Can electric cars replace gasoline cars?

[DSeid]

Why exactly do you think that there should or will be any one “the answer”. To me it seems obvious that the answer is to avoid any single answer. Diversification reduces risks.

Will hydrogen fuel cells be any part of the answer, for transportation directly, for home combined heat and power, for storage of renewable generation, or for any part of the equation? Maybe. But in reality fuel cell vehicles are EVs, just with hydrogen generating the electricity on board. Not quite sure why it seems so attractive to use … something … to generate electricity to generate hydrogen and then use the hydrogen to generate electricity to then create motive power. But maybe someday it will make sense to do it. But not now and not likely in the next five to ten years.

[XT]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Why exactly do you think that there should or will be any one “the answer”. To me it seems obvious that the answer is to avoid any single answer. Diversification reduces risks.
[/QUOTE]

Because unless there is a fine balance between competing transport paradigms, manufacturers will most likely shift to the one that the majority of the people want, leaving the other to either die off or simply stay or become a niche market with a few people wanting the alternative. Think VCR vs BetaMax. Why not have both? Well, because manufacturers eventually shifted to the standard and format that the majority of consumers seemed to favor.

It will be the same thing here, most likely. Consider just the repair side. If we have vehicles that use, say hydrogen fuel cells, hybrids using some type of ICE/battery combination, and all electric vehicles using a high capacity battery of some kind, then there are going to have to be folks who can fix all of those things…and who maintain the tools, diagnostics and trained folks to fix them. It would be difficult to have all the tools, diagnostics and trained personnel for ALL of the different types that will be fighting to replace our current hydrocarbon based personal transport systems, so businesses would need to focus on what they think is their own niche. If things are finely balanced then that might work out, with, say (just using the 3 above as an example) a third servicing hydrogen fuel cells, a third specializing in hybrid technology vehicles, and a third specializing in all electric battery vehicles. And this is over simplifying, since different companies are going to have different competing standards for each type, which will further break things down.

In the end, one of those types is going to out compete the others…and when that starts to happen, more repair people will shift to servicing what they perceive as the greatest number of potential customers. Eventually it will drive out most of the other competing manufacturers, who will switch to their own version of the de facto standard.

Just think about the various competing technologies when this happened before. You had hydrocarbon burning ICE vehicles of different types. Steam powered vehicles. Even battery and electric. There were several different competing fuels for the hydrocarbon burners. Within a few decades most of the competing technologies were either niche oriented or dead…as were most of the competing alternative fuels.

And repair is just one aspect. There are all sorts of others, all of which will factor in…and all of which will make it nearly impossible for there to be a real, long lasting balance between competing paradigms. In the end, there can be only one! (That’s not necessarily true, but I always love to toss that quote in)

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

@DSeid

Why exactly do you think that there should or will be any one “the answer”. To me it seems obvious that the answer is to avoid any single answer. Diversification reduces risks.

Will hydrogen fuel cells be any part of the answer, for transportation directly, for home combined heat and power, for storage of renewable generation, or for any part of the equation? Maybe. But in reality fuel cell vehicles are EVs, just with hydrogen generating the electricity on board. Not quite sure why it seems so attractive to use … something … to generate electricity to generate hydrogen and then use the hydrogen to generate electricity to then create motive power. But maybe someday it will make sense to do it. But not now and not likely in the next five to ten years.

Because why make two separate infrastructure choices? One for battery cars and one for hydrogen cars? I suppose you could do both at the same time but why would you want to?

As I said a battery run plane (as an example) is absurd on the face of it. The power required to go any great distance would require a huge number of batteries which are heavy and take up lots of space. I’d be surprised if you could get a 747 off the ground much less go anywhere on batteries alone.

Likewise with ships and locomotives and long haul trucks.

Hydrogen can replace gasoline in a way batteries cannot.

If someone invents a light battery with a substantial power capacity fine. Till then I am not sure they are the long term answer.

[Saint_Cad]

I believe I have won the debate.

This is the car of the future. Water is everywhere and you can split it to make hydroxy gas where the hydrogen is ortho- state not that pussy ass normal para- state. So the car makes its own fuel out of water. Nasa (as opposed to the buttclown acadamy called NASA) does this shit with rockets.

The site explains to any of you that are still ICE infidels that G-d wants us to drive water-powered cars and the same US government that did the controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11 does not want you to drive this car.

I think the real beauty is that the catalyst is stainless steel. That right, melt your old forks and spoons and you won’t be a victim of big media anymore!

Tesla created the Tunguska Blastbitches!!!

