Why Electric Cars Have Stalled

With all due respect, the Volt is not a series hybrid and it is not a 4-seat sedan. This is because the Volt is not anything but a concept. The Volt does not exist. If the Volt is actually anything at all, it's an ad campaign for something GM claims will one day be a series hybrid 4-seat sedan. But they could change their mind. Once, the Volt was going to be a $20,000 car that could go 40 miles on grid power. Then it was going to be a $30,000 car, and then a $40,000 car, and last I saw, the range on grid power was down to 30 miles, assuming you were not using the heater.

The point is that no description of the Volt will be accurate until GM actually builds the car, which I strongly doubt they will ever do.

So the bottom line is that the Volt, like the Batmobile, can be anything the cartoonist wants it to be, but if you want to drive one you have to be a pen-and-ink drawing.

 

Until there is a HUGE leap forward in battery storage technology, you can forget about electric cars being very common.

The problem is twofold: 1) you need a large battery pack with current battery technology if you want anything resembling decent range and 2) long charging times are still major issues, even if you use a commercial-quality charging station. Electric cars will finally become popular once they get a range exceeding 400 kilometers (248 miles) and charging times at a commercial charging station under 60 minutes. Hopefully, the upcoming ultracapacitor technology built with nanotube-based ultracapacitors may finally offer this breakthrough.

As such, the closest thing we'll see to a true electric car for now are plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV's), of which the 2010 third-generation Toyota Prius will likedly be upgraded to officially by Toyota using (most likely) a lithium-polymer battery pack to replace the NiMH battery pack and an external battery charging system. I would eventually LOVE to see a Prius with an ultracapacitor battery pack, because that could make it possible to go as much as 100 kilometers (62 miles) on battery power alone before the gasoline engine finally kicks in.

 

So, let's say your right. The masses refuse to buy EV's if they can only get 150 miles per EV charge. Fossil fuel supplies get smaller & smaller & smaller. What, people will just walk? Take the train? Anything but EV? It may still be a few more years down the road, but just watch how agreeable folks become, once the choice is EV or scare toxic liquid exploseve fuel. Electric Cars have stalled. That's funny. I don't see anybody wanting to give up their place in front of me for their spot on the Aptera wait list ... & I'd be VERY glad to move up a 1,000 places or so. There's still a Tesla wait list, too. Folks are eagerly awaiting the Mitsubishi EV slated for this year. To me that's a good sign, what with fuel costs temporarily being down.

 

The vast majority of urban commuters need a small fraction of that range

I have no doubt that once nanotube technology can be commercialized, we will see major advances in power density

 

Don't need an SUV for weekend ski trip. Notice how they all have ski racks or boxes on the roof? I actually saw an H2 with TWO ski boxes up top and the damned thing only seats 5. So rent the hybrid sedan with the optional roof top ski box

Now the only problems with your 2 cents:

1. There are no current EVs that will meet the needs of MOST people. I, for one, couldn't even get to work as there is NO route that doesn't have a section of AT LEAST 40 MPH. And no, I couldn't afford a Tesla even if you put me #1 on the list. However, maybe in a few years when there are EVs that can go 45 - 50 MPH AND seat 4 or 5 AND go 40 - 50 miles on a charge when it is -10F while providing heat, maybe THEN a lot more people could use one as a primary car.
2. While we did just recently get a local car share business, one would need to KNOW that the 'share car' would be available WHEN they need it, every time. Really hard to do I would think. Might happen though. As people start using them, they can be profitable enough to have excess capacity over a 'normal' week for the 'walk ins'. As for me, the closest 'parking location' for the car share is over 2 miles away. Not REAL convenient.

 

George W. Bush (Ding dong, the Bush is 'dead'! YEA!!) spent a trillion dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of people in the name of 'national security'. Maybe President Obama can rip the NiMH patents out of Chevron's (*) grubby hands and make them public domain based on NATIONAL SECURITY!!

We can't just slap a $15/gallon tax on gas until there is a reasonable AND affordable replacement means of transportation.

(*) Full disclosure. I own some Chevron stock. Inherited it. About the only stock I own that isn't now worth a LOT less than was paid for it. But it is only because it was purchased DECADES ago that it is still 'positive'.

 

Bruce,
I think you have mistaken 40-mile range/per charge from 40 MPH. (your point #1)
GM's Volt (concept) can go up to 100mph with 40-mile pure-electrical range (so they claim).

 

I'll go out on a limb and say most people are not all that concerned about the environment, or the possibility of major climate change. They, we, hear about it on bits of news, but we don't experience chaos due to climate change. Ordinary people, trying to survive, go to work, school, pickup the family have x amount of dollars and will buy the best, most appealing car that fits into their budget. And that car is something you'd find in a 'Car and Driver' type buyers guide.

I've rented 'Who Killed The Electric Car' a couple times and watched it several times. There are parts of the movie that make me seethe with anger. Namely when CARB killed the Zero Emissions Mandate and appeared to censure EV / battery tech experts in proceedings.

I'm not an expert on the subject of pure electric vehicles and their future, but I know this ...

