KWH. Battery life is greatly reduced if you deep discharge so these cars limit how much you can pull from the batteries before they shut down. The range on a Tesla does not depend on the full 85KWH, only a fraction of it. So a full charge/discharge cycle would be more like half the rated KWH. That cuts the charge cost in half.
Most homes have 200A service, not 100A. I don't even think you can meet code with 100A service anymore. Homes with AC or electric heat routinely are supplied with 325A service.
Just as a data point, I have 200A service. Know what my average draw is? 9A! Take your electric bill and divide the monthly KWH by 30, then divide that by 24 to get KW/H. You'll be shocked how low it is.
Again, this has already been studied, there is no need to upgrade the grid to charge battery cars. Most charding is done at night, the highest power draw is during the day. When do most brown outs occur? On a hot August mid afternoon! NOT in the middle of the night.
Israel has a better idea than just recharging your batter at home. You drive to a battery exchange station and they take your low on charge battery out and put a recharged on in, in less than 10 minutes (I think). They already started opening these stations:
well it would not let me put a link, but just google ubergizmo battery replacement station Israel
The electric car is the Obama Peoples car for the masses. Even when it stops running it will keep you warm by catching fire.
Yes gasoline is so much safer, it is fire proof right?
Dav1bd, you have a public school education, right?
It's clear that someone here doesn't - and it's not Dav1bg.
You have no education, right?
Gasoline is extremely flammable. Or did you think that those "no smoking" signs at gas stations were because they hated smokers?
Prius spent a decade building up a great reputation for battery assisted vehicles only for GM to completely trash it. If the battery car gets killed now it will totally be on GM's shoulders.
Gas cars can catch fire but the effect is immediate. What makes the Volt situation intollerable is it can be weeks or months after the fact and the thing lights up.
p111. How is it intolerable? The only way a volt catches first is if you get in an accident that hits your with enough force to rupture the battery and then rolls the car upside down for at least 8 hours. And then after that you have to let the car and battery sit unattended with the coolant leaked out for 3 weeks for it to catch fire. If your in an accident of that severity, a fire 3 weeks later is the least of the your concerns. There is a reason their is no recall, it is no issue. Fox has latched onto this, and blown it way out of proportions due to their hate of the volt and are so persistant that GM has gone so far to put reinforcement in these vehicles to fix a non-existent problem. Now THAT is crazy, but unfortunately the state of our country right now.
p111: How is the immediate fire from a gas car more tolerable than a delayed fire from a damaged battery? How is this more tolerable when you have time to drain the battery, preventing a fire, which NHTSA didn't do for the Volt?
LOL, an instantaneous fireball at the time of a crash before you necessarily have time to escape the car is ok. But a fire many weeks later well after everyone is safely out of the vehicle, that only has a chance to occur if you fail to perform a simple method of discharging the remaining charge in the battery, leave the car on its side and allow coolant fluid to drip onto the charged battery contrary to manufacturers instructions is intolerable. Anti EV zealotry has just reached a new high in failed logic.
Unworkable battery cars are an example of government foisting a bad technology on people for all the wrong reasons. Meanwhile, the private sector has chosen hydrogen fuel cells.
Car companies came up with the idea, that is why companies all over the world with many different governments are working on them. See it proves some people can think.
Why don't you back that up with some links and information proving your point?
Or are you ignorant of the facts? Look into how much the Honda FCX Clarity 'costs' compared to the Volt and get back to us if you're brave.
You mean the technology that has been in development for more than a decade with still no example being sold, nor any refueling infrastructure?
Meanwhile, the Chevy Volt was introduced as a concept model in 2007...
Fuel cells are yet another loser technology that is always only a decade off. Making hydrogen is expensive and inefficient, fuel cells are also expensive and inefficient, there is no infrastructure, and it ties you to energy companies just like gas.
Hydrogen is an energy transport, not a source. It makes no sense to use electricity to make hydrogen then use hydrogen to make electricity going through to inefficient processes to do it.
Does anyone expect battery technology not to improve for the next decade so fuel cells can catch up???
Considering that fuel cell technology will be 10 years off in 10 years, and then will be 10 years off then, I don't think battery technology has to try very hard.
