E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLive Poll
Would you consider buying an electric car?
Electric vehicles, such as the award-winning Chevy Volt and much-hyped Nissan Leaf and Tesla Roadster, are getting a lot of attention from the car industry these days.
But it’s not clear American consumers are as ready to jump on the bandwagon.
A new poll finds that only one-fifth of drivers surveyed are likely to consider buying an electric car, and price is an issue. About half wouldn’t be willing to pay more for an electric vehicle than for a gas, diesel or hybrid model.
The survey of 1,716 American drivers was conducted by Opinion Research Corp. for the IBM Institute for Business Value.
It’s not just that drivers don’t want to pay more for the cars; they also don’t want to pay more for the associated infrastructure.
Only 8 percent of drivers surveyed said they would consider spending between $1,000 and $1,999 to upgrade their electrical work for fast recharging at home. That’s about what it would cost, according to industry estimates cited in the report.
Americans appear to want electric cars to be as convenient as gas-powered vehicles in other ways as well. The survey found that the biggest motivators for switching to an electric vehicle include lower prices, extended range of travel, convenient usage and a charging infrastructure.
The Chevy Volt, which on Monday was named 2011 North American Car of the Year, is an electric and gas combination, so a gas generator kicks in once the battery has been depleted.
That may give that car an edge with nervous consumers over all-electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf, which only runs on its electric battery and has a range of 70 to 80 miles.
Other carmakers are rushing to offer electric vehicles too. Ford said last week that it hopes to have its electric Ford Focus in showrooms by the end of the year.
And Toyota, which last year partnered with electric sports car startup Tesla, hopes to have an electric version of its RAV4 in showrooms by 2012.
Leave a Comment:
I am certain that most of you who bother to read my blog are the types who stayed awake in history and the various science classes we all attended in school. Because you stayed awake, you are likely to recall that a self-powered vehicle is a rather old concept with most of its roots in Europe.
For instance, the first self-powered conveyance may have been a locomotive owned by the Middleton Railroad, chartered in Leeds, England in 1758. The first self-powered vehicle to not run on rails was built by Nicholas Cugnot in France in 1769. It was steam-powered and beastly heavy. Then came Robert Anderson’s battery powered vehicle in Scotland in 1832. And at long last, an internal combustion powered horseless carriage (literally) was patented in Germany in 1879 by Karl Benz.
In view of the chronology of the various types of self powered vehicles, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the very earliest commercial automobiles were either steam or electric powered. This fact is often overlooked since their period of dominance was short-lived and a very long time ago. The shortcomings of steam and primitive lead-acid batteries are well known. Internal combustion engines got a fast start due to the mechanical simplicity of the old low compression engines and, most of all, the energy density and portability of gasoline. This is despite the fact that there was no gasoline distribution infrastructure, no useful roadmaps or even named roads and finally, nearly no roads suitable for wheeled vehicles. Mud as far as the eye could see. Oh, and don’t forget pneumatic tires that couldn’t survive but a few miles on such wretched roads.
Well, here we are at the turn of the first decade of the twenty first century and for more than a century, gasoline powered vehicles have reigned supreme on the world’s roads and highways. How does this state of affairs manage to persist for over a century and likely for decades longer? Ironically, most of the trains now used in highly developed countries are either purely electric or diesel-electric. The latter, diesel electrics, claimed the title of the first hybrid conveyances over sixty years ago.
Short answer? A century plus of brilliant engineering of the internal combustion (IC) engine making it vastly more fuel efficient (more power per cc of engine displacement per liter of gasoline) and the inherently high energy density and portability of gasoline versus the same amount of time (but significantly less effort) of brilliant engineering making very significant improvements to battery chemistry (example: lead-acid to lithium ion). And the costs, which are more-or-less related to KWH/KG for comparison's sake, are not budging. Not that there was a contest per se, but the outcomes of the parallel development of these alternative energy sources have been starkly different. And frankly, there doesn’t appear to be much on the horizon to change this state of affairs.
Don’t misunderstand me. A huge effort is underway around the world to make a quantum change to the current state of battery technology. Unfortunately, battery cell improvements tend to be incremental and the costs remain stubbornly high – at least when compared to an alternative IC engine. A worrisome side note to the state of the art battery technology is that virtually all of these technologies depend upon exotic and rare elements concentrated in just a few locations in the world. Afganistan, for example. We've already seen China economically punish Japan by limiting Japan's access to China's reserves of rare earth elements.
Many of these incremental improvements to batteries result from tweaking various cell chemistries and/or exploiting the novel characteristics of new materials such as nanoparticles. However, just like previous focused efforts to improve video recording that became the battle of standards (Beta vs. VHS and HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray), the market is unintentionally being used to sort through the multitude of candidate battery cells to establish a standard battery. On second thought, this analogy is not particularly apt, since each of the aforementioned recording technologies were, in fact, the joint output of multi-company consortia. These consortia presented the market with an "A" vs. "B" choice. In contrast, battery technologies are being pursued by literally dozens of companies world wide and the market is being presented the choice of "A" vs. "B" through "Z". Not exactly the right environment for a quick shake-out. Neverthess, until some degree of standardization occurs, it will be difficult for manufacturers to acquire sufficient volumes of cells to drive the cost of the technology down a learning curve. Thus, the costs will remain high.
Aside from cost, if you are a manufacturer of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) or electric vehicles (EVs) when you commit to use a particular type of cell, there is a whole cascade of consequences that result from that decision that will make you disinclined to change to a different battery using a different chemistry – especially if only to capture another marginal improvement in the technology. This is because each particular cell chemistry results in a different cell voltage, energy density, form factor and charge/discharge characteristic. Consequently, your assembly of battery cells (the battery pack) will be a particular size, weight and physical configuration and the charging and charge state monitor electronics will all be peculiar to that exact cell chemistry. Change the cell chemistry and all of those variables will change. That means different costs to manufacture and different applicability to various HEV and EV models.
So, until HEV and EV batteries finally become standardized like the familiar AA, AAA, C, D and 9V battery configurations with essentially similar charge/discharge characteristics and battery state monitoring requirements, every choice of cell technology for these vehicles will result in a sub-optimum solution of some sort. The world awaits the big shakeout. But don’t hold your breath, because there’s no end in sight for the quest of the holy grail of batteries. In the meantime, EVs for short range daily commutes and HEVs for longer trips will be the best solutions you can buy. If you can afford them.
