Who Killed the Electric Car?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jul 11 2006, 03:49 PM) [snapback]284386[/snapback]</div>

I agree. But I'm even more pessimistic than that. I don't believe that EV's running on wind or solar energy provide a solution that can replace our oil-dependent current approach to mobility and transport. We will keep on waisting our natural resources until it's too late. As I said already in other posts, at that point we might need to dump the whole concept of private cars, and turn to public transportation and bicycles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 08:44 AM) [snapback]284369[/snapback]</div>

A wind-powered EV, which averages 15 miles free range from wind per day, with a teeny-weeny turbine:

http://www.solarvan.co.uk/wind.htm

Almost every house is exposed to enough energy, in wind or solar form, to provide more than sufficient electrical energy for:

A ) All domestic appliances

and

B ) All personal transportation energy

The peak refuelling issue for EVs is not a problem, as the fast charging stations will have ultracapacitors (like EESTOR's) underground to level the load over a day. Beyond this, the majority of EVs will be plugged-in while parked, thereby greatly stabilising (not threatening) the supply of electricity during peak demand, because they can be paid for providing electricity back to the grid during the peak demand periods.

(This is the major attraction of V2G, vehicle to grid, as owners of EVs could actually earn money from them in some states).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Jul 11 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]284389[/snapback]</div>

If you think this thing is going to solve the world energy problems, than it really gets hilarious.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Jul 11 2006, 04:01 PM) [snapback]284389[/snapback]</div>

Really? Where do you live? Perhaps not in London or Paris. Have you ever seen endless suburbs with huge appartment blocks? Within 20 years, a city sized like Mexico City will become a village. And if we export our western living pattern like we do so aggressively now, there will be billions of people screaming for SUV's.

Sorry, I know I'm getting rude and I would like to apologize for that. But I have the impression that this site contains a lot of feel-good greenies that think that the world problems will be solved by a wind turbine or a solar panel in their backyard. It won't, for many reasons. Our comfortable way of living will collapse in a rude way. Communism as collapsed a while ago, but our blind capitalism won't survive that long.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 5 2006, 11:09 PM) [snapback]281782[/snapback]</div>

Darell,

I've been reading your EV posts for a while, looked at your website, have found everything you've said to be both technically correct (in so far as I can tell) and eye-opening. I thought I'd offer my perspective here, for what it's worth.

If any of the major auto makers offered a four-passenger EV for something close to the price of the equivalent ICE car, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

I'm just a regular middle-class suburban consumer. Why would I want an EV?

Mainly, because it's cheap.

I bought a Prius after doing the math on total cost of ownership over ten years. Won't bore you with details, but for the driving I do (10K/year all city), at current gas prices, the ten-year fuel cost for the Prius was $12K less than the alternatives I considered (e.g., Taurus, Camry at 16mpg city). That made the Prius by far the cheapest acceptable vehicle I could buy, on a ten-year total-cost-of-ownership basis.

The equivalent calculation for an EV, based on your data for your Rav4, would be something over $16K savings over a ten-year period.

The gas tax issue raised here does not significantly change my calculation. It's a legitimate concern but not empirically important if implemented on a gasoline-gallon-equivalent basis. The Federal excise tax on gas is $0.184 per gallon, to which the Commonwealth of Virginia adds $0.175. Call it 12% of the cost of a gallon of gas, for me. If electricity were somehow differentially taxed to make up for that, the savings estimate falls from just over $16K to just under $16K. It's lost in rounding error (because? - you don't spend that much on energy anyway, so nearly-zero remains nearly-zero even if taxed at the gasoline-gallon equivalent rate.) The calculation might change slightly if ignorance prevailed and a per-mile tax were instituted, but I doubt it. (I don't doubt that ignorance may prevail, I just doubt the tax would significantly affect my conclusion.) So, tax my electricity to pay for roads -- that's fair, and it doesn't alter the underlying economics significantly.

For the other drawbacks mentioned here, they just don't matter to me. The issue of limited travel distance is not important for the reason you've already stated: I'd take the Prius for any long trip. As I do currently. No change there. I think battery lifetime is more of a concern than range limitation. But I read the Cal Ed Rav4 EV evaluation via your website and even the earlier models appear to get at least 100K on the original batteries. I've replaced the engine in a gas car before, I guess I'd view the battery replacement decision in the same light. Unfortunate but sometimes sensible.