If you think turning on the AC kills gas mileage on a car with a 4-500 mile range just imagine the impact on a car with only a 1-200 mile range. Electric cars will probably also need electric heat in the winter since they don't make heat from burning fuel, which will use as much or more power than the AC. Purely electric cars are not very practical long-term, but at least it's a step in the right direction away from burning fuel. We should and could have been at this stage of development 10 years ago had those in power not been so beholden to fossil fuel lobbyists.
Batteries get very hot when in use, run a laptop on your laptop for a while and you will see. Also if you look at the issue it is with the battery coolant, that same coolant could be used for heat when needed.
"We should and could have been at this stage of development 10 years ago had those in power not been so beholden to fossil fuel lobbyists."
What a load of crap. We still don't have a viable battery to this day, what makes you think we could have had one a decade ago.
Bush spent more on alternative energy that all previous presidents. He even put 10KW solar on the white house, http://www.sma.de/en/products/references/solar-inverters/isolator/the-white-house.html
We have the Volt, and other electrics because of government friendly policies and research support from a "big oil man". Big oil stifled nothing, immature battery technology did.
Innovation takes time, only a moron would think we could have today's technology a decade ago. It's about as stupid as saying since we had phones and radios in the fifties we should have had cell phones then too, if it wasn't for evil AT&T.
p111 sez: 'Big oil stifled nothing, immature battery technology did.'
Oh?
Chevron bought GM's stake in the company, now known as Cobasys, that manufactured large NiMH batteries and owned key patents. Cobasys would not take orders for large batteries under 10,000 units, making it cost-prohibitive for small manufacturers to make electric cars, modify 'gliders' to go electric, or for even large manufacturers to make test fleets. They would sell smaller quantities of smaller batteries for hybrids.
Again, under Chevron, they would not license the patents to make the larger NiMH batteries needed for earlier pure electric vehicles, like the Toyota RAV4 EV. They sued the manufacturer of the RAV4 battery, Panasonic EV Energy, for patent infringement. As part of the settlement, Panasonic EV Energy could not sell certain types of transportation batteries until 2007, and had restrictions on the quantities of them until 2010.
I'm not so sure that big oil "stifled nothing."
Something just came to mind - what if your car is charging and you get some wicked thunderstorms or a blizzard and lose power? Guess your car can't go anywhere either. I don't think my boss would let me call off because my car didn't charge due to a thunderstorm!
Blah blah blah.... story sponsored by the oil industry. I'm dying to get a Leaf and flip the bird to every gas station I pass, but there's a 2 year waiting list that it costs $99 even to get on. I only fear what happens when the electric cars grab real market share - all those lost gas taxes are going to be made up for in increased registration fees for electric cars, mark my words! (I love using that phrase)
Read up (even on Wikipedia) about the history of electric cars - in the early 1900's, it looked like they'd be the "industry standard", but then big oil got involved in subsidizing internal combustion engines, and the rest is history.
It is interesting that it takes foreign companies to make the first all electric cars.
Once electric cars are out there then companies will research making better batteries. Right now who is going to invest in research for a wonderful battery, for cars that may or may not be built? So once the cars come, then the batteries will come. And they are not to bad right now. A first generation lithium battery has 4 times the energy density of a lead acid battery (the common car battery). The new generation lithium batteries have 4 times more or 16 times the energy density of lead acid. In other words if your car battery were a new generation lithium it would be one sixteenth the size. I sometimes think our auto industry is a dinosaur. (please don't tell me it can't work, some of these new battery powered drills have a much torque as a automobile starter). Just keep buying those walmart batteries.
Fish
BIG OIL huh?? How about INEFFICIENT BATTERIES?? How about SMALL POWER SOURCE FOR CHARGING?? How about LONG TIMES TO CHARGE?? How about COLD OR HOT WEATHER?? How about....,well you get the idea. THEY DID NOT WORK!!!
A leaf? Are you sure? I'd rather have the Ford Focus electric.
I could drive that car all year and never put in any gas. I'd rent a car for long trips.
Oh, and slodon: typing in all caps won't obfuscate your ignorance and lack of vision. The cars work exactly as intended and designed, and in one or two generations (as long as big oil doesn't buy up the patent rights to the batteries to prevent them from coming to market) we'll have electric cars that will outperform conventional gasoline powered vehicles.
Remember, technology improves.