[DSeid]

xtisme, I clearly remember this being used as part of the prediction for the death of Apple, just as I bought their stock in 2003: there is no room for two operating systems. And of course Detroit auto did work by that approach - these are the cars that people will by and there is no market for small one. Sorry but the analogy does not hold. Betamax died for several reasons but not for why you think. It died mainly because Sony would not license it to other manufacturers so the market was swamped with competing products so sold more, and because content makers had strong incentive to avoid having to distribute in two formats. Slight edge to one in popularity led to edge in content led to one winning. Not at all the sort of circumstance in the transportation sector. There is room for gasoline and for diesel and for electricity. Not sure if there is room for hydrogen. I doubt it. The “hydrogen economy” is like what some say about fusion power: it’s a decade or so away and it always will be.

As for the repair side … that is a problem for EVs - they will put many repair shops out of work because they generally don’t need any. Relatively few moving parts and much less friction. But you really think that repair shops that can handle ICEs won’t be able to hook up the diagnostic sensor to an EV’s port and replace something? And are you really ignorant of the fact that a fuel cell vehicle is an EV with the only difference being that its electricity is made on-board via the fuel cell rather than stored in a battery? The repairs,such as they may at some point be, would be the same.

WAM, I agree that building out a hydrogen infrastructure would be ridiculous. We have an electrical one already in place. Attaching a few level 2 and maybe even level 3 charge points to that extant infrastructure would be nice but not essential right now and in any case is a relatively small item compared to building a complete new one for hydrogen, for cars that do not cost-effectively exist (despite many many many dollars spent on R&D), for a source that is intrinsically inefficient since it required converting the electricity into hydrogen and back again, instead of just using it in the first place.

The argument that electric vehicles don’t make sense because electric airplanes don’t is just nonsensical. Actually EVs make sense precisely because electric airplanes don’t. There are some things that we currently need to use oil based products for. We’ve got to stretch the supply out so it can last for those niches without getting so high that those industries cannot survive or have economy hobbling trickle effects. Yes, I have great hopes for products like Amyris’s “No Compromise” renewable based drop-in fuels both for the jet fuel and the diesel market (and have backed that hope up with investment in the stock) but until then spare the supply however we can. Fuel cell commercial airplanes?! Uh … no. This is the best so far, and note both that they needed to use batteries to get it off the ground, and that: “Boeing does not envision that fuel cells will ever provide primary power for large passenger airplanes”. Be real.

[DSeid]

Oh, I did say that I did think there might be a place for hydrogen in the mix and I do. Fuel cell based combined heat and power may end up making some sense, coupled with EVs charging off of it overnight. Also using storing excess electricity created off peak by intermittent renewables as hydrogen and then firing (and as needed co-firing it with natural gas) to deal with peak demands not met by the renewable may make sense and may be competitive with pumped hydro, compressed air, and utility scale battery storage.

But for the light duty fleet? No.

[Magiver]

@DSeid

But fine. Having established that the current model for a mass market EV, the Nissan Leaf, is competitive with cars similarly sized, appointed, and powered, in total out of pocket to the consumer cost over the usual five years of new car ownership, (and therefore a very attractive option to any family buying a new car whose need for that vehicle, often just one of two or three in a household, is met with a reliable 70 mile range, especially to anyone who wants to hedge against gas price spikes over the next five years) let’s move on to discuss why establishing an EV industry is in our society’s best interest and how to best invest in accomplishing that goal.

The leaf is in no way competitive with other cars as a family car. It cannot be relied upon 24/7 or travel any real distance in a day.

@DSeid

So then the question becomes how to get there. Do you support research exclusively or develop the market demand to achieve the economies of scale and to encourage the investment exclusively, or both in some balance? The governments of the world have all decided on both with the United States being the most research support focused I think. Yes, lots of money is being spent on basic battery research and there are great hopes for metal air batteries that will smash that $250/kWh barrier. That is not an either or choice.

The current state of batteries suck. They suck because their density is too low and the price is too high. There is nothing innovative about applying overpriced technology to create an inferior product. Every other aspect of the car is ready to go now and will serve a useful purpose in the future. The question of how to get there is to invent a battery that works.

[XT]

[QUOTE=DSeid]
xtisme, I clearly remember this being used as part of the prediction for the death of Apple, just as I bought their stock in 2003: there is no room for two operating systems. And of course Detroit auto did work by that approach - these are the cars that people will by and there is no market for small one. Sorry but the analogy does not hold. Betamax died for several reasons but not for why you think. It died mainly because Sony would not license it to other manufacturers so the market was swamped with competing products so sold more, and because content makers had strong incentive to avoid having to distribute in two formats. Slight edge to one in popularity led to edge in content led to one winning. Not at all the sort of circumstance in the transportation sector. There is room for gasoline and for diesel and for electricity. Not sure if there is room for hydrogen. I doubt it. The “hydrogen economy” is like what some say about fusion power: it’s a decade or so away and it always will be.
[/QUOTE]

Betamax died because there weren’t enough people willing to adopt it…and because the early format, while better in quality, allowed for less programming per tape (they fixed this later, but by then it was too late).

