Guest post by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
Last Friday, President Obama once again pitched electric cars during his presentation at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. At one point, he called for an end to gasoline-powered vehicles, “…but the only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices…is to shift our cars entirely―our cars and trucks―off oil.” The President has a remarkable faith in the value of electric cars, but this trust is not well supported by science or economics.
The very same day, Henrik Fisker, the chairman and co-founder of Fisker Automotive, announced he would be leaving his company over issues regarding “business strategy.” In 2011, Fisker Automotive introduced the Karma, a luxury plug-in electric car with a $100,000 price tag. The Karma was named “Luxury Car of the Year” in 2011 by BBC Top Gear magazine.
In 2010, the US Department of Energy (DOE) awarded a $529 million loan to Fisker Automotive for the development and production of hybrid electric cars. Former Energy Secretary Stephen Chu praised Fisker, “Not only will the Fisker projects contribute to cleaner air and reduced carbon emissions, these plug-in hybrid cars will help put American ingenuity at the forefront of automotive design and production.”
But lately things have not been so rosy for Fisker Automotive. Last year the DOE froze the loan after Fisker had received $193 million. The firm’s battery supplier, A123 Systems, declared bankruptcy in October of last year, after also receiving a DOE loan of $249 million. The Karma was recalled several times and Fisker has not manufactured a car in six months.
Plug-in electric vehicle (EV) sales are growing, boosted by government incentives and a consumer desire to purchase environmentally-friendly vehicles. EV purchasers receive a $7,500 tax credit from the US government and ability to drive in the High Occupancy Vehicle lane of most freeways. Charging stations are being installed in California, Nevada, Texas, and other states, courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
Global EV sales are still a tiny part of the market. President Obama set a goal in 2008 to “put a million plug-in hybrid cars…on the road by 2015.” But US electric sales last year were only about 53,000 units. About 120,000 EVs were sold worldwide in 2012, only 0.15 percent of the 82-million global car market.
While President Obama would like to eliminate gasoline-powered vehicles, such vehicles still provide major advantages for consumers. Pound-for-pound, the energy stored in the chemical bonds of gasoline is about 100 times the energy stored in today’s Lithium-ion batteries. This translates into about a ten-to-one advantage in driving range for gasoline vehicles.
If electric cars succeed, look for magazine lounges at charging stations. Gasoline fill-ups require two to three minutes for small cars and four to five minutes for SUVs. The best 440-volt commercial charging stations require a driver to charge an EV for 30 minutes or more.
Electric car owners who drive every day are in for a surprise. Their battery pack will need to be replaced. Batteries are based on a chemical imbalance, a separation of charge that produces the electrical potential. The day an electric leaves the showroom, chemical reactions are at work to remove the charge from your lithium-ion battery. Faster charging, frequent charging, warmer temperatures, and storage at full charge degrade the battery more quickly. Either the owner or the manufacturer will need to pay $10,000 for a battery replacement about year four or five.
But can’t an EV purchaser take pride that his car reduces global warming? Well, not really. A study last year by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology found that, for a vehicle with a 100,000 kilometer lifetime (when batteries would need replacement), EV environmental impacts were “indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle.” The reason is that manufacture of an EV emits about double the carbon dioxide required to manufacture a diesel or gasoline car, primarily to build the metal batteries of the electric.
The study also found that “EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain.” In other words, production of electric car batteries may become a major source of pollution. Suppose we go slowly on promoting electric cars, Mr. President?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Whys doesn’t he climb in a Honda and motorcade around to give us all an example.
It took as long to drive the length of the UK in an Electric car as a 1700s Stage Coach, that is progress for you.
However I think a Petrol or Diesel charged EV like the Volt is a far better bet.
Visits like this just give Argonne a black eye. He could use a less vulnerable site as a tribune for his hate speech.
There is a lot of good stuff being done at Argonne, almost none related to Obama’s green agenda; almost all of it underfunded and at risk of being closed down. For example, their diesel combustion research is top class.
I see lots of natural gas powered cars in South America. We should use them here, given our vast supplies & their greater energy efficiencies over liquid gasoline & diesel. But how would governments tax us, when we could refuel from the gas pipes to our stoves & furnaces?
Overall, considering the price and the full cost of ownership, an electric golf cart seems to be a better EV.
IOW, “Alles Volk vil haf a Voltsvagen!”
One thing that struck me when I heard Obama’s Proclamation was – what next? Are we to go back to whale blubber for lubricants? Oil (refined as fuel) is but one use in a car. It is also used in all the plastics and more importantly, as the engine lubricant. This has nothing to do with its use as a fuel. Moving parts require lubrication, or they do not move for very long.
I think we should start a new slogan – Save the Whales! Lubricate with Petroleum!
President Obama would like to ban gasoline-powered vehicles from America.
Maybe instead the government should ban President Obama from America.
Here’s a link to Bloomberg’s story on the resignation of Fisker:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-13/fisker-automotive-co-founder-resigns-as-chairman.html
Never let logic get in the way of an environmentalist.
“A study last year by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology found that, for a vehicle with a 100,000 kilometer lifetime (when batteries would need replacement), EV environmental impacts were “indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle.” The reason is that manufacture of an EV emits about double the carbon dioxide required to manufacture a diesel or gasoline car, primarily to build the metal batteries of the electric.”
You also need to account for the fact that world wide the vast majority of electricity is generated by burning coal. Coal will produce more CO2 than gas or diesel per unit energy produced.
It takes a lot of nerve to promote the use of more taxpayer dollars for programs before the smoke clears on all the other failed programs for batteries and electric cars and other start-up firms with the standard line of “we don’t pick winners.” This includes the string of recent company failures and takeovers of assets by Chinese companies. Clearly, this special interest appearance-driven waste of money and time is driven by something other than results in the normal sense. Rational due diligence would focus on sector leaders and what makes them different and what they need to achieve breakthroughs like the process in recent years that perfected and scaled up the shale gas and oil boom on private lands. The Prez is campaigning every day for brownie points with no intention of solving problems like energy or the environment. You can almost see the strings hanging down that control his mouth and limbs.
Some dirty little secrets about electric cars>>>>>
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html
Fisker’s problems would explain why they staged a public relations meltdown a couple weeks ago when an automobile review drove the car and reported some troubles recharging. Overall it really wasn’t a bad review – he loved the car, but found it took a lot of logistics and thought to plan a successful trip.
Fisker’s chairman exploded in a public attack on the reviewer in a way (how many times has this happened on the web?) that caused far, far more publicity to the negative review than ever could have happened if he had left it alone.
I’m thinking that Fisker knew that one more piece of bad news, anything at all, could push them over the brink of solvency. Well when you’re that tight and that high strung, you pretty much guarantee your own failure.
I’ve looked at the Fisker auto – it could be a damn fine car if they could just put a regular IC engine in it.
In all of human history has there ever been a scam that has affected more of the world’s population than convincing them that carbon dioxide is a poison and pollutant that will destroy the world? With every breath you take in you then exhale carbon dioxide. With every blade of grass that grows carbon dioxide is taken in. It really is the staff of life. Besides the obvious get rich scheme of the environazis hating carbon dioxide how can so many people hate something so essential to life? As long as people such as Barack Obama and billions of other scientifically moronic people believe this we’ll be wasting zillion of dollars on nonsense like wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars, curlyque light bulbs, climate research and God know what other useless crap. I despair that the people are so stupid that this con game will never end until modern civilization is ruined. Electric cars are for the terminally insane and scientifically illiterate. Or those with more money than brains.
“Fisker’s problems would explain why they staged a public relations meltdown a couple weeks ago when an automobile review drove the car and reported some troubles recharging”
This wasnt the Fisker, it was the Tesla and the articles appeared in the NYT here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Also use Google to see the response of Tesla’s CEO and various other comments.
I had a recent opportunity to inspect a Tesla Model S closely at their store in the Fashion Square Mall in Scottsdale, AZ. The display included a body-off chassis so that one could get a look at the internals. Over all, not so impressive. A bit crude on the fit and finish side as compared to other cars at this price point, but perhaps this is to be expected given that IC powered cars have had 100+ years to mature. I quizzed the sales rep at length and the story concering range, recharging time, and battery life was pretty discouraging. IMHO, the only way pure EV’s will become mainstream is with a near instant (less than 10 min) refueling (recharging) capability – either a breaktrough in battery technology, or a system for quickly exchanging a depleted battery for a freshly charged one. The latter however depends on the existence of an infrastructure of “battery stations” not unlike the current network of gas stations.