Just in case you're thinking about fuel cells, you are on the right track. Unfortunately this highly promising technology has been stalled in a time vortex for decades and a practical commercial fuel cell perpetually remains ten years away.
The rare earth metals issue is not a problem of supply; it's a problem of manufacturing/refining. China holds over 90% of the REFINING capability of the world. The raw materials are available in many other places, but there are very few plants set up to deal with processing them. China's "embargo" has started the ball rolling for wider distribution of those refining plants, but it will be a few years before they are ready and we don't rely on China as the single source.
Also, you are overstating the value of a standardized battery. Nobody is going to need to pop into the local drug store to pick up a size DDDD battery for their car. You may have to change the battery out 1, maybe 2 times in the life of the vehicle. More if you REALLY extend the life of the car out past the length of time people usually keep a vehicle. Most batteries are made of individual cells, and those cells are generally standardized. Look at the stats on any notebook computer; they will say something like "3-Cell battery, 6-cell battery". Those numbers refer to the number of (usually) cylindrical rechargeable batteries used in the battery pack of a laptop. There are flat pack cells for use in items that need to be thin, like cell phones.
For the last 8+Years China has supplied 97% of the 'Rare Earths' to the World. They have 38% of the current proven assets and by 2014 they are expected to STOP EXPORTS of any 'Rare Earths' due to Domestic needs.
Every 3Megawatt wind turbine uses 2+tonnes of 'rare earths' and the Prius is the World largest consumer of 'Rare earths. Every EV uses 2+pounds per Kwatt/hr for their Li battery packs. Every Prius uses over 40+pounds of 'rare earths' and the Volt uses 24+pounds per battery pack. Plus every EV that has PM-motors/generators use these 'rare earths' in their magnets.
The USA CLOSED their last 'rare earth' mine 8+years ago, due to environmental hazards. Japan just signed a deal with Australia, for their future needed 'rare earths'. The USA is reopening their last 'rare earth mine' in Calif. We will see how long the 'Tree Huggers' will let this mine stay open...
China just announced another 35% reduction in their EXPORTS of 'rare earths. China's original decision to cut export quotas by 72 per cent for the 2010 second half was met with worldwide criticism that it was taking undue advantage of its market-dominant position to engineer a rise in rare-earth prices. That would leave high-tech industries little choice but to locate to China.'
'First-half 2011 quotas total 14,508 tonnes, down about 35 per cent compared with the same period this year, according to data from the Ministry of Commerce.' see http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/lynas-corp-shares-soar-on-chinas-cuts-to-rare-earth-export-quotas/story-e6frg9df-1225977837216
China has secured mining rights in; Canada, Africa, Tibet, and supposedly in Afghanistan for additional 'rare earth' supplies.
If you want to know the REAL Problem with Li-Ion batteries. Research - Dentrite formation Li-ion battery
The notion that we'd need standardized batteries for EVs is just as silly as the notion that we'd need standardized "one size only" gas tanks for gasoline vehicles. The gasoline is the same, but the tanks vary considerably. Electricity is the same, but the batteries vary considerably.
AC, you're wildly exaggerating the role of "rare earth metals", they are not all that "rare", they are not required for LiIon batteries, there are electric motors that don't use it, and Toyota is researching ways to make their hybrid motors without it.
As for "Dendrite formation", that only occurs in LiIon batteries if they are overcharged, causing the lithium to plate out. Since a well designed plug-in car has battery management to prevent that, it isn't really much of a problem.
The all electrics are just not practical for most people, hybrids are a better choice. I and many others do not want a vehicle that is limited to 100 or 200 miles between charges. Improvement in hybrids could make them even more popular, as that limitation is removed.
While this is true, I would bet the vast majority of people are also not in a position to afford the significant premium that will only start paying for itself after many years of gas savings. And some of these hybrids are a joke... I can't remember which one it was, but I read about a hybrid that gets something like 30mpg while the regular version gets 27mpg. The hybrid costs thousands of dollars more. Who wants to pay an extra $5,000 for a car that will save you $10 a month on gas? That's why people aren't chomping at the hybrid bit.
@James the hybrids that you mention with little actual savings are for the SUV's. And that is the combined highway and city numbers you are quoting. The improvement in city miles alone is justifiable if that is what you usually drive. However the highway mileage does not really change at all, and would not be justified if that is what you mainly drive.
Where do you live?
That is the first question anyone should ask if they are interested in an electric vehicle (or making the argument that they are not worth it).
Personally, I like about 7 miles from work, and I usually come home for lunch if I can spare it. So I do less than 30 miles in an average day. My only problem for an electric vehicle is that I rent, and even if I could make changes to the electric infrastructure of the home, my car is about 100ft away from the breaker box, with another townhouse in between, and a bunch of yard space (I park in a parking lot). So I don't really have any way to charge it.
Sure, it isn't for everyone. But for some people, ESPECIALLY in urban areas, it could be an excellent solution; better and cheaper than Hybrid. Electric vehicles can and will be cheaper than hybrids due to lower complexity and lack of an ICE. Reliability, assuming the batteries last, should be very good, with lower maintenance costs.
So yeah, I have a problem with your "most people" statement.
I'm not against buying an electric car. What I am against is buying an electric car that only travels a 100 miles or so on a charge. First of all that typically means 100 miles in perfect conditions and secondly, it leaves me almost no room for margin on my trip to and from work. If I have to drive to a jobsite, forget it.
If an electric car works for somebody and they want to buy it, then I'm not going to begrudge them in the least.
"Most people" do not drive even 40 miles a day.
People have to give up some of their old habits. I understand and most people know an electric vehicle will not be for everyone and every trip you make. I for one will buy an electric car because my daily commute is 25 miles round trip it will work for me most of the time. I still own a Dino burning Ford Ranger and will use it for times I need extended range or to go on a long trip. A hybrid would be good for those who occasionally need the extended range. Battery technology will improve, prices will decrease and they will fit into more peoples lifestyles. The biggest obstacle is the prices for battery's when they come down these cars will sell to a wider group of drivers.