Apple has done well because they have diversified into other markets. If you take only the sales of Apple OS products, they are a relatively minor player. But since they have created the slate market with their iPad, pretty much dominate the handheld music device market with the iPod product line, and have been very strong in the cell phone market, they have thrived. I don’t think they are a good example as counter to what I was saying there.

But even if they are, just because it worked for Apple doesn’t mean it will work out that way in the personal transport market. As I said…it MIGHT play out that way, or it might play out the way I was talking about. That’s the way it played out when we switched from horses and horse and buggy transport to motorized vehicles the first time around. Again, this doesn’t mean it HAS to work out that way again, but the thing is that a car, regardless of what powers it, is a much larger capital purchase than a hand held music player, a cell phone or even a computer…and the skills to fix it and the tools to fix it are going to be more expensive as well. I’d say that, to my mind the odds are much higher that in the end a single technology will replace the current petroleum powered ICE…or possibly a few related technologies (perhaps we’ll have fuel cells and hybrids using fuel cells and batteries, for instance, with a few niche all battery vehicles. Or maybe the reverse of that…if I knew I’d be rich beyond even my dreams in 20 or 30 years ;)).

-XT

[davidm]

@Saint_Cad

I believe I have won the debate.

This is the car of the future. Water is everywhere and you can split it to make hydroxy gas where the hydrogen is ortho- state not that pussy ass normal para- state. So the car makes its own fuel out of water. Nasa (as opposed to the buttclown acadamy called NASA) does this shit with rockets.

The site explains to any of you that are still ICE infidels that G-d wants us to drive water-powered cars and the same US government that did the controlled demolition of the WTC on 9/11 does not want you to drive this car.

I think the real beauty is that the catalyst is stainless steel. That right, melt your old forks and spoons and you won’t be a victim of big media anymore!

Tesla created the Tunguska Blastbitches!!!

I assume that you’re joking, but I feel that I should point out the problems with the idea for anyone who hasn’t realized that.

From skimming that site it looks like it uses a battery to split the water. It would be more efficient just run the car directly on electricity from the battery. It has to take more energy to split the water than you would recover when you burn the hydrogen. This sounds like it would have all the drawbacks of a BEV plus it would be less efficient and you would have to fill the water tank regularly.

[DSeid]

Magiver, sigh, you just go ahead and keep repeating that. But also read my past posts and address the points:

Most new car purchases in the next five years will be to families that have one or two other cars in the household and realistically do not need both, or all three, vehicles to be able to drive over 70 miles on any given day. The other car in the household being able to do that is enough. In truth, for many of them, more than enough. For them, in this vehicle purchase, the “real distances” they need, 24/7, are met by the Leaf or vehicles like it (presumably the Ford Focus EV will be priced comparably).

Total cost of ownership (out of pocket purchase price plus running costs) over the five years that most people own their cars is the same or less for someone commuting 12K a year in a Leaf than in a comparably powered and appointed other vehicle at current gas prices.

So 66% of new car purchases are to those who already have another car in their driveways and whose actual needs can be met with the new car being an EV. And who have a place to plug in a car overnight. Hell, call it only 50%. Now imagine that by late 2012 or into 2013 gas has crept up closer to $5/gallon and has stayed there for a while. 66% of all new car purchases could have their drivers real needs met at a significant out of pocket savings over the five years they will own the car; will one out ten of them decide to buy an EV? If so that comes to a demand for about 500,000 vehicles which will be significantly more than the predicted production capacity. A million EVs on the American road by 2015 is pretty realistic.

Yes, a lot hinges on where gas prices go as production numbers of these vehicles ramp up. If gas goes too high too fast then the economy tanks and no one is buying a new car period. If gas somehow drops back to $3 and under then the motivation to buy an EV diminishes. But upper 4’s and you’ll see these sell as fast as they can build 'em.

[DSeid]

xtisme, well I’ll see if I end up rich or have no choice but to keep working into my 70s and beyond. Apple did well for me, but I foolishly kept selling some off to “rebalance” my portfolio instead of just letting it ride. If I hadn’t done that I would be “rich beyond even my dreams”. Ah well. We’ll see how my basket of stocks related to this segment does over the next 10 to 20 years. (I’m not waiting 30.) I do however believe in my analysis of this enough to put my money where my mouth is. (And we haven’t even addressed the Chinese market!)