Based on what I have seen so far, Fisker and Tesla are for very early adopters only; I dont expect either company to be around five years from now.
“Batteries are based on a chemical imbalance” Well, that explains their obsession!
I found it interesting that the Fisker Karma is the only car credited on the second Atlas Shrugged movie. I was only able to see about 3 seconds of screen time for it.
Obama, the natural sinker for the US nation and the rest of the western world …
Go China, Go! [/sarc]
Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it.
Ayn Rand
By this standard, Obama and his followers are invincible. We argue from logic, fact, and reason. Our opponents react to emotional appeals and proven propaganda methods to make those emotional appeals effective. For all intents and purposes, our ‘reasoned speech’ is a foreign language that they do not understand. State the facts – Yes! But use emotional appeals that strike to their emotional cores, to convey that well reasoned position.
MtK
Another obvious flaw in the EV concept is that the majority of electricity is produced by coal and natural gas, so they aren’t really “green” once you get past the propaganda.
Environmental wackos always counter with the need to replce the grid with wind/solar, but then you get right back to energy density issues and costs/kWh, which are an order of magnitude higher than conventional energy generation systems.
The way around these problems are: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which would make power generation about two orders of magnitude cheaper than wind/solar 2) next generation batteries capable of much quicker charging times and roughly 3 times the range.
One idea would be that all car batteries are uniform multiple units and that could simply be automatically switched out with charged units as needed at charging stations and then you’d leave depleted battery unit(s) to be recharged and used by future customers once recharged.
If it were an automated system, the batery exchange could possibly be done in seconds rather than waiting around for 30 minutes.
wwschmidt says:
March 19, 2013 at 10:53 am
“Fisker’s chairman exploded in a public attack on the reviewer in a way (how many times has this happened on the web?) that caused far, far more publicity to the negative review than ever could have happened if he had left it alone.”
Global warming zealots seem to be having the same kind of meltdown with the crumbling of their incorporation. Like one smart wag on a post a number of weeks ago said – it must be tough on their children and pets these days.
“for a vehicle with a 100,000 kilometer lifetime (when batteries would need replacement)”
At this point, even a cheap automobile is only half way through it’s usefull life.
So if we double the mileage to 200,000k, the electric car looks even worse.
“EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity”
Man, the straight lines just write themselves around here.
“A bit crude on the fit and finish side as compared to other cars at this price point, but perhaps this is to be expected given that IC powered cars have had 100+ years to mature.”
Fit and finish has nothing to do with what is powering the vehicle.
BTW, electric motors have been around longer than the IC engine has.
John Tillman says:
I see lots of natural gas powered cars in South America. We should use them here, given our vast supplies & their greater energy efficiencies over liquid gasoline & diesel.
Apart from the fuel system a car using methane (or propane or butane) is little different from a petrol/gasoline vehicle.
When we see EV’s, we should ask the owners when we will be allowed to drive them.
“or a system for quickly exchanging a depleted battery for a freshly charged one”
I can’t even start to imagine the logistical nightmares such a scenario would produce.
First off, remember that these battery packs cost upwards of 10 to 20 thousand dollars each.
Who owns the battery packs? The car owner, the recharge center, the manufacturer?
Who do you sue if you have a brand new car and pack, and you get swapped out for a pack that is at the end of it’s life, and dies before you’ve gone 20 miles?
Allencic – unfortunately you are only too correct – NO CO2 MEANS NO LIFE OF ANY SORT!!!
This CO2 nonsense really is the basis of the AGW scam, and result in crap like EVs and so many other parts of scam (carbon taxes, etc). I really do NOT think this nonsense will be corrected any time soon – the Lame-stream Media will NEVER buy into it, left-wing WACKA-DO-S will never buy into it, and many right-wingers and centrists will not want to be seen as “anti-scientific”.
I think that for EV’s to be viable there needs to be a shift in technology. Like making Graphene ultra-capacitors a reality rather than a possibility.
I thought it was touching to address Pres. Obama directly at the end of the article. It was, of course, safe to do so: he never listens, never responds, only chugs ahead on his own agenda or mission, regardless of the facts. Incredible. (Bush’s fault–if fault it was–was listening too much, and being too kind to those who questioned or opposed him.) In our state, Gov. Bob McDonnell is pushing for a $100 licensing fee (I think that’s what it is) on hybrid vehicles, at which the green-left folk are all in a twist; we’ll see what happens with it.
I think all you N. Americans need to ask for your money back on this one as well.
John Tillman,
Do some research on CLNE and the natural gas highway. New engines are supposed to be coming out this summer from Cummings and it looks like there may be a race between CLNE and a Chinese firm to build dozens of natural gas filling stations.
“You also need to account for the fact that world wide the vast majority of electricity is generated by burning coal. Coal will produce more CO2 than gas or diesel per unit energy produced.”
While true, you also need to account for the efficiency of the engine. A coal plant is a lot more efficient at converting a unit of chemical energy into a unit of work than is a car motor. For a back-of-the-envelope calculation you come up with the plant being twice as efficient but burning fuel that is half as efficient, so it’s comparable. Then you have to also account for powertrain efficiencies and you run out of room on the envelope pretty fast.
Of course the promise of electric vehicles is that at the same time as you switch cars from petroleum to electricity, you also switch the electric generators from burning coal to burning unicorn farts and magic pixie dust. Some places already have low-carbon electricity sources: Quebec is basically all hydro, France and Japan have a large nuclear generation capacity.
Looking south across the border, Obama looks pretty close to the worst President you have had in a long time. Nixon was better in spite of being a crook. I worry Obama actually believes the garbage he spouts … except why isn’t he being driven around in an electric vehicle and flying about in a helium blimp powered by hydrogen cells. If your going to talk the talk, shouldn’t you walk the walk. Oh I forgot, the Mantra of the Goreacle: “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Maybe he could use a lesson from the new Pope.
The standard joke is: “How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.” Sadly, I think Obama doesn’t know fact from fiction which means he is a worse puppet than G.W.
Obama is the most frightening man in the world since you really can’t believe anything he says.
(Mods – snip if you like, the waste just makes me sad.)
Even if Obama’s goal of 1 million EVs on the road were to come true, the impact (on anything : gas sales, CO2 emissions, etc) would be more or less undetectable.in a population of around 265 million vehicles on our roads. As to the cost of a battery replacement, who knows. The battery in the Tesla Model S with the 80kwHr battery costs around $40,000 at this time. Tesla claims 300 miles of range, and that is probably not too far wrong around town. But when travelling at Interstate speeds and using heat/AC, older batteries, , etc. the driving range drops
quite a lot – less than 200 miles or even lower. Battery recharge times increase with age as
well. Tesla could probably be sued for consumer fraud about range issues. And when the range
declines, so does mileage and fuel costs. One might only achieve 1 1/2 miles per kilowatthour,
and with electricity priced at 15 cents, that’s 10 cents per mile. Normally expect around 2 to
2 1/2 miles per kWhr.
Comparisons between energy per pound for various types of vehicles are more or less
irrelevant and in this case very misleading – an electric car requires a battery and electric motor,
while a gas powered car’s weight devoted to energy is NOT simply the weight of the gasoline, but also must include the weight of the motor that uses it plus the fuel system weight, the exhaust system weight, the cooling system weight, transmission weight, etc. The comparison above is totally invalid. in addition to being more or less irrelevant.
Failed electric cars, failed presidency, ‘nough said.
Wow, Obama should stay completely away from promoting electric cars. They are a terrible product and they make him look bad. I wish that GM would drop their Chevy Volt, its a loser. I think the only reason they are still building that clunker is because of Obama, I have the feeling it was part of the bailout agreement 4 years ago.
I’ll bet the day Obama leaves office, GM will proudly announce that the Volt will be discontinued.
Decade after decade its always the same story with electric cars. Everybody likes electric cars, but no one would be caught dead actually owning one.
“ban gasoline-powered vehicles from America.”
Stupid opinions Like that .Why they wont let him do anything sensible like banning Assault Rifles.
He can dump the environmentalist they got him elected he don’t need him anymore they are just holding him back
Someone needs to as Mr. Obama when he is going to have the presidential limousine converted to all electric.