Well, I look at it this way. If you are just limited to 80 or so miles of range that doesn't bode well and can create what is known as range anxiety and if someone were to purchase an electric car they would also need to own a gasoline automobile to make their occaisional trips greater than 80 or 90 miles. I for one would like to see Tesla do well with their up coming Model S since they from the start realized that for an electric car to be successful it should have a decent range of over 200 miles and should not look like a glorified golf cart or an econobox. Even the Nissan Leaf says "well it will have a range of 70 to 90 miles and should work well for about 90% of drivers needs". "Shoulda coulda woulda". Face it "its crippled car that would only make for a commuter vehicle since you will not be able to use it for all your traveling needs and you will need a gasoline vehicle for backup for its short range". Unfortunately things can happen unexpectedly and people will have to be out of town for a death in the family or would like to go visit a sick relative who lives more than 1 hour away and suddenly 70 to 80 miles range doesn't cut it at all so you are forced to own a gasoline powered vehicle as a backup because your electric car is crippled with low range. Give me an electric car with a range similar to a gasoline vehicle with a full tank (250+ mile range) and then we will have an alternative to the internal combustion engine.
I am certain that most of you who bother to read my blog are the types who stayed awake in history and the various science classes we all attended in school. Because you stayed awake, you are likely to recall that a self-powered vehicle is a rather old concept with most of its roots in Europe.
For instance, the first self-powered conveyance may have been a locomotive owned by the Middleton Railroad, chartered in Leeds, England in 1758. The first self-powered vehicle to not run on rails was built by Nicholas Cugnot in France in 1769. It was steam-powered and beastly heavy. Then came Robert Anderson’s battery powered vehicle in Scotland in 1832. And at long last, an internal combustion powered horseless carriage (literally) was patented in Germany in 1879 by Karl Benz.
In view of the chronology of the various types of self powered vehicles, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the very earliest commercial automobiles were either steam or electric powered. This fact is often overlooked since their period of dominance was short-lived and a very long time ago. The shortcomings of steam and primitive lead-acid batteries are well known. Internal combustion engines got a fast start due to the mechanical simplicity of the old low compression engines and, most of all, the energy density and portability of gasoline. This is despite the fact that there was no gasoline distribution infrastructure, no useful roadmaps or even named roads and finally, nearly no roads suitable for wheeled vehicles. Mud as far as the eye could see. Oh, and don’t forget pneumatic tires that couldn’t survive but a few miles on such wretched roads.
Well, here we are at the turn of the first decade of the twenty first century and for more than a century, gasoline powered vehicles have reigned supreme on the world’s roads and highways. How does this state of affairs manage to persist for over a century and likely for decades longer? Ironically, most of the trains now used in highly developed countries are either purely electric or diesel-electric. The latter, diesel electrics, claimed the title of the first hybrid conveyances over sixty years ago.
Short answer? A century plus of brilliant engineering of the internal combustion (IC) engine making it vastly more fuel efficient (more power per cc of engine displacement per liter of gasoline) and the inherently high energy density and portability of gasoline versus the same amount of time (but significantly less effort) of brilliant engineering making very significant improvements to battery chemistry (example: lead-acid to lithium ion). And the costs, which are more-or-less related to KWH/KG for comparison's sake, are not budging. Not that there was a contest per se, but the outcomes of the parallel development of these alternative energy sources have been starkly different. And frankly, there doesn’t appear to be much on the horizon to change this state of affairs.
Don’t misunderstand me. A huge effort is underway around the world to make a quantum change to the current state of battery technology. Unfortunately, battery cell improvements tend to be incremental and the costs remain stubbornly high – at least when compared to an alternative IC engine. A worrisome side note to the state of the art battery technology is that virtually all of these technologies depend upon exotic and rare elements concentrated in just a few locations in the world. Afganistan, for example. We've already seen China economically punish Japan by limiting Japan's access to China's reserves of rare earth elements.
Many of these incremental improvements to batteries result from tweaking various cell chemistries and/or exploiting the novel characteristics of new materials such as nanoparticles. However, just like previous focused efforts to improve video recording that became the battle of standards (Beta vs. VHS and HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray), the market is unintentionally being used to sort through the multitude of candidate battery cells to establish a standard battery. On second thought, this analogy is not particularly apt, since each of the aforementioned recording technologies were, in fact, the joint output of multi-company consortia. These consortia presented the market with an "A" vs. "B" choice. In contrast, battery technologies are being pursued by literally dozens of companies world wide and the market is being presented the choice of "A" vs. "B" through "Z". Not exactly the right environment for a quick shake-out. Neverthess, until some degree of standardization occurs, it will be difficult for manufacturers to acquire sufficient volumes of cells to drive the cost of the technology down a learning curve. Thus, the costs will remain high.
Aside from cost, if you are a manufacturer of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) or electric vehicles (EVs) when you commit to use a particular type of cell, there is a whole cascade of consequences that result from that decision that will make you disinclined to change to a different battery using a different chemistry – especially if only to capture another marginal improvement in the technology. This is because each particular cell chemistry results in a different cell voltage, energy density, form factor and charge/discharge characteristic. Consequently, your assembly of battery cells (the battery pack) will be a particular size, weight and physical configuration and the charging and charge state monitor electronics will all be peculiar to that exact cell chemistry. Change the cell chemistry and all of those variables will change. That means different costs to manufacture and different applicability to various HEV and EV models.
So, until HEV and EV batteries finally become standardized like the familiar AA, AAA, C, D and 9V battery configurations with essentially similar charge/discharge characteristics and battery state monitoring requirements, every choice of cell technology for these vehicles will result in a sub-optimum solution of some sort. The world awaits the big shakeout. But don’t hold your breath, because there’s no end in sight for the quest of the holy grail of batteries. In the meantime, EVs for short range daily commutes and HEVs for longer trips will be the best solutions you can buy. If you can afford them.
Just in case you're thinking about fuel cells, you are on the right track. Unfortunately this highly promising technology has been stalled in a time vortex for decades and a practical commercial fuel cell perpetually remains ten years away.
Ive said it before & I'll say it again, i cannot and will not afford a car that cant get me from Houston to Dallas without a 2 hour stop to recharge!
As to Hybrids, Jaguar has the answer.
You wouldn't use a screwdriver to dig a hole, either. That doesn't mean screwdrivers are useless. If you need to dig a hole, don't buy a screwdriver. If you need to drive a very long distance, don't buy an electric car.
Hybrids aren't for Texas. Period.