But the idea of nearly-zero maintenance, low noise, refuel at home, protection from spot gas shortages, all of these are appealing. Zero tailpipe emissions are also appealing, and I believe, without having done the detailed calculation, that net CO2 would be lower, given the higher mpg-equivalent, the average generation and transmission efficiency for electricity (as you have noted elsewhere), and given Virginia Power's generation mix (one-third nuclear and hydro, one-third coal, one third natural gas and oil). You've also raised the possibility that the marginal CO2 from nightime charging would be nearly zero due to otherwise wasted power output. If so, that's incredibly appealing - to make use of otherwise wasted output would just be very satisfying. Though I'd want to do the detailed calculation before I'd swear to any of the above.

So, I'm just a mainstream, reasonably smart suburban guy, and I'd pay a modest premium to buy a regular car that is an EV. Not because I'm a nut, but because it makes reasonable economic sense and offers non-economic advantages that I value. And if I can figure this out, others can too. So here I am, ready to buy an EV. I hope that sooner or later one of the major manufacturers will be willing to take my money.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 08:44 AM) [snapback]284369[/snapback]</div>

Just as I don't think that electric vehicles are appropriate to every person or to every task, I don't see wind or solar ever providing for ALL of our electical needs, with or without EV charging, nor have I or anyone else ever said that. That is why I mentioned all the other sources of electicity including hydro, nuclear, natural gas, etc. Both EV's and wind/solar power would provide for options for many people and therefore those people who want them should be able to buy them. In addtion, I've pointed out that PHEV's will be more appropriate to some situations and personal circumstances, especially for a single person who owns only one car. I'm also all for good, reliable and frequent public transportation. The investment in it will be enormous and also require an upgrade to the electrical distribution and generation systems. All of these technologies have the potential for taking a big bite out of petroleum reliance.

Does independence from fossil fuels really have to "hurt"? Yes, it might hurt in the short term finacially with rising petrol prices, but that is exactly where the incentive is to explore other energy opportunities.

 

Oh, c'mon vtie! Don't be such a stick in the mud!

I, too, am depressed when I see more open space plowed under and housing developments go up. It's a death spiral that virtually NO ONE seems to see as a problem. More people, more energy.

Other (population) issues are at the core of my optimism...we MUST get going on these "hilarious" energy alternatives...NOW. Or go the way of the dinosaur. That's just my opinion.

I'm the pessimist when someone announces their 3rd child is on the way...sheesh, where's the energy going to come from to support that person? And the other millions that are added every year. It's unsustainable from many angles (food, energy, water, etc.)

I'm ONLY optimistic when I hear and see in practice the many individuals that are surviving on the "hilarious" energy projects.

Cheers,

Curt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 08:44 AM) [snapback]284369[/snapback]</div>

What I mean by "single-source" is to demonstrate a parallel to gasoline availability and distribution. The vast majority of people do not have gasoline or diesel tanks in their yards and they wouldn't have hydrogen tanks either. But they all do have electical outlets.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 08:44 AM) [snapback]284369[/snapback]</div>

I grant you that particularly for the US, this is a huge paradigm shift. But it's already being "fueled" by higher petrol prices.

At $1.50 per gallon, gasoline was extremely cheap and fueling an SUV was not a budgetary issue. I personally had bought/leased 4 different SUV's and 2 pickup trucks for commuting over a 20 year period. There was no economic incentive to buy a specifically commuter-oriented vehicle. The US vehicle market is in the middle of changing drastically. GM is having trouble giving SUV's away even with free gasoline vouchers for a year and they're on the verge of bankruptcy. Even Toyota is providing big incentives for buying its vehicles with worst efficiency. This is all while they bank down production of these vehicles in favor of significantly more fuel efficient vehicles. These vehicles are built, available and going for prices that are at a loss and there are still people willing to buy them to attain this "discount." This change cannot happen overnight, any more than a shift to a significant number of EV's could possibly happen overnight, but it IS happening. Even higher petrol prices will only force it to happen sooner. Considering that the Prius represents one of the highest fuel efficiency vehicles available, I would say it qualifies as a commuter. Thankfully, it's not an uncomfortable econo-box.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 10:54 AM) [snapback]284403[/snapback]</div>

I'm not suggesting people drive wind turbine-equiped vehicles, I provided the link to show that a tiny turbine can produce a huge amount of energy. Remember a 1.5kW turbine costs only £1,000 - as much as a friend of mine spends in one year on his electricity bill - so it's a great solution for a lot of people.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 10:54 AM) [snapback]284403[/snapback]</div>

There are lots of appartment blocks in cities, but there are far more houses nationally. Appartment blocks and industry will still be mainly grid-reliant, but all the houses can still be net energy exporters, earning the occupants money. Farmers have the opportunity to make a huge amount of electricity and are likely to take up the slack once turbines, cells and storage come down in price.

