How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence 352 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Tuesday I asked a frequent commenter and staunch electric vehicle advocate whether he ever questioned the ethics of building an EV that can save one owner 400 gallons of gas per year while using enough batteries to build ten Prius-class hybrids that could save their owners a combined total of 1,600 gallons of gas per year. I then spent an hour in stunned silence as the critical importance of that question crystallized in my mind. I didn't get a responsive answer from the commenter, but I did get one of those rare moments of clarity when everything suddenly falls into place.
For years the mainstream media, scientists, elected officials and promoters have written and spoken ad nauseum about how a new generation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, will liberate America from the tyranny of imported oil. The problem is the promises are based on flawed assumptions and utterly false. At their best, PHEVs and EVs are all sizzle and no steak when it comes to national energy independence. At their worst, they are deep cover saboteurs that will undermine America's drive for energy independence while stridently claiming to be part of the solution.
The simple facts
The average American drives about 12,000 miles per year. If his engine meets current CAFE standards and averages 27.5 mpg, the average American will burn about 436 gallons of gasoline and generate about 4.4 tons of CO2 per year.
The Prius is a hybrid electric vehicle, or HEV, manufactured by Toyota Motor Corporation (TM) that carries a base sticker price of $22,750. The Prius has an enviable 10-year track record of slashing gas consumption by roughly 40% through a combination of idle elimination, electric only launch and recuperative braking. It's a marvel of efficiency engineering that eliminates waste wherever possible. Each new Prius uses about 1.6 kWh of NiMH batteries to save the average owner roughly 174 gallons of gas per year while eliminating 1.7 tons of CO2 emissions.
General Motors is getting ready to launch its eagerly anticipated, irresponsibly hyped and largely untested Volt, a PHEV that will use a combination of electric drive and gasoline engine technology to offer 40 miles of electric only range before the gasoline engine kicks in. The Volt is expected to have a base sticker price of roughly $40,000 before tax subsidies of $7,500 per vehicle. Each GM Volt will use 16 kWh of lithium-ion batteries and save the average owner up to 436 gallons of gasoline per year.
In 2010, Nissan Motors (NSANY) plans to launch its highly touted Leaf, a pure EV that will do the Volt one better by eliminating the gasoline engine altogether. The Leaf is rumored to have a base sticker price that will be competitive with the Volt and enjoy comparable tax subsidies. Each Nissan Leaf will use 24 kWh of lithium-ion batteries and save the average owner 436 gallons of gasoline per year.
The following table summarizes the maximum impact that Toyota, General Motors and Nissan can have on gasoline imports for every 48 kWh of battery capacity used in their products:
| Vehicle | Battery | Gas Savings | Number | Total Annual | |
| Cost | Capacity | Per Vehicle | of Vehicles | Gas Savings | |
| Toyota Prius | $22,750 (a) | 1.5 kWh | 174 gallons | 32 vehicles | 5,568 gallons |
| GM Volt | $40,000 (e) | 16 kWh | 436 gallons | 3 vehicles | 1,308 gallons |
| Nissan Leaf | $40,000 (e) | 24 kWh | 436 gallons | 2 vehicles | 872 gallons |
I used 48 kWh for this example because it's the lowest common denominator. Automotive drive-train batteries are scarce resources, which is why President Obama recently announced $1.2 billion in Federal grants to help finance the construction of new battery manufacturing facilities. Despite the scarcity, developers of outrageously expensive PHEVs, EVs and the lithium-ion battery packs that will be used in their manufacture have convinced a gullible Congress that their products, which will only save a little gasoline, deserve huge Federal subsidies while more modest HEVs, which could save a lot of gasoline, deserve no Federal support.
Does anybody in Washington DC have a calculator and the capacity for independent thought?
The battery wars
Much of the blame for the current state of affairs belongs at the feet of lithium-ion battery developers like Ener1 (HEV), Valence Technology (VLNC), Johnson Controls (JCI) and others that have mounted a highly effective PR campaign to convince everyone that lithium-ion is the only battery technology that's small enough and light enough to power a fleet of PHEVs and EVs. Their illusory promise of energy independence coupled with frequent assurances that the cost, performance, abuse tolerance and cycle-life issues that plague lithium-ion atteries will be solved in the immediate future have led to an absurd situation where the Federal government is heavily subsidizing a wasteful alternative that will ultimately sabotage America's drive for energy independence..
I have written at length about the development path lithium-ion battery developers must follow if they want their products to become cheap enough and durable enough for the automotive market. I have compared the performance of lithium-ion batteries with far cheaper lead-carbon batteries being developed by Exide Technologies (XIDE) in cooperation with Axion Power International (AXPW.OB); by C&D Technologies (CHP) in cooperation with Firefly Energy; and by East Penn Manufacturing in cooperation with Japan's Furukawa Battery Co. (FBB.DE). I have demonstrated that lithium-ion batteries are not necessary in micro, mild and full hybrids where a 77 pound weight advantage and 0.7 cubic feet of saved space can't justify $1,250 in incremental battery cost. I have also explained how billions of dollars in existing lead-acid battery manufacturing facilities can be leveraged to facilitate the inexpensive implementation of micro, mild and full hybrid technologies in the U.S. and Europe in years instead of decades without the short-term supply chain constraints that will impede the commercialization of other battery technologies.
In December of last year I wrote that the energy storage sector needs to take baby steps before it can run and I regularly quote a favorite a line from "The Lost Constitution" by William Martin that says, "In America we wake up in the morning, we go to work and we solve our problems." America has the technical ability and the manufacturing infrastructure to implement HEV technology in all new light vehicles within a decade. If we wait for cheap lithium-ion batteries and cost effective PHEVs and EVs, the process will take far longer, cost much more and offer less flexibility to consumers. I strongly advocate the continued development of lithium-ion and other battery technologies because HEVs are not the journey's end and we can do better. We cannot, however, take a giant leap into the future without first taking the reasonable steps that are available and affordable today.
Notwithstanding the deafening drumbeat of hype from mainstream media, academics, elected officials and lithium-ion battery developers, the undisputed facts are that lithium-ion batteries are not ready for prime time and PHEVs and EVs are little more than vanity items for elitists who will happily let up to fifteen other Americans waste up to 2,610 gallons of gas per year so that they can save 462 gallons by driving a 100% green car. The hypocrisy is appalling.
DISCLOSURE: Author is a former director and executive officer of Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and holds a large long position in its stock. He also holds a small long position in Exide (XIDE).
Related Articles
|
This article has 352 comments:
Man, I love this article. Can't wait for the fireworks in the comment section.
