Who Killed the Electric Car?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 8 2006, 02:00 AM) [snapback]282769[/snapback]</div>

Agreed, but it all boils down to the chicken or egg dilemma: as long as EV's don't get perfected and there is no go good infrastructure for them, very few people will buy them. And, as long as there is no proven mass interest, nobody dares to invest a huge amount of money in this technology... We need a company or a consortium that makes a bold move to break this circle.

BTW I spoke yesterday night about EV's to a family member who is a professor in high-power electric engineering. He turned out to be a non-believer. According to him, if everybody would replace their current car by an EV, there would be huge, unsolvable problems with both the generation and the distribution of electricity. Imagine everybody coming home at 6pm, and wanting to recharge their car. And, in many countries, having your own solar panel is not really a valid option. He went as far as saying that EV's are fun pet project for a few individuals, but don't provide a valid mass solution. I can't verify his opinion, but who am I to disagree with a professor in the very subject of electric engineering?

Another interesting point he raised was about the price comparison between electric engines and gasoline engines. The governement raisesa lot more taxes on gasoline than on electricity, and you need to take this out of the equation to make a comparison that makes sense. This definetely holds for Belgium, where we have an almost 100% tax on gasoline. This tax is used for maintenance and construction of roads. If normal grid electricity would be used for cars, there will need to be found another way to have the consumer pay these taxes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 8 2006, 12:23 AM) [snapback]282921[/snapback]</div>

that would be way too good a deal for the consumer. there would be no incentative to save energy. most would not have anything to give back to the electric co. they would simply use it all.

the electric company would not see anything back except lost revenue from the solar energy replacing theirs plus the cost of the panels

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Jul 9 2006, 12:47 AM) [snapback]283259[/snapback]</div>

There will be a standard edition and a premium edition eventually. Regardless, an electric Prius with the same battery as are in the current Li-ion Tzero would have 250+ range. I should also include here that adding 800 pounds to a vehicle does not destroy the range. I just returned from an 80 mile trip in my Rav with about 1000 pounds of cargo (over the gross, for sure) and my increased energy use wasn't even statistically significant - about 1% more than my average (which includes doing this same trip with nobody but the driver). So, I lost about 1 mile of range for my 800+ pounds. Even in stop-and-go traffic, I'd expect to see no more than a two or three mile hit. Weight just isn't that big of a deal. If it were, the Rav wouldn't be getting 100+ mile range to begin with. This thing is the same steel, heavy vehicle that they use for the gas car, and it weighs about 700 pounds more than the gas version. Yet it enjoys about 140 miles to the gallon of gas equivalent.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 9 2006, 05:24 AM) [snapback]283274[/snapback]</div>

Non of these problems is unsolvable. Where's he getting that idea.

You could apply all of these arguments to gasoline powered cars at the turn of the century. If everyone in europe suddenly had a car in 1900 the existing oil production infrastructure would have not been able to keep up... no way.

Now imagine everybody in Arizona turning on their air conditions at 9:30 AM everyday of the week during summer. It happens everyday and coincides with peak demand (obviously part of the reason that peak demand is during the day). It happens everyday. It's just a matter of expanding capacity, reallocating the energy used to refine oil into gasoline, and developing efficiency measures to better use existing capacity.

Of course, the ridiculous part is assuming that suddenly everybody would dump their existing car and by an EV. That's not gonna happen.

The tax issue makes very little sense. European gov'ts have shown that they have no trouble coming up with ways to tax things. If anything that would be a bigger issue here in the states where people piss and moan about any tax hike, even one that makes sense. This is probably the easiest issue of all of these to solve. Non of them are insurmoutable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 9 2006, 04:24 AM) [snapback]283274[/snapback]</div>

Yes, unfortunately this is why we likely need a mandate. We can't expect auto companies to spend the money for the greater good. They have a business to run. Our governments are supposed to determine and assist in the important issues that are of benefit to the state. We can't mandate what people should buy - we CAN mandate (and offer incentives) so that some are available and we'll be able to see what the consumer thinks then.

Tripp just made a great reply to much of this!