Pete
Sorry about the CAPS. Now how about this?
The batteries in the 1900's were weak. The electrical grid was pretty much none existent. The batteries did not hold a charge. The same is pretty much the same to day as yesterday. But now we have inefficient solar power. We have no in bedded wires in the road. We don't have any right-a-ways to deliver the non existent power to the road wires. We don't have enough power plants,solar farms or wind farms to supply that much power to a million battery chargers. Now how are you with building more power plants,killing more birds(in the case of wind farms)or interfering with giant kangaroo rats(solar farms in the Carrizo Plains)and kit foxes,also in the solar farms area of the Carrizo plains???? Now keep in mind that getting the permits and EIR's take time,about 5 years or more,how long do you think it will take to make all of these power plants?? How about 5 years? How about 10 years? How about 20 years each??? What do we do until that infrastructure is built?? Do we pedal,walk,or ride a non existent bus 50 miles?? How do we go to Grandma's house 100 miles away?? Train? Well there is no train or bus that goes to my children's Grandmothers house. What do I do???
Slodon don't be sucked in by to the ongoing campaign of fear or ignorance that electric vehicles will crash the electric grid and the dirty fuels currently employed to produce electricity will make electric cars worse than ICE.
A gallon of gasoline currently takes approximately 10- kwh of electricity to extract and refine. That gallon of gasoline will take an optimistic ICE 30 miles. The 10 kwh of electricity consumed in its production will take an average EV 30-35 miles (~300Wh/mile) The implication of this is that every ICE mile replaced by an EV mile will actually decrease electricity consumption normally used to refine gasoline (not to mention of course the gasoline itself) Electric vehicles will reduce the requirement on foreign oil AND domestic electricity production, win win.
peteMT----------- 1 or 2 generations is 25 to 50 years.
Aussie
A decrease in electrical demand?? Please give a source for your statement. My expereice tells me that the more you plug into an outlet and the more switches are on the more juice you use. Now PLEASE explain how I'm wrong.
Aussie
I forgot to mention here where I live it costs up to .50 per KWH for electrical power and going up by 2.5% this sometime this year. So using your numbers it would cost me about 5.00 to go 30-35 miles using gas. Now I get about 25 MPG and my gas costs 3.75 PG. WHERE IS THE SAVINGS???
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
Contains an extensive discussion with varying numbers from various sources which makes it hard to be completely accurate however what can be summarised is that gasoline production is a GARGANTUAN consumer of electricity in this country. Therefore any discussion of the relative efficiencies of ICE vs Electric cars must take into account the enormous amount of electricity consumed in the production of gasoline which would fall proportionally if ICE cars were swapped for electric vehicles. Whether or not the net effect is a slight increase, no net change or a slight decrease in electricity demand is almost impossible to be sure of. What is clear however is that the amount of additional electricity capacity necessary if a significant portion of the US vehicle fleets were swapped for EV's would be much smaller than it appears at first. Furthermore once you then consider that a large percentage of EV charging would occur at night when many power plants are idled (but must be kept hot as large thermal plants have an 18-24 hour start up time) wasting large amounts of energy which could be put to good use charging vehicles and the need for new power plants falls even further.
Having a case by case discussion for some bizzarro situation where electricity is 5 times the national average price is ridiculous. I am using national average prices. I nor anyone else has ever said that one or the other is always better in all situations but your clutching harder and harder at straws when you start coming out with such ridiculous specifics. Residential solar systems can now produce electricity at about 25c/kwh without subsidies and about 15c/kwh with subsidies so maybe in your specific case that might be better than paying 50c/kwh but frankly those specifics are for you to work out and really have no place in this conversation about the national and worldwide potential for electric vehicles.
Edit timed me out. What I was trying to say was that the cost of the car plus the cost to operate is no where near what I have now. I paid 15,000 for a 2004 Subaru Forester. I get 28 MPG on the highway. It cost me 38.00 today to fill up,12+ gal. Using your numbers it would cost me about 36.00. Now how is that cost effective it it would cost me 35,000 after the 7,500 rebate for the car and .00 more to go the same distance?? I can buy a lot of gas for 20,000
Aussie
I looked into solar for my 1200 sq.ft. house using an average of 650 KWH per month. It would cost in the range of $26,000 after all the tax credits and State and Federal programs. I could save about $125 per month on my bill. It would take about 25-30 years to pay for the system at $120 per month. So I would $5.00 per month. WOOPPPDEEEDOOOO!!!! I can put up with the power company for $5.00 per month!!!
