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.
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, @ur momisugly 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?