[Magiver]

@DSeid

Magiver, sigh, you just go ahead and keep repeating that. But also read my past posts and address the points:

Most new car purchases in the next five years will be to families that have one or two other cars in the household and realistically do not need both, or all three, vehicles to be able to drive over 70 miles on any given day. The other car in the household being able to do that is enough. In truth, for many of them, more than enough. For them, in this vehicle purchase, the “real distances” they need, 24/7, are met by the Leaf or vehicles like it (presumably the Ford Focus EV will be priced comparably).

Total cost of ownership (out of pocket purchase price plus running costs) over the five years that most people own their cars is the same or less for someone commuting 12K a year in a Leaf than in a comparably powered and appointed other vehicle at current gas prices.

So 66% of new car purchases are to those who already have another car in their driveways and whose actual needs can be met with the new car being an EV. And who have a place to plug in a car overnight. Hell, call it only 50%. Now imagine that by late 2012 or into 2013 gas has crept up closer to $5/gallon and has stayed there for a while. 66% of all new car purchases could have their drivers real needs met at a significant out of pocket savings over the five years they will own the car; will one out ten of them decide to buy an EV? If so that comes to a demand for about 500,000 vehicles which will be significantly more than the predicted production capacity. A million EVs on the American road by 2015 is pretty realistic.

Yes, a lot hinges on where gas prices go as production numbers of these vehicles ramp up. If gas goes too high too fast then the economy tanks and no one is buying a new car period. If gas somehow drops back to $3 and under then the motivation to buy an EV diminishes. But upper 4’s and you’ll see these sell as fast as they can build 'em.

Really, your entire argument is that to be functional as a family car they need to own another car that actually runs? Seriously? That’s your justification for this extension cord garage queen?

[DSeid]

I am addressing what is actually needed by most new car purchasers over the next five years, what the actual market is. This figure is easy to figure out and represents an easy baseline minimum. Of those who are one car families/individuals, there are also those who really have no need to ever travel outside the range of the Leaf, but I have no way to reliably figure out that number. Unlike some I try to not just make stuff up.

[Magiver]

@DSeid

I am addressing what is actually needed by most new car purchasers over the next five years, what the actual market is. This figure is easy to figure out and represents an easy baseline minimum. Of those who are one car families/individuals, there are also those who really have no need to ever travel outside the range of the Leaf, but I have no way to reliably figure out that number. Unlike some I try to not just make stuff up.

you’re certainly making up the desire people have for half a car. Honestly, do you think people will pay a premium for a car that is expected to haul kids around to various functions? You do know that parents often take kids to different functions using both cars? I see it as a yuppy car for DINC’s.

[gonzomax]

Gas is up to 4 bucks a gallon now. Yes the electric car will get traction. Especially if it is 4 wheel drive.

[XT]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Gas is up to 4 bucks a gallon now. Yes the electric car will get traction. Especially if it is 4 wheel drive.
[/QUOTE]

Well then, it should be easy for you to prove this over the next couple of months then, right? We should see a spike in sales of electric cars as demand for them picks up, and we should see a drop in demand for hydrocarbon burning ICE type vehicles.

Of course, that assumes that $4/gallon gas isn’t merely a spike, but instead a permanent increase. And, of course, gas has been a lot higher than that in Europe…so, we should see a general trend away from gas/diesel cars and towards electric vehicles. ARE we seeing such a trend? If so, feel free to provide the data. If not, then it begs the question…why?

-XT

[Magiver]

@gonzomax

Gas is up to 4 bucks a gallon now. Yes the electric car will get traction. Especially if it is 4 wheel drive.

Oddly, that’s one of the problems with the Prius.

[DSeid]

@xtisme

Well then, it should be easy for you to prove this over the next couple of months then, right? We should see a spike in sales of electric cars as demand for them picks up, and we should see a drop in demand for hydrocarbon burning ICE type vehicles.

Of course, that assumes that $4/gallon gas isn’t merely a spike, but instead a permanent increase. And, of course, gas has been a lot higher than that in Europe…so, we should see a general trend away from gas/diesel cars and towards electric vehicles. ARE we seeing such a trend? If so, feel free to provide the data. If not, then it begs the question…why?

-XT

Um, they are just being released now? And still in small numbers. (Did you really not get his “traction” joke btw?). Check back after two years of greater availability.