Just thought of something else. Off topic but I think relevant to the Green Energy debate. Have you tried the new Green Matches?? If you haven't let me clue you in,they are a flash but no fire!! After you strike them they flare and go out!!! Damn hard to start the Barbie with these things.
Yeh were not even on the same wavelength, I'm having a discussion on the national impacts of ICE vs EV's, the impact on the national grid, potential fuel savings and the environmental benefits that go with that. Whilst you are worried about you 2004 Subaru Forrester and a solar array for your house. Ive already outlined the maths in these threads that shows that the fuel costs for a 30mpg vehicle at the current national gas price average is 11c/mile. whereas the electric costs for the model S at ~300wh/mile is 3.7c/mile
By the way you may want to check back on those solar systems periodically, in the last 12 months the price of solar panels has fallen by 75%. Solar power affordability is increasing so fast no report can keep track of it. How much has gas prices and electricity costs fallen in the last 12 months...
Aussie
Yes I have seen your math. But I think that you are leaving out some things in you calculations. Have you factored in the cost of the charging stations in home and in public? How will the public charging stations be paid for? What will the charge per KWH be to charge your vehicle? Where will these stations be situated? Will taxes be raised or will the owners pay for the installation and property required? Who will pay the Property Taxes?? Do you see the political ramifications just for charging stations?? How about the cost of power lines to get the power where needed?? How about the cost of right-a-ways? Have you considered any of these potential costs??
As the saying goes--"THERE AIN'T NO FREE LUNCH"!
Power lines are already everywhere needed. By far the most likely places for EV chargers are on private property in public parking garages and at roadside restaurants, as both mean people can charge while they shop or eat on trips. Many places may offer free use of chargers for customers who buy meals in there restaurants or shop in their store and use it as a marketing tactic to get bums on seats, others will have swipe card payment systems at some arbitrary cost to provide a profit margin over the base electricity cost. All of these will be payed for by commercial entities. We may well also see charging stations on public streets in the form of parking meter like posts (they will quite likely be integrated into parking meters and may well even share the same payment system for parking and charging, one rate if you're just parking, additional fee if you wish to plug in at the same time) and these will likely be initially payed for through taxes and council rates but over time will pay for themselves through charging for their use.
None of this however recognises that the vast majority of people will simply plug in when they get home and wake up to a fully charged car with less time taken than filling up a gas car and no trip to a station to do it.
Now I am responding to all your questions but your not really coming to the table, you asked me to provide a source for my comments about a possible reduction in electricity use with EV's, I supplied that, no response? do you retract your doubts or not believe the source either?
Aussie
I'm just pointing out the costs involved with the EV and who will pay for those costs. That is all. I'm being a Devils Advocate here I suppose. I would love to have an EV but the costs are to high and the infrastructure is not there. So in the mean time I will get into my Subaru and go my 28 MPH on the highway. I will also use my Jeep Comanche Pick-up 4X4 to go off road when I fell like a vacation. I get about 12 MPH in four wheel drive with my 1987 JEEP 4.0 Inline 6. Nothing they make these days get close to that. Maybe Toyota and Tesla can get an EV going in the future. BUT WHERE WILL I CHARGE THE BATTERY IN THE OUTBACK???
How about the costs involved with oil and who's paying for those? Any thoughts on the 72 billion dollars for oil and Gas subsidies between 2002-2008? How about the thousands of US lives being lost, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars spent, in wars that are thinly veiled attempts to maintain a presence in the Oil rich areas of the globe? How about the billions of dollars spent and the billions more in lost industry from fossil fuel disasters like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?
If were going to add in every external cost of oil and gas largely imported from unstable areas versus largely home grown US electricity I think you'll find your fighting a losing battle.
You continue to avoid actually responding to the substance of my posts and just positing more potential problems, however if the biggest issue with electric cars is where Slodon will charge his 4x4 for his occasional off road trip then somehow I think that EV's are going to be just fine.