How is a professor of electric engineering expected to be an expert on grid power distribution? Socioeconimics? Pollution? Political energy policy? Taxation? I'd listen to him if he said that there was some egineering roadblock to EVs being built (provided that I haven't owned three of them already!). There are no such engineering limitations, so feel free to disagree!

As Tripp said - if we survived the move from horse-and-buggy to gasoline cars (where we had no gas stations, no repair facilities, no road taxes initially). And if we survived the move to the "all electric home" centuries ago, I think we can easily handle the gradual transition to grid-powered automobiles. Hell, if we suddenly stopped making gasoline at the very moment we suddenly all switched to electric cars, we wouldn't need to make ANY more electricity. Surprise! My EV uses less electricity than my neighbor's AC units. It also uses less than their pool pump.... and they run both all summer long, PLUS use gasoline to drive anywhere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 9 2006, 11:43 PM) [snapback]283496[/snapback]</div>

The whole point is that oil is a much easier, flexible and efficient way to transport energy than electricity will ever be. His argument was that, if everybody would be driving an electric car, the whole distribution system of electricity would have to be redesigned from scratch and reinstalled, a huge cost.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 9 2006, 11:43 PM) [snapback]283496[/snapback]</div>

That's a non sequitur. If you promote EV's as an alternative, you have to look at the consequences if everybody would be driving them. You need to look how well your technology scales. In this respect, EV's provide major challenges that have not been addressed yet. I don't say that they can't be solved, but it's going to cost a lot of money. Who will pay for this?

As long as only a few people drive EV's it's fun and cheap, because you ride on the back of an existing system that was made for other purposes. But if the mass market starts purchasing these vehicles, that approach simply breaks down. Scaling everything will involve a lot of costs, that will have to be paid by the consumer. That's a simple economical fact, and I don't see anything ridiculous here.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 9 2006, 11:43 PM) [snapback]283496[/snapback]</div>

??? I think you deliberately chose to miss the point here. Of course the point is not *how* these taxes will be raised, but just the fact *that* they will be raised. People often claim that EV's are cheaper in consumption than gas engines, but they usually forget about the tax difference. Again, an advantage because very few people use electricity for their car, and you ride on the back of a system that was designed for something else. If the mass market starts switching to EV's, the governments will have to raise extra tax on this to compensate for tax on gas. Again, an extra cost.

In short, EV's are nice and fun if only a few people use them. If a lot of people start using them, all kinds of extra costs will come up, and it remains uncertain whether or not it will be economically viable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 9 2006, 05:27 PM) [snapback]283489[/snapback]</div>

This brings up an interesting point though. If you can carry 800+lbs without any real cost to range in an AV then plug-ins seems like a great solution. I'm sure we can build a small ICE and gastank for not much more weight then that. This is mixed news. I believe we should be switching to EVs. I also think that plug-ins seems to be the only way to convince people to buy them to a large extent. If we can build a plug-in with an ICE+gasoline weight of ~1000lbs then we should still be able to make it a decent range EV (according to your numbers). While it is unneccesary to log around 1000 unneccesary lbs all the time it seems like an easier sell then a pure EV

By the way. Where you in Cambridge MA yestrday? I saw an RAV IV EV here for the first time! SOOO COOOL!

I'm also glad the Scion conversion is pushing ahead. I'm still in-line to buy one unless the next gen prius beats them to the "pump". From what I've seen of the next gen prius it will be quite capable plug-in EV. If the next prius has 40+ real world EV miles then it will be tempting for my needs (I normally do less then 40 miles/day with a few extended weekend trips).

 

By the way, in terms of costs, there is a much cheaper way of running your EV than grid or solar.

Wind power!! B)




Stick one of these on your house and you get an average (30% availability of wind) of 12 kWh per day.

In an efficient EV, that's good for 50 - 60 miles range per day on average. For FREE.

Some days when there is no wind, your meter will run forwards. Some days when it is windy, your meter will run backwards. Ultimately, one turbine like this can give you up to 22,000 miles per year of free, EV motoring. It costs about £1,500 to buy one of these over here (UK), about what we spend on gasoline in one year. Everything after that is payback.