Actually, hybrids are the perfect solution in Texas, because they provide the range and climate control that is needed. There are a large number of hybrid owners here, including myself.
In view of the chronology of the various types of self powered vehicles, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that the very earliest commercial automobiles were either steam or electric powered. This fact is often overlooked since their period of dominance was short-lived and a very long time ago. The shortcomings of steam and primitive lead-acid batteries are well known. Internal combustion engines got a fast start due to the mechanical simplicity of the old low compression engines and, most of all, the energy density and portability of gasoline. This is despite the fact that there was no gasoline distribution infrastructure, no useful roadmaps or even named roads and finally, nearly no roads suitable for wheeled vehicles. Mud as far as the eye could see. Oh, and don’t forget pneumatic tires that couldn’t survive but a few miles on such wretched roads.
Well, here we are at the turn of the first decade of the twenty first century and for more than a century, gasoline powered vehicles have reigned supreme on the world’s roads and highways. How does this state of affairs manage to persist for over a century and likely for decades longer? Ironically, most of the trains now used in highly developed countries are either purely electric or diesel-electric. The latter, diesel electrics, claimed the title of the first hybrid conveyances over sixty years ago.
Short answer? A century plus of brilliant engineering of the internal combustion (IC) engine making it vastly more fuel efficient (more power per cc of engine displacement per liter of gasoline) and the inherently high energy density and portability of gasoline versus the same amount of time (but significantly less effort) of brilliant engineering making very significant improvements to battery chemistry (example: lead-acid to lithium ion). And the costs, which are more-or-less related to KWH/KG for comparison's sake, are not budging. Not that there was a contest per se, but the outcomes of the parallel development of these alternative energy sources have been starkly different. And frankly, there doesn’t appear to be much on the horizon to change this state of affairs.
Don’t misunderstand me. A huge effort is underway around the world to make a quantum change to the current state of battery technology. Unfortunately, battery cell improvements tend to be incremental and the costs remain stubbornly high – at least when compared to an alternative IC engine. A worrisome side note to the state of the art battery technology is that virtually all of these technologies depend upon exotic and rare elements concentrated in just a few locations in the world. Afganistan, for example. We've already seen China economically punish Japan by limiting Japan's access to China's reserves of rare earth elements.
Many of these incremental improvements to batteries result from tweaking various cell chemistries and/or exploiting the novel characteristics of new materials such as nanoparticles. However, just like previous focused efforts to improve video recording that became the battle of standards (Beta vs. VHS and HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray), the market is unintentionally being used to sort through the multitude of candidate battery cells to establish a standard battery. On second thought, this analogy is not particularly apt, since each of the aforementioned recording technologies were, in fact, the joint output of multi-company consortia. These consortia presented the market with an "A" vs. "B" choice. In contrast, battery technologies are being pursued by literally dozens of companies world wide and the market is being presented the choice of "A" vs. "B" through "Z". Not exactly the right environment for a quick shake-out. Neverthess, until some degree of standardization occurs, it will be difficult for manufacturers to acquire sufficient volumes of cells to drive the cost of the technology down a learning curve. Thus, the costs will remain high.
Aside from cost, if you are a manufacturer of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) or electric vehicles (EVs) when you commit to use a particular type of cell, there is a whole cascade of consequences that result from that decision that will make you disinclined to change to a different battery using a different chemistry – especially if only to capture another marginal improvement in the technology. This is because each particular cell chemistry results in a different cell voltage, energy density, form factor and charge/discharge characteristic. Consequently, your assembly of battery cells (the battery pack) will be a particular size, weight and physical configuration and the charging and charge state monitor electronics will all be peculiar to that exact cell chemistry. Change the cell chemistry and all of those variables will change. That means different costs to manufacture and different applicability to various HEV and EV models.
So, until HEV and EV batteries finally become standardized like the familiar AA, AAA, C, D and 9V battery configurations with essentially similar charge/discharge characteristics and battery state monitoring requirements, every choice of cell technology for these vehicles will result in a sub-optimum solution of some sort. The world awaits the big shakeout. But don’t hold your breath, because there’s no end in sight for the quest of the holy grail of batteries. In the meantime, EVs for short range daily commutes and HEVs for longer trips will be the best solutions you can buy. If you can afford them.
Another reason why advances and improvements in battery performance (energy density, hysterisis, charging rates, etc.) take such a long time is that batteries must be tested over a large number of cycles to accurately characterize their electrochemical performance and to provide confidence that the chosen transport phenomena chemistry will be reliable. Since charging rates for most battery chemistries (constrained by diffusion, ion transport, etc.) are still quite low, each charge cycle has an inherent minimum time that is still significant. With lifecycles in the 10k - 100k range, the testing times can be very long and testing regimes are commensurately costly.
People need to be able to have a choice as to whether they believe that a fully electric, hybrid, alternative fuel, or even gas/diesel fuel is the vehicle of choice. What we really need to do is break the backs of the oil producing cartels by drastically reducing our gas consumption and stop them from supporting the terrorists.
Allison Linn, the author of this article should have done some actual research and looked at empirical data to support her conjecture. Just look at the Nissan Leaf all electric car. They began to take reservations for new cars for when they are to released. All reservations were sold in the first month. They are not taking any further reservations but have decided to roll out more leafs than first anticipated. Does this sound like a disinterested public? Really, Allyson be professional.
There we go again. We are all going to have electric cars. That way we will break the back of the oil industry. First thing you have to do is spend a 1,000. or 2,000. to set up your home to charge the car, second you have to pay more for your electric, and third you will have to pay the cab driver to take you home after the cars battery is dead. Oh! yes the extra electric you are using is produced by oil and coal. One more thing where are we going to dispose of the battery when it is dead, dead and what will a new one cost. An auto industry that can produce several millions of cars are now producing 10, 20, or 30,000 cars have all of them on order. Its the number of cars manufactured not the idea that they are ALL sold in advance
@JAHA...I don't get your argument at all. Exagerating things isn't helping your point. For example, "We are all...", "pay the cab driver", etc.
I will be paying less for electricity than gas. I currently pay more than $200/month for gas for my car. In Seattle, where I live, we have inexpensive hydro-electric power. By my calculations, my electric bill will go up about $45/month to power an electric car.
