The following is a guest essay by Marc Geller, who blogs at Plugs and Cars, serves on the board of directors of the Electric Auto Association, cofounded Plug In America and DontCrush.com, and appeared in Who Killed The Electric Car.
-----
The IEEE Spectrum Magazine for November 2007 touts on its cover: "Battery or Fuel-Cell Cars? A California Cabal Will Decide." Interesting choice of headlines. Surely a strong argument can be made that something approaching a cabal turned a practical electric-cars-on-the-road mandate into a research and development program for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Carmakers are desirous of delaying the inevitable but problematic move to electric drive. Oil companies shut out of electric markets are exploring biofuels and hydrogen as potential markets they could control. Academics awash in government and corporate grants analyse and research biofuels and hydrogen. The problem with electric is it is here now. Proven, ready to market. No significant need for research. Batteries could always use a nudge, but the 100-plus-mile battery has existed for over a decade. Price needs to come down by a factor of two at most, not a factor of 100. Economies of scale, baby!
Facts are facts. Not five years ago we had thousands (about 6,000, to be exact) of battery electrics as daily drivers for consumers like you and me and utility fleets like PG&E and SCE. Thanks to Plug In America's predecessor DontCrush.com, about 1000 of those cars still drive today on the original batteries using existing electric infrastructure. Their owners love them, and when one appears on the used car market it sells for more than the $42,000 original MSRP.
Also today, instead of thousands more electric cars envisioned by the original ZEV mandate, we have about two hundred one-million-dollar hydrogen FCVs functioning as demo vehicles, limited by the lack of infrastructure, and lasting the limited two- to four-year life of their fuel cell stack.
The IEEE article does a decent job of wending through the ZEV morass. Auto makers still want lots of credit for fuel cells, they just don't want to keep to the agreed timetable. That which they don't kill (EVs in 2003) they hope to delay (FCVs in 2008).
However, plug-in cars -- both plug-in hybrids and electric cars -- are seeing a resurgence. Every car maker has announced intentions to plug something in. But they certainly don't want a mandate to do it. Groups such as Plug In America are asking for parity for zero emission vehicles of whatever type. They say the point is ZEV miles on the road. ARB Board member and recipient of millions in fuel cell and hydrogen grants Dan Sperling fears parity will lead auto makers to take the cheaper "easy way," battery electric cars. "Automakers might abandon their fuel-cell programs," he said.
"So what?" reply proponents of battery electric cars, citing battery improvements that surpass fuel cell advancements and existing infrastructure supplying domestically produced fuel at a fraction of the cost of gasoline. A ZEV is a ZEV is a ZEV, they point out -- and even Toyota admits we won't see FCVs in the showroom until 2030 at the earliest. ARB is meant to put ZEVs on the road, meeting real people's needs. Only battery cars can do that near term. CARB could nudge that process along as the ZEV program is revised early in 2008. The IEEE article contains a germ of hope:
... thanks to today's climate -- economic, political and atmospheric -- some consumers are ready to trade range for a car that costs less to run and produces less pollution. CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols agrees. "People are willing to take a chance ..."
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 5:58 pm
13 Nov 2007
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/california-arb-.h ...
And yes, frankly if it does mean abandoning Fuel Cells.
Then good riddance.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen3.png
Permalink
theBike45 Posted 11:03 pm
13 Nov 2007
Considering emissions and oil avoidance, the
battery powered all-electrics are hardly worth bothering with. They certainly aren't worth putting up with. And here's a case where a fleet of plug-ins can have their entire liquid fuel
needs satisfied by biofuels, making the all-electric advantage essentially zero. The effort should be to make electrical production cleaner,
not to spend gigantic sums of money on the questionable effort of attempting to invent a super battery, a battery that probably doesn't even exist at our current level of technology.
We don't need a super battery - the ones we have are satisfactory for a plug-in, which is all that's needed.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:46 am
14 Nov 2007
Most of us former hydrogen fans have come to our senses thanks to those who have presented rational critique (mostly on the Internet). There will always be people who continue to cling to ideas simply because those ideas appeal to them or because they stand to profit from them (same difference I suppose). They are impervious, or at least highly resistant to rational argument. The idea of an electric car appeals to me big time but
"But they certainly don't want a mandate to do it."
they shouldn't have a mandate to do build them. I'm still spending the $3000 the government gave me to buy the hybrid I was going to buy anyway and had to wait in line to get. Look at what biofuel mandates here and in Europe are starting to do to the planet.
The EV1 debacle should have been a lesson learned but instead it spawned a documentary about a global anti-electric car conspiracy.