Electric cars are intrinsically superior to gas powered cars in every respect, save their energy
delivery system – it’s cost and capacity. Whenever a practical battery comes along, its curtains for gas powered cars, with or without any assistance form the feds. Even Henry Ford recognized the superiority of electric propulsion. His wife always drove an electric car. If practical batteries had existed at the dawn of the automotive age, no one would EVER have developed the gas powered car – far, far too complicated, costly, unreliable, messy, smelly, high maintenance, etc.
Consistently high energy costs using ‘green energy’ would eliminate most of the price spikes.
Other than that first one.
And if the issue is *really* about avoiding gasoline price spikes (which I am sure it ain’t) then the obvious answer to ensure sufficient supply is completely ignored by this administration. A few more refineries, in place of adding capacity to existing refineries, would help. In my patch of the midwest a minor burp in production at the BP refinery in Whiting Indiana causes heartburn and other gastro-in-yer-wallet distress at the pump.
The left are always shrieking about keeping church and state separate – I agree, but I think it’s equally as important to keep business and state separate.
obama has no business (pun intended) meddling in the free market. When he does, it isn’t free.
He’s already exhibited his lack of business acumen in his backing of Solyndra, A123, BrightSource et al. He is a disaster.
The business of government isn’t business!
MarkW says:
“I can’t even start to imagine the logistical problems of a battery exchange system”
With radio transmitting ID chips embedded in the batteries, real time computer tracking and multi-party insurance coverage. it would be a complex network to develop, but a battery-exchange system that could be devised to address abuse/theft/product liability, etc.
Maybe someday they will be ready, or hydrogen, or small fusion reactors…whatever. Today we need practical solutions that can be born from and survive in the free market. Do cars have to weigh 3k lbs? I always wanted to build a car that was much lighter, fast and nimble, very simple, make 300k miles, get 70 miles to the gallon and cost under $10k. It seems possible and an efficient way to lower emissions.
Until new energy storage technology comes along, or a better on-board way to produce electricity, IMO electric vehicles peaked with the golf cart, which is great for silent cruises through the countryside.
As far as the problem of charging goes, there are groups installing charging stations here around the DFW area in Texas, and other cities like Houston, but they are still few and far between. If demand for EV’s picked up, there would be a shortage of available charging stations around town!
The real sad part is, once these are erected, you can get fined or towed for parking in a charging station parking space. So while EV’s remain horribly sparse, perfectly good parking spots are wasted and remain empty 99% of the time.
The French (and possibly elsewhere) alternative so far has been to eliminate the time factor of charging for the EV driver by modifying their parking spaces differently. When you park over the space, the ground opens up, and an apparatus swaps out your drained battery packs with some full ones. Then you may take off! Of course there are several obvious disadvantages to this as well, not the least of which is the huge increase in battery supply that would be necessary.
As others have mentioned, with range being such an issue, it’s important for the EV to be light weight, and consequently made of ever more plastic bits [read: more oil]. Yet another, albeit small, disadvantage is that by using a fuel cell, instead of tank with consumable fuel, is that even when practically empty, the car is carrying the full weight. A vehicle drained of 15-20 gallons will gain slight efficiency improvements with the reduced load. (Of course this is of no real consequence, but fun to point out.)
So, I propose an alternative environmentally friendly vehicle. First, start with a sleek, aerodynamic design to reduce drag. Fashion the car out of balsa wood. This choice of materials meets excellent standards in terms of light weight, sustainability, and fast, easy production time of carving the soft wood, so we can get millions of them on the road soon. Instead of producing carbon, the cars themselves will be mobile sequestration units, having grown out of atmospheric carbon. For propulsion, an ingenious and simple solution: A large propeller, also made of balsa, wound by a massive rubber band, or perhaps twisted hemp rope. To charge your car, you need only pull up to your nearest wind turbine, which has now been altered not to produce electricity, but instead wind up your prop through a simple gearing system. As we project ubiquitous development of both these environmentally friendly cars and wind turbines, range will not even be an issue, as you will be able to wind up and jet from place to place with great convenience.
I have had the privilege of driving a 1918 Milburn electric car. The only thing that has not improved greatly is the battery. In 1996 we had flooded lead acid battery cars that could easily go 150+ miles on a charge, now the Volt gets 40 miles. Solar energy, wind power and electric cars have their useful place, it just isn’t as a general purpose machine.
Karma? Why is it always ‘Karma’? Why doesn’t anybody make an electric car called ‘the Juju’? It’s bad marketing, plain and simple. I’d buy the Juju, even if it was bad Juju.
numerobis says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:10 pm
—
Don’t forget to calculate the efficiency of the power distribution system, plus the battery charging and discharging system. With electrics, you can loose as much as half the energy before it finally reaches the wheels. The fact that power plants are more efficient than IC engines is more than compensated for by these loses.
arthur4563 says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:18 pm
—
Even with only 1 million EV’s, we would still need to start upgrading the electrical distribution system.
I’ve read that if we replaced every car with an EV, we would need to increase our electric power production and distribution by a factor between 5 and 10, depending on who is doing the estimating.
“One idea would be that all car batteries are uniform multiple units and that could simply be automatically switched out with charged units as needed at charging stations and then you’d leave depleted battery unit(s) to be recharged and used by future customers once recharged.
If it were an automated system, the batery exchange could possibly be done in seconds rather than waiting around for 30 minutes.”
This concept could work but not easy to implement. Would depend on there being one or at most a few battery types for all vehicles – similar to three grades of gasoline. Car owners wouldnt own the battery but would pay a “refueling charge” that would cover the cost of providing this service (to include replacement of batteries at end of life etc.) Lots of devils in the details. One issue is that these batteries are not small. I calculate (roughly) that using the type of battery currently used by Tesla would require about 2500 lbs of batteries (perhaps more) to get a 400 mile range in cold conditions. This is going to present some logistics issues for battery stations as well as considerations of vehicle efficiency, dynamics, tire life, safety, etc. All potentially solvable problems, but will require decades to become the “norm.”
“Whenever a practical battery comes along,”
They’ve been saying the same thing for almost 150 years.
MarkW says:
>> “Whenever a practical battery comes along,”
>
>They’ve been saying the same thing for almost 150 years.
Not quite. What they have been saying changed a little as years went by. Until recently, it was an impossibility. Now it has become an impracticality.
Forty years ago, when I asked my model airplane coach why couldn’t I use an electric motor instead of those fiddly toluene-fueled motors, he laughed and gave me a lecture on why it was not physically possible. Back then, we did not have either the magnets or batteries that could lift themselves off the ground. Now you can buy a very practical flying toy for a fraction of the cost of the cheapest glow motor. So we’re already there in the toy world.
glen martin says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Consistently high energy costs using ‘green energy’ would eliminate most of the price spikes.
Other than that first one.
—
It’s not a spike if it never goes back down.
SAMURAI says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:45 pm
—
I’m not as sanguine as you about the ability to create such a system. Especially if you have to add cost effective to the mix.
“Fit and finish has nothing to do with what is powering the vehicle.”
I’d have to mostly agree, but F&F are highly important to most individual buyers considering a vehicle at $100,000 plus.
“BTW, electric motors have been around longer than the IC engine has”.
Yep – its not about the motors, its about the power source. Electric cars have been the “next big thing” for around 100 years.
Eric H. says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:49 pm
—
Everything is a trade off.
Aerodynamics comes at the expense of luggage capacity and passenger comfort.
Light weight usually means you either sacrifice safety or go with very expensive materials.
A more efficient engine comes at the cost of less power.
Etc.
Just because you can dream something, doesn’t mean it can be built.
MarkW commented in response to Eric H.:
> Everything is a trade off.
> Aerodynamics comes at the expense of luggage capacity and passenger comfort.
If only. As I was once told by a retired GM engineer, there was a moment umpteen years ago when they were seriously tasked with improving fuel efficiency and aerodynamic drag. All improvements they proposed were treated with contempt by the marketing team. For example, they demonstrated on the scales that if you took any car then in production and towed it backwards, its drag would be reduced by a factor of two or more. All aerodynamically efficient shapes have a blunt nose and a tapered tail. Marketing: “But that is not what our customers perceive as aerodynamic!”
With that battle lost, the engineers proposed streamlining the underbody — the next major source of drag. Marketing: “That will be a waste of money because nobody ever sees the underbody”.
Big D in TX says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:50 pm
—
Cars powered by propellors.
Pedestrians look out.