I am skeptical about your 16:1 ratio. The battery does not influence a consumer to buy Prius or Volt, the cost and feature will. The ratio can be higher or lower, but it is not related to the battery pack in the car.
One word!!! Congress.
Albert, my stock position in Axion has nothing to do with battery capacity statistics and readily available public information. If the goal is to reduce national dependence on imported oil, PHEVs and EVs are absolutely the wrong way to go.
Lol
The only deafening drumbeat is the pumping of AXPW every other day.
On Aug 26 11:04 AM Albert DeKoven wrote:
> John's large position in AXPW cause him to come to conclusions which
> the industry will not likely come to. I believe he is ignoring facts
> that are contrary to an increase in the value of his stock position.
Quibble: How does 436 gallons translate into 4.4 tons of CO2/yr? That seems a little skewed to me. I find that a mathematically enigmatic.
Did you get a chance to watch the video?
Now the design and reliability of the lithium battery may be a question and the scam of throwing money away to friends and neighbors in battery systems development by our Federal Government is historical fact. None the less lithium availability should not be a LT problem.
And then there are the "Ultra Capacitors" I suppose.
Mayascribe, the fueleconomy.gov link says that each gallon of gasoline is responsible for 20 pounds of CO2, so when you turn the crank that's the number you get.
As you may have guessed, my mind was somewhere else this morning. I'll try to watch the video tomorrow morning.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Another way to look at this question is how can we reduce/eliminate the 9.2 Million barrels of oil import per day, with gas demand approximately 9.1 Million barrels per day. Without maximizing our resources to cut the most use, we will have a hard time eliminating imported oil.
Welcome to the human race.
Assuming natural gas-fired electrical generating plants to provide all that seemingly-clean electricity we plug in to every day, the trade-ff is a good one. I question, in the case of coal-fired electrical generating plants, whether the same environmental and economic parameters apply.
"Look at me! I drive a clean EV!" is a bit hypocritical when one is increasing carbon emissions and acid rain on another citizen who lives closer to the power plant. Just another consideration when looking at the whole picture...
Additionally, your whole premise is that we seem to be 'wasting' resources on developing PHEVs when we could be investing in HEVs? Since the batteries going into non-Priuses could be going into Priuses?
Why not let the market determine this?
Also your comment that the industry 'could' switch to entirely HEV in a decade... i believe Mercedes expects to be fully hybridized by 2015, and new CAFE standards will make a lot of companies follow suit.
Also... batteries are not finite... almost every auto manufacturer has a battery production facility in the works... and lithium is far more ubiquitous than a lot of other commodities...
One final point... most Americans didn't know what a Prius was before $4/gallon gas, and $4/gal gas has permanently changed American perceptions of what constitutes a viable commuter car. Regardless of Prius' 10 yr track record, it's maybe in the last 2 it ever interested anyone but the fringe. I also submit that Nissan has built pure EVs as long as 30 years ago, but the tech to do so and appeal to the mainstream didn't exist until recently.
EVs are hardly a new phenomenon, but much like YouTube would not have succeeded in the mid 90s when most folks were on dialup, EVs didn't have much raison d'etre before pretty recently.
I don't know seems like a lot of hyperbole and bluster in the post.
I am a believer in PHEVs and EVs but not in the way the automobile manufacturers are addressing the problem. I am building one with lead acid, Ultracapacitors, and an on board gasoline engine to recharge the Ucaps. Car companies are blindly building or planning vehicles based on existing frames and body styles. They need to design a car around the power system first. Doing it that way they will be able to find a way to make the PbC batteries fit with enough power to move that car 100 miles on a charge. In other words, they are afraid that their cars might not sell and they are taking the least risk possible.
An example: In the late ‘70s, two engineers with Radio Shack took a computer that they had built to their CEO. He thought it had potential and told them to build exactly 4,392 (I am sure my number is inaccurate) and they asked him why that number. His response: “If they don’t sell we can use them for inventory control in our stores.” Radio Shack had 4,392 stores at the time. (Or whatever the exact number of stores) In point of fact, the day they announced the TRS-80, they got 10,000 orders.
So Detroit, design your car around the power system, use carbon fiber wherever possible, include Ucaps for acceleration, brake regeneration to recharge the Ucaps, and PbC batteries as your main power source. Further, think positive, take a big risk, think about the long term instead of the short term, and it is possible that you might survive. Otherwise, you will surely give up automobile manufacturing to the Japanese, Chinese, or Indians.
Tom
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
Winston Churchill
news.yahoo.com/s/lives...
It peretains to the health care debate, but is equally pertinent to the EV/Battery debate. Here's an excerpt:
<"Irrational thinking
A totally rational person would lay out - and evaluate objectively - the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.
"People get deeply attached to their beliefs," Hoffman said. "We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter."
And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs. >
Thanks, John, for your efforts in keeping the discussion fact-based.
Goodgojuice, this is my 81st article for Seeking Alpha and all of them deal with energy storage technologies and applications. So the easiest way to find the information you want is to check my author's page. Also, bear in mind that I'm an opinionated cuss and it's important to study the third party materials that I generally rely on as a basis for my opinions. The archive is at:
seekingalpha.com/autho...
Joseph, thanks for helping to clarify that this article really relates to national energy policy rather than individual purchase decisions. I think all PHEV and EV buyers will ultimately have to make an ethical decision, but I don't want to wade into the morass of choosing right or wrong for someone else.
kml. this article really does focus on what the best national energy policy is rather than what the best personal buying decision might be. Remember, batteries are the choke point in the supply chain. Giving Federal tax subsidies to individual vehicles that use batteries inefficiently while keeping up to other 15 fuel efficient vehicles off the road seems like a bad trade to me. It would seem far more rational to base subsidies on the percentage improvement from CAFE standards. That way an EV that saved 100% of the gas would qualify for $7,500 and a Prius that saved 40% of the gas would qualify for $3,000.
Methinks something's awry here.
TATyszja, you've been reading and commenting long enough to know that a lot of folks get real emotional about batteries and various types of HEVs, PHEVs and EVs. But the widely different viewpoints is part of what makes the sector fun to write about.
Mayascribe, in terms of molecular structure, gasoline is a long chain of heavy carbon atoms with lots of very light hydrogen atoms. When you replace the light hydrogen atoms with a couple of much heavier oxygen atoms, the weight of the resulting CO2 is much higher than the weight of the original gasoline.
As is evident in your post and the comments, we all have our own opinions and the subsequent emotions attached to those opinions.
Thank you for trying to get us to use more fact than emotion in formulating our opinions.