The only measure of success will be acceptance by enough of the public to create profitability for those who produce it. The Prius is the first shining example of a trend toward environmental benigness proving profitable. Hopefully, plug-ins will be the next, followed by something else, hopefully electric.
I could buy an electric car today. I would love to own an electric car with adequate performance. There is a dealership near me. But I won't until someone produces one that crosses the right range, price, and quality threshold. A few hundred consumers (out of 300 million) willing to accept the performance/cost ratio of those old electric cars are scatter on the graph.
"And here's a case where a fleet of plug-ins can have their entire liquid fuel"
According to several new studies in multiple, respected science publications, biofuels are harder on the environment than oil. Viewing them as a net positive is no longer the right way to view them. The only reason they have left to exist is to buy votes for politicians and line the pockets of agroindustry with tax dollars.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:28 am
14 Nov 2007
I don't think this is necessarily true. A company with an entrepreneurial spirit will, in fact, seek out potentially lucrative new markets and exploit them. Mostly that means small companies, but not necessarily, as Toyota has demonstrated.
However, the majority of established companies do not appear to seek the path of maximum profit, but the path of profitable least risk. This means that if they can profitably continue down a familiar, established road, they will do so. They will ignore potentially much more profitable, but riskier, alternatives to do this. You can see this clearly in the reaction of the entertainment industry to internet media, and in the reaction of the American car companies to competition from Japan -- they'd rather keep selling SUVs because they are a known and (for the time being) profitable option.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:37 am
14 Nov 2007
I am always amazed at Greens who have a detailed and in depth knowledge of environmental policy, nutritional advice and climatology -- who understand the nuances and complexities of these things -- and who then go on to make childish statements about business and manufacturing on the order of "well, so why don't start doing x, y and z". And oh, don't ever let the big, bad businesses ever do something like recall what was a prototype and go off to rework the design because that then spells "conspiracy".
Let's remember, the oil driven car was not mandated. It grew naturally by consumer interest and it's facilities grew around it. Until now it's been "sustainable". No one has to pay someone to build a gas station.
When you say "electric car" you mean the entire infrastructure around the car, not just selling a few cars. A few of the many things that one has to take into account are:
The Grid. Can it handle all the load?
Mechanics...how to we train for the new drive and storage technologies.
Warranties -- how to come up with a fair warranted for something that does not have even 3 years of real world use
Safety (and insurance) -- are these cars safer, less safe? We will never know until a lot of people start driving them.
My Log
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:07 am
14 Nov 2007
It is about risk and profit. That is the way of a regulated free market.
I said the same thing this way:
"Of course, car companies can't accurately predict consumer preferences. So, they play probability games."
They don't "ignore potentially much more profitable, but riskier, alternatives." They evaluate them. If Imperium biofuels goes bankrupt, it's because they did not ignore a potentially more profitable, but riskier alternative.
Toyota dipped its toes on the Prius and won. Honda tried the Insight and lost. Several car companies tested the electric car market right alongside GM and all came to the same conclusion. It was only GMs decision to recall and destroy their cars rather than continue to hemorrhage cash supporting them and risking law suits that got them to be the star of a documentary.
This is not to say we won't have reasonably priced, reasonably performing electric cars someday. Consumer preferences and battery technology are changing fast. A lot of us want something better than a Prius. Government mandates for electric cars are a proven bad idea. Very few people wanted them, and now car companies are gun shy because, hey, not only did they lose billions, but look at the damage that documentary is doing to GM! Who wants to step into those headlights a second time?
Government mandates for cars and tractors were the basis for the old school Soviet economic model. Statistically speaking, they do not pay off.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:41 am
14 Nov 2007
Right now I think they represent the real, honest, commercial, state of the art ... a microvan with 24 mph top speed, 50 mile range, for $20K or so.
Feel free to dream higher, but right now that's the reality.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:33 am
14 Nov 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:58 am
14 Nov 2007
Parallel Plugin Hybrid:
One is essentially "A Prius with a Bigger battery"
Series Plugin Hybrid:
The other is essentially "An electric car with a 1/3rd size battery pack, and a backup generator the size of a motorcycle engine"
I agree that Plugin Hybrids will make the biggest dent, however Parallel Plugin Hybrids are just silly.
And Series Plugin Hybrids are much more like fullblown electric cars, with a "spare tire".
__
Certainly though, one barrier to plugin hybrids is that they currently need to pass BOTH a gasoline crash test, and an electric crash test.