Why are we bothering with this Saudi oil stuff??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 10 2006, 02:09 AM) [snapback]283730[/snapback]</div>

First off, oil is not a good energy carrier. It takes an enormous amount of energy to get it into a usable form (plastic, gasoline, diesel, etc). That doesn't include the extraction and transportation costs. Considering that we've extracted the vast majority of the easy, high quality stuff these costs are only going to go up.

Secondly, electricity can be generated from a wide variety of inputs and is way cheaper than oil without the taxes included. Over the long haul the cost discrepancy is greater and greater.

Consumption of electricity is always increasing. New housing adds more strain than new cars would. The grid's capacity will expand. Hell, we could already add a tonne or PHEVs that could charge on the existing base load that is just wasted during off peak hours.

Of course there are design challenges and yes, there will be modifications to taxes, but none of these things come close to being insurmountable. The problems posed by a continued dependance on liquid fuels, and especially oil, are far greater and the costs far higher.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 10 2006, 06:02 PM) [snapback]283851[/snapback]</div>

Let me try to put things straight here, so that no misunderstanding arises. I am as disgusted as anyone here on this forum about our "addiction to oil" as a popular president has recently put it. I totally agree about the fact that burning oil to produce energy is silly and has no long-term future, and that we should look for alternatives. But I'm trying to explain why it's not easy to use EV's as a large-scale alternative right now. The fact is that we have a working oil exploitation and distribution mechanism in place. It's bad and costly, but it works today and is proven. We don't have the mechanism in place to do anything equivalent with electricity. If we would have it, it might very well be better and more efficient, but it's just not here right now. The big question is: who will pay for it? To say it with the words of another president: "it's the economy, stupid". As long as no company sees the benefits it this and performed a positive risk analysis, it won't happen. The way electricity is distributed right now makes EV a nice product.

Somethimes I get the impression that this forum consists in a bunch of dreamers. Like the idea of putting a wind power fan to every house to generate electricity for the car. Have you ever heard the noise produced by one of those things? Would everybody accept 20 of those things in their immediate neighborhood? What about major cities like London? As long as the last drop of oil is not consumed, people are not ready to make that kind of compromises. Especially cars are the holy cows of today's consumer civilisation. Touch that and you have a revolution.

There is another, at least as fundamental issue: the industry is paralised by the promise of hydrogen. Electricity has some major disadvantages that makes it not well suited for the mobility required by transportation: you can't really store it, you can't distribute it in a flexible way without huge infrastructure, and you get losses during the distribution. Hydrogen has the promise to solve all of this at once. Of course there are other unsolved problems right now that may prove to be unsolvable, but right now hydrogen has the status of being "the" energy carrier of the future. This means that no one dares to invest a huge amount of money in any alternative, because they are afraid that their investements would by made irrelevant when the magic hydrogen kicks off. In the end, it may turn out that the hydrogen promise has effectively slowed down other, mor usable innovation.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 10 2006, 09:41 AM) [snapback]283878[/snapback]</div>

Excellent. Maybe I can make you feel a bit better then...

Yes it is - and I'm still not sure why you don't think it is. It is in place, it is more efficient and it is way more prevalent than the gasoline infrastructure. As the electricity infrastructure stands today, we could charge 4 million EVs TODAY with our existing grid in CA. Yes... without brownouts, etc. Charging EVs will happen overnight for the vast majority of users. And at that time we have a large capacity excess right now. And as it stands today we are seriously cramped for refineries in this country. The oil infrastructure can barely keep up with what we're doing. The electric infrastructure can be expanded faster, cheaper and more cleanly. At the turn of the century, we had NO way of fueling gasoline cars. As the cars grew in numbers, so did the infrastructure. You really don't think we can do that with the grid we have in place? An EV uses less than a typical AC unit! Less than a pool pump. We've managed to install those by the millions every year without anybody crying foul.

Who will pay for it? The same folks who will make the profits - the electric companies, of course. I'm still not sure why you think our grid can't support EVs today, and why you think it is so troublesome to expand. Remove all the gas cars from the road today, and replace them with EVs. Our national electricity usage would not change significantly.