Just passing through. We’ve had a Leaf for over 2 years, charge it with PV on a grid-tie system and keep a gas car (Passat SW) as backup – I’m lucky enough to take a bus to work that is faster than driving! My wife drives the Leaf 40 to 50 mi/day (work) and sometimes as much as 100 mi/day. Charging is never a problem – we just make sure we plan our driving. It is the car of choice to drive for us. We use an average of 15 kWh/day for charging-almost exclusively at home, too. We save about $250/mo in gasoline bills based upon previous records with Ford Escort the Leaf replaced. In a few months we will have paid for the PV system (combined gas savings and house). After that we will be saving about $3k/yr. So in another 5 to 6 years we will have saved $15K to $18K in avoided costs in gasoline and another $5K or so in brakes, oil, transmission, spark plugs, filters, etc., etc. So, in the unlikely event we need to buy a new battery in 5 to 6 years, $10K means we will still be way ahead cost-wise. And, most likely, better cars and better batteries will be coming along. Yesterday, I stopped in at the Tesla dealer nearby and sat in a Tesla Model S. Range: 300 miles; 0 to 60 in 4.4 seconds! Styling? Ou-la-la! Now, that is going to be my next car! My wife can drive the Leaf!
Every time you buy a pack of tiny AA batteries, there is a notice telling you to dispose of it only through an approved recycling scheme. I take this to mean batteries are toxic and harmful. Yet they would happily have us owning battery packs that weigh more than a grown man. Do I detect some hypocricy here?
Don’t forget Air Force One …
“I wish that GM would drop their Chevy Volt, its a loser.”
My guess is that they will soon do so. Government Motors has shut down Volt production twice in the last year or so due to weak demand. If BHO were not the de facto CEO of GM, would have already been done.
See here: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/05/gm-shuts-down-chevy-volt-production/.
After 4 years I have come to understand your president, he is at one with our liberals and NDP, reverse whatever the utterance is and you are close to the intent.
… A large rubber band would be both a cheaper and a lighter solution for Air Force One …
Sign the petition to stop wasting our money on electric vehicles at http://wh.gov/spJx
I see the problem. You folks aren’t thinking big picture enough.
Start with solar arrays in orbit. They don’t take up valuable land that way, not dust to collect on them etc. Then you use broadcast power on a tight beam to run the cars. The cars only have to have enough battery to get them through cloudy days that way. And they can double as anti-terrorist weapons, no more need for armed drones, just melt the terrorists. Of course policing could be a problem as North Korea and Iran would no doubt try and build a space ship and steal them. For peaceful research purposes of course.
Obama seems to be preparing for his next role as President of the World via the U.N. and Agenda 21. Green, Socialist credentials are essential and a weakened U.S. and Europe prerequisites to allow this to happen.
The UK has already prepared the way by limiting press autonomy and destroying our energy supply and Europe is doing its bit in so many ways, not least by attempting to steal private savings from ordinary people’s savings.
Let’s do a quick cost comparison… the electric powered Chevy Volt vs. it’s conventionally powered sibling… the Chevy Cruze.
The base model Volt costs $39,145 and claims a range of 38 miles per battery charge of 13.2kWh, for .347 kWh per mile. The US average retail electricity price for 2012 was 11.88¢ per kWh, according to the EIA. Your average fuel cost in the Volt would be 4.12¢ per mile.
The base model Cruze costs $17,130 and gets fuel economy of 28 mpg city and 42 mpg hwy. Let’s call it an average of 35 mpg or 0.02857 gallons per mile. The US average retail gasoline price is $3.696 per gallon, also according to the EIA. Your average fuel cost in the Cruze would be 10.56¢ per mile.
The difference in fuel cost between the two cars is 6.43¢ per mile. However, the difference in purchase prices is $22,015. You’d have to drive your Volt 342,206 miles just to break-even… hopefully before the battery needs to be replaced.
JG says:
March 19, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Charging your Leaf overnight with PV is some mean feat. Can you let us in on the secret?
DaveE.
RB says:
March 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm
—
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in your first post you stated that you were willing to over look the fit and finish problems because the IC motors were a new technology.
JG says:
March 19, 2013 at 1:12 pm
—
Actually you can thank the tax payers, who paid the bulk of the cost for your PV system and who are paying, through their gas taxes for the roads that you are using. As well as the taxpayers who are being forced to subsidize that bus you are riding.
SasjaL says:
March 19, 2013 at 1:30 pm
—
Isn’t Michelle Obama into excercise big time? Instead of a rubber band, how about a couple of excercise bikes?
davidmhoffer says:
March 19, 2013 at 1:36 pm
Do not give them ideas. Kaliformia might just get the idea to harvest moon beams to power up their “fast” ( the other word is politically incorrect it Kali) train.
Mr. Obama the dictator wannabe is lacking in knowledge and logic in virtually every one of his endeavors as President. Nothing new here. However, the long term goal is really the key and it has nothing to do with saving Gaia, Mother Earth or whatever other cry me a river name for Earth the enviro-whackos engage. It is ALL about eventually being able to control everything YOU do. If you are not one of the elites you are to be RULED by them.
As far as the 10-1 advantage in energy density of gas to Li-ion, if one develops an optimizing function to determine the real value of gas to Li, it will get even worse, likely by multiple orders of magnitude, ie. consider availability/cost to replace/refuel/full life-cycle factors -battery recycling and disposal. Once infrastructure for LNG/CNG is in place to make it available to the masses, the Li-ion will be useless in a transportation infrastructure role, even considering a reasonable rise in the Nat Gas prices with a large demand surge. IIRC, NG is roughly at a ~10/1 cost advantage over gasoline, which makes it a ~100/1 advantage against Li-ion strictly considering energy content and cost only. Nat Gas IS the future of transportation as long as the tyrannical slimers in government get out of the way. This is why government and other do-gooder tyrants should GET OUT of the business of meddling in the market. In an eternity of meddling they have only achieved greater and greater messes, hurting ALL of the people they claim to be so fervently working for.
Li-ion batteries absolutely have a future in the world, but powering vehicles is not one of them.
It’s a bit rash to assume that today’s technology restrictions apply tomorrow. I can envisage that the EV has a future, it’s just that it’s future isn’t here quite yet. But nearly all the current drawbacks of the battery-driven EV disappear with in-road induction chargers.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=2591
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/02/korean-electric-car-gets-a-charge-an-induction-charge-from-t/
I think an electric vehicle would work well as long as the towing capacity were sufficient to tow a 150 kW generator with about 30 gal of fuel.
Might work! With multiple dynamos then …?
This company switches out the battery at a filling station. A few minutes is required, similar to refueling a gasoline-powered car.
http://www.betterplace.com/
I’ve seen their presentation, at UCLA a few years ago.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but in your first post you stated that you were willing to over look the fit and finish problems because the IC motors were a new technology.”
I will correct you: I am not willing to overlook fit and finish issues regardless of vehicle power. I did say that one might expect a lower standrad of fit and finish in the Fisker and Tesla because they are new, not that I would be willing to accept a lower standard. An EV at the current Tesla or Fisker price point (well above $100,000 for a well equipped vhicle) needs to achieve at least parity with IC powered cars with respect to fit & finish, convenience, lifecycle cost, and many other measures to be acceptable to most mainstream buyers, who, IMO, will not compromise on these matters in the interest of being seen by themselves or others as being “green.” A segment of buyers will put perceived “green” ahead of all other prorities, but I think this segment is relatively small.
Bottom line: I think pure EV’s will be novelties for quite some time.
New technology is kind of a chicken and egg thing. Look at SSD technology. The first ones that were released were a bit crap, but some people bought them. Because some people bought them, the other companies felt there was a market there and so they continued to develop SSD tech. Now SSD tech is almost everywhere.
It is the same with the electric cars. The first ones are a bit crap, but idiots who would rather “be green” (well, be perceived to be green!) than get to work on time will buy them. As more are sold, the tech will advance and the price will come down. Then everyone will have one.
Oh, well, not everyone, of course, because we would run out of the rare minerals which are used by the batteries before we could build enough cars (not to mention that they probably consume more energy per 100,000 km that petrol cars if you include manufacturing and mining) – but maybe the tech will advance to no longer require that precious resource.
By the way, how much damage to the environment is caused by the hunt for those resources? How many people are living miserable lives trying to get that stuff out of the ground? Somebody ought to do an article about it! And send it to that twat Monbiot.
As soon as the Zero-In-Chief starts riding in an electric car in winter cold or summer heat, I will.
