A new generation of electric cars is close to being a reality. They will reduce our dependency on foreign oil thus saving us from being held hostage by the politics of the Middle East and other oil producing countries. But, as always, the reality behind the technology has not been fully thought through.
While they are projected to cost about $25,000 - $30,000, the extra costs may put them out of reach for the majority of Americans. The battery pack must be leased separately for $125 / month. Recharging at night will only cost the equivalent of 77 cents per gallon, but recharging during the day would cost up to $3.63 per gallon. While you may think that is cheap if gas rises to $4, think again. If the cost of gas rises significantly, look for the cost of electricity to also rise. It will also strain our already fragile electric grids.
I like the idea of electric cars, but we need to start being proactive rather than reactive and plan for their increased use. Otherwise, they will bring our electric grid to its knees. And, as a result, will not live up to their full potential.
How will we recharge all the electric cars?
Jan 29th 2010 | From The Economist online
IN THE ten years since hybrid electric vehicles first hit the highways and byways of America, they have come to represent 2.5% of new car sales. Yet, in places like Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, DC, every other car seems to be a Toyota Prius. That is because hybrids like the Prius have sold overwhelmingly where well-heeled early adopters reside.
Expect the new generation of “Post-Prius” electrics—plug-in hybrids like the Chevrolet Volt from General Motors and those relying only on a battery such as the Nissan Leaf—to end up nosing around the same upscale neighbourhoods. With more than a dozen plug-in and pure-electric models arriving in showrooms over the next year or so, sales are expected to outstrip even those enjoyed by the Prius and other hybrids in their early days. A couple of million of the new electric vehicles could be bought by early adopters during the first few years.
That would be a problem. Unlike the Prius and its ilk—which use their petrol engines, along with energy recovered from braking, to recharge their batteries while motoring—plug-in hybrids and pure electrics have to be recharged direct from the grid. The popular assumption is that they will be plugged into a wall socket in the garage late at night, taking advantage of cheap off-peak power. Unfortunately, things are not that simple.
For a start, the new generation of electric vehicles are not glorified golf-carts, but cleaner and more frugal alternatives to today’s petrol-powered family cars. When fully charged, the Volt (to be called the Ampera in Europe) can travel 40 miles (64km) on electric power, enough for three out of four commuters in America to get to work and back without needing to burn a single drop of fuel. Beyond that range, a 1.4-litre engine kicks in to generate electricity and simultaneously propel the car and recharge its batteries.
The medium-sized hatchback Leaf can carry five adults 100 miles on a single charge. To go farther, Nissan has put its faith in a network of rapid-charging stations it is developing with partners. The Leaf is expected to cost $25,000-30,000, about the same as a comparable diesel-powered car. But the battery pack will have to be leased separately (for around $150 a month).
One thing the new plug-ins and pure electrics have in common is a beefy lithium-ion battery pack that needs a lot of heavy charging. At the very least, that involves installing 220-volt wiring in the home. Trying to recharge a modern electric car with a standard American 110-volt supply takes too long to be practical (up to 18 hours in the case of the Leaf).
Of course, if not fully charged at night it may have to be recharged during the day—when electricity rates can be up to five times more expensive. Average peak rates in America are 33 cents a kilowatt-hour compared with seven cents off-peak. Charging at the peak rate is equivalent to buying petrol at $3.63 a gallon (80 cents a litre), instead of 77 cents a gallon off-peak, reckons Southern California Edison, a utility based in the Los Angeles area. In America, peak-rate charging totally destroys any economic advantage an electric car may have.
See full article here.
37 Comments
Alessandro
"Beefy" lithium ion battery? Versus what, a svelte lead battery that weighs fives times as much?
Anonymous
Good article which serves to educate the masses that the alternative energy products aren't the salvation they all hoped for.
Electric cars ? High manufacturing costs, short trip distances, prolonged recharging times, ever-escalating electricity costs especially considering the MASSIVE drain on the grids when everyone goes electric requiring equally massive infrastructure redesign and implementation to cope, and guess who ends up paying for that !