There currently is no "Mixed" crash test.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 9:32 am
14 Nov 2007
Not necessarily. My understanding is that the power output of the Prius' current electric motor is limited by its battery pack's max output power. The plugin conversion replaces the NiMH pack with a lithium pack, which not only increases all-electric range, but also increases all-electric top speed. Since most trips are short and relatively low speed, it actually allows the car to operate as a series hybrid below a certain speed (35 MPH?).
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:51 am
14 Nov 2007
Since an electric car is roughly 10x less complex than a conventional gasoline car.
This results in higher cost, and higher weight.
And considering fuel economy is proportional to weight, that means that you'd have to overcome that extra weight factor just to break even with a series plugin.
And as is, a Prius is already an overweight car for it's size class. Chuck a big battery pack, and you are just piling on the pounds.
Then you get into the cost of ownership.
A parallel plugin hybrid has to do maintainence on the whole mess. Which gives you the worst of both worlds from that perspective.
By comparison, not only is an electric car much less complex, but it has far fewer moving parts.
_
All in all, parallel hybrids are still stupid ;D
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:39 am
14 Nov 2007
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:44 pm
14 Nov 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:14 am
15 Nov 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:16 am
15 Nov 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:22 am
15 Nov 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:31 am
15 Nov 2007
That's with geo heat exchange heating/cooling which takes care of the normal heating load usually supplied by combustion. No fuel required and no expensive electrical resistance heating.
About 500 watts of continuous generating power would do that. Combining solar and wind to equal that continuous power generation level would take around 1.5 kw of wind/solar generating capacity feeding into the grid.
With a 60 mile battery range on the plugin, the amount of fuel needed for the extra miles driven using internal combustion would be minimal. Using a hypercar concept, even compressed biogas could be substituted for liquid fuel.
Roll that model out on a similar scale across the energy economy with business small and large, government facilities, and farms and you have a distributed system that will create huge economic growth, end oil war, and solve GHG climate disaster problems.
If only around 25% of roofspace is suitable for solar and 25% of locations are suitable for wind, that should break even. Of course many families will have more than one car plugged in and energy intensive factories will need more energy too.
To provide for extra needs, about 25% of present grid capacity could come from large wind and wave power and solar mounted over parking lots. This is a plan that uses mass production to solve the energy/GHG problem.
Compare that to building 1000s of nuclear or clean coal plants and continuing gas guzzling with coal to liquid, tar sands oil, or fuel farming. This corporate industrial monopoly approach is far too slow and far too expensive.
The real cost for just one oil war so far? 1.5 trillion for Iraq. How about health costs and cleanup costs after GHG related storms, fires, drought, flood, and so forth. How about the lost economic growth from all these events? Astronomical. And exponentially more and more expensive as money is borrowed for the national debt and thus compounds with the interest.
A WW 2 war production like effort to convert the energy economy in a decade or two is the way to avoid these severe consequences. Is our failing republic strong enough to withstand the multiple disaster paths from oil war and climate change?
Our constitution is under stress already with our government now embracing torture, kidnapping, secret prisons, and spying on its own citizens. Our economy is in trouble and so are our freedoms.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
MoNilla Posted 5:37 am
15 Nov 2007
2. Mechanics...how to we train for the new drive and storage technologies.
3. Warranties -- how to come up with a fair warranted for something that does not have even 3 years of real world use
4. Safety (and insurance) -- are these cars safer, less safe? We will never know until a lot of people start driving them.
Studies I've seen indicate the current grid capacity could handle millions of EVs charging off-peak.
Talked to your mechanic lately? Mine spends more time on the computer than under the hood already, and that's working on ICE cars.
I've been driving my RAV4 EVs for five years now. Avi Hershowitz's RAV4 EV just rolled 135K miles.
I'd rather be sitting on top of a battery-pack than in front of 20 gallons of gasoline any day. I've never heard of an EV bursting into flames from a stray static spark during charging, have you?:^O
DRIVE THE FUTURE (It's electric)
http://www.PlugInAmerica.com
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:36 pm
15 Nov 2007
Permalink
greensport Posted 12:56 am
17 Mar 2008
www.greenmotorsport.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:14 am
17 Mar 2008
Are there any mass produced plugin hybrids available at a reasonable price now, 4 months later?
Audi has a great plugin hybrid, Toyota has a plugin hybrid hypercar, but it's only a demonstration model. What is the holdup on mass production?
Only one presidential candidate even mentioned plugin hybrids, Hillary. She has lost due to her campaign team's decision to ignore caucuses.
California is set to re-kill electric cars.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink