171. ELECTRIC CARS, PART 1
Grid-powered electric cars are one of the most obvious, but most neglected, solutions to the oil problem. The main argument against them is their slow top speed (a little over 100 km/h), and their limited range (a little under 200 km per recharge). While this is probably an issue if you live on an autobahn or in the Sahara Desert, for the vast majority of commuters it's more than sufficient.
Plug-in cars are very attractive for a few reasons:
- Their oil dependence is zero.
- We know we have plenty of electricity to power them with. According to this article, "there is more than enough off-peak electricity available to allow the transfer of all of our driving miles from gasoline- to electric-powered vehicles.”
- Even using coal-fired electricity, they produce less emissions per kilometre driven than an internal combustion engine. Why liquefy coal into oil when you can just burn it as it is?
- They're silent and (usually) quite small.
- They cost only a dollar or two to recharge, which is about a quarter the price of driving even the Prius over the same distance.
- They're very cheap, especially compared with hydrogen.
- They are available now, with today's technology.
About 5 years ago, Toyota and GM figured this out and produced cars on limited-lease test-runs. Both the cars could go fast enough to drive on a highway and had a long enough range for an extended commute. They looked and performed like normal cars, and the customers loved them.
There was the sporty-looking GM EV1:
And the Toyota RAV4 EV SUV:
GM distributed 465 EV1 cars on a 3-year lease. But when the lease was up and GM ditched the project, they crushed the cars, shredded them and disposed of the remains – allegedly, because of pressure from part manufacturers and the oil industry to erase all evidence that plug-in cars were viable Link). The former EV1 owners are still protesting about this; you can see their website here. The few remaining EVs which GM didn't manage to destroy are now lovingly protected by enthusiasts.
Ford ditched its compact Th!nk EV and disposed of it in a similarly suspicious fashion. The Honda EV is no longer available either. Toyota axed the RAV4 trial project, but unlike other manufacturers it didn't destroy the cars. It sold 328 of them on the open market in California, where they are still driving around today (Link). You can see "The Campaign to Save Electric Cars" here.
---
Meanwhile, a company called the Solar Shop in Adelaide, Australia wants to sell a tiny electric car from India named the Reva. But red tape is in the way as usual:
But for over a year now, the Reva had been stranded in a customs warehouse in Melbourne. Despite soaring fuel prices, the Federal Government will not allow it on our roads because it doesn't have a classification for the vehicle.
"In Europe where it's been classified it's called a Quadracycle, whereas in Australia we don't have a Quadracycle category which is why it's been sitting customs for the last 18 months," he said.
"If the Government gave us approval, we'd start selling it today. We're ready to go," Adrian said.Source
-- by Roland
posted by JD @ 3:07 AM
33 comments
33 Comments:
Well here’s the stupidity of the situation, we could in fact have electric cars tomorrow – electric motors are far more efficient than ICEs. Their range is the limiting factor, but 90% of journeys can be done with them, the remaining journeys could be done by train for example. Long distance freight could virtually all go by train and electric vans/biodiesel trucks could do the short/medium distance stuff.
Whereas I think cities should be built around not having to use cars – because they aren’t that efficient in those areas - I except cars are a useful product, their charge could even be done using a small wind turbine supplied with the vehicles.
In short we have the solutions; it’s just the vested interests and dogma that gets in the way.
*accept
Sub-note: BTW I disagree even electric cars are completely oil dependent though because of roads/tyres, one thing to consider.
Be careful of falling into a trap there, Wildwell, of thinking all oil is petroleum
Human bodies are also completly dependant on oil (ask any teenager about the oil lubricating human skin, for instance). Still human bodies, roads, and tires all existed before we began pumping crude from the ground, and will likely continue afterward.
When I was first crawling out of my doomer depression, I decided to investigate plastics made from non-petroleum oil. They exist, just not as cheaply as oil-based plastics.
Also, we should be able to pump crude for centuries after we stop using it as an energy source. There's no need to use 84 Million bpd on tire manufacturing and the like, even if we keep using petroleum to make them.
The prospects for EVs are much better than most people think. Portable technology (cell phones and laptops) has increased battery efficiency dramatically and there's nothing technical keeping us from using them in EVs or plug-in hybrid (perhaps a transition solution).
Take a look at this article by Alec N Brooks: (google: anb zev - first one from the top).
Let's not kid ourselves into believing that Amanda P. Suburbia (thank you, JD, for that wonderful name :-) ) will get rid of her Ford Explorer and jump into a cramped EV right away. But she might change her mind when her gas bill reaches 1$/mile...
EVs will rule the future!
