Automakers tout EVs but also believe that conventional cars will dominate for decades.
Don't be fooled by all the electric-vehicle announcements in recent months: these vehicles won't be taking over the roads by 2050, according to three-quarters of a four-person panel at last weekend's MIT Energy Conference (a panel that included a representative from Ford Motor Company, no less). The fourth person, and sole dissenter, was a representative from Better Place, a company that's helping Israel, and a number of other countries, as well as cities, end its dependence on gasoline by building infrastructure for electric vehicles. He thinks EVs will take over completely by 2050.
There's good reason to believe he's wrong.
The moderator, Daniel Snow, a professor at Harvard who studies the "last gasps" of technologies--how incumbent tech keeps hanging on in the face of seemingly superior challengers--drew on the oft-cited example of microprocessors. For years, researchers have been touting experimental alternatives to silicon-based transistors (nanotube, exotic semiconductors, shape-shifting molecules), but silicon is still the backbone of microelectronics because of heavy investment in research in silicon, economies of scale, and inertia: chip makers know how to work with it, so they keep working with it.
The same will probably be true for internal combustion engines, Snow said. Although electric vehicles have many notable advantages over conventional vehicles--instant torque, zero tailpipe emissions, much better efficiency--cars with internal combustion engines could continue to dominate the streets long into the future. It's hard to beat the energy density of liquid fuels such as diesel and gasoline. And there's no clear limit to how little gasoline a car might consume: you might even one day have a superlight car that gets 10,000 miles to the gallon, Snow speculated. "Old technology can persist because of the learning curve," he said.
The economy could make it even harder for new technologies to get established, said John Casesa, an auto-industry analyst. He thinks that in 50 years' time, electric vehicles will still only make up about 10 percent of the vehicles on the road.
John Viera, the director of Sustainable Business Strategies at Ford Motor Company, agreed with Casesa's assessment. Ford recently announced two electric vehicles, the first of which is due out next year. But like Casesa, he doesn't think that EVs will make a big dent in the number of internal combustion engines out there. Citing depleting oil resources, he does, however, think that by 2050, ethanol from grass, wood chips, and other cellulosic materials will take over for petroleum in fueling internal combustion engines. (Note: Later in the conference, a representative from BP said that we have 140 years of oil left.)
The big reason that Viera thinks that EVs will be a long time coming is cost. He said that battery packs for EVs add $12,000 to $15,000 to the cost of a car, so most people won't buy electric vehicles. Eventually, battery prices will come down, but to get to this point, he thinks that someone needs to come up with a better way of selling electric vehicles. One option, he said, with a nod to Better Place, is to sell the car without including the price of the battery.
In the Better Place model, the company owns the battery, and drivers pay a monthly subscription based on the miles they drive--like paying for minutes on a mobile phone. Sven Thesen, who is in charge of sustainability strategy at Better Place, predicted that light-duty cars can "move completely to electric" in 40 years. And he thinks that biofuels will be used for airplanes.
Why the optimism? It's not just his company's subscription business model. Better Place is starting in Israel for a number of reasons, not least that the government there has decided to get Israel completely off of oil by 2020. To do this, it's established a tax of 72 percent on new gas-powered cars, compared to a 10 percent tax on electric vehicles, Thesen said. With carbon dioxide levels rapidly rising, he thinks that everyone's got to take similarly decisive action: "Burning oil is bad."
But with U.S. automakers failing, and people struggling in general to make ends meet, heavy taxes on gas-powered cars aren't going to be approved in the United States anytime soon. "We don't reelect officials who talk about a gas tax," Casesa said. "I think it's time for some national introspection."
Comments
JenM
03/10/2009
Posts:1
PrometheusGoneWild.Wordpress.com
I have to agree with the fellow who has already commented.
Consumer demand is driving the "regular" auto companies to make electric vehicles. GM was the first because they have nothing to lose. The Japanese dominate with the Camry and Accord. So they are "leapfrogging" to the next technology.
I think these experts gravely underestimate how much people want electric cars that work.
Why? Because we are all tired of the pollution, greenhouse argument and a bunch of idiot oil dictators buying our hard work with something they pump out of the ground. Not to mention the oil funded terrorist.
We may not be able to stop all our money and manufacturing jobs from going the China, but we could keep our energy production here in the states.
I also see home alternative energy taking off due to electric cars. Right now one of the biggest cost of home alternative energy is changing it to 110AC. With a DC hookup in an electric car this could be done away with.
I am not an over optimist. Cost drives everything and I feel the big auto manufactures will be able to make affordable electric cars within 5 years of the Volt coming out.
If they stay in business long enough:)
DennisBuller
03/10/2009
Posts:47
Dave_9876
03/10/2009
Posts:2
I agree with you. Once high energy density ultra capacitors enter the market they will revolutionize the EV, PV, wind, and any other storage dependant technologies. It’s funny how we forget that electric vehicles first hit the market between 1832 and 1839. We also seem to forget the oil crises of the 70’s.