The really neat thing is that we, as humans, have the unique ability to solve problems. And some of us are not afraid to address the problem, embrace it, and use all of our power to solve them even when we are proven wrong and need to change course midstream.
Keep us thinking!!!!
Tom
Thus 12 units of carbon turn into 44 units of C02. It follows that 6lb of carbon turn into 22 lb of CO2. The number provided was 20lb, so it is pretty close. We can get better estimate by looking up C/H ratio in gasoline, but the number is close enough for a government job. ;-)
On Aug 26 12:32 PM Mayascribe wrote:
> A premium gallon of gasoline has a gravity weight of 54, and weighs
> 6.35 pounds. How does that translate into 20 pounds of CO2 emissions?
>
>
> Methinks something's awry here.
Carbon Atomic weight 12
Drop 2 Hydrogen, replace each remaining Hydrogen (Atomic weight 1) with one Oxygen (Atomic Weight 16) during the burn.
Net result molecule of atomic weight of 72 replaced with 5 molecules of CO2 with atomic weight of 44 - total of 220
~3 times the begining weight of gasoline
I wonder about this assumption. Perhaps after cash for clunkers this is more true, but with the large number of SUVs and old cars not sure that it is true.
According to this:
www.bts.gov/publicatio...
In 2007 it was 17.2
This does not take the whole cash for clunkers/hybrid sales at $4 gas into account, so say somewhere between 17.2 and 27.5, maybe take the average of these numbers.
CanEginTx and Mark Divy, many thanks for refining the details on my rough recollection from college chemistry.
Zenfar, I'm no great respecter of EPA estimates, but they do provide a reference point. The real choke point in all of this is battery manufacturing capacity and until we can make all the batteries we would ever want, national energy policy has to favor putting the limited supply of batteries in the applications where they'll do the most good in terms of reducing gasoline consumption. I agree that the whole sector is in for massive growth and despite my contrary mutterings, there is an awful lot of momentum behind the push for PHEVs and EVs. One blogger throwing spitballs at that supertanker isn't likely to change anything, but it may open some investor's eyes to the broader opportunity that will unfold over the next few years.
I wasn't putting the emotions down as the emotions are what give us the passions to succeed. I was referring to the fact that your articles are also heavily weighted with the facts which can support our passions and help to point us in the right direction.
Tom
There is NO EV juggernaut; it's all a lie. There IS NO shortage of batteries now except in the fetid imagination of Big Oil paid sockpuppets.
Just as they "worry" about taxing the grid to power EVs, when there are no EVs!!
As Elon Must stated, don't worry about pastures for unicorns until there ARE some unicorns.
On Aug 26 01:44 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Tom, I try to keep the level of emotion to a minimum, but sometimes
> I'm less effective at that than others.
>
> CanEginTx and Mark Divy, many thanks for refining the details on
> my rough recollection from college chemistry.
>
> Zenfar, I'm no great respecter of EPA estimates, but they do provide
> a reference point. The real choke point in all of this is battery
> manufacturing capacity and until we can make all the batteries we
> would ever want, national energy policy has to favor putting the
> limited supply of batteries in the applications where they'll do
> the most good in terms of reducing gasoline consumption. I agree
> that the whole sector is in for massive growth and despite my contrary
> mutterings, there is an awful lot of momentum behind the push for
> PHEVs and EVs. One blogger throwing spitballs at that supertanker
> isn't likely to change anything, but it may open some investor's
> eyes to the broader opportunity that will unfold over the next few
> years.
Doug, I'm not criticizing PHEVs and EVs per se and I certainly wouldn't argue with using solar power to charge vehicle batteries. I'm saying that in terms of national fuel savings per kWh of battery capacity, PHEVs and EVs are far less attractive than HEVs which only need 1.5 kWh of battery capacity to slash gasoline consumption by 40%. As long as we can make many HEVs with the batteries required for a single PHEV or EV, a policy that favors reducing national oil consumption has to prefer the HEV.
'the undisputed facts are that lithium-ion batteries are not ready for prime time and PHEVs and EVs are little more than vanity items for elitists'
Undisputed? that isn't what Mitsubishi, Nissan, GM, Renault, the US Government or many others think.
It might be undisputed in your own head, but that's about it.
I have not the least objection to your argument that if many cars improved their mileage somewhat, that would have a greater overall effect than a few cars attaining very high mileage.
It is also true that ramping battery production of NiMH and lithium is not going to be as quick as one could wish.
However, I do object to gross misstatements such as the one above, and more particularly to the repeated glossing over of the current costs and readiness of lead carbon technology for use in cars, and exaggeration of any difficulties in the field of lithium technology.
You can buy lithium batteries right now, at lower costs than is often given by Mr Petersen, whereas lead carbon batteries for car use is available where? And at what cost?
This applies doubly to schemes to marry lead carbon and capacitors.
The major companies are not going to suddenly stick lead carbon batteries in cars, and their alleged lower costs are just as much a projection as the cost reductions proposed for lithium batteries.
The Volt is also not the only possible implementation of PHEV technology, and the condemnation of PHEV as such is too sweeping.
I would agree that GM are going for too great a range, and that it appears that when it does emerge the Toyota PHEV will settle for a more modest 8-10 miles Electric range, with correspondingly lower demands on batteries and lower costs.
This range is fine for most of the world, and since oil is fungible would result in just as great a reduction in price pressure for Americans as their directly reducing their own use.
For Americans liquified natural gas probably makes the most sense.
I have always been keen on advanced lead acid and lead carbon technology, but have been somewhat put off by what strikes me as immoderate advocacy.
If you completely ignore the issues facing your favoured projects, and grab hold of any objection to any of it's rivals, then you can produce 'proofs' such as those referred to in the article.
It seems a shame that some good points are so totally confounded with cherry-picked data and outright misstatements.
Davewmart wrote:
> John Petersen wrote:
> 'the undisputed facts are that lithium-ion batteries are not ready
> for prime time and PHEVs and EVs are little more than vanity items
> for elitists'
>
> Undisputed? that isn't what Mitsubishi, Nissan, GM, Renault, the
> US Government or many others think.
> It might be undisputed in your own head, but that's about it.
If lithium-ion batteries are as ready as you think they are, then why does the US Government have to subsidize them? The US Government is also giving money to lead carbon battery manufacturers, so would you say that lead carbon and lithium-ion are at the same point?
And why aren't these companies making millions of PHEV's and EV's instead of just a few thousand?
The DOE's 2008 Annual Progress Report for the Energy Storage Research and Development Technologies Program specifically says that there are cost, durability, abuse tolerance and cycle life issues that must be overcome before lithium-ion batteries will be suitable for commercial use in mass produced vehicles. Read it yourself here:
www1.eere.energy.gov/v...