I expect my Leaf battery to be operating at about 10% efficiency after a decade of use. At which time Nissan said it will be possible to recycle it and upgrade to a newer model.
Oops. I mean 80% efficiency
@JAHA
The $1000-2000 is for FAST charging. There is usually a slower charging available that uses regular voltage/plugs.
Electrics will come down in price as the batteries are more widely manufactured. Maintenance costs will be less than a typical combustion vehicle.
As for your cab statement: Really? And you don't have to call a cab if you run out of gas?
The electric power can come from multiple sources: renewables like solar and wind, or cleaner tech like nuclear, or from coal and gas. Combustion engines can only work from gas. Electric is more flexible, and more efficient when coming from mass power generated by a power company.
As @divaqs said, the batteries can be recycled. A new one will probably cost a lot, but still less than all the maintenance you would be doing on a combustion engine over the years.
Do you have any arguments that cannot be easily defeated?
acidrain,
Gasoline can be made from many sources; crude oil, coal, bio-plants, NG, & algae. The World is converting their ICE to NG. The USA has a 500+year supply of 'Hydrated methane' located in the US Continental shelf. The World proven reserves of crude oil have been INCREASING for the last DECADE. According to DOE & IEA & BP.
Last year the ONLY Commercial Li-Iin battery re-cycler had another major fire and exploding Li-ion batteries at their processing facility. Presently NO re-cycling facilities for Li-ion batteries are in the USA.
The 'Rare Earths' that are used in EVERY EV are presently being mined & processed in China, 97%. They are REDUCING EXPORTS & say by 2014, they will be EXPORTING - ZERO.
The most 'ENERGY EFFICENT' electrical generator is a two-stage NG turbine, it is limited to 65% efficency. Then the line loses, distribution loses, and the battery charger loses, you lose another 25% of your energy. Also the electronics and EV motor lose another 10 to 20%. Plus as the Li-ion battery ages they become less efficent and require MORE Energy to CHARGE and return LESS energy when they discharge...
According to the many 'Real World' test being conducted by the trade magazines (MI & RT). The Battery Charge indicator is not like your ICE fuel indicator. One minute you could be indicating a full charge and the next be down to 50% and as the charge decreases, the remaining charge fluctuates even more. One steep hill could KILL any remaining charge and leave you on the side of the road.
That's OK, gas engines have an efficiency of 18-20%, so using your math, an EV at 40% is twice as effficient. And that's before factoring in energy losses from pulling the oil out of the ground, shipping, and refining it, which is what you are trying to compare to with power distribution. So EV is a huge win.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency#Gasoline_.28petrol.29_Engines
Oil reserves are not "increasing", we have just discovered more oil. Sure, more oil is being created over time, but it is a very slow process.
We can get rare earth metals elsewhere; China has less than 40% of the raw materials.
This is why gas engines use a certain reserve amount. They can do the dame for electric. I'll believe it when I see it, provide a link.
State of Charge (SOC) Determination
reference - http://www.mpoweruk.com/soc.htm
Here is the WSJ test of the Leaf. With the comments about the battery charge state fluctuations due to; weather temperature, use of heater/accessories, and driving conditions. see http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/12/20/nissan-leaf-a-road-test/
Presently China has the ONLY commercial processing facility to process'Rare Earths'. China hasmining agreements for 'rare earths' with Canada, Tibet, Chile, and the Middle East and Africa Countries... And Japan just signed a mining agreement with Australia, for their 'rare earths'. The USA has about 18% of the Worlds reserves, with NO operating mines or facilities to process the material, and Japan just signed a mining agreement with Australia, for their 'rare earths'.
Read the wsj blog, it's laughably annecdotal.
He really expects the car to be able to predict what modules (heating/AC, radio, any power lock or seat systems) of the vehicle he is going to use? Gas cars don't do that.
Obviously there is some concern over cold-weather performance, but hey, that's a limitation of batteries. They just don't hold as much charge in cold weather. I'm sure it would work great down here in sunny Florida. Bonus: very few hills. Only state without snow right now, BTW. Even Hawaii has a few inches at the top of a dormant volcano.
Nobody is trying to pretend this is THE vehicle for EVERYONE in EVERY situation. Ultimately, it is a viable option for a LOT of people.
Dear Phil-673730 and MM-584706, Yes I agree that the range you mention is not sufficient for long trips. But the all electric cars are not designed for long trips. They are designed for commuters and soccer moms who drive less than 70 miles per day, mostly less than 40. This is 70% of everyday drivers. And phil, by using the 440 volt charging port, the charge is more like 15 minutes, not 2 hours. Even though it is only 15 minutes, the car is not designed for long trips. Use the other car for that.
The problem in this kind of statistical thinking is that it does not accurately reflect actual mobility constraints from a driver's point of view. And your advice to use the other car is not useful, because it is a retroactive solution to an unforeseen problem. Also, it unrealistically presumes that one has a second conventional car available at all times and so suggests that this is a precondition for owning an e-car.
The fact is that e-cars ecannot provide reliable mobility in unplanned situations, which are an inherent part of life. One day you may leave on a planned short trip, but you may encounter traffic or road construction, causing an unforeseen detour. You may receive a call on the way that your child is sick at school and needs to be picked up right away, but your car does not have the range to support that. You then may have to go home to get your other car first, if you have another one sitting around available. If you live in a very hot climate or in the summer, you need A/C all the time, which then further drastically reduces your range. You may be forced to stop and recharge, which can take 4 hours minimum to get to your next destination. In another example, consider how many times people forget something at home and need to go back unexpectedly. Do people really understand that this may not be feasible with an e-car? These are the practical issues that your statistical analysis simply does not even attempt to address, yet represents very real-life situations that *every* driver will face.
Currently in such situations with a conventional or hybrid, one can simply go and fill-up with gasoline, which is usually available well within 5-miles and takes 5 minutes. When e-car drivers begin to fathom the differences that affect their lives, it will get ugly.
Have you checked the availability of 440VAC 3P to your house??? Most residential houses do not have 440VAC available at any cost in the USA. It is usually supplied to light industry and other Commercial Businesses, only.
If it was available; a new power line, meter, & CB Panel would have to be installed. You are talking $15,000+USD, if not more. Call your electric company, they will be glad to give you a quote. And this is usually considered a Commercial account, so you will be paying a set mininum fee every month. Even if you use ZERO electricity...