I'm not dreaming it. I'm doing it. And I'm doing it with solar that is as quiet as the rest of my roof. You don't like noise? Have you ever heard how much noise an ICE car makes? Would you like 20 of those in your neighborhood??? Imagine a whole city of them! Yikes. Somehow we've accepted billions of ICE cars - the pollution they make, the noise they make. And you feel that the noise generated by a modern wind turbine (which are amazingly quiet today!) is too much for society to accept?

Are you saying that you believe what you just wrote, or that is the "common" thinking? Hydrogen solves none of the issues you mention here. You've spoken before of "low efficiency" and the "losses" of electricity distribution. Yes it is one of our most flexible, most efficient (least distribution losses) energy carrier that we've ever known. And then when we actually US the energy, it is again more efficient than the others mentioned. You aren't giving electricity a fair rap for some reason. It sounds like you think it may be a good idea... and you're then throwing hurdles in place that don't even exist.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SomervillePrius @ Jul 10 2006, 06:54 AM) [snapback]283783[/snapback]</div>

Yup, I agree! It isn't just the weight issue though. It is cost as well. So you've got extra weight AND extra expense of the ICE, transmission and fuel system that could be put into one more bank of batteries... It is a compromise no matter how you slice it. And I do think a real PHEV will be most acceptable to the masses - and would sell like freaking hot-cakes! Bring 'em on.

Ha! Not likely me. I've been in San Francisco with the Rav for the past week.

I'm right there with you!

 

Extra weight on cars. Got to remember though, adding extra battery or making a long range EV with ICE (hybrid) is not as easy as it all will sound though.

What Darrell did with his Rav4EV is still within specs of the car. But imagine having to carry 1000 lbs battery/engine upgrades and then another 1000 of passengers. That is stressing the car's chassis. Which means the chassis will need more steel to reinforce the extra weight. That is extra cost in production beyond the battery system I have not seen in the argument yet. Next thing we know, we will be basically driving truck based SUVs to be able to carry the extra weight.... okay, I am stretching a little, but you know what I am getting at.

 

as far as plug in hybrids, an
ICE along with support components even a very small one would add a cost and weight equal to several battery banks

 

All of this is going to be solved in R&D.

Cars now are both lighter and stronger than they were 50 years ago. There will be advances in materials, manufacturing, framing, etc. After all, a few years ago there wasn't a Lithium-Ion battery. Now it looks like there is. It isn't going to end there. Something may come along to replace the L-I battery and may be lighter, longer lasting, charge faster, hold a charge longer, have greater capacity. We don't know what it will be, but something will be developed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 10 2006, 11:14 AM) [snapback]283947[/snapback]</div>

Yes, who would have guessed the ability to update your wristwatch to atomic time?

Someday, perhaps a light, portable fuel will exist that is economical AND powerful enough so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign made, multiple, heavy batteries B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 10 2006, 04:09 AM) [snapback]283730[/snapback]</div>

Your point about road taxes is a good one. Expenses for maintaining roads have largely been through the use of liquid fuel taxes and building roads has historically been from tolls.

The taxes on liquid fuels has, in my opinion, also been an incentive for driving more fuel efficient cars.

With the advent of widely available hybrids, there's already moves underway to change the system of taxation from a consumption based one to a per-mile based one, something that would completely undermine the effective incentive for fuel efficient vehicles through the current consumption taxes.

I don't, however, buy your argument about suddenly overburdening the electrical grid. I also don't buy that liquid fuel is the most efficent method of distributing energy. And, there are already consumption based taxes on grid electricity. Since the majority of EV charging is done overnight at off peak hours, those overnight "extra tax dollars" generated could be applied to road maintenance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 10 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]283898[/snapback]</div>

This is where you are dreaming. Suppose that every car on the road is an EV that needs to be charged somehow from the grid. I agree that, if everybody behaves nicely, and let their car recharge slowly during the night, it would not be a problem. But the problem will be the peak power. It's unpredictable when, but there would be recharge "rush" hours. And people will expect to be able to recharge their cars quickly, less than half an hour. Perhaps they will want to recharge their cars friday night before a long weekend, or do a quick recharge monday morning. People behave like a crowd, and follow similar behavior, resulting in a common recharge pattern. You would get breakdowns in no time. You need the surge power to allow quick recharges at peak moments. Any other system that relies on well behaving and cooperation is doomed to fail and be unnacceptable by the consumer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 10 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]283898[/snapback]</div>