Aussie
I just got back from your link. Thought I might have missed something the first time around. But all I see is a Cartoon about the Evils of Gasoline without any source to back up the claims made. For instance the Green.AutoBlog.com. Who Produced this video? Who paid for this video? Where are their sources? I see nothing to backup their claims. They cite this report but give no info on how to access it.
Health effects due to gasoline related pollution. In 2008, CSU Fullerton's Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies released a report showing that the cost of air pollution for the greater Los Angeles area adds up to more than $1,250 per person per year, and is more than $1,600 per person in California's Central Valley. In addition to all the medical costs of asthma, and other respiratory illnesses, there are lost workdays, and missing school days that factor in.
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/06/20/video-true-cost-of-gas-in-us-is-closer-to-15-a-gallon/#continued
They seem to be a very biased to me. Where is MSNBC? Or CNN? Or ABC,CBS,NBC? I don' see any creditable source on their web page that I can link to and read for myself.
OK AUSSIE
What about the subsidies? How about the Ethanol Subsidies? The cost of the Ethanol Subsidies is MORE then the Oil Subsidies.
Just about 7 Billion in 2006 for Ethanol.
Corn ethanol subsidies totaled $7.0 billion in 2006 for 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol.
http://zfacts.com/p/63.html
And about 4 billion per year for Oil.
Oil industry officials say that the tax breaks, which average about $4 billion a year according to various government reports, are a bargain for taxpayers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
Now what about subsidies??
And how is the health cost tabulated?? How can they project to health savings years into the future? They have a time machine or something similar?? Just how are those numbers arrived at?
I never linked that page. The only link I have given was http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm and it has no cartoons simply text and graphs with links to many many reports given. But seeing as you ahve brought it up once again I will respond to your continued stream of issues despite your failure to actually respond to any of mine
The report your referring to took me all of 3 minutes to access a summary article on is from a highly respected Californian research institute and frankly if you would rate an MSNBC, CNN or ABC report above a peer reviewed economics report then... I don't even know what to make of that. They seem very biased to you? can you please give any credible evidence that CSU fullerton or the two Cal state profs who authored the paper are biased in any way. Now your not even posing questions your just making up issues to further your own point.
Like I said earlier I being the Devil's Advocate. You have to give me some damn good reasons to believe that EV is the way to go.
http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf
Total Oil and gas subsidies between 2002 and 2008 72 billion, total renewable subsidies 29 billion including a total ethanol subsidy of 5 billion
I might take my advice from Faith Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency who said in october last year "The current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies are only encouraging a wasteful use of energy. The cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help the world move towards a trajectory of 2 degrees in global warming, reducing CO2 emissions and helping renewable energies get more market share in the process"
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Renewable-Energy-Being-Held-Back-by-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-IEA.html
Similarly a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report in 2010 found that governments around the world are spending 12 times as much on fossil fuel subsidies than on renewable energy, which is significantly impacting on the ability for renewables to fairly compete against fossil fuel.
Of course these are direct subsidies, so even if you don't think the health costs are as high as you quoted whatever they are they are still on top of those subsidies and represent another significant external cost of fossil fuels.
Aussie
Sorry it wasn't your link but it was on http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm.
I just followed their source.
Well it looks like we have the DUELING SOURCES. Yours says one thing and mine say another. I wonder who to believe? Looks like a Mexican Standoff. OOOPPPPPS!!! Now I guess I'm a bigot. I said Mexican Standoff.
It has been fun debating with you Aussie look forward to doing it again. But it is getting late here,2320 01/06. Not sure if you're in Downunder or not but it is time for bed for this OL' Man. Good Night.
You might have followed a link from my link but you have still failed to respond to the main claim I posted the link to back and that was that displacement of gargantuan amounts of electricity currently used in oil production and refining will minimise and may even negate the power needed to charge EV's, and the timing of charging overnight when large amounts of electric generation capacity is idled seals the deal. There is broad consensus that a significant amount of the US vehicle fleet could be swapped to EV's with no additional generating capacity being required.
Solar makes sense now! Prices have fallen dramatically. I bought my modules for only $1.58/watt a few months ago and they've already dropped to $1.28/watt. That's a far cry from $15/watt in Carter's time and those were 80's dollars! If you DIY the installation you can get to $2/watt installed. It's really easy, the hardest part is filling out the permits, etc.