If history does repeat itself (which I think it will) I for one don’t want to be stuck with only one type of fuel for transportation. This kind of thinking can crush the US economy very quickly and can also start wars just as quickly. I am personally willing to pay a premium for energy independence and hope more people see it the same way.
tomlanzilott...
03/11/2009
Posts:5
Better technologies CAN quickly replace older ones, for instance turbines vs. piston engines in comm'l aviation, printing vs. copying by hand, electronic calculators vs. slide rules, long-living CDs vs. fragile vinyl records.
djs
03/11/2009
Posts:24
He mentioned General Motors leading the charge because they have nothing to lose. General Motors dropped the ball. They had the electric car (see http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/#here) and dumped it. Where would we be now if they hadn't squelched the technology?
BillRuesch
03/11/2009
Posts:2
EVs Now
12/02/2009
Posts:3
This sounds very familiar. Much like the mainframe manufacturers' view of desktop computers a few decades ago. If that's Ford's view of the future it's no wonder they are so far behind. They have already decided they can't do it.
asden
03/11/2009
Posts:1
Mechanical technology follows completely different R&D and deployment rules.
And if you WERE going to make the comparison, it would be more like the change from TTL to HCMOS c. 1985 - drop in replacement, and phasing out of the old technology. Some few high performance TTL was made into the 90s, but High speed CMOS outpaced TTL about the time the 135nm parts came in. Now, no one uses TTL.
wizwom
03/11/2009
Posts:8
dancupid
03/11/2009
Posts:1
The main obstacle to the diffusion of EVs are the batteries: too expensive, and poor performance.
Innovation and cost reduction will come (is already coming) from the battery experts: China, Japan and Korea produce today the biggest part of batteries, for any application.
They have the bestr understanding of technology and production and - in the case of China - they are the most cost-competitive.
jamesnach
03/11/2009
Posts:4
India (tata) is also in the process of delivering electric cars.
Norway has just started producing electric cars, and Norway has never had a car industry.
The world does not gravitate around Ford and GM.
Citroen has been making such cars for some time now. I have a coworker who's been driving one for years. At present prises of electricity and oil (in Denmark that is), he pays 50% less per km/mile. Further he saves some other maintainance expenses such as changing oil, oil and air filter.
Better Place is actually building the infrastructure in Denmark for "battery stations" where you change your battery, rather than charge it. The project is in cooperation with DONG, "Danish Oil and Natural Gas" :) who now define themselve as an "Energy company".
In Denmark, the matter with price is somewhat different than in the US, though. "Normal" cars are heavily taxed, and the electric cars are not. So the customers pay the same price for either one.
SvetoslavNik...
03/12/2009
Posts:1
HP 432306-001 Battery
johnsunvalle...
03/11/2009
Posts:5
DJTal
03/11/2009
Posts:145
Sincerely,
Gary R. Grella
Hempstead, NY
Gyrag
03/11/2009
Posts:2
Gary Grella
Hempstead, NY
Gyrag
03/11/2009
Posts:2
In the long run the industrialist approach of building an industry or business of scrubbing the air of CO2 will probably win out over forcing a still developing technology on the population.
aka_mythos
03/11/2009
Posts:6
dc
03/11/2009
Posts:1
DJTal
03/11/2009
Posts:145
The consumers will soon know that:
1-During the last century the world population grew by a factor of 4, the demand of energy by 13 and the CO2 emissions by 17.
2-In the next 20 years the world population will grow by a billion.
3-In the year 2004 the USA consumed 1,635 liters of gasoline per capita and China 44.
Juan T
03/11/2009
Posts:1
1. World oil prices are in a temporary trough. The BP representative's comment about there being 140 more years of oil left made me chuckle, since that point has very little to do with EV or other propulsion technology adoption. Let's be optimistic and say there is 500 years of the black stuff left in the earth. The relevant question is, "How easy is it to tap the remaining deposits?" What is the energy payback ratio of accessing those deposits? Also, past a point, it takes more energy to extract oil than the oil itself provides (e.g., Canadian tar sands have a very low ratio, though it's still north of one). Just look at the public filings of the oil majors; what's happening to their reserves? But wait! Advances in technology will save the day! So say the integrated oil companies, since that has always been the case. Pray tell, what magic or alchemy will permit oil to be inexpensively extracted from, say, the Tupi field off of the coast of Brazil? The oil sits more than a mile under the ocean's floor, 150 miles offshore in deep water. I read that UBS projects a capital expenditure requirement of $600 billion over two decades to fully exploit the field. Bottom line: the field is expected to turn a profit if world oil prices are $70 per barrel or more. Gone are the days when oil majors could simply stick a straw in sand and have oil come gushing out.
2. Oil prices are denominated in U.S. dollars, and the current U.S. monetary policy is highly, highly inflationary. Commodities like oil track inflation. So what happens to oil prices once the USD$2+ trillion of announced economic stimuli kick in around the world sometime in 2010?
3. Once oil shoots past the previous high, the investments and learning curve argument in favor of incumbent propulsion technologies goes away. It's amazing how motivated financial sponsors, entrepreneurs and auto industry incumbents become when a potential competitive advantage based on cost arises.
