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.
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/