I really prefer when my Prius is running on battery only, and I get kinda bummed when the gas engine comes on, like in a parking lot, to warm itself up.

I have a Car and Driver buyers guide with just about every production, fully road capable car that money can buy.

The Tesla Roadster is the only pure electric car in that entire magazine. If Tesla 'makes it', and is profitable company for some years, this would be great exposure for electric vehicles.

 

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING: Please note: When speaking of the non-existent Volt, it is wrong to use the present tense, as in the quote above. In the present tense, the Volt CANNOT do anything.

They claim that the Volt will in the indefinite future, be able to do this or that. The future tense, or better yet, the subjunctive tense should be used in speaking of a car that does not exist, even in a single working prototype. Sure, they've shown a car body which they claim will in the future be the Volt body. But they have not yet put any of the supposed actual innards in that body.

As a result, any talk of the specifications (speed, range, FE when operating on gasoline, etc.) is only wild speculation or unreliable advertising bullshit.

If they ever put a Volt on dealer lots for people to buy, then we'll be able to start talking about what it can do in the present tense. Not until.

My own speculation is that if the Volt ever reaches the market, there will already be half a dozen PHEVs on the U.S. market from other car makers, and at least 5 of those 6 (if not all) will be better cars overall, in quality, range, performance, and value for the cost. It's even possible that they will end up marketing a car called the Volt, but without PHEV capability at all: I.e. a conventional gasoline car, or a gas-electric hybrid, in the Volt body they recently showed, with the promise that a future model will be plug-in, "... as soon as battery technology is available."

 

with a battery factory announced, the "vapor" seems to be clearing up a bit, but until the first battery is built, i will reserve judgment.

as now, in WA state, you can use your NEV on roads UP TO 45 MPH...so you are most certainly able to drive a 40 mph road if here anyway... i think the NEV laws should be nationalized. in fact, i think ANYTHING that will promote the technology should be nationalized...

i would start with a 20% REBATE from the government (notice i did not say tax credit, deduction etc...)

then a $2 per gallon gas tax to pay for renewable programs

then a YEARLY gas guzzler tax for people who make a certain income and dont feel the need to pitch in to the Green campaign. of course, to not pay the tax, you could opt for a program the allows you to prove you need a 7 passenger vehicle....say 5 passengers or more at least 25% of the time...(registration into this program provided at a nominal fee)

all this sound harsh?? unrealistic?? ya maybe... but neighsayers to EV's sound just as ridiculous and the government (up to this point) has done a great deal to help the neighsayers. lets face it, you all sound like you whining about mundane things like color. sure there are drawbacks here. will always be drawbacks to EV's... but lets not talk like driving a regular gas car does not have consequences!!

now the government needs to switch sides... lets see what you have to say now?

 

More of my 2 cents worth:

-We need a "gas tax" on ICEs to subsidize EV's. But don't call it a "gas tax", call it a "national security tax".
Hopefully by now everyone understands the relationship of our addiction to Middle East oil and our national security.

-I do not need 150 mile range OR 10 minute recharging, but I do need 65mph.
Except for road trips I never drive over 100 miles per day, but I need a vehicle that can go on any road, not restricted to 45mph.
Plugging in overnight works fine and takes advantage of current power generation capacity. On days I might be pushing the 100 mile limit, it would not be a big deal to plug in for an hour or two at the office, jobsite or lunch.

-Let's accept that there is no "perfect" vehicle and most families already own two (or more) vehicles.
An EV for the short trips and a PHEV for longer trips should cover 99% of our needs.

-Volvo had a concept EV that had 4 "wheel motors". Sounded like the perfect EV setup (traction control, frees up lots of space for batteries, low center of gravity, etc etc). Heard this concept would not be available until 2115. Why does it take 7 years to bring a great idea to market? Instead of bailing out the Big 3, why not spend $$$ to bring some of these great concepts to market in record time.

-How many years until we can tell the Middle East, "no thanks, we don't need you crude". And how would this change our foriegn policy?

-Our Energy Policy should have a minimum Ten Year Goal of:
-25% of all cars are EV
-50% of cars are PHEV
-Main liquid fuel is ethanol made from nonfood biomass.
-50% of interstate frieght is by rail
-Walkable cities with efficient mass transit
-Large scale PV and Wind Energy to charge all the EV & PHEV

I know I went over 2 cents worth, just put it on my account.

 

Just a couple of points:

While it is legal to drive a 35-mph NEV on 45 mph roads, I feel so uncomfortable doing so that I avoid such roads when driving my Xebra. Not a big problem for me, because most streets are 35 mph in Spokane, and the one 45-mph road I sometimes take in the stinker is easily avoided. Still, I would not suggest driving 35 in a 45 zone.

A PHEV is a very bad choice for long trips, because during most of that trip you are just carrying dead battery weight. The strength of a PHEV is for a single-car family that mostly commutes within the EV range, but still needs the flexibility to drive farther on occasion.

Until we have the electric highway, the ideal is an EV for city driving, and the most efficient gasoline or natural gas car for long trips.