On top of that there's the raw-resources issues as used in the batteries and motors - the mining sector will be happy, for a while, but then it's not an open-ended industry with infinite resources now is it ? ie it's finite just like oil, and the laws of supply and demand still rule. Just imagine 2 or 3 billion electric cars and the resource depletion needed to make them.
And let's not forget that oil based products like plastic will still be used in car production, so when oil goes into orbit, up goes the cost of making a basic electric car.
People have to learn that there are no magic bullets for all the problems we face - no quick fixes - just alternatives which delay the inevitable.
flash
http://elborak.blogspot.com/
JimQ
We'd have a better chance if there was a mass rollout of new nuclear power plants. Not happening with this administration.
Alessandro
We have a huge sun out there that can deliver solar, wind and hydroelectric energy. We should be able to make those three work.
Flyguy
Good thing Big Al, that would be Al Gore, has a pocket nuclear reactor that he is pushing.
No wait. He's just happy to see us. My bad.
Graveltongue
...and if they turned off the taps tomorrow?
No one would argue that fossil fuels have provided us with an extremely efficient and effective way of propelling our civilization 'forward' in giant leaps and bounds, but at what cost still remains to be proven. To consider an overnight switch from what could be described as the foundations on which developed and developing global economies are built, namely the consumption and production of energy, is inconceivable. It proffers a change in direction the likes of which mankind has never faced before. All the current tech is too crude, (excuse the pun) but that will change, needs must. Most of what we see in the popular press is 'sign-o-the-times', knee-jerk reaction hysteria.
Everything is expected to happen so quickly now. There's a problem, fix it. Today. Tomorrow at the latest. Classic economics is failing, try this new one I thought of!
I read the article in The Economist yesterday and posted a comment. This is what we do, us humans. We face a problem and we figure it out. Or we die trying. Some of us stand at the side lines, cheering or mud slinging, while greater men than we are break the code.
I've mentioned the Stair Battery before but for those who need further enlightening;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5353809/Worlds-first-battery-fuelled-by-air.html
How long after the Wright brothers flew was the first piece of luggage lost?
Peace.
ReverseEngineer
Graveltongues pious belief in the ability of humanity in aggregate to figure out solutions notwithstanding, at least at the market level there is no indication we re in any way close to figuring out a replacement energy source for fossil fuels, and that includes the bridging solution of EVs.
Clearly, the fact that the Happy Motoring industry (insofar as what is left of it) is busily putting into production new EVs for J6 to buy should tell you that Peak Oil has ARRIVED. The same folks who own the Oil also own the means of productio for the cars that run on the Oil, an they would not be trying to produce nother tye of vehicle if they in fact thought they could keep cars running on Oil. They want to continue to run the transportation conduit though an make profit from it, so money is being thrown at GM, Toyota et al to build EVs.
There is no demonstration so far that many can afford to buy these vehicles at $30K a pop and more, along with having to rent the batteries to run them. No demonstration that there is sufficient electrical generation and transmission capability to charge up all those cars on a daily basis even assuming J6P could buy one on anything other than Debt Money, which he is alredy oversaturated with. No real plans for overhauling and refurbishing the eletrical power grid, which just under current loads is already stretched tot he limit.
These cars are being designed under the paradigm the New EVs should operate just like the old ICE Autos. Similar driving ranges, similar speeds. But do we really NEED cars that drive 300 miles on a charge (or tank of gas) or which can do 80 MPH? We don't. For the most part, you could cut the top speed of a car to 40 MPH, and in most settings you would get to work in close to the same amount of time if you live 30 miles or less from the workplace. This because most of the time is consumed on local roads with stoplights on them anyhow. Small commuter cars which are little more than Golf Carts run with typical Lead Acid batteries could probably get most people to and fro work and the grocery store for far less money than the machines being designed here now.