An unpublished draft of the DOEs roadmap for lithium-ion batteries says that the technology will need to progress through three generations of chemistry and two generations of manufacturing technology before the batteries will be cheap enough for vehicle use. Read it yourself here:
files.me.com/john.pete...
An Obama White House report panning the Volt is available here.
www.whitehouse.gov/ass...
A brand new report out of UC Berkeley that says "The most recent
price estimates from a leading Li-ion battery manufacturer is that automotive batteries will achieve the Department of Energy price goal of $500 per kWh in 2012" is available here.
cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CE...
I always provide links to the independent third party sources that form a basis for my opinions. You are apparently happy with press releases and company fabricated news stories.
Feel free to criticize anything that runs contrary to the best available public information. But save criticism based on press releases and personal anecdotes for somebody else. I'm not interested.
The best solution to imported oil is the free market because the single best signal of which technology is most efficient is the price. Clearly, the Prius would crush Volt and Leaf because it costs less. A family could buy 2 Prius for the cost of 1 Volt.
Another thing to consider is gallons/100 miles. If one car gets 15 mpg, it uses 6.7 gallons to go 100 miles. If another car gets 30 mpg, it uses 3.3 gallons to go 100 miles.
With expensive technology to lift a car from 30 to 100 mpg, the drives save 2.3 gallons of gas/100 miles.
Using existing technology or CAFE standards to get the 15 mpg car up to 30 mpg, saves 3.4 gallons/100 miles.
The key is 'national energy independence' John.
A PHEV or EV that saves potentially 100% of the gas now used vs. a HEV which saves ~40% of the gas now used makes for a poor argument about national energy independence.
Reduce the ~441 million gallons/day of gas used to 0 gallons, or save 40% to a total usage of 264 million gallons so we can support lead acid batteries?
With 46% of every barrel of oil being turned into gasoline (per the EIA), we have a much better chance of achieving energy independence by utilizing the technology that reduces by the largest amount how much oil is imported.
As the discussion has already addressed the fact that lithium is not a bottleneck (maybe short run it is), but this is a long run issue.
It appears you have a bone to pick with lithium based batteries vs. lead acid batteries, but it also appears that you are willing to continue importing oil (or more oil on a relative basis) to support one battery technology over another. Why?
cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CE...
I advocate minimizing waste and for the next few years batteries will in fact be a major bottleneck in the supply chain. I have no quarrel with those who choose to believe battery will be available at rock-bottom prices and in unlimited quantities at some future date. As of today, supplies are constrained, prices are high and they developers haven't even broken ground on all the factories they plan to build. The challenge of building enough batteries to satisfy likely HEV demand is more than daunting. There is no chance that we'll be able to build anywhere near enough batteries to satisfy PHEV and EV demand in the next decade. I don't favor one technology over another because I know we need them both desperately. But as an investor I'll buy the stock of an under-valued lead acid manufacturer over the stock of an over-valued lithium ion battery developer any day of the week because cheap always beats cool unless the decision maker is both rich and poor at math.
Diesel....diesel....you know my love to diesel, it changes in a fundamental way the calculation (in better terms and reinforcing your point), Renault will be the first selling a Hybrid with diesel next year ( and is participating in the program in Israel,Denmark etc of interchangeable batteries packs that you never mention in your comments).
The new technologies around this diesel engines are allowing substantial reductions in weight, good power relation and good CO2/mile numbers.
Diversifying fuels best suitable for each use , as in Europe where you find taxis using CNG or diesel, cars using diesel (65% of total car park), and gasoline the other portion.
The approach of "One technology fits all" which worked fine in America car world perhaps is no longer the best approach.
Regards
User 389393:
You misconstrue me:
I objected to the statement as by John, that:
'the undisputed facts are that lithium-ion batteries are not ready
> for prime time and PHEVs and EVs are little more than vanity items
> for elitists'
When plainly many including Nissan and Mitsubishi regard them as a great deal more than 'vanity items'.
This is a clearly tenditious statement.
My own evaluation is a different issue, and not relevant to whether John has made a fair evauation of whether lithium batteries are ready for prime time.
FWIW it seems to me that the debate is whether by around 2012 or 2015 mass production at a reasonable price will be possible.
Of course you don't suddenly jump up to making tens of millions at below internal combustion engine prices!
FWIW My own evaluation is that we will be lucky to get to a reasonable level of cost/performance by 2015, but Jophn grossly understates the issues in bringing lead carbon batteries to market in the same time frame.
John, I note you do not state how much these fully certified for car use lead carbon batteries are available for, or provide any information on their price and availability.
Your 'sources' seem to rely on Wiki answers, John - way to go!
I will agree with your latest comments that short run supply constraints in materials will hamper lithium companies relative to lead acid companies.
That is a lot different than your headline "How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence" and your comments "PHEVs and EVs are little more than vanity items for elitists who will happily let up to fifteen other Americans waste up to 2,610 gallons of gas per year so that they can save 462 gallons by driving a 100% green car."
Because the current capacity of lithium battery manufacturers cannot supply batteries for all cars, does not mean that those who purchase are elitists, no more than declaring a certain group 'elitists' has anything to do with analyzing stocks of various companies.
I have always enjoyed your research and knowledge in this area, but your recent 'spiciness' seems to have overstepped company / technology and stock analysis and waded into personal preferences/ideologies.
Also, great link on the UC Berkely report. It also outlines the kind of reductions in oil imports that could take place between now and 2030 by adoption of electric vehicles (exhibits 9 & 10) and looks at capital expenditures needed for EV adoption (charging infrastructure far outweighs battery, exhibit 11).
Richard Graham, I don't talk about BYD because they are far from being a pure play battery company and it's beyond my capacity to do side by side comparisons of diversified companies. I avoid talking about JCI for the same reason. BYD was probably a wonderful investment when Warren Buffett bought his interest at $1.12 per share. Without knowing their business in great detail, I would be very reluctant to buy in at 5x the price Warren paid.
BTW I forgot to add that I entirely agree that the money put in by the US into battery companies has basically been conned out of them - as it is in Europe.
The clear leaders in lithium battery technology are the Koreans and Chinese, and in NiMH the Japanese.
The US and Europe are just paying to establish production facilities.