If you are paying $0.50/watt for electricity you should jump on solar! At that rate, payback would be under five years. I pay $0.065, one eighth of what you do, and my payback is less than 8 years with subsidies and less than 18 years without federal subsidies.
The grid issue has already been studied and there is no problem with car charging, give it up already.
Oil companies are not blocking anything, battery technology is. Get over it.
Like all technologies, BEV's are in the "early adopter" stage. This is what funds the ramp up stage. It will take a half dozen years or so but battery cars will eventually be cheaper than gas cars. Electric car technology is very mature, battery technology is not. That is what needs to resolved in the coming years.
If the orange peel paint job on the photo of the VOLT is any indication of the type of quality one can expect from this car.. NO THANKS. American cars. that poor quality is to be expected anyways.
A recent article addressed the subject of the corporate headquarters trying to get all the dealerships to invest in millions to upgrade their showrooms to make them to look more modern and consistant with each other throughout the U.S. in an effort to get more customers in to buy their product. Typical executive decisions. Those idiots just don't get it.
The way to get more customers in their showrooms and dealerships to buy vehicles is to improve the quality of the product they sell. It is as simple as that. Customers don't give a crap about how good the showroom looks. That is secondary to the product customers go in to buy and the service they provide after the sale... PERIOD!
Hey, guess what?
I checked out a Volt this weekend and was amazed at the quality of construction. Yes, compared to the holy 'imports' this car was just fine in terms of materials quality and assembly. So, get with it. It's not 1985 anymore. Domestic quality has improved to the point of equaling or surpassing the imports. Have you bothered to do any research?
As for your second paragraph: how is this news? Take a look at what Toyota and Nissan have forced dealerships to do in the last five years.
As for your third: well, now you've got some merit. But I would add that the buying experience should be improved - sketchy, ignorant sales people and unethical service departments do plenty to drive people away.
I remember when the Quartz watches first came out, wow, high dollar, now what are they $3.00, the battery cost more to replace than a new watch. The price of electric cars will come down, but someone has to buy the first ones.
Electric drive is way more powerful than internal combustion engines. One of the problems holding up the introduction of Tesla's electric car was getting a transmission to handle the power. The smooth power makes handling in bad weather much better, especially on ice. You don't burn $3.50 gas at stop lights. Someone said they were afraid of their electric bill, but to "fill" up an electric car with enough power to go 300 miles costs just $3.50, what's it cost to fill up your car every week? Most electricity is made by Americans with American coal, natural gas, wind/solar or nuclear, no more supporting psychotic dictators in the middle east. No, electric cars are way over due, just competion with the Rockefeller oil monopoly keeps the technology squashed.
Is there some reason why our government will not subsidize some small start up electric auto companies, $hit we subsidize oil companies to research solar power (like that is ever going to happen!?!?) How much did it cost us to bail out General Motors? That would have started several companies building electric cars. Blah blah blah, it can't be done, it's to expensive, not practical, where are you going to plug in, it might catch fire (like gas is so safe?); just smoke from your friends at the gas station!
What about wires in the roads to inductively pick up the electricity, like how some people have gotten in trouble for putting coils in their houses, when they live near high voltage power lines, to power their house. It's no big deal, drive around all you want, never plug in, battery for around town. I get tired of smelling car exhaust. Not all conspiracy theories are theories?
Who will pay for the 'wires in the roads to inductively pick up the electricity'? Who will pay for the Power Plants that produce that electricity?? Where will these Power Plants be placed? What about the EPA?? How will the power get to the wires in the road?? What about right of ways?? Who will build the required Power lines?? DON'T YOU THINK???
slodon's right. I'd much rather continue to burn up all the fossil fuels (which, once gone, are gone!) and continue to help big oil generate record profits, send money to the middle east, and pollute our environment.
It's much easier to continue with the status quo than it is to think!
pete
Where did I say "continue to burn up all the fossil fuels'??? I just pointed out the fact that there are several disadvantages to a battery power source for Autos. NOW PROVE ME WRONG!!