Thomas
Once gas is expensive enough, big cars will cease being a status symbol. That's the big problem today. They are libido replacements for males and security cocoons for soccer moms. If we just had the political will to impose a gasoline tax now, peg gas at $3 per gallon and let everybody know it was going up 25 cents per year for the next decade, some the changes could start now.
EV's are a perfectly functional replacement. In 50 years the entire car fleet will be EV powered by home solar. There will be plenty of oil left over for the things you really need it for.
I would buy one of those things RIGHT NOW if I could
The problem with a gas tax is that the money will just get spent on bigger roads, which in the long run leads to more traffic
Exactly how cheap are electrics compared to hydro's?
I dunno, but the first company to make a mint will be the one that supplies a decent range, rapid charge electric car with it's own wind turbine/cheap solar panels.
There's no reason a sensible transport /urban planning policy couldn't solve peak oil.
EV is good but what about the useful life and costs of batteries? And the environmental impacts of them? Also are there resource limitations on replacing the ICE fleet with an army of batteries that might not be recycled? I'm not putting EV down, I just don't know the answers to my questions. Someone in the know please help :-)
After I obtained my Prius I looked at the idea of plug-in hybrid. There is a web site talking about it. After some number crunching my conclusion is this is currently not a feasible solution.
The problem, is that the energy density of batteries are TOO LOW and the cost is too high. To store 1 kwh worth of electricity energy, you need battery packages that's worth more than $1000. And it gives you about 5 miles of electrical driving.
The batteries has one opportunity to charge per day, assuming you charge them at home over night. Assuming you install enough battery to allow you to drive 55 miles per day, at 55 mpg for Prius you save one gallon of gasoline per day. The battery cost is $11000. And the battery lifetime is 10 years.
Over 10 years, you save a total of 3650 gallons of gasoline, on a cost of $11000 to buy the battery packs, and a cost of 40150 kwh of electricity. Assuming the cost of electricity price will average 20 cents per kwh for the next 10 years, which is conservative, the electricity cost is $8030. Plus the cost of batteries, the total cost is $19030, and the saving is 3650 gallon of gasoline. So you are paying more than $5 per gallon for the gasoline savings.
I neglect to meantion that battery packages that holds 11 kwh electricity will weigh more than 500 kg, significantly reduce the car's gas mileages. Manufacturing that much batteries will cost energy that is more than 10 times its weight in gasoline equivalent, in mining the materials and manufactoring and installing batteries. So at the end of day, energy wise, the battery powered electric cars does not save energy after all.
Quantoken
Oh for pete fucking sake wildwell. Are POers this retarded that they think ANY oil usage equals over usage? What fucking retard. It doesn't take a fucking genius to know that electric cars, while still needing oil to make their tires and such is still WAAAAY less wasteful of oil than actually running the car on it.
You're a fucking idiot. Go back to the doomer board.
Hello anonymous, thank you for your polite reply.
Next time read what people write, nobody argued any different.
PS I’ve never been a doomer
PPS Talk to me like that in real life and I’ll put you through the nearer wall sunshine
I'm 90% sure he was responding to Chri s I, not you Wildwell, I think he just read the names wrong :P
quantoken: One gallon a day is big. That's more or less how much gas my family uses.
Roland is right that EVs will be necessary to some degree, and we certainly need to hash out the subject. Another point in favor of EVs is that they are apparently more efficient than liquefying coal for ICEs (I would love to see the detailed calculation on that Roland!)
The main issue I see is the calculation about off-peak electricity. The referenced calculation refers to California, and I haven't looked closely at their power generation profile, but I suspect that CA is like most places -- providing base power with hydro, coal and nuclear, and peak power with NG. Essentially, what we are talking about is doubling the natural gas consumption of California, by running the peak NG stations to recharge cars at night.
Where is that NG going to come from? You might switch to coal or nuclear, but how will that sit with California residents? It is critical to determine where the electric power for vehicle charging is going to come from before promoting a large-scale shift to EVs.
Quantoken:
"To store 1 kwh worth of electricity energy, you need battery packages that's worth more than $1000"
Cost of Li-Ion battery pack:
$412/kWh (one car)
$257/kWh (high volume)
(Source)
"...battery packages that holds 11 kwh electricity will weigh more than 500 kg"
Weight of Li-Ion batteries:
173 kg/kWh
11 kWh -> 64 kg (140 lbs)
(Same source)
According to the source, these are real life figures from actually purchasing a Li-Ion battery pack.
I think these figures improves the feasibility of plug-in-hybrids or EVs.
Cheers,
Thomas
IMHO the only way EVs can be adopted is if people generate their own power. Other than that plans should be made to reduce the road of cars (city planning etc).
"The main issue I see is the calculation about off-peak electricity. The referenced calculation refers to California, and I haven't looked closely at their power generation profile, but I suspect that CA is like most places -- providing base power with hydro, coal and nuclear, and peak power with NG. Essentially, what we are talking about is doubling the natural gas consumption of California, by running the peak NG stations to recharge cars at night."
Actually, I think it's worse than that. We don't have a lot of coal in California so if I remember correctly, our electricity generation is about 50% NG. The governator is trying to work out electricity buying deals with states just to the east of us with lots of coal. On the other hand, California has lots of potential for solar. Also, within a few hundred miles of San Francisco, we have Hetch Hetchy (hydro) and The Geysers (geothermal).
Are you softening your anti-car stance, JD? Lately I've been thinking that exceptions could be made for people who live in the country (including farmers), the disabled, people with little children, and auto enthusiasts with loads of money (just kidding). Even in this vision, the car should be a transport of last resort. Nonetheless, I can envision some scenarios in which it's unrealistic to expect people to abandon their cars.
"...battery packages that holds 11 kwh electricity will weigh more than 500 kg"
Weight of Li-Ion batteries:
173 kg/kWh
11 kWh -> 64 kg (140 lbs)
Hmmmm… if 173kg/kWh, then 11kWh should be 173kg x 11 = 1903kg… not 64kg.
Roland wrote,
I think that banning cars is not a good idea. What we need to do is go down the European route where owning a car is often simply not worth the trouble. At some point taxes are high enough, streets are narrow enough, work is close enough, public transport cheap enough, bicycles cool enough and oil expensive enough that people just don't bother. Look at the netherlands.
I agree and I should be more clear -- I don't advocate banning cars. I advocate creating better alternatives (like the ones you mentioned) so that people voluntarily abandon their cars.
Thomas:
You quoted those values correctly from your source. However I question the accuracy of your source itself. I have a different source from the CalCars Initiative. They have looked and compared different Litium Ion Batteries in the market so their data is much more credible:
http://www.calcars.org/PriusPlusBatteries050418rdg.pdf
Pick a few of the first ones you see the weight is about 80 lb to 100 lb per kwh. That's way much larger than your 1kg/173 w*hr figure.
The second to the right column is the more representative figure, battery cost per mile driven. The best figures are 10 cents or above. If the gas is $3 per gallon, I drive my un-modified prius at 60 mpg, which is 5 cents per mile gasoline cost. If the battery costs me 10 cents per mile, and on top of that electricity costs me 3 cents per mile, that's 13 cents versus my 5 cents gasoline. So you are talking about a cost equivalent to $8 per gallon gasoline.
Quantoken
Are you softening your anti-car stance, JD? Lately I've been thinking that exceptions could be made for people who live in the country
No, I'm not softening my stance. I think we all know where the exceptions path is going to lead: right back to where we are right now.
On the other hand, I'm realistic enough to realize that the car is going to move forward, no matter how hard Don Quixote's like myself argue against it. I realize that many optimists (like Amory Lovins and Roland) are interested in electric cars and I'd rather throw my lot in with them than with the luddite wing. I don't want POD to be a hair-shirt site where we ignore the reality of cars. I want to hear the whole diversity of optimistic voices.
I personally don't buy into it though. I hate the fucking car, and won't give a goddam inch! ;-)
JD
Just to make my own views clear, I don’t hate cars myself and they do have a part to play, however what we must get away from is ‘The Car is king’. It isn’t, for a number of reasons I’ve tried to point out. No transport, including the bicycle, is king - it all does different things.
We should be looking at ways to reduce the NEED to drive rather creating more ways to drive, which is in essence is how we got in the mess – Bad transport policy and poor planning.
Cities, in general, don't need cars, but I accept in rural areas they are useful. Banning cars would be inappropriate for that reason, but reducing the need for cars is wholly sensible and I will continue to push this stance - likewise with heavy trucks.
Anonymous wrote:
"...battery packages that holds 11 kwh electricity will weigh more than 500 kg"
Weight of Li-Ion batteries:
173 kg/kWh
11 kWh -> 64 kg (140 lbs)
Hmmmm… if 173kg/kWh, then 11kWh should be 173kg x 11 = 1903kg… not 64kg.
Thank you, anonymous, for pointing out my error!
It should read:
0.173 kWh/kg -> 11 kWh = 64 kg (140 lbs)
/Thomas
Quantoken:
Let's not argue about which source is more accurate. However, if Alice says she bought item X for $100 and Bob argues the best price is $200, I'd say Bob doesn't have the best price... ;-)
Anyway, my perspective was never the cost of hacking your Prius, rather what could be achieved by the R&D and purchasing power of Toyota in their efforts to produce a plug-in hybrid. I'm sure they'd be able to engineer a more suitable battery at a much better price.