I know this because I have a farm and had to have it installed on my property. It was a $10K-hook-up fee plus the cost of the additional panels & wiring. This was almost 20+years ago.
Check out Li-ion battery 'Dentrite Formation' during 'fast charge' operations. And the impact it has on your battery life and serviceability.
So an electric might let you down in an extremely rare and unusual situation? That's just as likely as a gasser letting you down in the same situation because it ran out of gas or broke down. With more moving parts, gassers ARE more prone to breakdown!
Robertson, why would anyone need 440 volt 3 phase to their house? Home charging can work just fine with standard 240 volt power that most homes already have, that will give a full recharge in a few hours at most, even standard 120 volt outlets can be used in a pinch. So no "$15,000" cost, more like $2K max if a new 240 volt outlet is wired in. I'd guess that in your case, you needed a powerful electric motor to run some farm equipment, and a gas engine would have cost way too much to fuel.
As for "dendrite formation" that only occurs if LiIon is overcharged. A well designed EV has good battery management to prevent that from ever happening.
I'd say that AC Robertson is spreading FUD to try and inhibit sales of plug-in cars. Probably afraid his oil stocks will tank.
This articles sounds to me like the author is saying the "glass is half empty".
I am impressed that 20% of consumers are considering an electric vehicle. That is a huge customer base and to me a sign that there is a big shift pending in the market. Can you imagine if the survey was for something even more alternative, such as Hydrogen or Natural Gas, what the figure would be? I expect it to be much less than 20%.
The auther's figures are off and seem to have a bias in them. The Leaf gets better range than is reported in this article. Plus the average cost I have seen for an in-home fast charger is less.
I am one of the 20,000+ people getting a Leaf. My fast charger isn't costing me anything, thanks to the subsidy. The quote for the installation and unit is only about $1000 for my home.
My Leaf will actually be more convenient than my gas-powered car. No oil changes, no having to go to the gas station and dealing with toxic/explosive substances, No air filters, No radiator, No mufflers falling off, Less brake wear, etc. I simply have to plug it in when parking it at home. The biggest maintenance worry is that after driving it for a decade, I might want to upgrade my batteries since they will by then be operating at about 80% efficiency and there will likely be better batteries available by then. If it was a gas powered car, after a decade of driving I might have to be replacing the engine and/or transmission, and other major repairs.
I sincerely hope I am wrong, but it appears that there is little basis for your optimistic assumption about the range of the Leaf. I hope that you also do not ever run into any of the following situations:
- need to run the A/C
- climb hills
- carry heavy loads or many passengers
- need to run the heating
- have electrical problems with a charging station
- have unexpected events that demand immediate range extension
The fact is that the range is not fixed, but is very dynamic, and that means negatively dynamic *only*. The marketing for e-cars is presenting you with the absolute best case scenario, leaving you on the hook for everything else that can go wrong, sadly.
If you ever run into more than one of the problems on the list, you are totally screwed. The fact is that even when a gas vehicle runs out of gas, you can probably walk to the nearest gas station and back to your car with a gallon of gas faster than you can recharge a car like the Leaf. Ford has claimed a 50% reduction in charging time, but that, as with all range predictions from manufacturers, remains to be proven in the field.
Fact is electric cars and hybrids are not practical or affordable, they will never be a mainstream product for those simple reasons. H fuel cells are the real answer and are beginning to be released by Honda, and MB. No question there are hurdles before they become mainstream but functionality promises to be equal to what we have now.
Honda has had that fuel cell car on the road for a number of years now. In December of they sold 3 bringing the total for the year to 17. The Volt sold over 300, and the leaf sold at least all 10 that were in the first delivery.
H fuel cells produce electricity. You can put a small diesel generator in a car and avoid the H production problem, explosive fuel, technology gap and other issues today.
Yes the diesel engine will produce emissions, but so will the process used to make the energy to get you the H for the fuel cell in commercial quantities.
Living in a large city makes me realize that Electric Cars are just not feasible. When I drive 80 miles round trip for work just because I work downtown and live in the "suburbs", I look at these cars and have to laugh. Heaven forbid I want to do anything but drive straight home from work.
People think that electricity is a renewable resource, yet they don't seem to remember that we get the electricity from water, nuclear plants, fossil fuels, etc. These things are not renewable resources. The water levels at Lake Mead are at record lows. What happens when there's not enough water to run the power?
And with California having rolling brownouts every summer, can you imagine if there are 7 million cars plugged in along with the other crap that runs.. It's just a big circle that doesn't really solve anything but now limits how far we can drive in a day.
Your 80 mile commute is much longer than the average, as 90% of daily drives are less than 40 miles. So, if 100 mile range isn't enough for you, that's fine, different drivers have different car requirements. But maybe a 240 mile range like the Tesla Roadster would do, or the 300 mile range for the upcoming Tesla Model S, or even the 35 mile electric 300 mile gasoline range of the Chevy Volt.
Electricity comes from many sources, some of which are indeed "renewable" as long as the sun shines, the wind blows, and the rain falls. If all those were to fail, we'd have more important concerns than driving!
As for California "brownouts", they were caused mainly by manipulations by Enron, and have largely ceased after Enron went bankrupt. I should know, I live here. Besides, most car charging will be done at night when power demand is lowest and when brownouts never occur.
Living here on Long Island NY, with a cost of 21 cents per KW hour, an electric car just doesn't make economic sense. But as far as the comments about Japan being the answer with Hybrids, that's just totally wrong. I've driven a Prias, over priced and down right dangerous on the highway. I bought a Mercury Milan (same as the Ford Fusion hybrid) hybrid over a year ago and love it, yes the mileage isn't as good, but I can put 4 adults in it. On the highway, at 65 miles per hour, 38 miles to the gallon, around town, 40 to 46, and that's in a real car that I don't have to be afraid of on the highway. Hands down, Ford's got the lead in hybrid technology when it comes to real cars, not toys.
Your point about energy costs for e-cars is a good one. According to my calculations, the cost per mile for energy will only be about a factor 2 better than the Prius.
As for your negative experience with the Prius, I would note that since the second generation Prius was introduced as Motor Trend's Car of the Year in 2004, the issues you mentioned have been largely resolved.