When the “energy” becomes “free” electric cars will be a reality. . . . . and so will a lot of other things.
Replacement Batteries? Always room for another entitlement
Mike Jonas says:
March 19, 2013 at 2:22 pm
“It’s a bit rash to assume that today’s technology restrictions apply tomorrow. I can envisage that the EV has a future, it’s just that it’s future isn’t here quite yet. But nearly all the current drawbacks of the battery-driven EV disappear with in-road induction chargers.”
I agree – but two problems:
a) More expensive roadway. This has to be factored in and is kind of a killer for rural areas.
b) Germany, as an example, consumes 1/7th of its primary energy consumption electrically; 3/7th for heating as fuel, and 3/7th for transportation, as fuel.
If you wanted to replace the last 3/7th with electricity you would have to double or triple the grid capacity. (Depending on how much more efficient EV’s are compared to ICE cars)
And of course, generate that electricity as well.
You know, if the Chevy Volt were a regular car, GM would have discontinued it by now. Over three years only 50,000 have been sold, that’s half the sales of the Ford Edsel! The Volt’s a money loser, it should have been axed last year.
The fact that the Volt has not been axed is the reason I don’t own GM shares. It tells me there is still something amiss with GM management.
I can’t help but wonder, why is GM still building them?
Me think the futur does not look good for electric car.
As stated before, energy density is ridicule when compared w/t HC based liquid fuel. Must remember also that other half of reactant does not need to be carried (O2).
Even IF (a very big if), a way to produce battery or capacitor w/t energy density similar to gazoline is found, Gov. et al. won’t allow it in hand of regular folk in the wild… Think of it this way: When a high energy carrier does not need mixing w/t another reactant to release its energy, it is assigned a TNT equivalent value.
Try to short a big (real world actual technology) charged capacitor, after that experiment I doubt you will be in favor to drive a metallic nail thru one of those Sci-Fi capacitor that electric car require…
SAMURAI says:
March 19, 2013 at 12:45 pm
“With radio transmitting ID chips embedded in the batteries, real time computer tracking and multi-party insurance coverage. it would be a complex network to develop, but a battery-exchange system that could be devised to address abuse/theft/product liability, etc.”
Make sure to include a counter for the charge cycles so you can inform the car about the expected remaining range.
I don’t see what’s to stop a city commuter who’s battery is near dead heading out to a changing station to get himself a replacement battery of better quality?
Klem,
They haven’t discontinued the Volt despite dismal sales because the US government now owns GM (Government Motors now instead of General Motors) and Obama wants electric cars.
Russ R. says:
March 19, 2013 at 2:02 pm
“Let’s do a quick cost comparison… the electric powered Chevy Volt vs. it’s conventionally powered sibling… the Chevy Cruze….”
Yes, return on investment is lost on most non-business people. Now let’s add in those of us who are high mileage, independent contractors who get a business expense deduction of 55 cents per mile. i drive 800 miles in a week, @ 25 mpg costing $3.79 pg, total fuel cost for that driving is $121.28. Business deduction is worth $440. Ca ching!
Here’s some interesting history of electric cars.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2010/10/11/in-photos-edisons-electric-cars-circa-1900/
The problem then was the same, the battery.
JG says: March 19, 2013 at 1:12 pm … So, in the unlikely event we need to buy a new battery in 5 to 6 years, $10K means we will still be way ahead cost-wise. …
Please calculate the actual unsubsidized cost using the WSJ information at the link provided by OssQss , March 19, 2013 at 10:50 am:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html
Hey just force the fools who buy the things (and how many self combust??) only to recharge from certified renewable sources! they have worked very well (lead acid) for local delivery in England!
“It’s a bit rash to assume that today’s technology restrictions apply tomorrow.”
Well … its not rash at all. Today’s technology restrictions literally apply tomorrow … and the next day … and the day after that. Problem is we dont know when they will no longer apply, and we have to get on with the here and now.
Funding Shortfall: Germany Forced to Cancel Climate Programs
The European cap-and-trade system has for months been sliding into inconsequence as prices for CO2 emissions have stubbornly remained below €5 ($6.47) per ton. The revenues Berlin earns on the mandatory emissions certificates have suffered as a result.
By the end of the month, Environment Minister Peter Altmaier, a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats,……….is set to cut the program aimed at promoting electric cars……………., a fund for research and development of energy storage technologies and a third program focused on protecting and expanding forestland in Germany as a way to absorb more CO2 out of the atmosphere. In April, further programs are on the chopping block, according to an internal ministry document seen by SPIEGEL. In total, 14 programs or one-time measures are affected.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/why-germany-is-bettered-positioned-economically-than-the-us/
The conclusions of the Norwegian study are crucially dependent on the electricity source. They say,
Although EVs are an important technological breakthrough with substantial potential environmental benefits, these cannot be harnessed everywhere and in every condition. Our results clearly indicate that it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion. At best, with such electricity mixes, local pollution reductions may be achieved. Thus EVs are a means of moving emissions away from the road rather than reducing them globally. Only limited benefits are achieved by EVs using electricity from natural gas.
Electric cars, without building nuclear power stations, increase GHG emissions, or with gas generation make no difference..
And before someone argues that solar/wind can source the electricity. Charging will be overwhelmingly at night, which eliminates solar as a source. And wind is only viable (ignoring costs) when on demand hydro/nuclear is available as backup.
Matt, what are the ‘dynamics’ associated with nat gas?
I mean, energy density with each ‘state’ (high pressure gas state or cooled liquid state) with a mind towards safety within an occupant-controlled vehicle while moving within traffic, with exposure to possible front, rear and side collisions …
.
The electric car was developed before the IC engine, in fact the range limitations of electric cars in the 1870’s was part of the inspiration for Mr. Benz and Mr. Diesel to develop the IC powered car. It is interesting that the wind turbine and the photovoltaic cell also predate the IC engine, yet are still subsidized as if they were new technologies.
I’d rather the gas be burned as a fuel in cars than as a waste product at the refinery. As long as we use oil for anything – and we use it for host of things – some of the refined product will be gasoline, It will have to be disposed of somehow.
I’ll run my car on wood gassification technology before I’ll poison the environment with toxic battery technology . And where does The Big 0 POTUS think the electricity to charge those batteries comes from?
I have used the energy density agument for more than 20 years to demonstrate that practical battery electric vehicles are not possible with current battery technology or with any battery that has been reasonably imagined. However, the graph comparing energy densities seems to be inaccurate. Checking with Wikipedia, I convert the units and get very close to the energy density given in the graph for gasoline and lead-acid batteries. For Li ion battery Wikipedia gives 202 versus the 120 in the graph. So the gasoline advantage is more like 50-1, not 100-1.
“The electric car was developed before the IC engine, in fact the range limitations of electric cars in the 1870′s was part of the inspiration for Mr. Benz and Mr. Diesel to develop the IC powered car.”
Indeed. I’m always amused when I see people talking about electric cars as though they’re new technology. Our ancestors had them and they sucked, they still suck, and they’ll continue to suck without a revolution in battery technology. To compete with a Honda Civic the battery needs a many times improvement in storage and a many times reduction in cost and the ability to pump massive amounts of power in to charge it in five minutes without melting.
Not likely to happen any time soon.
Nor are ‘battery changing stations’ likely to help the recharging issue, because some poor sod will always get the worn-out battery that suddenly drops from two hundred miles to five miles range when they’re fifty miles from the nearest battery change.
Lead by example.
If Obama expects the country to drive electric cars I would suggest he takes the money from one million dollar golf trip and convert the presidential limo to electric.
If you talk the talk, walk the walk.
Ack says:
March 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm
Replacement Batteries? Always room for another entitlement
_______________________________________________________________
Don’t hold your breath………….
Look at comparable history, no?
From a marketing POV Obama should be threatening to ban electric cars.
After all the man has been the best advertising, that firearms manufacturers never had to buy.
[trimmed. Way overboard. Mod]
john robertson says:
March 19, 2013 at 7:58 pm
From a marketing POV Obama should be threatening to ban electric cars.
After all the man has been the best advertising, that firearms manufacturers never had to buy.
—————————————————————————————————–
Yup, amazing how the free world reacts to such, no?
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8814
I did buy this puppy in the last couple months. Albeit, the tactical version with storage in the stock. Hey, we do have the 2nd amendment right to do so.