Currently the demand far exceeds the supply but that has not been hard to do since they’ve been delivered in such relatively small numbers:

The Leaf’s first year run is 20K and they had pre-orders on all of them within a few months of opening up the process and months ahead of release. By the end of 2012 the Tennessee plant, with a 100K/year capacity, will be opening up, and in 2013 a smaller one in England. Only a few have been delivered so far - they were to ramp up production in March but an earthquake got in the way. They are back producing now though and will soon start taking orders for next year.

As far as the Volt goes, initially GM planned on a 2011 run of 10K and quickly ramped it up to 25K and hopes to be able to increase from the planned 2012 production run of 60K to 120K, if their suppliers can keep up. And this was before the gas price spikes. In the face of such an excess of demand to supply, some dealers have gouged on prices some.

Ford has not released its production numbers for the Focus EV but it is speculated to be in the 10-20K range for year one. Given that it shares much of its build with other Focus models one expects that they can ramp up some if demand justifies it. It also does not have its price announced.

[Una_Persson]

@Magiver

I see it as a yuppy car for DINC’s.

My opinion is that most “DINCs” are not very sensitive to the cost of petrol since they aren’t burdened with the sometimes outrageous costs of raising children, and don’t have all the associated extra automobile trips associated with children. For example, last year petrol costs were roughly 0.21% of our combined income.* If petrol goes to $12 a gallon is doesn’t really impact us. I confess we feel a bit ignorant sometimes in that we don’t even notice the price when we pull up to the pump.** So buy a Leaf? Maybe if petrol is $20-$30 a gallon, otherwise no.

• We live almost within sight of work, car poll every single day, our stores are within walking distance, and we just don’t drive that much since we live in the inner suburbs where all the Scary Brown People are. My co-workers who have 30, 40, and 60 mile round-trip commutes obviously have more sensitivity. As an aside, I personally know of three co-workers who commute more than 100 miles per day for work, even though empty, nice, cheap, crime-free houses are within 5 miles of work. They want to “live in the country.” And I have no sympathy for them whatsoever when they tell of spending $200 a week on gas.

** Yes I’m aware that petrol costs impact the cost of goods and services throughout society but we’re talking about direct costs and the choice of primary mover for individuals.

[DSeid]

Oh there will be many motivations for buying EVs and PHEV/EREVs besides savings over the course of ownership. Many people do want their vehicle to make a statement about them and are willing to spend a little to do it. Historically that has more often meant people buying huge-ass monstrosities, including SUVs bought by those whose only off-road experience is accidentally riding up the curb at the soccer field, and cars that can go 0 to 60 in nothing flat and hit 120 when the drivers mostly just get speeding tickets going 70. But some want to make a different statement and are willing to pay something to do it. Why else would some dealers be able to gouge so much on the Volt? This first wave of early adopters, paying over MSRP for the Volt, and signing up for the Leaf having never seen one in person, are making their purchase choice more as a statement. They are not so motivated by saving the cost of gas; they want people to know either that they care about our country’s weaning itself off of foreign oil, or about global climate change, or both.

And even when it becomes a slam dunk that an EV meets your personal needs and is a significant cost saver over the ownership of the vehicle, it still requires more dollars up front. It is like investing in residential energy efficiency. Yes, it will more than pay for itself over time, and then some, but you still have to have the money to put up for it now. That is easily addressed by selling the car sans battery and leasing the battery - the upfront car’s price would be likely less than a comparable ICE’s, and it makes obvious that the monthly running cost of battery lease plus electricity is less than the cost of gas for a month. But that model runs into lots of resistance among American consumers: they want to own the whole thing. Renault plans on that model with their EU EV release next year, but it has been explicitly rejected as an option by Ford, and, after some consideration, Nissan as well.

Interestingly this study (pdf) had used this US-DOT Travel Survey to determine that 5% of American households are a single driver who takes at least one monthly trip over 80 miles. Another 10% are either SUVs and light duty trucks used by construction and agricultural workers, or by high income households with two or more children, or used to transport five or more occupants 20% or more of the time. There was another 16% that had more than one car in the household and had one or more trip in a month over 80 miles in a month. The rest, 70%, were non-SUV/pick-up users who took less than one trip over 80 miles a month, most of whom also were in multiple vehicle households. (Of course this data was from 2001 and SUVs were more popular then.)

Interpret that how you will. I see it as a large number of new vehicle purchases that could have their needs met by an EV with the Leaf’s range, and who might not be so willing to pay much of a premium for having an unused option to travel much farther with an ICE car as gas prices rise. Some of whom may be making a purchase to last the next five years with expectations that prices will more likely rise over that time than not.