I can't see where thed small America companies are going to upset the big Eastern players, so it is more pork.
ibrewaletx, the headline about PHEVs and EVs sabotaging the fight for energy independence is absolutely correct and I stand by it without reservation. No matter what the global battery production is in any period, it will only be able to accommodate a limited number of HEVs, PHEVs and EVs. To the extent that batteries are used in PHEVs and EVs, each unit will reduce the batteries available for HEVs by a factor of ten to fifteen vehicles. One EV cannot save its owner as much gas as ten to fifteen HEVs can save their owners. So until battery supplies are effectively unlimited, a sound energy policy will direct those resources to the most effective use. I'm sorry if you found my use of the term elitist offensive. But when somebody tells me that their desire to drive an EV that saves 400 gallons per year outweighs the desires of ten people to drive HEVs that will save each of them 175 gallons per year, I think that's pretty elitist.
If the gigawatt hour of battery capacity is used exclusively for PHEVs like the Volt, the factory will make batteries for 62,500 cars that save 27.5 million gallons of gas per year.
If the gigawatt hour of battery capacity is used exclusively for HEVs like the Prius, the factory will make batteries for 667,000 cars that save 116 million gallons of gas per year.
I couldn't care less what the battery chemistry is, PHEVs and EVs are an unconscionable waste of scarce resources.
I agree wholeheartedly that consumers must have an absolute right right to make their own decisions. But government subsidies for inherently wasteful technologies like PHEVs and EVs are the epitome of insanity.
On Aug 26 04:50 PM Davewmart wrote:
> User 389393:
> BTW I forgot to add that I entirely agree that the money put in by
> the US into battery companies has basically been conned out of them
> - as it is in Europe.
> The clear leaders in lithium battery technology are the Koreans and
> Chinese, and in NiMH the Japanese.
> The US and Europe are just paying to establish production facilities.
>
> I can't see where thed small America companies are going to upset
> the big Eastern players, so it is more pork.
No current figures for lead carbon batteires for use in cars?
Get real, or give it up!
On Aug 26 05:44 PM speculawyer wrote:
> On Aug 26 05:33 PM John Petersen wrote:
More or less right so far?
But this seems like a twist of logic to me. It is not as if we are apportioning a limited number of KwH to each vehicle. We can build 32 Priuses and 3 Volts. Since they use different batteries it seems like a fallacy to say that each Volt keeps 32 priuses off the road. Why would one affect the other?
Additionally, if they do affect one another then the constraint would be manufacturing resources at the macro level. That is, every mine/factory producing Li-Ion can't produce NiMH. Maybe this is what you were trying to say but to me, using KwH clouds the matter.
Finally, sort of off topic of this article, I think that part of the reason Lithium-Ion batteries get all the press is that they sound cool and futuristic. I mean, probably less than half the US population could tell you what Lithium is or what an Ion is and probably less than 25% could tell you what both are but damned if it doesn't sound high-tech to say "Lithium-Ion" as opposed to "Lead-Carbon."
Ultracaps Could Boost Hybrid Efficiency
Recent studies point to the potential of ultracapacitors to augment conventional batteries.
www.technologyreview.c...
Making cheaper, higher-energy batteries to store renewable energy,
www.technologyreview.c...
Electric motors are between 3 and 4 times more efficient than internal combustion engines. For over 50 years our trains have been diesel electric because they are much more energy efficient than diesel only trains which require a transmission and whose diesel engines cannot run at a constant speed for maximum efficiency like in the diesel electric system. The US Military has been replacing its diesel trucks with diesel electric trucks which use the same technique as diesel electric locomotives. These diesels running at a energy efficient constant speed are used to charge ultra capacitors which supply electricity to the electric motor. No energy wasting transmission is needed with the electric motor. No batteries are used and the trucks get between 20 and 40% better MPG than the trucks they replace.
These more efficient technologies will DEFINITELY CONTRIBUTES TO America's Drive for Energy Independence. The electric motors for cars like jet engines for planes require much less maintenance and last much longer than piston engines. If you buy a Tesla you would be a fool to sell it for the typical depreciated price of an ICE vehicle when the battery wears out. Battery technology will continue to improve at a rapid pace for many years and their price will go down and their reliability will improve. The law of supply and demand and competition for market share will insure that prediction.
A. The PEV are superior in terms of their per vehicle contribution to energy independence.
B. HEV are superior in terms of pure economics.
The rent seeking (via lobbying) that is involved in getting government to come up with appropriate subsidy for HEV vs PEV is a task that would task even King Solomon (pun intended).
May I suggest a simpler approach:
Compute the cost of US expenditures required to maintain sea lanes in Persian Gulf, bases in Saudi Arabia, subsidies to Egypt's dictator president etc.
Collect this amount via gasoline tax, while simultaneously reducing income tax, with tax being introduces gradually over 5 to 10 years to allow for gradual car fleet replacement.
The market will figure out whether PEV or HEV is a better solution, without government's assistance.
The solution will have a number of advantages, including:
1. Reduction of US trade deficit
1a. Improved US competitive position due to lower income/corporate taxes
2. Reduction of pollution.
3. Reduction of the amount of money flowing to the Saudis, Egyptians, Iranians and other unfriendly nations. Portion of the oil tax will naturally come out of their pockets, leaving US as a country better off than before.
4. Optimal allocation of car-buying dollars via market-based decision, instead of via government fiat.
5. Gradual reduction in military expenditures as energy dependence decreases and strategic importance of the Persian Gulf declines.
I see your points and understand them, and I'm not going to take sides in this debate. I do have a few points, though.
1) You wrote "double check my numbers." I did and found an error: You wrote "the average American will burn about 436 gallons of gasoline" and "Each GM Volt will use 16 kWh of lithium-ion batteries and save the average owner up to 436 gallons of gasoline per year." That would mean that the Volt would never be run on gasoline. The Volt would have to average 32 miles per day, never exceeding 40 miles between charges. That is possible, but unlikely for most drivers.
2) Your conclusion did not completely match your argument. You should have concluded that the Prius should be a plug-in with the same amount of batteries. It would have a gas generator, like the PHEV's, but no gas engine. The generator would kick in after about 4 miles (it has 1/10 of the wattage of the Volt, although other variables, like weight and wind resistance, would factor in). That would allow for an even further reduction in gas usage. If the car is charged and used once per day, and goes 12,000 miles per year, it would run on electricity 1/8 of the time.
3) You are comparing a technology that has been used for 10 years with one that is just coming out now. After the first generation PHEV and EV cars come out, the technology should improve with experience.
4) What about other types of batteries, such as Zinc-Air?
Next time you get an epiphany, please summarize. This bickering is giving me such a headache, I may just start reading iamned.com
Your very concise summary comment:
" in terms of national fuel savings per kWh of battery capacity, PHEVs and EVs are far less attractive than HEVs which only need 1.5 kWh of battery capacity to slash gasoline consumption by 40%."