I will quote Thomas Jefferson,
“The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try and take it”.
The cards are marked, the dice are loaded and the house always wins.
Very Great Idea, Hope every thing goes success and thank you for giving good post.
klem said:
March 19, 2013 at 3:10 pm
You know, if the Chevy Volt were a regular car, GM would have discontinued it by now. Over three years only 50,000 have been sold, that’s half the sales of the Ford Edsel! The Volt’s a money loser, it should have been axed last year.
The fact that the Volt has not been axed is the reason I don’t own GM shares. It tells me there is still something amiss with GM management.
I can’t help but wonder, why is GM still building them?
———————————————————
It’s not for the money – it’s the thin edge of the wedge of obama’s collectivisation programme.
Increasingly we shall see him taking businesses away from the greedy
ownersKulaks and handing them over to the heroic Workers.And we will all be driving them someday; if he can force us to buy med insurance, he can force us to buy the Cheby Volt.
But hey – it’s for the children (of the GM union members).
If cars ran on hubris, Obummer’s speeches would provide an infinite source of fuel.
.
Does Obama realise where the electric energy in electric cars comes from – coal?
And does Obama realise, that to power all surface transport via electrical power, we would have to double the number of power stations?
.
For a good overview of Renewable Energy, including electric vehicles, please see this UK government briefing paper.
http://www.withouthotair.com
However, even in this professional scientific tome, Prof Mackay included the grossely misleading claim that electric vehicles were five times more efficient than diesel cars. What he has done, of course, is to totally disregard the coal-fired power station that creates the electricity.
I took Prof Mackay to task over this, in the Sunday Times, and I got a sort-of apology, but the five times claim is still there in the report, ready to bamboozle and confuse the brain-dead politician with pseudo-science.
.
@Rafellis – Obama not only realizes that electricity comes from Coal, he is trying to ELIMINATE it as a source of electricity. So he is trying a 2 pronged attack. Reduce the generating capacity of the country, while increasing the load on the generating capacity.
And he thinks that will work.
So let me get this straight:-
We mine for nickel in Canada, ship this to China where they make the batteries, ship these back to US and use them in a car these travel 100 miles, max, before needing 8 hours to recharge. Seems non environmental to me. Mental in fact.
“some poor sod will always get the worn-out battery that suddenly drops from two hundred miles to five miles range when they’re fifty miles from the nearest battery change”
This is what AAA is for!
As a previous owner of a conventional gas/electric hybrid, I can say they are not worth it. Not only do you pay a premium over an IC car when buying it, you either have to replace the battery at ~100,000 miles or trade it in for less than a IC car. When I finally got tired of mine, and wanted to trade it in, the dealer refused to give me anywhere near market price for it because he said the battery had to be replaced. So, not only did I pay a premium on the front end, I got docked on the back end as well. There is no way that the 15% increased gas mileage I saw made up for the buy and sell price discrepancies. I imagine this problem is even worse with fully electric vehicles.
None of this would be of interest to anyone but technology addicts and car fans, were it not for the globalist ambitions of the radical Left and their handmaiden, the Religion of Climatism, which has managed to demonize carbon dioxide and make its reduction the excuse for all manner of tyrannical government policies.
You know that all of The Puppet President’s blather about electric cars is just softening us up for the real body blow, the Carbon Tax.
When will this stop? Somehow we have got to get it through the thick heads of the media, the academics, and the Congress that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, the mantra has been so deeply ingrained that we’ll probably have to start with the kids in primary school and wait 20 years till they grow up. And how do we get around the enviro-left’s control of the school system?
/Mr Lynn
PS Check out the Climate Realist store! http://www.zazzle.com/climaterealist
Isn’t it obvious….our freedom comes from the Bill Of Rights and our ability to move about at will. Part of controlling the masses is to take away our mode of transportation by attacking C02 emitting engines. C02 is very hard to eliminate out of an internal combustion engine. Maybe this explains the CAGW propaganda.since the evidence does not.
Quote from the article:
“The study also found that “EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain.” In other words, production of electric car batteries may become a major source of pollution. ”
Well – exactly the same goes for compact fluorescent tubes – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp – which we will be forced to use disregarding, once the simple, straight incandescent bulb will have been banned completely from use worldwide by law.
We truly live in a brave new world.
# John Campbell says:
March 20, 2013 at 7:42 am
Take away combustion engines, the Second Amendment and a free internet from the people and all that’s left is a herd of sheeple, ready to be pushed about at will. Ain’t that an NWO-apostate’s wet dream come true?
Speaking of Bad Karma, O’s limo was apparently
topped-off with diesel fuel as opposed to the required lighter hydrocarbon (normally know as gasoline) today .. or was it yesterday … at any rate this required the 2nd limo flown into Jordan for another event be brought over for use by O in Israel.
Talk about ‘bad Karma’; the result of having selected “the ebst (sic) and the rbightest (sic)” (Kerry, Clinton, Van Jones, ‘Mao Zedong’ Dunn, Hagel et al) to surround you.
heh
.
Just a few remarks on the responses to my comment about my experience with the Leaf.
David A. Evans (March 19, 2013 at 2:05 pm): A “grid tie” system means I provide power to the grid during the day and take it back at night at no net cost. My electric company does this because I provide power during peak use hours (day) where the cost per kWh is high (peaking generators) whereas the cost to provide power at night is low (idle main generators). I pay an “average” so the company makes out but so do I. Win-win. Not all consumers can use grid-tie systems or can get the electric company to provide the win-win scenario.
MarkW (March 19, 2013 at 2:09 pm) Indeed. But the substantial tax rebates for PV systems in some states may not be necessary any more. You can do much better than I did now. A 5-kW system similar to mine can be purchased from and sells for less than $10K (parts) with installation varying ($5K typical). This is with (preferred) Enphase inverters ($1.89/w) whereas a 9-kW single (Sunny Boy) inverter system is about $14K ($1.49/w) which is an even better deal. My OOP cost after rebates was a little less than $11K. However, at current prices I could install the same for about $15K (parts and labor) which, without rebates, brings the ROI to about 4 years since both house electricity and car (avoided) costs are included. I believe the lower cost of PV systems and the rapid ROI is an argument for removing (or reducing) the tax rebates. Of course, not all locations will give the same ROI – I am in an area where the cost per kWh is about $0.30. Areas where the cost is $0.08 will necessarily see a longer ROI especially if only electricity is used for the house. The combination of PV plus an e-car is certainly an economic winner even without rebates — for those who can afford to buy in now.
Riding the bus: So be it. I subsidize a whole bunch of things I don’t use: national parks, canals and waterways, space stations and space transportation, etc., etc. And a whole bunch of things I do use: GPS, airports and ATC, etc., etc. That said, I can see a need for e-cars to pay “road use taxes” probably based on miles driven each year and paid during yearly at vehicle registration. In that respect, a gas guzzling Escalde owner currently pays a much high percentage of road tax than does a Prius owner simply because the Escalade owner buys more gas/year and road tax is based upon the gasoline tax. I have seen no one complaining about that so far.
M. Jeff (March 19, 2013 at 3:58 pm ) As if all energy sources are not subsidized to varying degrees. I doubt you want to play the “life cycle cost” game when it comes to gasoline: for every $ of Li-battery subsidies I, and anyone smart enough to do the math, can find 10X $ for oil and gas. For example, one recent foray into protecting oil supplies in the ME cost the US $2T. Do we include the cost of the US Coast Guard protecting off shore rigs and the environment from their oil spills as a subsidy for oil companies? I am NOT arguing against gasoline powered cars or oil or gas! I am pointing out that the “subsidy” argument is not a good one to use against electric cars: The pot calling the kettle black.
Bad Karma or just incompetence His Limo broke down in Jerusalem someone put Diesel in it instead of Petrol
Show how much they know about the Internal Combustion Engine
Yes, the Presidential limo failed to start this morning, after being unloaded from the transport aircraft in Israel. It was incorrectly fueled with gasoline. The limo is powered by a 6.5 liter diesel engine, weighs 8 tons, and gets 8 mpg hauling one skinny little proponent of unreliable wind and solar power around. A second limo, in storage in Jordan, had to be hastily air transported to Israel for the occasion. Details at http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/20/obamas-limo-breaks-down-in-tel-aviv-after-gas-snafu-see-the-pictures/
MtK
JG says:
March 20, 2013 at 11:28 am
“I am pointing out that the “subsidy” argument is not a good one to use against electric cars: The pot calling the kettle black.”