I would agree with what Dav1bg was saying; early adopters pay more for new technology - anybody remember when VHS tape players sold for over $1K, weren't nearly as good, broke down much more frequently, and yet continued to sell? All electric and plug-in hybrid drivetrains are shaking up the automotive marketplace, and yes they are expensive and limited somewhat for many (but not all) consumers. We can all agree that they have a lot of room for improvement and with the work on batteries, materials science, more efficient transmissions, and better control systems those improvements in value and range are coming. An electric vehicle can go a lot of places an ICE vehicle reasonably cannot (e.g. inside a building or tightly enclosed space with limited ventilation), so gradually people will consider different ways to use them.
The work that's going on with electric vehicles is driving ICE designers to make major improvements in reliability and efficiency. This is all good as manufacturers are continuing wring out more power from whatever energy source is used. What I would really like to see is a plugin hybrid where the ICE could be easily (less than 5 minutes) swapped out for another battery pack or just left off completely temporarily to increase range. Then have service stations be able to handle the exchange - maybe it happens as you're going through the car wash or it used the same bays. Same way with the batter packs; so you're paying for the energy you use and not the all the maintenance; continuously getting upgraded technology in your vehicle. That probably seems like a pretty silly idea, but when everybody was riding horses, the gas station seemed pretty far fetched.
Folks can always point out the flaws and shortcomings of new technology - and they are often right, not every new idea makes it - but electric vehicles seem here to stay this time around. I'm more interested in hearing about what the problems are and what are the leading candidates for solutions rather than "why it will never work". But that's just me.
I'd love to own a EV car. There are two factors holding me back:
1. They cost twice as much as a similar gasoline-powered vehicle.
2. The range is very limited.
If a $22k electric car with a 300-mile range ever get developed, I'd buy it. But $37k with a 70-mile range just won't cut it for me.
It will soon be possible for you to convert your car into a powerful hybrid or hydrogen car with the Maynex H2-Flex, for about $499. The H2-Flex convert dirty water into hydrogen gas without the need for external power, but by chemical reaction between water and aluminum.
People spend a significant amount of income on their car. They want a car that looks good. We are proud of our cars, look at the hot rodder's, their cars look like they are coated with colored glass!! Set a Toyota next to a Chevy and the Toyota paint has a mirror finish, the Chevy looks like an orange peel. Toyota paint looks thick and rich, Chevy looks rough and thin. Is general motors ever going to pull their heads out and look at the paint? I know maybe they should take their cameras and tour the Toyota plant??? Look at the hot rod group, they are telling you what we want. Offer an option of a double coat with color sanding and rubbed finish, charge an extra $3K, see which ones sell best.
More ignorant Toyota FanBoy ranting. I've had them all, no one manufacturer has the market cornered on crap. Every company has made a stinker. If I recall Toyota had to recall trucks with broken frames a few years back on their trucks, but then I guess at least their paint looked good.
In my state, electric cars run on COAL.
Yoshi
Industrial coal puts out much less CO2 than individual coal. Environment of scale makes sense as we tranform our energy needs.
Could you elaborate on "individual" coal? I can't find anything on it so far.
In my state, my power comes from a large coal-fired power plant that is over a century old and very dirty. If I plug in my battery car, coal is burned there and the power is then transmitted to my car to charge it. Instead of my car burning material to derive energy, then treating the emissions, the material is burned elsewhere and the emissions are NOT treated. I don't understand how transferring the burning and emissions elsewhere results in a net reduction in emissions or energy usage. There is no free lunch. The answers lie somewhere in between. This is not as simple as "black and white". There need to be interim steps to get away from pyrotechnology, our oldest energy source.
I had a petitioner at my door last year looking for my support of a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in my state (there is one proposed to replace ours with one that is 95% more efficient). I asked her if she understood the consequences of such a moratorium. I got a blank stare and heard crickets. The answers lie somewhere in between.
I would love to "turn off the tap" of the oil industry worldwide, and close all the coal mines. It can be done. If we (for instance) can get to about 40% on the "plus" side of the hydrogen extraction/concentration equation, things would change fairly rapidly in a good direction. Imagine how different world politics would become! There would be a very different kind of "burning" going on.
So, tell me more about "individual" coal vs. "industrial" coal. I'm intrigued, Super Genius.
Thank you,
Yoshi.
Emissions from a coal plant most certainly are scrubbed.