This is slick reasoning and I give you due credit.
Your jury seems to agree and applaud.
Looking out in the future a little, after consumers have had a chance to vote with their dollars and battery investors get to do the same, I see the cost of surviving similar capability passenger vehicles converging. The cost is the vehicle price plus the fuel / operating cost. It won't matter much whether they're gas, HEV, PHEV or BEV. It's basic equilibrium economics.
At that point, gasoline consumption using the 12,000 miles per year driving:
Gas at 30mpg = 400 gallons
HEV at 60mpg = 200 gall
PHEV at 120mpg = 100 gall
BEV at (no gas) = 0 gall
It seems like common sense that the more electric traction we use, the less transportation oil we will need and the more energy independence we will enjoy. I don't think there's any doubt we will get there. Especially since "In America we wake up in the morning, we go to work and we solve our problems."
So the only real issue at hand is the path we take to get there. Capitalism tends to be messy, but efficient.
I have no doubt that the technology we eventually end up with will be the lowest cost one.
But since we are on the subject... I do know that it would take several years, on the order of 2-4 to procure the equipment needed and retrofit an existing building to house it. That is 2-4 years for a small scale line that covers mixing of the electrode components all the way to final cell manufacture.
That doesn't include any time needed to build a factory from the ground up. This also doesn't include any delays that might come up with zoning, air permits, etc. I haven't even begun to get into the amount of time it will take to get a cell line running at optimum efficiency and subsequently train people to run it. I also don't think that anyone would want to start pumping the initial lots of cells into EVs the minute they come off the line. Those cells would be considered prototypes at best and would be subjected to rigorous testing before any OEM with an ounce of sense would incoroporate them into a final advice.
I also never said that the Volt or Leaf are available now. I said that the resources going into those boondoggles are wasted until the price of them drops so that it is in reach of the everyday consumer.
I personally think that the Volt is a great idea, and it would be perfect for my lifestyle. However, for $40K, I could get a hell of a lot more car that's a hybrid that fits my lifestyle as well and still have money to spare. Not to mention that that car would have more than likely have a proven track record of performance as opposed to a battery that might last 10 years or 10 weeks. But if you want to keep making up a position based on your strawman arguements, feel free.
On Aug 26 05:57 PM speculawyer wrote:
So it takes 10 years to build a factory? LOL.
Guess what . . . the Volt and the Leaf ARE NOT AVAILABLE. They will not be available in decent quantities for a couple years. More than enough time to build more battery factories. We ARE building way more HEVs today.
EVsupport, the articles I've seen on the Leaf have them selling the car and leasing the battery separately. There is no way it will be cheaper than the Volt when all of the costs are added in.
CanEnginTx, PHEVs and EVs eliminate all gasoline use, but only at the price of an unconscionable waste of other resources. In a world where 6 billion people want to earn a little piece of the lifestyle 500 million of us take for granted, I can't agree that they're a superior to anything.
Hostaman22, I don't see a straw man here - just flesh, blood, money and an immense taxpayer subsidized waste of resources.
ClickHere, I've been doing this long enough to know that folks are never happy with driving estimates for the Volt that include a gas powered range, which is why I said "up to," which allows for the possibility of the engine never starting. While the Prius launches from a stop and drives at low speed in electric only mode, the electric drive is not designed to be the primary propulsion for the vehicle. It's designed to supplement the ICE. Technical improvements in PHEVs and EVs will be very limited as long as you're trying to push 3,000 pounds of steel at highway speeds. If you want to change the equations significantly, you need to slash the weight like Aptera is doing.
save 200 GPY in a Prius - 1.5 kWh
save another 100 GPY in a Volt - add 14.5 kWh
save another 100 GPY in a Leaf - add 8 kWh
At a current cost of $1,000 per kWh and a 2012 target of $500 per kWh, that description works for me.
The real question is which use of batteries do you think the Federal government should subsidize?
Are your readers aware of the fact that a typical OEM automotive assembly plant today in the USA is only cost effective when it can produce a lot of cars? There are now less than 20 assembly plants operated in North America by the former big three; there were more than double that number at the turn of the century just between GM and Ford.
Chrysler's Jeep Toledo plants (2) produced a record 320,000 "units" one year in the early 1990s under the management of a close friend of mine. He then moved to the Windsor, Ontario Chrysler plant at which the minvans and crossovers were made and ramped that plant up to 1,000 units per day (16 hours).
Imagine how ineffective it is today to run a plant making just 10,000 Chevrolet Volts a year! I understand that such a plant will not be, at first, a "flex' plant; it will make just the one model. This will be a huge costly "beta" site where GM will learn by trial and error.
The last thing the manager of the Volt plant will think about is "how long will the battery maintain its performance specifications intact?" That will be the repsonsibility of a hugely expensive engineering group carefully maintaining a log on each car made and then following the first few 'thousand" carefully.
Oh, and did I mention that there will need to be a separate service group writing a mnual, specifying parameters and equipment to measure and repair, sourcing the equipment, financing the equipment for dealers and service shops, training technicians, and monitoring them?
The cost of this experiment will be in the billions-it has already cost more than one billion! The result is at this time unknown.
Let's see: If the battery type chosen for initial prodcution doesn't work out it will have to be studied to see if the problem was the chemistry, the manufacturing engineering, or the actual use that made it fail. While all of that is going on another battery will have to be specified and sourced and production will be curtailed until further testing is finished.
How long do your readers think the above sequences will take just for ONE TYPE OF LITHIUM-ION BATTERY?
My guess is up to five years, so I think that the electrification of cars will not get to the stage of multiple manufacturers making hundreds of thousands of units per year for perhaps a decade.
Is this really a horizon for small investors, or, even, for large private investors. No, it is not. The elctrification of the motor car for private personal use can only proceed if it is to be done with new battery technology by massive public financing.
Did I mention that I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read about how much simpler to build an electrified car will be than an ICE type? A current ICE car has around 6,000 components. I suppose the electrified ones will only have 5,500 components. That will make no difference at all in the complexity of building a car.
Engineering minds are a terrible thing to waste and wasted resources of rare metals and oil cannot be recovered or replaced.
Producing corn ethanol in the United States is a very wasteful process. It is estimated that it takes 1.3 gallons of fossil fuel to make a gallon of ethanol. And the International Institute for Sustainable Development found "ethanol subsidies amount to $1.05-$1.38 per gallon, or 42 percent to 55 percent of ethanol's wholesale market price." Our government is taxing its people and borrowing money to subsidize this growth and production.