I think it’s a splendid argument, drop the subsidies and see what survives, solar panels or the fossil fuel infrastructure.
Notice: I’m not angry if solar panels win… as long as I get electricity. Including at night, that’s how spoiled I am. Call me unfair.
JG says:
March 20, 2013 at 11:28 am, in reply to M. Jeff (March 19, 2013 at 3:58 pm )
… I am pointing out that the “subsidy” argument is not a good one to use against electric cars: The pot calling the kettle black. …
The “subsidy” argument relates to numerous government programns. A calculation of the true cost of various subsidizes would be of benefit in many instances. The core of the issue is whether or not the subsidy is doing more harm than good. There are numerous subsidizes that do more harm than good. I have supposedly been the beneficiary of such. Until this year have received subsidies of about $20 a year for about 10 years to grow or not grow certain crops on some jointly owned inherited land. The cost to the government for handing my account must be at least $100 per year. The politicians did not buy my vote with that subsidy. The extra work and forms and complexity required for filing income tax payments is many times more burdensome than the $20 was worth.
Many of the subsidies are pot/kettle equivalents. But as Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center in Washington, D.C. says: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html
“Spending instead on subsidizing electric cars is putting the cart before the horse, and an inconvenient and expensive cart at that.”
Well my Silicon Valley neighborhood, just got a major face lift. We are a fairly diverse bunch, and have diverse fads.
So the two houses acros the street from mine are rentals, and look like a couple of nice houses. I’m thinking that the same out of town landlord owns both; at least when renovations are going on, they happen at both houses imultaneously, and the two have merged front lawns, and the same leaf blower entrepeneur tends both properties. They must rent fairly steeply, because the occupant turnover rate is quite brisk. They mostly seem to be rented (briefly) by 3rd worlders, who seem to preferentially drive ten year old dark green or black Toyota Corollas. No idea why. that is just the pattern. So the most recent tenants, have moved on, so the workmen are doing some spring cleaning. Both look like well kept up places; and make the neighborhood look much better than my side of the street does. I get self conscious with a driveway full or red, white and blue Subarus..
Well I don’t know if I have acquired a new owner across the street, or just new Tenants; but we just got supercharged. Sitting at the curb across from me, is now a nice light grey TESLA, one of those $130,000 jobs; no licence plates yet. The maybe proud owner seems to be Asian and looks quite businesslike.
I wonder about leaving that machine out in the street, but both garages are getting a paint job, and the tradesmen park their trucks in both of the driveways; so I’n not sure yet, which house the TESLA belongs to, but one of the two houses, is sporting a Boone & Crocket record set of Solar Panels. By my count, it is a 28 pointer. Now I don’t see any sign of any silicon wafer array appearance, so I’m guessing they are one of the thin film II-VI types of panels, so it is likely a Solar City or equivalent setup.
So I’m guessing that the car goes with the antlers.
Now the Tesla looks very nice; but I can’t say it is $130k worth of nice.
But we;come to the neighborhood, who-ever.
So I went the other way; LED lighting throughout; much cheaper than the Solar City thing.
Now I always thought that Tesla, was the champion of AC; so what’s with the Solar PV, and the battery car.
Per Wikipedia, the lithium-ion watt-hrs/kg should be 201 instead of 120 in the bar chart.
Unless in the near future they come up with some Dilithium Crystals (Star Trek), we will be burning fossil fuels in vehicles for many decades, if not centuries to come. It all comes to energy density and convenience. Let’s imagine for a moment there is an electric car of equal practicality (i.e. range, recharging time) to a gasoline powered car … Energy density of gasoline is about 36MJ/liter. A 60 liters tank (2,160MJ of energy) is typically refilled in about 5 minutes. Now, let’s see what does it take to charge a battery with the same amount of energy, within the same time …
2,160MJ/600sec=7.2 MW
At 480V, the current would be a whooping 15,000 Amps !!! No one short of a highly trained electrician is legally allowed to switch this. For a comparison, your biggest (main) breaker in your house is 50 Amps, and that’s for a good reason. This thing sparks, and you turn into ashes instantly. I can also imagine what would a typical electric charging station, counterpart of an average gas station look like. Each and every one would require a nuclear power plant to provide all the power.
Oh, .. another thing. Those thinking of swapping batteries is a solution, have to bear in mind that EVs are essentially batteries on wheels. You are better off swapping vehicles altogether.
Go ahead, tell the whole story. That’s only part of it. Virginia is also proposing to do away with the gas tax entirely and go to an increase on sales tax. Why? Because even though there are more vehicles registered in Virginia than ever before doing more miles than ever before, the gas tax revenue is down and declining. Why? Because we’re doing exactly what we were supposed to do as a result of their “social engineering”. We’ve become monumentally more fuel efficient.
They just can’t figure out what to do without the projected revenue. Let’s disregard the fact that the Virginia Department of Transportation – not long ago – shut down Interstate highway visitor centers as a cost saving measure because they were out of cash; only to find out that (because of their poor accounting) they actually had over a billion dollars of unspent money. No, I didn’t spell that wrong. Over a billion dollars.
In the grand scheme of things, Virginia is actually a fairly well run state. But it never occurs to them (or any other state of the union for that matter) to address the real problem. Why does building or improving infrastructure cost so much? I’m watching a much needed improvement to a commuter rail station go up in nearby Halethorpe, Maryland. The cost? 21 million dollars. Twenty-One MILLION Dollars$$$$$. It will take 2 years to complete. Now, this isn’t Grand Central or anything. It’s two covered raised concrete platforms, some stairs, ramps, two elevators, and a pedestrian bridge. Granted, not cheap. But 21 million? Seriously? And it takes 2 years to build? In the private sectors that under 8 million and gets done in 4 months. THAT’S the problem.
The solution? It comes, from (of all places) California. I recall that, after the Northbridge earthquakes many vital bridges and overpasses were damaged. So California came up with a unique plan. The contracts were written so that a bonus was paid – a HUGE bonus – for every day before a set completion date a rebuilding project was early. Despite paying enormous bonuses, California actually saved money and vital infrastructure was rebuilt in record time. No short cutting of safety either. Those rebuilt structures have already survived subsequent earthquakes of equal magnitude.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-06/news/mn-42778_1_santa-monica-freeway
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/25/california-freeway-rebuilt-in-a-new-york-minute/
Sorry for the off topic rant, but there is a parallel. It’s a blind indulgence in an ideology rather than truly seeking to address a problem. It’s the politically correct but morally incorrect act of pressing an agenda instead of seeking a solution. It’s the effort put behind what your political cronies want pushed without any regard to the inevitable unintended consequences.
There, see. That dovetails rather nicely. Not as off topic as I thought I was.
FYI:
“Annual battery pack production in Smyrna (starting in 2012): 200,000
Annual Nissan Leaf vehicle production in Smyrna: 150,000
Number of battery modules in a Nissan Leaf: 48
Number of cells per module: 4
Weight of pack: 300 kilograms (660 pounds)
Amount of lithium in the pack: 4 grams
Weight of the Nissan Leaf: Approx. 3,500 pounds
Amount of DOE loan for new facility and retooling: $1.4 billion
Anticipated number of jobs created: 1,300”
Over 1 million $ per job
How stupid does the administration think we are?
How easy is it to replace a 660 lb batter pack? That’s much more than the weight of an engine
Also it is stupid to spend $$ on demonstrated technology until the battery is developed.
Spend the $$ on battery research before you spend a fortune to demonstrate the easy part that does not need demonstration.
When will the electric car owners pay their fair share of road tax which is up to 25% of conventional fossil fuels cost?
Why do I have to subsidize some else’s fetish?
Billions of private invested dollars have developed the infrastructure over a long period. Do they have a clue as to the cost to duplicate it? Why must I subsidize the electric fueling stations.
Oil companies contribute huge amounts of dollars to the US treasury in the form of taxes, royalties, and lease sales, How will this shortfall be replaced after they are put out of business?
Finally some of the greatest minds have failed for over 50 years to develop a practical auto battery.
Has anyone pause to think it is impossible due to the laws of chemistry and physics or that it may take many more decades? Since when did wildly throwing $$$ at a problem guarantee success
Sheer madness from Washington!!!
Catcracking,
“How stupid does the administration think we are?”
You do not want to know the answer to that question.
There’s a reason the eco-loons are called watermelons. Their ideological nightmares aren’t possible without other people’s money.