If you look at Tesla Motors, you will see what is most needed in electric cars -- respectable range. If Tesla can make cars with this sort of range (200 to 300 miles) why are others not able to get more than 40 to 100? Our electricity is just over 5 cents per kWh. An electric would be great. Only wish I had the $$ to invest. I would have a Tesla roadster plugged in in my garage right now.
I think I'll stick with gasoline, although I would consider a natural gas vehicle.
Electric cars are actually quite wonderful both to drive and for the environment. Even though the electricity may come from coal, the impact on the environment is still less than a car with a gas engine. Eventually, we'll see batteries and an infrastructure that will give them the range of an internal combustion engine. And, anyway, most people only drive 30-40 miles a day. These things are the future. It may take a while, but at some point in the next 50-100 years, gas powered cars will be nothing more than relics.
The most important practical aspects of electric vehicles are simply not being discussed, perhaps, because they require deeper technical forethought and analysis. The issue is not so much range per se, but the availability and charging times associated with recharging. A charging time greater than 15 min. will constrain mobility in a manner that is simply not feasible, regardless of the cost. We are now at 4-20 *hours*!!! There will be a huge backlash when e-car drivers cannot adapt to certain unexpected events, emergencies, etc. It is a foolish assumption that driving and mobility demands are plannable to the degree that e-cars now constrain them.
Furthermore, no one is talking about very important comfort factors for drivers: **climate control**. Apparently it is not well understood just how much energy both heating and A/C consume. In an e-car like the Nissan Leaf, you might reduce your range of 100mi. to 10mi. if you need A/C -- oops, just wait 4 hours to go another 10 mi. No wonder all e-car media reports today come from moderate climates, like northern California. We have not heard anything from regions where heating and A/C are required on a daily basis, which is a vast majority of the market.
Again, my prediction is that until charging times can be reduced to about 15 mi. for at least 100mi. of range, introduction of e-cars will do more harm than good to the cause of green transportation, because they will create an ugly backlash from consumers who have not been properly informed of the mobility constraints. The marketing hype is setting expectations too high and remaining silent on major issues that are highly relevant for consumers.
Why should charging time be any problem, when it can be done conveniently at hom, while we are doing other things like sleeping? And start out each morning with a full charge, no need to go out of the way to "fill up" at a distant gas station. With typical daily drives less than 40 miles, a hundred mile range gives plenty of reserve even for unexpected emergencies. Moreover, there are over 1,500 EVs now on the road that can get over 200 miles per charge, and more coming soon.
The notion that using A/C would cut range by 90% is absolutely absurd, it doesn't draw anywhere near that much power, even in the hottest climes. Under the most extreme conditions, heating or A/C would use less than 5 miles of range for each hour of operation, at freeway speeds a lot more energy would be used by the drive motor in an hour. Well, maybe if you sat in the parking lot for 18 hours running the A/C before driving...
My prediction is that all these FUD efforts against plug-in cars are going to look darn silly in just a few years. Hey, they look kinda silly right now!
Most polls show about 20% of the population say they are liberal. 20% want an electric car. How interesting. Only 8% say they want to pay for the electrical modifications in their garage to accommodate battery charging. Typical liberals. They want something, but want someone else to pay for it.
Or maybe they want a design that uses the existing structure, like the one in the Chevy Volt that uses the standard AC socket. It's not all about politics you know. Some people actually think things through.
I am as far from a liberal as you can get and am on the wait list for Model S. It's not about political ideology (I voted for Chuck Baldwin), It's about people who've been burned one to many times by unreliable, outdated technology who want an alternative. I've had new cars and used cars and have come to realize that these cars are designed to fail after a certain mileage. I bought a new cheesy, slow, effectively a 2 seater Ford made car and had it for 8 years , (base price 24 K when all was said and done I totaled up the bills it cost me around 50 K, if you count fuel, repairs, and routine maintenance- That is INSANE!).
I'd much rather pay 56 K (44 with fed and my state tax credit) for a Tesla, another 2 K for energy, and 2 K estimated for maintenance. It's not politics it's common sense. With that being said I will gladly take the tax credits if offered, but they aren't going to affect my decision either way.
Faster, bigger less expensive to own car, who wouldn't want that?
I would give anything to be able to read postings from horse & buggy drivers in the early 20th century regarding their assessment of those new fangled vehicles. I mean, they're so inconvenient; you have to turn this crank to start them and you need to be near a fuel station. You just can't beat a horse for reliable transportation. Those things will never work...
And yet, by 1912, the gasoline engine powered vehicles outsold the earlier dominant electric and steam cars. The advantages of internal combustion over the alternatives was obvious even that early in the life of the automobile.
During the early 1900's the city dwellers were complaining about the 'Horse Apples'. About 30+pounds of them a day per horse, if they were being used or not.
The WORLD is converting to LNG vehicles for their mass-transit needs. Thailand started converting their transportation systems 10+years ago. Now with fueling stations across the country. The private individual is converting($1,000+USD) and purchasing new LNG vehicles from the major auto manufacturers. Qatar is flying passenger jets using fuel made from LNG.
The USA has a 500+year supply of 'Hydrated Methane' located in the US Continental shelf...
I'm going to call BS on the $1000 LNG conversion. There's no way you can get a pressurized tank and engine conversion done for that kind of money.
The pressurized tanks in Thailand cost 8,000 baht each. That is a little over $250+USD. Just because the parts suppliers in the USA rip you off. Ha! Ha! see http://www.siamintm.com/ourproduct_202.html
I live in Thailand...
acidrain,
Here is the latest article about the CNG cylinders and price in Thailand. see http://www.bangkokpost.com/business/economics/215618/lighter-safer-cng-cylinders-launched
In the USA the conversion kits for a ICE can be bought for less than $600+USD. In Thailand they are much less and the mechanics work for almost nothing. But you will be ripped by the suppliers of the tanks in the USA. Ha! Ha! see http://www.ewsews.com/cngprices.html
Well, well, AC Robertson, apparently we in the US are being ripped off for LPG conversions, while you are getting ripped off on electrical power installations on your farm. So maybe we in the US should go electric, while you can go LPG down in Thailand. But the per mile fuel cost of driving electric is still less than the fuel cost for LPG, and a heck of a lot less than gasoline.
If the economy ever picks back up to where I can afford one I'll get one for my business. I make a lot of deliveries, the longest 50 mi round trip.