Studies have shown that the environmental impact of EVs in areas powered mainly by coal are slightly better than a gasoline-powered car. That said, the air quality around where people live would improve somewhat due to no tailpipe emissions -- traditional car exhaust is poisonous to humans.
Also, anther argument could be that you are using American coal rather than foreign oil, helping the US economy to whatever small degree.
In summary, the overall environmental benefit of EVs decreases if the power source is dirty. But we already knew that, didn't we?
They're call hybrids.
You are indeed correct that our coal emissions are treated, but, the emissions are still very high, especially if one considers all the variables (starting with the mining of coal, itself). I stand corrected on the "NOT treated" comment. Yes, hybrids are a step, but only a very small one in my experience (you should see them "under the skin" or when they break).
Actually, I was thinking Natural gas would be a better "transfer fuel" (over battery hybrids, which have a great deal more "embedded pollution" in their production than conventional non-hybrid cars), however, the latest Ohio earthquakes which are said to be linked to the technique called "fracking" cast a bit of a shadow. There are also claims of groundwater pollution. No free lunch. In my business we have a saying:"Fix one problem, create five others". I understand the coal industry would be American, etc., but it, too, runs on burning petroleum. The emissions coming from modern gasoline-burning cars are 98% cleaner than a "traditional" car (were you referring to pre 1975 U.S. cars)? It's the burning of materials to derive energy that is perhaps our greatest single challenge. I see the answers as more of a patchwork. What works in one area may not work in another. There are myriad angles and needs to be addressed. I would gladly drive a battery car if it met the needs my gasoline car is currently meeting. I'm looking at the overall picture. I hope to see the "great shift" away from pyrotechnology (at least the actual start). Right now the worst obstacles to this change are greed and politics.
Interesting discussion, thanks for the "low emotionality tack".
Yoshi
No, I was not referring to anything but modern cars -- to compare to pre-1975 cars would be to create a misleading, and therefore worthless, comparison.
That's how most, if not all, problems are. Solar power works best in areas where there is sunlight, and when percent yields improve could be viable in those areas. In the future, regions powered mainly by solar, wind, hydro, or whatever else is clean would lend itself best to creating a clean source for electric cars.
But being clean is not the only reason to use electric -- they give you instant torque and near-silent operation; appealing qualities to some in and of themselves.
While I was not able to find the source I originally read that lead to my comment, I found one similar:
Not every reason works for every person, so the recurring opposition of "too little range for roadtrips" (rendered null by the fact that most families have more than one car) and "it won't work for people who park on the street" ignore the fact that these are not the only people in the US.
Electric vehicles are one answer to our gasoline problem. They don't have to work everywhere, and they're not for everyone; but they work for the vast majority of the commuting needs of Americans -- what more is needed?
There is a new technology that can easily convert dirty water into clean hydrogen gas for today's (your) vehicle! This technology is the Maynex H2-Flex.
As a Leaf owner I say that Joe Phillippi is way off base. I drive 50 miles a day back and forth to work. The Leaf is wonderful to drive on the freeway, quiet, fast and smooth. My monthly electric bill for the car is $20.00. In the Pacific Northwest all our energy comes from hydro or wind energy so it is actually very clean compared to buying and burning oil from Saudia Arabia. Our next car is a Tesla Model S with a 300 mile range, due in our garage mid-year. Electricity is the way to go.
I saw a Leaf in town and I was jealous! I won't be due for a new car for a few years but it will be electric. By then they should be at parity with gas cars and have much better range/charge times.
As an ex-EV1 owner, I hope the auto manufacturers continue development of more battery powered cars. We were left holding the bag ten years ago. See "Who Killed The Electric Car" for additional info. Hopefully the industry will support this technology in the future.
That documentary was pure propaganda. They blamed everything BUT the battery when in fact it was the battery. Again, if we don't even have a viable battery now, how could we have had one a decade or more ago? The Volt battery costs $10,000 and gets you 40 miles on a good day. Half the $109,000 of a Tesla is the battery pack.
Batteries are the ONLY issue! Everything else is mature technology. Electric motors are 99% efficient, compare that to a gas engine. To paraphrase Clinton, "It's the batteries stupid!".
When more than 95% of Americans drive fewer than 40 miles per day, a 40 mile range is in no way a problem. Add in the fact that most American families have more than one car, and the "road trip" argument is rendered null.