Our foreign oil comes from Venezuela, Nigeria, and Canada, mostly. Little of it (under 20%?) is from the ME. And even if it were, there were other motivations for the 2nd Gulf War.
Nissan’s electric revolution isn’t happeningL
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-20/in-ghosn-we-trust-tested-as-nissan-electric-push-falters.html
Carlos Ghosn laid a $5 billion bet in 2009 that the world’s next Ford Model T would be electric, and that Nissan Motor Co. (7201) would lead a revolution embraced by nations such as Denmark. Three years later, sales of Leaf plug- in vehicles in the Nordic country: 73.
Nissan’s chief executive officer has long fronted a campaign to convince the world that by the end of the decade, 1 in 10 cars sold will be electric. Customers haven’t bought in, as prices remain high and charging stations are few and far between. Sales for 2012 were half their target in the U.S.
Ghosn’s response has been to double down. Last week, he put his chief operating officer directly in charge of electric cars, elevating the Leaf’s importance for the future of Japan’s second-biggest carmaker. With Nissan sales falling short in the U.S. and China, some investors say they’d prefer the CEO focus on more immediate concerns.
……………
As the European Union’s debt crisis and the U.S. economy’s struggle to escape recession pinched budgets, countries like Denmark haven’t responded to Ghosn’s zeal with the investment in infrastructure needed to stoke consumer interest.
Prices remain high. According to Nissan’s U.S. website, a Leaf starts from $21,300 after federal tax rebates, comparable to the price of an Altima, which is roomier and has 70 percent more horsepower. In Denmark, Nissan’s site advertises a leaf for just over 268,000 krone, or more than $46,400.
Speaking of Fisker… If I remember correctly, Consumer Reports did a road test of one of their cars a while back. The test car died after less than 1000 miles.
Well I got to meet (welll actually just see), and yell across the road to my new Tesla driver neighbor. Seems like a very nice chap; culd be Northern European. And yes he does go with the solar roof. And he does park the vehicle on the street while some workmen, ae finishing up on the house. I’m guessing a new owner, and not a renter.
Apple is buying into Sunyvale and doing major expansions here.
A problem I see with electrics, is that when the gas tank is finally empty, it still weighs as much as when it was full. I have no idea what KW a TESLA is.
I apologize if this has already been posted but it is on topic
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwMDEyNDAyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email
By Bjorn Lomborg
Green cars have a dirty little secret.
“A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.”
Here’s the solution! ; )-
We should all get rid of our cars just carpool with our neighbors in ‘community vans’ (paid for by the government of course). The (electric) vans could ONLY be driven by TSA government employees during specific hours of the day ( subject to union breaks and no travel on government holidays of course). Then it will become rationed (like health care will soon be) to 1 van per 20 households!
Welcome to Obama’s dream…and our nightmare
What is the point of posting again and again the energy content of gasoline, diesel, etc versus that of batteries, when inevitably most of the energy from gasoline/diesel must be ejected out the tail pipe (80% in most cars on the road today), and most of the energy from the admittedly paltry batteries goes directly into moving the vehicle?
“By Bjorn Lomborg
Green cars have a dirty little secret.”
Lomborg’s article is entirely based on the Norwegian report he cites, and that report is severely flawed. That report uses a model of an electric car to add up all its components. Readers here will be well aware of the possible flaws in models. For example, the report reaches for some ‘nominal’ mass of an electric motor+inverter in its model of the Nissan Leaf which happens to be 300 kg. The actual mass of that motor is ~50 kg. The model of the gasoline vehicle used for comparison omits all kinds of components – oil and fuel pumps, lead acid starter battery, alternator, on and on.
Really, did anyone with any experience under the hood of any vehicle actually think the manufacture of the same steel chassis,body,tires,windows, doors, etc, but with a 25 kWh battery and electric motor slapped on would somehow require *twice* the CO2/energy of a comparable gasoline powered vehicle?
Falstaff,
What kind of electric car do you own?
Falstaff says:
March 22, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“Really, did anyone with any experience under the hood of any vehicle actually think the manufacture of the same steel chassis,body,tires,windows, doors, etc, but with a 25 kWh battery and electric motor slapped on would somehow require *twice* the CO2/energy of a comparable gasoline powered vehicle?”
Me, for sure. How heavy is a 25 kWh Li Ion battery; I’d wager… at 200 Wh/kg… 125 kg.
Given that such a car costs about 25000 EUR compared to 10000 EUR for a comparably sized normal car (not comparing the performance; that would be unfair), it makes sense to assume that at least twice the energy went into making it. A replacement battery costs about 10,000 EUR, so it looks much like that lump of Li Ion is what consumed that extra energy in the manufacture.
Or did you think one can make a 125 kg Li Ion battery without expending some serious energy?
Falstaff says:
March 22, 2013 at 3:45 pm
“What is the point of posting again and again the energy content of gasoline, diesel, etc versus that of batteries, when inevitably most of the energy from gasoline/diesel must be ejected out the tail pipe (80% in most cars on the road today), and most of the energy from the admittedly paltry batteries goes directly into moving the vehicle?”
Modern Diesel engines achieve up to 54% efficiency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine#Power_and_fuel_economy
Maybe your knowledge of ICE’s is outdated.
@DirkH. Your diesel link refers to hundred MW constant rpm diesels used at power plants and in shipping. No combustion engine of any kind gets anywhere near 50% average efficiency over the driving cycle for automobiles.
Anyway, there’s no need to hunt down great whale exceptions when we can know the average. We know the average fuel efficiency per mile is ~25 mpg for cars now on the road, i.e. ~5 MJ per mile. The power required to push the average jalopy along level road at a constant 60 mph is 19 KW (drag and rolling resistance), 1.1 MJ per mile, or 78% of energy tossed out the tailpipe, and that at constant speed, not stop and go which makes things worse for combustion engines.
@DirkH
“Given that such a car costs about 25000 EUR compared to 10000 EUR for a comparably sized normal car (not comparing the performance; that would be unfair), it makes sense to assume that at least twice the energy went into making it. ”
I doubt you really believe that, given the prevalence of expensive baubles we all see every day where the energy to build represents a small fraction of the cost. See for instance, the $68 million price of a 22 ton (empty) Gulfstream 5 jet compared to the $80K for tractor-trailer rig of the same mass. You think the Gulfstream required 850 times the energy of the tractor-trailers forged steel versus the riveted aluminum the G5.
For the average driver, electric cars are too expensive, they take too long to charge, and the range is insufficient – so far. But it is ridiculous to propose some 200 kg of electric motor and battery requires *twice* the energy of the propulsion system in an ICE: half ton steel engine block with hundreds of parts + exhaust manifold + fuel system + air intake system + large transmission + large radiator + oil pump + water pump + fuel pump + emissions controls, on an on and on.
@DB Stealey:
That would be an SUV, 6 cylinder and minivan. No plugs, just gas caps.
RE: SAMURAI: (March 19, 2013 at 11:39 am)
The way around these problems are: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which would make power generation about two orders of magnitude cheaper than wind/solar 2) next generation batteries capable of much quicker charging times and roughly 3 times the range.
It looks to me like we may have enough natural uranium on hand so that uranium (U233) breeding thorium reactors may not be required until the next half millennium. Thorium is not a fuel; it is a source of uranium (U233)–after a neutron capture converts natural thorium (Th232) to unstable (Th233), which quickly becomes Protactinium (Pa233) and that more slowly beta-decays into uranium (U233), which is real the fissile reactor fuel.
Canadian Dr. David LeBlanc has pointed out that the real advantage, here, is the low-pressure, liquid-fueled reactor design, which has all those advantages often touted as the advantages of ‘thorium’ reactors, including transuaranic waste annihilation. He states that Oak Ridge was working under a mandate to design a fissile-uranium breeding thorium reactor based on a false premise, at the time, that natural uranium was soon to be depleted. He also indicates that Liquid Fueled Uranium Reactors are potentially so efficient that they would need less than one sixth the fuel required by today’s solid fuel reactors and could easily tolerate uranium prices as high as $500 per kg.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/12/im-on-al-gores-radar-for-showing-a-path-forward/#comment-1255087
The Singing Corporate Comedian says:
March 22, 2013 at 1:59 pm
It’s called public transportation.
It never gets a kick start until users get a interest to opt for such cars. Everything is in the hands of the users, so please them with some good features that is better than the regular cars.