I envision a future (after PO) where renewable energy is rolled out at the same pace (preferably faster) as plug-in hybrids. They constitute a perfect symbiosis since plug-in hybrids would be excellent storage for renewable electricity.
Congratulations on owning a Prius :-)
Thomas
" EV is good but what about the useful life and costs of batteries? And the environmental impacts of them?"
The lifecycle of an EV compatible battery, production - use - decommsion, is arguably more toxic than current hydrocarbon based transportation. The chemicals required to create a battery, along with the concentration of heavy metals will prove to be an unmitigated environmental disaster should the techno-fix of EV over infernal combustion be achieved...
"There is nothing standing in the way of these things except the vested interest of the oil/auto-parts lobby. The technology has been there for over a decade and as oil prices go up they are looking more and more attractive."
It is a conspiracy absolutely! The oil/auto-parts lobby has a say in this. These electric cars don't need gas or anything and that is why they don't smell--they don't have to fill up with gas. So you don't need air-fresheners to hang from the rear-view. No air-fresheners, no auto parts stores, no convenience stores etc.
To those claiming that plug-in electric car is not feasible because of the weight of the batteries (in particular, wildwell), have you looked at the specifications of the REVA, sold as the G-Wiz in the UK?
http://www.revaindia.com/
http://www.goingreen.co.uk/
The vehicle sells for about £8,000 in the UK, and is cheap to run. It has boring old lead acid batteries.
There's a contented customer who blogs about his G-Wiz:
http://www.dannyscontentment.net/
And then there's the RAV4-EV, of course. It was withdrawn from the market, but its existence proves that full-sized electric cars are possible.
"The referenced calculation refers to California, and I haven't looked closely at their power generation profile, but I suspect that CA is like most places -- providing base power with hydro, coal and nuclear, and peak power with NG."
It's funny that you should bring California up again, JD, after the query you posted in another thread about why so many Doomers seem to come from the state. I don't think the cautious optimism/doomer personality dichotomy is better illustrated in any part of this country; after living around it for 23 years, it almost comes off like a slideshow for economic conflict.
On the one hand, you have a progressive mindset doing battle with conservative greed economics in the northern part of the state. San Francisco is far from the green utopia that many people claim it to be, but at least they're making a concerted EFFORT to get their heads out of their asses. Solar and wind power have been a keystone of local politics since well before the PO push for public attention, and despite a number of drawbacks, they're at least TRYING to put forth a more "euro" mindset when it comes to addressing the massive problems facing down the states over the next few decades.
But frankly, the southern half of the state is fucked. There's no better environment for a doomer to blossom his prophet chatter in, as cities like Los Angeles fit the role of Armageddon backdrops beautifully. The avarice of the gas-guzzler was practically born there, and if it meant that 40 million tons of coal had to be burned a day to keep the delusional middle-class chuggling along for their eighty-mile commutes, they'd force it through state legislation in a heartbeat.
All in all, its an excellent case study for the American socioconomic consciousness. One part of the population would pull for EVs as a bedrock solution for centralized commutes and travel (They're tremendously popular here in Bellingham, for commercial work that can't be easily done by rickshaw), while the other part of the population would willingly ride that atom bomb into total chaos a'la Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove if it meant that they could cling to their pathetic standard of life for just a few more years.
If there's a god, he lives in the internal combustion engine. The ICE is one of mankind's greatest achievements, although left wing barbarians don't have the brains to appreciate it. Cars are absolutely fantastic. Even some of you barbarians can appreciate them in your clearer moments.
Yes, rich car enthusiasts should be allowed to drive whatever they can afford. Ever hear of free markets and capitalism? Socialism is pure unadulterated evil and must be stamped out without mercy. Death is the only cure for socialism. We will prevail. We have lots of guns, another of mankind's greatest inventions that libs seem unable to appreciate.
That global warming stunt is pretty impressive. Some of you have convinced a lot of people to believe your bullshit. Many of you guys have actually bought into it.
Believe me, you liberals, I am your worst nightmare. Evil such as yours will not prevail.
Liberals are so backward and ignorant that they don't understand that they are barbarians.
Heh Liberal,
Sounds to me like you are a fucking communist.
So you want to shackle everybody to big oil which is backed and sponsored by big government?
That hardly sounds to me like something a freedom lover would say.
How about this: solar Pv & micro wind powered with an electric car that needs no maintenance from the big 3 and no bills to big oil, big gas or king coal?
We all know who the real communist is here and it ain't us dubya.
DB
Liberal crusher threatens people with guns and then calls others evil? Take a look in the mirror pal.
The electric car revolution is returning. It is in small steps but as oil prices continue to rise in the next few years, even liberal crusher will be driving a car with an electric motor eventually.
Post a Comment
<< Home