Cellulosic ethanol MIGHT make more sense if researched and done properly, but that won't stop the agribusinesses from enjoying and pushing for continued government subsidies on corn and ethanol production and use.
And I think what stands in the way of some folks seeing the better short term solution on the path to the long one is that there ALWAYS seems to be tremendous foot dragging on the part of the industry to making fuel efficiency driven changes. The line is always "it's too early" or "it's not yet practical" when what we find 10-20 years down the road is just that riding the old model a while longer was easier and more profitable. There is a role for government in steering long term economic interests of the nation away from policies which might be more beneficial to a few in the short run. In fact except for protecting the borders, promoting the long term interests of the nation is the most important role of government. Government should use both the carrot (incentives and subsidies) and the stick (mandates) to get this done. This is not communism or central planning, it is the wise long term view of environmental, socio-economic, and geo-political issues that we all WISH our governments would take.
Back in the days that coal was being retired as the primary fuel for ships there were a lot of people who complained about the trouble and expense of converting to oil. There are ALWAYS those who want to keep the current technology (and profit model) in place even if it precludes long term benefits to society (and other emerging companies).
So in summary I can accept the strength of your argument, but only with the caveat that we need to get on the path towards this upgrade and eventual pure non-gas solutions ASAP. Hybrid can not be seen as a "good enough" option for so long that we find we our dependency on foreign oil remains unacceptably high.
Very nice article.
www.mineweb.co.za/mine...
Prius - NiMh battery and a permanent magnet based electric motor. Its doubly vulnerable to material constraints. Also it needs oil to run
Chev Volt - Li Ion Mn Battery, motor unknown whether uses permanent magnets or not. Needs some oil for longer distances
Nissan Leaf / Better Place - Li ion Mn or LiFePO4 battery, motor unknown but the 'mules' seemed to AC systems motors which don't use REE. Never needs oil.
I know what I said is counterintuitive, but the way I see it, the resource constraints will be the Prius path, and the resource unconstrained will be the Better Place path.
Having said that, if you had a fuel efficient car than used a lead acid battery that got those numbers, then you're right, we're all better off with lead acid.
On Aug 27 04:36 AM Mule123 wrote:
> You have forgotten one example. A fuel efficient car that can achieve
> say 55mpg. These cars costs less than a Prius and only have a 0.75
> kWh lead acid battery. If you do the same sums as above you get 'Gas
> Savings' of 13952 gallons. Using your own argument we should all
> be investing in greater fuel economy without hybrid or EV technology.
> But I think your logic is flawed. The aim is to significantly reduce
> the reliance on oil. That is only achieved with the PHEV and EV technology.
weight was a problem, but gasoline cars had hand cranks which weren't too wonderful.
mayascribe - carbon (12) plus oxygen (32, from air) makes CO2 in a 44/12 ratio.
> jack
While the current versions ARE inefficient (spending $40,000 to save less than $1,500 yr on a high-maintenance 10-year asset) let us gain efficiency through experience so that when Breeder Reactors hit the market in 2030, we are ready.
In the mean time, I think that very simple technology will replace coal, oil and natural gas with manufactured methane, which can have the carbon atom stripped for completely clean, portable energy. EVs just make either manufactured methane or Breeder Reactor electricity work with a century's worth of existing infrastructure.
On Aug 26 10:57 AM doubleguns wrote:
> One word!!! Congress.
Thanks,
My question is when these electric vehicles become the clunkers of the future...will we be able and ready to recycle these batteries or will the batteries become a future pollution problem for planet Earth??
How will the central planner decide for us???
soundclick.com/share?s...
Thanks,
I used 55mpg as it made the sums easy (twice the 27.5mpg quoted in the article). To give you an example, the New Fiesta ECOnetic 1.6TDCi 3/5 door, has a combined mpg of 76.3mpg, www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Ne... so it is entirely possible.
I was making the same comparison to give gallons saving per kWh. Let me know John if I made a mistake. It should be noted that the battery I am referring to does not the wheels like a hybrid, it is just a standard car battery for the lights and radio etc.
if we wanted prius like fuel economy just drive a Chevy Spark, Chery QQ, BYD F0 etc. hey we could even drive a Lifan 520 CNG - iecauto.lifan.com/enau... but that is not exclusive enough
i was just reading about someone who updated their holden gemini, 22 years old, fuel efficiency like a prius (but no acceleration) - www.autoblog.com/2006/.../
in regards to battery lease and nissan leaf, i expect that upfront the sticker cost may be great, but with a lease, the sticker shock will be replaced by pleasant sticker surprise and the resale/life span of a pure EV will be fantastic, (expect million km life from electric vehicles with minimal maintenance required)
1 safety, size = crumple zone = safety.
for the same weight, a bigger car is safer.
with increased weight a bigger car is safer yet.
2 possible uses, big cars can carry more, 1 once a year use is still important and unless you are happy to have multiple cars, big tends to win if its financially affordable. (which it tends to be compared to big + small)
finally cars with electric motors tend not be affected nearly so much by hard acceleration or excessive braking (wide electric torque/efficiency band and regenerative braking), and a long car could be more aerodynamically efficient than a more squat design
On Aug 27 09:04 AM a. palmer jr. wrote:
> I think that when people really get serious about gas mileage and
> electrical mileage, so to speak, we'll start making our vehicles
> (and ourselves) as light as possible. Vehicle weight, especially
> in the city, with all the starts and stops, determines for a large
> part how much gas mileage you are going to get. Once a vehicle gets
> rolling, up to a point, it takes less energy to keep it rolling.
> The point I'm speaking of is wind resistance. We see people all
> the time driving huge vehicles with only one person on board...what
> do they need all the extra space for? There should be vehicles built
> for limited passenger use for people like them (and me) that rarely
> have passengers. That would save some weight and even add some space
> for the driver. I drive a Cavalier to work and it has a cramped
> up driver's seat area but look around and you have a back seat and
> front passenger seat unoccupied. I could drive a smaller car and
> still have more room if it was designed differently.
so, take about a ton of matter, extract some enerygy then output four tons of matter? I think you have stumbled on to perpetual motion here.
On Aug 27 09:05 AM Mule123 wrote:
> Battman,
>
> I used 55mpg as it made the sums easy (twice the 27.5mpg quoted in
> the article). To give you an example, the New Fiesta ECOnetic 1.6TDCi
> 3/5 door, has a combined mpg of 76.3mpg, www.ford.co.uk/Cars/Ne...
> so it is entirely possible.
>
> I was making the same comparison to give gallons saving per kWh.
