Any other effects you think your policy would have? Think beyond just fossil fuels–any effect on the economy as a whole?
:hijack: Ayn Rand’s original Libertarian group was called The Collective, either in a display of arch-irony or no ironic sense at all.
I’d say we’re fast approaching the place on the curve where electric cars will become a far superior value to gasoline powered cars. It IS considerably cheaper, on a consumer level, to run an electric car vs. a gas powered car, they’re just kinda expensive right now. Price goes down, battery life goes up, we have a winner. I’d guess in about a decade at most.
No. Oil makes up about 2% of our net electrical generation fuels, and mostly for startup purposes.
I’ve tried to debunk this for 13 years on here. I keep failing somehow.
Not without major and profound upgrades. I worked on a confidential study for a typical Midwestern city of about 2 million in its metropolitan area, and we found that no more than 20% of the cars could be replaced with EVs before the grid would become unstable. With an investment of about $1,400 per person, this capacity could be upgraded to about 50%.
YMMV (pun intended), depending on your city.
Since we’re doing pie in the sky, how about turning all roads into solar panels? Then, you could power and charge all the cars as they drive. You could remove the heavy, bulky batteries from the electric vehicles, eliminating initial battery costs and the cost to replace batteries that wear out. It would also make the cars lighter and roomier.
The solar panels can also charge the grid with the excess electricity that is collected. The stored energy can be used at night.
I’m sure that wouldn’t be the most material intensive, expensive thing in the history of the world.
Try googling “solar roadway”. People are serious about it.
As for cost, we just need automated manufacturing to get better and cheaper. Maybe an advance in self-replicating machines…
My sister and I both drive. Is that once car for both of us or one car each. She just drives a few miles to work everyday so an electric car would be fine for her, but since it comes nowhere close to suiting my needs I’d try to sell mine or pay someone to take it away, since their isn’t going to be that much of a market.
You are right. I withdraw my statement “oil-burning power plants” and replace it with “fossil fuel-burning power plants (primarily coal)”.
Well, coal is traditionally the biggest single contributor to the grid but it is decreasing steadily. Coal is being supplanted by natural gas that is both cheaper and can actually bring new plants on line. With coal new regulations are going to make it very difficult to create a profitable coal fired power plant and I’m not sure if many have been opened since those regulations went into effect. I also believe a recent Obama Administration announcement indicated the government was going to phase in enforcement of those same regulations on existing plants–which will most likely lead to energy companies increasing the pace at which they shut down coal plants and bring natural gas plants online.
In the foreseeable future if there was a sudden and unexpected increase in electric car usage I think the primary fuel that would continually be brought to satisfy increased generation demand would be natural gas.
Driving on them seems problematic.
but what about rooftops? Mentioned upthread, but neglected.
Suppose every new roof, starting right now, had photovoltaic collectors on it. (Through some combination of carrots and sticks.)
Current prices and efficiencies are such that it’s a losing proposition.
But manufacturing technologies improve constantly- as we make the solar cells, we’ll get better at making them.
As oil costs go up, at some point the curve changes and suddenly it’s all cost effective- and we’ve got a head start by some number of years.
OK, speaking from authority here.
There is only so much that gas can replace in terms of coal. Some areas of the country have no major gas infrastructure to support the amount of new generation needed. Most coal plant retirements in the current wave will be over with about 2015 when the current triple-witching of air emissions and 316(b) are accounted for. This is going to leave us with coal power making up about 40% of our net electrical generation, down from 50-55% just a few years ago.
Gas also has issues with several states looking to greatly restrict, or even ban fracking.
The most plausible EIA scenario I’ve seen says coal only drops to 36% by 2035.
And it’s not a matter of profitability. A new BACT coal plant can still be very profitable with PRB coal, because the fuel is just so cheap. The issue is the Obama Administration’s mandate of CO2 emissions from new power plants needing to be about the level of a CCGT - something that no practical coal plant design can meet. Pilot-scale plants with CCS can do it, but other otherwise, no.
This will go to the US Supreme Court, and could easily take 5-7 years after the Administration announces final regulations. And if there is a Republican President after Obama, all bets are off.
Yes.
Hah! I live in Santa Clara County, and you can drive through subdivision after subdivision with thousands and thousands of ranch style homes. 4:12 roofs without much shade that are absolutely perfect for Solar. I keep thinking there must be an economical way to leverage that scale of roof area economically. And that’s just one county in CA. There are dozens just like it. Maybe hundreds!
I’ll see if I can dig up that nice EIA plot showing what fuels go where. Unless you have it on hand.
Thought so. Our grid is bizarrely archaic. I’m not entirely sure how it’s going to get better.
The bugaboo, as most have noted, is having enough power from an already stressed grid to run the cars. But if we can solve that problem (a huge if but maybe not insurmountable) the best solution might be to electrify the roadways instead of trying to make better batteries.
Research groups, most notably at Utah State and in South Korea and Sweden, around the world have been working on inducting power from pads or rails embedded in the roadway. Here’s a link to Volvo’s current (get it?) experiment: http://www.gizmag.com/volvo-electric-road/27913/.
The conveniences of a system like that are pretty obvious.
You would be replacing gasoline burning cars with coal and natural gas burning power plants. The increased demand would drive electrical prices up which would take any savings from not having to buy gas. Coal and natural gas are still fossil fuels so the air pollution reduction would be minimal. This would drive down the price of oil worldwide which would encourage other nations to use more. Global warming would not affected.
You would have to massively raise taxes since it would take up at least all of the current federal government revenue. Adding 100 million cars to the roads would either cause massive gridlock or cause a huge amount of new roads to be built. There would be no money to pay for these roads since all of the taxes would be going to buy the cars.
This is a horrible idea.
Una,
What are your thoughts about valley filling allowing for greater penetration, as reviewed here?
(Bolding mine.)
Here’s another more recent analysis of intelliegent EV valley fill charging under different level 2 chager penetration scenarios.
puddlegum please note that the formal analysis concludes that adoption to the 43% rate using a modest valley-filling approach would “reduce the average cost of electricity supply by up to 25%” not “drive electrical prices up.”
As to the op: EVs are not the right vehicle for every user and imposing such a solution upon all users no matter what their need would be disastrous, beyond many other problems with such plan.
Even if we had more charging stations, all those people who can’t charge at home or work are going to spending a long long time at the charge station. A gasoline pump is moving energy at 20 MW. We can’t shuffle electrons in a battery that fast.