There's no need to discount solar power just yet, particularly when you read about the progress made by companies like nanosolar.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(AnOldHouse @ Jul 11 2006, 09:27 AM) [snapback]284419[/snapback]</div>

Well, eventually they could. The only problem is storage of power (granted, that's the crux of it). The Sun bathes the Earth in more energy each hour than the entire world consumes in one year! That doesn't include the secondary recoverable sources like wind and wave energy. The problem is that we just can store the excess energy at at reasonable cost. Once we get to that point there won't be any reason to use anything but renewables.

They'll be screaming alright. That's about all they'll be doing because they won't be able to afford gasoline for their vehicles. Economics is going to give us a reality check long before we run out of oil.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Jul 11 2006, 09:57 AM) [snapback]284442[/snapback]</div>

Clett, here in the states farmers are already making money on wind power because the utilities pay them royalties (can be several thousand dollars per turbine) for the turbines located on their property. It's one of the big bonuses of wind power. Rural communities are finding new revenues and they're supporting wind because it's creating jobs and bringing money into the communites.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jul 11 2006, 08:17 AM) [snapback]284410[/snapback]</div>

Wow... I hope I have the pleasure of shaking your hand some day! For the record, many of those SCE Ravs have now gone well over 150k on the original packs. And we have a couple of private owners who have gone over 100k in their own Rav4EVs (in less than four years!). The batteries are providing the same range as when new. At 150k miles, we are happy to claim that the batteries last "the life of the car." Nobody - not even Toyota - expected these batteries to last this long. And yes - if they must be replaced, then they must be replaced. Typically you would only need to repace a defective module or two - not the entire pack.

Yes, this calculation has been done many times with the national mix taken into account (just over half coal). Net C02 is definitely lower, and dropping. As a gas car ages, it pollutes more every mile. As an EV ages, it gets cleaner for the simple reason that our grid is slowly getting cleaner.

Cleaner yet. Much like CA's mix.

Off-peak charging makes the power generators more efficient by keeping them running in the sweet spot. Some generators idle very poorly and take quite a bit of time to start/stop. If they are kept running at a reasonable level all night long, the entire ouput is cleaner and cheaper per kWh produced.

This quote goes on my web page! And it is those "non-economic advantages" that so many people overlook. EVs would be powered from *domestic energy*. That alone should be a huge selling point!

Thanks for you comments!

 

i think making a blanket statement that alternative energy sources like wind and solar will never make a significant contribution is simply short-sighted and only creates a greater desire to not affect change.

we dont even have a clue as to what effect solar on EVERY house and building would do. we are so far away from that now its not even funny. the only thing anyone looks at is money. what will it cost? what is in it for me? who will pay for it?

cost: the future of our children's existance. many in world are thankful that the real bad effects of global warming will not affect THEIR lives TOO badly.

benefits: clean air, virtually unlimited supply of energy,

who will pay for it: we all will, with money, health costs, welfare payment to the people who cant afford it. etc.

so how much is too much??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 01:51 AM) [snapback]284347[/snapback]</div>

It has to come from an existing power plant? Compared to 50 years ago, we use way more electricity today. Did all that extra electricity come from existing power plants? Was the grid never expanded to handle the extra capacity? I still don't understand why we can grow other infrastructures (like oil) but can't seem to grow the electric infrastructure as we so obviously have in the past. Our infrastructure supports more AC units than you can count. You can't control when they are turned on. They often use more energy than charging an EV... and in a given region, they are often all turned on at the same time when it gets hot! And yet somehow we survive.

Why would we redesign the whole system when upgrading it would work?

So with oil, you can just expand the current, stupid, brute-force allocation method that we currently have in place (which, by the way, once again ignores the electricity consumption of making the extra gasoline). But for increased electricity demand, we have to redesign the system from scratch? What am I missing?