How much will it cost per month to run an EV for the sucker who buys one? Well, you have the loan on the $30K vehicle to start, say $600/mo for 5 years to cover interest on the loan. Then another $150/mo to rent the battery. Then assuming pretty cheap electricity off the grid, $50/wk or $200/mo for charging costs. Add another $50/mo for basic liability coverage and average $100/mo for maintenance/repair problems. Total monthly cost to J6P JUST for running his EV? Around $1100/mo, or $13,200/year. HELLO. If you assume J6P makes $40K and pays 25% income taxes, nearly HALF of his income goes to just this machine. $30k-$13.2k leaves him $16.8k to pay for everything else. Say he feeds his family on a cheap $100/wk budget, knock off another $5.2k from that. Down to $11.6k left now. With CRE prices dropping here, say he can find an apartment for $500/mo, $6K per year. Now down to $5.6K. He needs to have Communications, gets a Cell Phone for $50/mo, $.6K, left with $5K. Needs electricity and heat for the apt, $200/mo. Down to $2.6K left. Needs MANDATED Medical Insurance, lets make that a measely $200/mo. He now has after basic expenses a big surplus of $200/year. He certainly cannot have a Cable Bill for TV at $50/mo, so scratch the TV. he certainly cannot buy clothes, he certily cannot go to the movies or out to dinner. So anybody who works in the restaurant or entertainement biz is out of a job because J6P can't afford anything at all besides pure survival. And this is all based on somebody who does fairly well these days making $40K year income! You can be sure, once the Unions are compeltely snuffed here, a $40K income will be DREAM money.
Bottom line, no matter how you cut it, on the energy front or economic front, EVs are not going to solve any problems at all. The economics do not WORK. They will not work even IF you built a zillion Nuke Plants. Then you would have to tax that cost onto J6P to pay for that. He alredy cnnot aford the basics. This monetary scheme just does not WORK mathematically speaking. It will only keep operting so long as the debt load is allowed to go infitinite, but that won't happen. The bond market dislocates first. The system is bound for collapse, it is unsalvageable.
RE
SanDiegoGuy
77¢ per mile? My Bimmer Z4 gets 30 mi/gal. Currently paying $3.05/gal. So it's costing me 10¢ per mile for fuel.
Call me an untutored lout if you must, but I'll continue spewing exhaust fumes, thank you very much.
SanDiegoGuy
This may be somewhat off-topic, but probably worth pondering:
Contrary to popular belief, chattel slavery in the Western hemisphere did not eventually wind down because we "civilized" humans were outraged by its implications. That's #1 USDA Choice bullshit. Rather, it ended as a result of the utilization of fossil fuel and the Industrial Revolution. The costs of owning slaves (food, clothing, housing, etc) became greater, and the net yield of production much lower, than what machines burning fossil fuel could produce. Slavery, indeed, became obsolete.
Accordingly, if the most dire predictions of Peak Oil ever come to pass, expect to see chattel slavery reinstitutionalized faster than you can say "I have a dream".
Skyprince
Oh man....after reading RE's posts I feel like just doing a slow roll into Mt Rainier. "EV's aren't going to solve any problems at all," he says. Bullshit! EV's are far more efficient and they use a fuel we can produce regionally within our country. Our electricity comes from, coal = 55%, natural gas = 9%, oil = 4%, and 32% comes from hydro, nuclear, and renewables. Can you say "energy independence?" And as for the question.....where will we get the electricity, I'd refer you to TLacour's post http://theburningplatform.com/economy/decentralized-energy
Let's start buying and burying thousands of those mini-nuclear plants to augment our deficient grid. Lastly, where I live we pay 8.3 cents/kwh all the time. Even if peak rates existed, I wouldn't charge during the day...I'd charge in "off-peak" times. I'm buying an EV in 2011 (when more are available), and I've done the math. Even accounting for cap cost, with less maintenance, and far less operating cost, it works. And that doesn't factor in the social benefit of using a lot less oil. Don't discount them too quickly. When oil is at $200/bbl, EV's will be looking pretty good!
Flyguy
Skyprince what would happen if you and I combined forces on the TBP?
Would we be Flyprince or Skyguy?
Kill Bill