Yeah right. The electricity grid in many parts of the States is in extremely bad shape. As a matter of fact, it needs major revision to be able to cope with the peak demands in the near future, even without EV's. Everything is about surge capacity.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 10 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]283898[/snapback]</div>

Of course I agree that gasoline cars are silly and have a lot of drawbacks. As a matter of fact, I think the whole idea of private cars is flawed. A historic mistake and we will pay for it. But the point is, people are used to them. Replace it with an alternative that has 3 advantages and 1 disadvantage, and they will focus on the disadvantage. Take the axample of wind turbines: they are a source of clean, renewable energy. And yet the noise they produce right now is the subjects of a large amount of lawsuits, and a cause of delays and blocking of several large windfarm projects. People don't give a damn about the fact that they are green, if they hear the slightest noise they will complain.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 10 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]283898[/snapback]</div>

If you read on a bit further where you have taken that quote from, you notice that I'm not a fan of hydrogen. It might just remain exactly that: a promise. A bit like fusion energy. I was exactly phrasing the "common thinking" indeed, and my argument was that this is actually one of the reasons why few efforts are done for EV's these days.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 10 2006, 07:14 PM) [snapback]283898[/snapback]</div>

EV's are excellent in theory, but not in practice. Right now, it's not a answer to the problems that we have, for one simple reason: most people won't buy it as long as they have the alternative of a conventional car. The autonomy and recharge pattern of EV's has much compromises, unless huge investments are made into a new infrastructure. And nobody is willing to endeavour this for the moment. They are fun toys for geeks and feel-good items for greenies, but not a solution for our world problems.
Have you ever thought about the 1 billion Chinese and Indian people, all buying cars right now? What will happen if they all develop the same consumption pattern as an average U.S citizen? Do you think you can provide them with EV's? Who will pay the higher upfront price? Do you think the Indian power grid can handle this?

P.S. I guess the major difference between our opinions is that I am fundamentally pessimistic about people's behaviour. We are acting like a bunch of little kids in the candy store, eating up everything in no time. There is nothing that will stop us from waisting our natural resources. The only real solution will come if we have effectively run out of crude oil. My bicycle is ready. Let's hope it won't take long.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 10 2006, 03:00 PM) [snapback]283975[/snapback]</div>

Your concern on this point is easily resolved. How? By giving people an incentive to charge their EV's at off-peak hours. This is done by Time of Usage metering. Makes peak hour use of electricity and gives a break during off peak hours. With a real financial incentive, the vast majority will not only charge off hours, but adjust their overall household usage to off peak hours as well. And this is as easy accomplished as changing out the electric meter on the residence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 10 2006, 09:29 PM) [snapback]283992[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but this doesn't work. Here in Belgium, we have 100% tax on gas to give people an incentive to use our (relatively decent and cheap) public transportation system. Over the last 10 years, fuel prices have gone up with more than 50% Do you think this caused people to consume less fuel? Not a bit. Fuel consumption is now more than ever before. And people buy silly cars like Porsches Cayenne. In Athens, they had a system for years that would allow people with even number plates drive one day, and odd numbers the other day (to battle fog). People went as far as buying an additional car to have both numberplates! A car is the #1 icon of people these days, you simply can't touch it. They want to refill or recharge their cars when they want, and where they want. And it has t be fast. Otherways it won't work.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 10 2006, 03:43 PM) [snapback]284004[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but now you're comparing apples to oranges here. Some people will never use public transportation because it's just that: public transportation. As long as there are roads and parking spaces available, public transportation will generally only be used by the underclass and greenies. People are still in love with the freedom made possible by a personal automobile, even the "silly" ones. Your example of Athens demonstrates that quite well, and having been there myself last year, I was already aware of that.

Your example of high gasoline tax vs. public transportation really has nothing at all to do with the scenario I gave regarding Time of Usage electrical plans. Think of it this way: If there was a system whereby we could get significantly cheaper gasoline, but only at odd hours of the day and otherwise just as conveniently, you don't think most people would do it? I know I certainly would.