4. The $12k - $15k of EV's extra cost argument also goes away. Let's say the average American drives 15k miles per year for the life of his car, 5 years. That's 75k miles. At $2 per gallon of unleaded and average mpg of 25, the lifetime fuel cost is $6,000. This is the status quo, which is exceptionally favorable given the economic (i.e., oil price) conditions. At $4 per gallon, the lifetime cost doubles to $12,000. And so on and so forth. Depending on where the price of gasoline stabilizes over the next five years (if at all), the upfront incremental cost of EV + vehicle lifetime electricity costs may be competitive with internal combustion technologies. My two cents' worth is that we will fondly remember the good ole days of $4 gasoline when we pull up to stations.
5. All of the above assumes that the incremental cost of EV technology remains static in the future (i.e., $12 - $15k does not come down once in mass production).
peterjanda
03/11/2009
Posts:2
TimG
03/11/2009
Posts:11
Currently in an accident, we'd be replaceing gasoline with spewing concentrated sulphuric acid. If that isn't enuf, it is laced with the very toxic lead that we banned as a fuel additive.
Lithium batteries are a bit better. Just that they explode. Doesn't take a car sized battery to spontaneously catch fire or explode, just talk to Apple or Sony Li-ion notebook computer battery users.
That would seem to mean that a car battery would be a that-much bigger proportionally fire / explosion.
That said, for realism, electric cars are NOT a panacea. However electric DRIVE is! I mean having the drive train electric, regardless of the power source (small engine, fuel cell, battery).
The batteries are horribly expensive, toxic, heavy, and don't last long. But having electric motors at the wheels instead of a drive shaft is much better idea. And if you've seen the 'future car' series you'd have seen the 'skateboard' car - where simply having electric drive simplifies the car layout so much that all the drive and power systems are on a flat panel onto which you can bold bodies to suit your needs. (probably would be a couple size base skateboard wheel lengths).
Imagine having a bolt on commute-a-car economy version. then on Friday you fill up with groceries and other stuff so you swap out a SUV type back. Then on Saturday you do gardening so you bolt on the pickup bed and sunday you go camping so you bolt on a van body.
(woops got distracted)
My Lions for my sony camcorder are a total disaster. I get the humongo size. Due to massive shooting rampages we do, 1100 to 1600 pix a day, we need about 3 of these. But I have a stash now of 5 and regularly replace them as they flake out and go bad. Or say 'fully charged' but die after 30 minutes.
Imagine being in a li-ion battery powered car, seeing 'fully charged' then getting to your destination, without a charger and seeing your battery indicator change to zero. That's about what happens on my camera.
So in my feeling the answer is use electric drive trains for the energy conversion portion, with other sources of power instead of batteries. they are about twice as efficient as internal combustion engines.
erbium
03/26/2009
Posts:136
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41686/181/
Cambridge (MA) - MIT engineers have developed a type of high-speed tunnel for transporting electrical energy through lithium iron phosphate, a well-known battery material. The discovery may yield lithium ion batteries that fully discharge and recharge in seconds, rather than hours, making batteries lighter, more powerful, and finally suitable for the all-electric vehicle that can be recharged in the same amount of time it takes to refuel the tank today
h82bl84u
03/11/2009
Posts:3
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22280/
h82bl84u
03/11/2009
Posts:3
"This battery is good for acceleration, but not as much for long range, he says. "A real breakthrough . . . would be a new positive electrode material with quantum-leap performance specs" in energy storage, Dahn says."
h82bl84u
03/11/2009
Posts:3
We are not living in a world of vacuum tubes, punched cards, core memory, floppy disks, luggable computers, or CRT monitors; MOST technologies, though long-lived, are replaced. (The wheel, I admit, looks like it may stick around.)
The auto industry is becoming an electronics industry, perhaps that is what Toyota understands but Ford does not. Where there is a technology market, there will be innovation.
waveboy
03/12/2009
Posts:1
I totally agree. The low material cost of lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) makes it a prime candidate for use in EV batteries. The demand necessary to drive LiFePO4 and other candidate battery chemistries down the learning curve will likely come from Europe where gas prices are 2.5 to 3 time those in the US. The arithmetic is simple.
One kWh, with a cost of 10¢ or so, displaces about 1/6 of a gallon of fuel, which costs about 30¢ in the US and 85¢ in Europe. With any sort of volume production, battery costs should be well under $1,000 per kWh for a battery with a deep-discharge cycle life of 2,000, claimed by Valence, or 4,000, claimed by A123.
So, in Europe, 2,000 cycles at 1 kWh per cycle would save you $1,500 in energy costs over the life of the battery. The economics are more compelling for stop-and-go delivery vans where ICEs are least efficient.
NorthernPike...
03/16/2009
Posts:13
==>> Cheap used cars
Davidjames81
03/13/2009
Posts:6
Cheap used c...
11/07/2009
Posts:1
The comments from people in oil and auto industries are pure bunk and the American people are tired of it. Just get out of the way and watch the world change for the better.
TooMany
03/21/2009
Posts:58
freude09
08/03/2009
Posts:2
eletrochave
01/08/2010
Posts:1