OK... I'm actually going to inject a bit of NEW information into this thread - a system called "vehicle to grid" (V2G) charging. This system (developed by AC Propulsions) would (in a perfect world) use millions of battery electric cars as the grid's storage system that you say does not and cannot exist. You drive to work, and plug your car into the V2G charger. Your car begins to charge, and eventually fills up. At 3pm, peak electrical usage in your area begins, and instead of firing up a peak generator, the V2G system sucks off a tiny bit of charge from thousands of EVs in the area that are plugged in. The power comes from local sources so line losses are minimized, and when the peak has passed, the energy is replaced. The system can respond instantly instead of waiting for a peaker plant to fire up. Each vehicle is equipped with a user-defined setting to ensure the SOC of each car remains high enough for the driver to be comfortable with the drive home even if he disconnects before the batteries are refilled. Drivers are compensated (energy credits like I get from my solar system?) for the amount of charge they allow to be used for this. The financial incentives can be quite high when you consider the price of power generation plants that would not be needed. Yes, the system depends on a vagrant storage system - and with enough cars, it could/would work.

Yes, there are all kinds of easy shots to take at it. No, it would not be a perfect system. But think on it for a bit. Here is just one storage solution that could work. We need to think outside the box to get this done. Just stating "it can't happen" isn't helping much!

Here is an expert from the abstract:

And here is one of the white pages on V2G:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/Veh_Grid_Power...Report%20R5.pdf

 

What we need for EVs is removable batteries. You could pull up at a gas station, swap your drained battery for a full one.

It'd work just like propane, where you "buy" a tank for like $50 or whatever it is over there, and then a new full one is $10 or something, even though you don't keep the actual physical tank.

It'd require a load of spare battery packs to be manufactured though, but you could just have the manufacturer supply two with each new car - one to the "gas" stations, and one in the car. It'd add a few thousand onto the price of the car, but for an EV with unlimited range, it'd be worth it

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 11 2006, 07:21 PM) [snapback]284489[/snapback]</div>

You deliberately chose to misunderstand what I was saying. If you want more power, you need to build new plant(s) from scratch. You can't just draw simpply more power from what's available.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 11 2006, 07:21 PM) [snapback]284489[/snapback]</div>

Very simple: it' much more expensive to increase electric capacity. And with renewable energy, it's impossible and plain silly to prepare capacity for peak consumption. You need storage capacity. Tremendously huge storage capacity. And we are not even talking about strategic reserves in case of an attack.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 11 2006, 07:21 PM) [snapback]284489[/snapback]</div>

You aren't missing anything. If you want to double the power distributed by the electrical grid, you have to go through major changes. With oil, you can scale gradually. And the fact that the oil production uses electricity just means that it's somewhat less efficient, since you can use that oil to make that electricity. As I said, our oil-centered civilisation is very inefficient, but effective.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 11 2006, 07:21 PM) [snapback]284489[/snapback]</div>

Sorry, but that's simply SF. It's too Utopian to ever happen. It's a very clever idea, almost as clever as communism. People have predicted this kind of model for almost everything (even computing power), but it never happens. A capitalistic market does not have any incentive to move into that direction.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 11 2006, 07:21 PM) [snapback]284489[/snapback]</div>

It's not that it can't happen, it just won't happen. It's easy to design a perfect civilisation on paper, but to get there in a free market democracy is an entirely different thing. Believe me, we will keep on spilling oil until our world comes to a grinding halt, and then we will perhaps figure out an alternative. I'm sorry if I shoot right into the heart of your dream.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(molgrips @ Jul 11 2006, 12:55 PM) [snapback]284507[/snapback]</div>

The major problem with that is.....you'll never standardize the batteries. I'm sure it's proprietary technology. Even if you could standardize it...there woud be lower quality "generic" substitutions. I won't swap out my "Duracell" extra life for a "generic" Walmart.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]284518[/snapback]</div>

Where are you getting that? The Apache 3 750 MW coal fired plant going up in Pueblo CO will cost about 1.3 billion. Oil Platforms in the Gulf of mexico cost more than that and that's just the cost to get the oil out of the ground.

And if you want to increase you gasoline supply by a factor of two you have to:

1.) Find more oil
2.) Spend years developing the reasource
3.) Double your refining capacity

And oil production is just as prone to disruption, if not more so. Natural catastrophies in 2005 showed that pretty clearly.

That can be true, but it's very dependent on the demand. Once you've peaked your fields you got to develope new ones and that takes years. Way longer time to implement than a new power plant.

In fact, just to develope the oil sands in Canada a large number of power plants are being built just to convert the oil sands into oil, that will then be transported and refined into gasoline. So there you go, that's about as ridiculous as it gets. They're even building heated highways deep into alberta so that they can move huge vehicles in the middle of winter.