 

i dont see transportation in 10 years resembling anything like we have today. multiple cars used both as commuters and family trip vehicles will simply go away.

what i hope will happen is that BEV's will become much more popular at first because incentives will make them attractive enough for niche use only. iow, only used for short errand runs or in town commuting. this will require rebates or tax deductions to cut at least a third off the cost of owning one. this would create a household that most likely would have at least 3 vehicles including two very low cost EV's and one large family vehicle or possibly not any large vehicles at all.

i also see a government run leasing program with cost to lessee based on income and aimed at the underemployed or lower income worker using only EV's and super high mileage plug in vehicles. we simply cant wait for the lower income class to save the money to purchase a $25,000 EV. (even if it was discounted to $15,000)

next thing that will have to happen is that driving a regular car becomes expensive period. i mean minimum $4-6 per gallon for gas, so unless very wealthy, you will drive an economical car getting a minimum of 30 mpg. also a tax on vehicles that get less than the 30 mpg based on income. iow, if you can afford to not save money on gas, then fine, but you will pay MUCH more than your fair share.

a ton of money would be needed as EVERY parking lot would have to be retrofitted for plug ins. i see parking lots where charging stations take up the first 2 rows, then row 3 with hybrids over 50 mpg (hopefully by then, there will be more than ONE on the road!!) with gas only vehicles relegated to back row only... if you want to pollute the air my offspring breathes, then hell with ya, take a nice long walk thru it every time you park the stinking thing.

radical thinking?? yep... so why have electric cars stalled? because there are too many politically correct, P-whipped, yellow-bellied, two-faced, and whatever else you wanna call em, wimps so afraid of their own shadow who cant even risk a dime of their own money to do something they know is right because they dont have a "verizon wireless network" crowd supporting them

 

Just a few nits to pick:

I always park at the far end of the lot. I need to stretch my legs a bit after sitting in a car.

I think that future EVs will have sufficient range that opportunity charging will be unnecessary. This is just a question of battery pricing. First-generation Xebras got 15 miles on a charge, and people had to search out charging opportunities. Mine gets 40 miles, and I only need to plug in at home.

I'd set the gas tax higher than you would, and re-build the public mass transit systems that General Motors bought out and scrapped when I was a kid. I'd also confiscate and sell at auction all of GM's assets and all the personal assets of all past and present GM executives. I'd give the workers jobs re-building that mass transit system.

 

well to be honest with ya, until one battery started to fail, i dont "HAVE" to use opportunity charging either and for a while, simply considered it a hassle to carry the cord around. but changed my mind simply because i want more people to see me plugged in so now i purposefully go to places that allow me to plug in.

now, is it economical or environmentally sound to go to a store that is 2 miles farther away because they allow plugging in while the store i used to frequent does not?? i wrestled with this, but then simply planned errands that would have taken me within a ¼ mile of the farther store anyway...

so, the moral of the story is, if you want it bad enough, you will find a way to be happy with it... if you dont (iow, the hummer crowd) you will always find something wrong

our biggest problem is there are so many people who are simply ignorant of the real facts or the options available to them. one bad article or big mouthed neigh-sayer can affect the decision of thousands

 

Wheel motors are all the rage for concept vehicles but are a chassis engineer's nightmare. The issue is unsprung weight. Unsprung weight is any weight not supported by the vehicle suspension. That would be tires, wheels, hubs, brakes, and a portion of the control arms. The lower the unsprung weight as a percentage of total weight the better the ride quality and handling characteristics. With wheel motors you are putting large amounts of weight in the worst area. If individual drive motors are needed it is better to connect the motor to the hub with a short driveshaft. It is even simpler to use a simple differential so one motor can turn two wheels.

 

Thanks JSH for the explanation. What's the old saying about "if it sounds to good to be true..."?

Out of curiousity, what does one of these wheel motors weight and is this that much more than a standard wheel/brake assembly? Seems like they could be rather small motors with one in each wheel.

 

A wheel motor will still have the same wheel and mechanical brake, plus the weight of the motor. It may be a light motor, but it's still all of the standard weight plus the motor.

Tom

 

As qbee42 said the wheel assembly would still require a conventional friction brake. Government regulators are not ready to allow electric only braking and I doubt a manufacturer would try too eliminate friction brakes as there are still times that electronic braking would fail.

According to this article, a 34 HP wheel motors weighs in at 40 pounds. Could In-Wheel Motors be the Next Big Thing? | GreenCar.com

Wheel motors aren't dead though, many companies are working on improvements to reduce unsprung weight and offer benefits to automotive manufacturers. The Michelin Active Wheel is one of the more interesting designs.



As you can see, Michelin has put the suspension in the wheel to reduce unsprung weight and simplify the vehicle chassis.

SIEMENS VDO is working on a similar concept with the eCORNER:

 

It is a nice idea from a packaging point of view. It basically eliminates the engine compartment and makes the passenger volume bigger for a given vehicle size.

There is a penalty to pay, reliability and cost. Four smaller motors will cost than one big motor. Four inverters will cost more than one. More electrical wirings and more complicated software to control four motors, all of these reduces reliabilities. For those with engineering background, more components means lower MTBF.

There are also cooling issues of packaging the motor, suspension and disc brake in a compact size wheel.