Take a look at www.brightautomotive.com
Just another Liberal Yuppy keeping up with the Joneses scam!!! I mean if you got the manifest of where these customers on the buy list live you would see that it is places like Seattle,San Fransisco,New York,Boston,L.A,The Hamptons Etc. And why would that not surprise us. You know the people that dont have to work just drive 30 miles a day to their local Mall or Restuarant or Star Bucks and drink their Latte with their pinky finger stuck out and discuss a good book in front of a fire....Hence the only people that want one are the Elite,all 50000 or so...Come on man LOL
Can't a conservative have just one comment about an issue without using the word"elite" as there only and primary argument? Our country was made great by making progress a priority and something to aspire to. We were the first in everything. Now we are content to let the rest of the world pass us by and do things the old fashioned way. Somehow now progress is considered evil and "elite" (since when is elite a bad thing anyway) and is to be avoided at any cost.
Tesla's batteries are where the true high-tech (and cost) lies in those cars - 6,831 Lithium-Ion cells in a large, heavy package, along with a sophisticated digital control system. All under license from its original creator, AC Propulsion. Most other EV's utilize much less sophisticated battery management systems.
If the average mileage in America is 12,000.
Divided by 365 days a year = 32.8 miles a day.
If a Nissan Leaf for example can get 70-80 miles on a charge, then this could certainly serve the vast majority.
I think we over exaggerate our perceived need.
While your range assertion sounds plausible, it is far too simplistic to address real-life mobility issues for a vast majority of consumers. I live in Central Texas, for example, where it is hot and we have to drive a lot (20k mi. per year is not unusual). My expected range in the Leaf might be as low as 10mi. under these conditions, and in any case, it is not fixed, but dependent on a variety of factors that can only reduce this range. While I do regularly commute to work, there is no single day where my routine is so fixed that I would ever feel comfortable with such a constrained range. It simply precludes too many possibilities, like emergencies, spontaneous trips, traffic, detours, etc. Furthermore, the consequences of even a single instance of running out of power are both costly and time-consuming. What if I run out of power in the very instant that I need to avoid a collision?
AgentG-280638
Please explain under what conditions you would expect the Leaf to get 10% of it's stated mileage on a charge. That's a ridiculous oversimplification.
As for sudden "run out of power" scenarios: how do you handle "spontaneously running out of gas"?
You look at the fuel gauge and make sure you have enough remaining. Electric cars have gauges.
My outlook is that electric cars aren't made for people in Texas. Texas is an oil state, with too much distance between points of interest. Just let everyone else evolve into other forms of transportation, and you guys can keep working on dirty engines until you run out of oil.
acidrain:
I have seen reports from test drives of the Leaf that showed a drastic reduction in the range from using the A/C. In extreme cases where it is very hot and humid, yes I believe the range might go down to 10%. It would decrease as you drive around much faster than what you actually drove.
The larger point is that the range is tightly constrained and therefore highly dependent on various usage factors, much more so than a tank of gas. Therefore, the possibility that the charge goes non-linearly to zero in a sudden and unexpected manner is greater than with a gasoline tank, because many of the additional power drains in an ICE are secondary and small relative to power output and reserve power available. This is not the case with e-cars. And even when the e-car gage shows low range left, your mobility options are simply not the same, due primarily to long charging times, if you can make it to a charging station.
As for your comment about Texas, it appears uninformed, though it might be true for large parts of the state. Here in central Texas we have one of the greenest power utilities in the nation and our commuting distances are reasonable, and much less than in cities like Chicago, LA, SF Bay Area, Denver, Phoenix, to name a few. So your generalizations do not fit all of Texas, even though they might apply to the larger cities. BTW, I am a hybrid owner, among many others here. We also have an avid group of e-car owners in Austin, and our city is very much concerned with the transformation of the energy grid to the smart grid, and what role e-cars will play in that. So please consider that before you malign an entire state.
InEden, your math is fine if everyone drove EVERY day. This is not the case.
Using myself as an example, my round trip to work is 45 miles. but I don't drive that every day (just M-F). On some weekdays, with running errands and such, the mileage adds up sometimes to well over 100. If the car only has a range of 100 miles, then I'm pushing my luck at the end of those days. If the range is only 70 miles, then there is no way. and if I do puch my luck and run out of charge, where am I going to recharge it? and if I'm on my way to being somewhere I have to be, then I'm pretty well screwed if I have to wait a couple of hours for the car to charge.
Until the technology gets better, ranges get a lot longer than they are, and the prices come down to something affordable, I'm going to stick with my gas truck.
AgentG-280638
Do you have some links for the 10% reports?
If you use 10 kWh to go 40 miles round trip and you are on the road 1 hour with the AC running, it might take 1 kWh to run the AC and reduce range 10%. Now, if you are going 45, 60 or 75 mph, that makes a bigger difference.
But a 100 mile range car battery stores more than 10 Kwh, more like 24, as in the Leaf. Using 1 Kwh of that energy isn't "10%" of the range, that's closer to 4%, and even at higher speeds it would still be only 4% used per hour - but much more used by the drive motor.
The Tesla Roadster battery stores 53 Kwh, and future models could nearly double that, making the range loss for A/C an even smaller percentage.
Since my commute is approx 14 miles a day, I would be the ideal candidate for an electric vehicle. AFFORDABILITY is the issue here. I can get a Hyundai, Kia, or an Aveo (commuter scooters, not top-of-the line) for just under 10G (if you time it right) and the $15000+ difference buys a lot of gas, even at $5 a gallon. (3000 gallons @ 25mpg = 75000 miles) I understand the viewpoints (environment, supporting terrorism, etc), but most folks are going to see this thru the goggles of price first.
On another note, if you are mechanically handy, you can convert an old Pinto, VW Beetle or Rabbit, etc to electric and get away for under 10G, AND help the planet too!
While you are correct in assuming that cost (or at least perceived cost) will determine the buying decision for most consumers, I do not believe that will be the deciding factor, because the constraints on the mobility of e-cars are simply not comparable with the constraints on fuel-powered vehicles. I doubt that consumers will truly grasp these differences until a very negative view of e-cars emerges in the market.
I submit that e-cars will not be competitive until charging times are drastically reduced (to about 15 min., today it is 4 hours !!) and charging stations are available on a distance scale commensuate with gas stations today.