All of that energy could easily be put into running EVs and we'd be way ahead. Let's face it, the liguid fueld transportaion is totally dependant on the grid, and certainly on electricity.

 

The world is flat. We can't fly airplanes. No WAY we can get to the moon and back. Pictures...thru the air...into my home? You want to run a gas AND electric car? What, are u crazy?

That and a bit more: Renewable energy is (and EVs are) on the horizon, waiting. If not, we won't be around. Plain and simple.

I believe in the most pessimistic nature of humans...but also see ALL the accomplishments we as a species have come up with. It just keeps happening, no matter who says it can't.

I'll be the first to admit I was a dreamer (AFTER the failure) IF this all goes down badly. Until then, I'll support the alternatives, the renewables, the future...not the dinosaur past, lending my encouraging talents whenever and wherever possible.

Cheers,

Curt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(molgrips @ Jul 11 2006, 10:55 AM) [snapback]284507[/snapback]</div>

This has been suggested many times. EV drivers would own the car, but would lease the batteries. There would be one standard configuration. A sports car would use a single pack, a sedan would use two packs, a Hummer would use six. That kind of thing. It is an interesting concept to consider.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Jul 11 2006, 11:20 AM) [snapback]284518[/snapback]</div>

Honestly, I have done nothing of the sort. I'm desperately trying to understand your point.

Ah see... what I read was "you have to redesign the whole grid." Now I understand better. Yet I still don't see this as any sort of show-stopper. If we want more gasoline, we have to also build new refineries... from scratch. And we haven't built a new refinery in what? 30 years?

It is certainly simple to say. And I can't think of any logical reason why it should be so. We've needed more gasoline refineries for many years. If they're so easy/cheap to build - why are we not doing it? One main reason is environmental considerations. What are the others?

Why would we have to instantly double the capacity of the grid? To fuel EVs? No. For all the reasons I've mentioned too many times already.

Well, you've sure sold me on this process then! OK... who's dreaming now? You seem to think that this would only require a *little* bit of oil ("somewhat less efficient")??? It would require HUGE amounts of oil. There are several very good reasons that oil companies DO use electricity and natural gas instead of oil for their energy inputs. Using oil wouldn't make it "somewhat" less efficient. It would pretty much bring the process to a grinding halt. The oil industry needs GOBS of electricity. And much of what they use is generated in some of the dirtiest ways we have available - but few are as bad as burning oil to make electricity.

You haven't. I'd need a bit more supporting evidence and logic for the arrow to stick. I understand your view of the world. I don't share it. I refuse to just throw up my hands, bend over and take what is offered. Imagine that somebody way long ago dreamed they could fly! Somebody dreamed they could send their voice thousands of miles across the country. Somebody dreamed that indoor plumbing would be a good idea. Who'd have thought we'd use electricity to wash our clothes? Sweep our floors? Good lord - If we can't innovate out of our current mess, what's the reason to get up in the morning?

You call V2G "SF" (science fiction I assume). Turns out that I'm currently using a SF computer. I drive two SF cars, and I'm about to fly on a SF airplane. I'm glad that none of the dreamers who came up with this stuff just rolled over and played dead - assuming that innovation will never work in the real world. I just bought a $100 GPS unit that wears on my wrist and tells me where I am anywhere in the world. Nothing more science fiction than that!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jul 11 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]284543[/snapback]</div>

It sure is, and so few people realize that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jul 11 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]284564[/snapback]</div>

Ha! We had the same idea, but you beat me to the punch while I fought with the keyboard.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jul 11 2006, 01:21 PM) [snapback]284489[/snapback]</div>

Part of the problem here is the "NIMBY" effect. "Not In My Back Yard" Same has gone for building additional refinery capacity. Everyone wants all the energy they can possibly use and afford, but no one wants the "ugly" part of the system in their community. But the NIMBY factor can politically put to the side when it really matters. Case in point is Senator Edward Kennedy's staunch opposition to the proposed www.capewind.org wind farm off of Cape Cod, because it would be within view of the Kennedy's Hyannis compound, although he denies that. The farm would be installed 5 miles off shore, 130 turbines and produce 3/4 of the current electrical needs of the Cape and Islands. Kennedy proposed including a Massachusetts Governor veto in the project bill, which was a virtual guaranteed death sentence for the project, but apparently, that provision has been negotiated out of the bill. The legislative fight, however, continues...