In any case, there are 7-8 million new cars sold in America each year. EVs will not appeal to many making those purchases for at least several years, if ever. But 15% of new purchases being EV by 2020? Very possible, just considering households that can have one BEV and one ICE (be it diesel or gas). That’s a million cars in America per year. If each of the majors sell a 100K a year of 1-2 EV models each, they’d consider the segment very successful indeed. (For comparison, hybrids are currently about 3% of US new car sales.)
More on the potential of algal biofuels according to a new report:
Like EVs, algal biodiesel might end up making a significant contribution to reducing the various problems associated with petroleum based transportation fuels. Neither is likely to the single solution.
A new survey released today shows that at least 5% (but probably much higher) of new Danish patients admitted with Smoker lung’s (Chronic bronchitis) have become sick by air pollution traced directly to car pollution. This is a permanent and for the society a very expensive affliction. If increased use of electric cars could help prevent even a small percentage of these cases, it would go a long way to help finance the slighter higher cost of the vehicle. At least it would if gasoline prices reflected the cost to society and the individuals of these diseases.
Magiver, you may be interested in reading an article in this week’s Economist on biofuels. It is a bit short on detail but is nevertheless a good quick read.
Their emphasis is on the use of bacteria and yeast to produce diesel and gasoline type fuels (by companies like Codexis, Gevo, and Amyris, rather than algae (the likes of Solazyme) which need to then be refined. They also note that to the degree that transportation is electrified it is likely more efficient to use biomass to produce electricity to drive vehicles than to convert it to liquid fuel.
My point remains that BOTH may have their place in the future mix.
Here is a bit more detail on some potential “drop-in” fuels from biomass (including one algal) and a recent contract to Cobalt from the Navy to develop jet fuel.
And here is the study referenced in the Economist article showing that using biomass to produce electricity would be more efficient (the analysis was specific to ethanol however).
For the sake of completeness I must include this caveat that is the complete article on the other side of the firewall:
I’ll read through your links when I have a chance.
Again, it’s not that I’m against battery powered cars, I just think they are limited due to current technology where diesel is not. There is nothing particularly innovative about the Volt except that it prioritizes the transmission of the power differently then a conventional hybrid. It’s still the same basic setup using a sun-gear transmission.
In a progression of technology, we should focus on diesel and bio-fuel first because it covers all forms of transportation. Let battery research catch up to the functional level needed to be cost effective. Building a car that performs on a lesser scale to other cars at double the cost is not going to solve any problems.
It’s the difference between a Mustang with a V6 that gets 305 hp/31 mpg and a Corvette that produces over 500 hp at over twice the cost. More Mustangs are going to be purchased. If the goal is to produce less co2 and become energy independent then diesel is more effective in delivering cars people can afford.
Ito ,ceo of Honda said today:
Its beginning to look like there will be a market for electric vehicles. We can’t keep shooting down their potential and we can’s say there’s no business case for it.
They are the future.
They are the future. but they’re not the present. As it stands now, a hybrid requires a monster battery pack and additional electric motors in addition to a gas engine. To make it price competitive the ice needs to be removed which means batteries need to be able to carry the car hundreds of miles and then recharge in minutes.
I don’t agree about the recharge part. I suspect plenty of families would accept as a 2nd car something that had a 200 mile range, that they could charge overnight. I would accept it as my primary car. I have had my current car for 12 years and I could count on the fingers of one hand the times I’ve driven it over 150 miles in a day. Renting a car every couple of years isn’t that big an imposition.
We could also displace a lot of delivery vans and taxis and such. For USPS, FEdEX and UPS, a electric delivery van would be ideal because of all the stopping and starting they have to do.
I don’t see where an electric vehicle would be remotely useful for a company like UPS or FedEX. There is too much weight involved and miles driven to use an electric truck. You may be thinking of a hybrid which would indeed have an application.
Upcoming lithium air batteries may make small vans viable for short delivery routes (under 250 miles) but currently an electric van is limited to about 65 miles in city driving.
Diesels are not the present either. They have never gotten much traction for passenger cars in the US. They used to sound funny, like a rod knock.There is no big push for diesels, but electric gets pretty good press.
For me, it depends. What does that money get me? Is it just the cost differential for the drive train? How much is the car without it? I would probably pay a 10% difference just for the principle. Which is why if I was in the market for high end sports car I would get a Tesla. Under my current budget constraints would not pay $25,000 for for a car that had the features/room/performance of a ICE car that sold for $15,000, but I don’t think that is currently a choice. I would, however pay $28,000 for a car that is equivalent to a $25,000 ICE car, but with my commute and free charging at work, I would probably make up the difference in less than 5 years.
The idea is that these trucks have very high mileage around central hubs. They can spend the additional up front on the batteries that can handle one shift at a time and the quick-charge stations to have them charged for the next shift and put on several hundreds of miles a day all gas free. For them, logging 100K miles/yr, the savings in terms of gas vs electricity costs and decreased maintenance costs, quickly pays for the upfront expense. Today’s lower gas prices makes it a harder sell, but the predictability of the expense is a big attraction to many a bean counter, even when the savings is, at this point, not dramatic or not seen until year two or three.
The concepts range from PHEVs like that from Bright Ideas to all-electric trucks of various sizes from companies like Smith.
“We’d like to use more electric trucks but the cost is too high”. Hmmmmmm Who would have thought. If only the taxpayer would front the transportation cost for a freight company. :dubious:
Remotely useful? Yes. Very useful. Angling to get help to buy them? Of course. The cost analysis will be a dynamic process. If gas goes up, or the true cost of carbon out is taxed (the former more likely than the latter), then it becomes worthwhile. Again, it is not worth the premium for a 12,000 to 15,000 mile per year driver on a dollar cents analysis. But if you are talking about 100K/yr then the value becomes more significant. Possibly even at today’s prices. Still, doing it requires investing not only in the upfront cost of the vehicles, but for the central quick charge sations. I suspect that such investments are not going to be eagerly made until credit is more easily gotten and/or there are sufficient incentives.
UPS (et all) looks at every penny involved in transportation. I’ve talked with engine builders who’ve been approached by UPS and I’m not talking about conventional ice motors. These were outside the box kind of engines. They will put whatever is financially viable on the road.
Having said that, I don’t see the standard brown truck going full electric. It’s too big, and the distance traveled is too far. If there’s a city route that’s predominately letters then an electric van would work.