> Let me know John if I made a mistake. It should be noted that the
> battery I am referring to does not the wheels like a hybrid, it is
> just a standard car battery for the lights and radio etc.
www.legis.state.tx.us/...
a government potentially leading by example, now thats a thought.
The other things that come to mind--AC outlet addision or non-existant in apartment or codo garages and who pays for the electric billings--it's not free.
The othe,aspect,which you touch,ever so lightly,is the life span of these battries and the replacement cost.I'm told that Lithium has a
recharge death to rate of 300 times.There is this other CO2 production in manufacturing these several needed batteries.
No-one has discussed the heavy lead batteries that demand extra power to carry.
Has anyone thought of solar panels embedded in car roofs--that just might get an edge for made cars?
otherwise great article John {:^)
From this retail investor, a $22,500 HEV is a smarter buy than a $40,000 EV. Electricity rates are generally going up along with everything else. Over the life of the vehicle, the HEV should be a better choice in the near future.
I'm not certain, but do I detect sarcasim in your comment battman. The purpose of my first post was to show that John's sums are misleading. If you use the value of higher 'gallons per kWk' as a measure of what the future of car design should be then my figures show that normal cars with a normal car battery but with better mpg give the highest value (13952 compared to the hybrids 5568).
But this will only give a 50% reduction in fuel consumption (using the 55mpg example). That is not enough! The aim should be to reduce oil consumption by 80-90% by 2050. Cars with Improved fuel economy or (the current) hybrids do not achieve this. PHEV and EV will.
On Aug 27 09:27 AM battman wrote:
> I assume the TDCi stands for turbo diesel. The best solution for
> gas savings is diesel with start stop technology. Best bang for
> the buck and would be the quickest mass production roll out. And
> if it were to utilize the lead carbon battery of someone like, oh
> I don't know, say Axion, this would have the added benefit of keeping/creating
> a lot of the jobs in the U.S to make the batteries.
Lead acid would require at least twice the weight in batteries, maybe more, to give me the same performance.
The biggest problems with automobiles and batteries is the weight. The automobile has to continually carry the weight of the batteries around, so the lighter the batteries per same power output, the more efficient the car will be.
I dispute the weight savings that are being cited in this study. The weight of the lithium ion batteries will probably be HALF of the lead, and with no combustion engine, additional weight savings should be seen there and in the frame of the car which won't require as much metal to support the lighter lithium batteries.
Prices will drop as more lithium ion batteries are made, no? As the lead batteries AGE and their efficiency drops, the extra weight actually causes the lead batteries efficiency to drop even faster.
I believe the Lithiums perform at similar capacity until they just no longer work. I'd rather have a battery stay steady and then eventually quickly drop off, then have a battery that slowly loses efficiency over several years time.
The solution to this is --not to own the cars--but devise some kind of Rental/club/share program where you drop the car at the end of the line at the gas station where it goes on recharge, and with your credit card key, take a fully charged one from the front of the line, and drive away. Takes no longer than gassing up and uses only elec.
For displaying ego and personality, drive your Lamborghini-2nd car to the beach on weekends, use 5 gal of gas, and be seen polishing it in the driveway.
However, if cutting our dependence upon the middle east is the focus you're on the right path regarding battery technology development. There currently exists a battery company that is focused on LiFePO4 batteries that is equal to NiMH in energy density, but does charge in 10% of the time, triples the life cycles, thus impacting the range and utility of the vehicle since it could charge in 15 minutes. Public chargers will change that too.
Again, adding super caps and regen to the system and you extend the range.
Add renewable energy sources to the charging equation and you've cut the CO2 emissions and the cost of recharging since these RE chargers could be at home or at work. In fact, the Prius is starting on this strategy by adding solar panels to run the air conditioner. It could obviously be used to charge the batteries for driving.
So, it's not all about the batteries, but about the battery systems and charging. There's a play for all of this system.
And ... number two...
1) Smith Electric is partnering with Ford to bring into the USA delivery trucks and light commercial vehicles that are already proven on the road in England ... over 100 mi. to the charge, 70 mph on the highway, all-electric. Zaap in the USA is already selling a small electric car that has a sticker price under $12,000 and is lower mph for local commutes (e.g., let's say all of Manhattan..?), battery companies such as Ecotality already have on the market quick-charge packs that make plug-in for daily recharge unnecessary... there is healthy competition in the marketplace for what is the next 'Silicon Valley' boom... i.e. the EV market. Drive-trains are in the works... Enova is Smith Electric's choice at the moment... etc. etc. - the competition for this enormous market of EVs is resulting in a highly creative atmosphere...
Why limit thinking about the impact of EVs to the commuter... think of the entire commercial vehicle marketplace, consider the very easy solutions to 'insurmountable' problems in battery production and supply of necessary basic ingredients.....
What exactly is wrong with moving away from oil entirely in the auto industry?
Sorry.. your entire 'intellectual drive train...' is utterly counter-intuitive to the global needs of the future...
No reason why wind, solar, and other energy sources will not be able to provide for the battery recharging requirements of EVs...
Why exactly lop off the entire creative mindset of the next generation of geeks.. all those kids who know where we need to go.. and they are setting their sights on the future in a style that you are not, to my mind, even approching.....
Why slow the pace by introducing such tremendous doubt?
The science and technology for EVs is moving forward very quickly, we have simply to blink a few times, and this technology will fall into place - the Prius is a lovely stepping stone.
Where's your leap of faith..(science derives its forward momentum by leaps of faith... )
The L-word comes to mind... sorry to blurt it out...
Luddite?
On Aug 26 12:32 PM Mayascribe wrote:
> A premium gallon of gasoline has a gravity weight of 54, and weighs
> 6.35 pounds. How does that translate into 20 pounds of CO2 emissions?
>
>
> Methinks something's awry here.
The main problem is the infrastructure. The State of New Jersey currently has a small fleet of vehicles utilizing CNG. It has been in use for over a decade. Range can be a problem if the tank is not sized correctly.
On Aug 27 09:53 AM bobbobwhite wrote:
> We should use up our abundant supplies of NG to fuel cars until electric
> tech has matured for full time usage by everyone. It is still mostly
> a curiosity and not really practical for 99% of American car usage.
> Come back in about 20 years when it is commonplace and efficientand
> cheap enough for everyone. And, use up that cheap NG until then!
I don't think 90% reductions is realistic. Doesn't mean we don't strive for it, but it's just not realistic. Part of solving the problem is dealing with it in a practical manner and being honest with ourselves.
On Aug 27 09:51 AM Mule123 wrote:
> battman
>
> I'm not certain, but do I detect sarcasim in your comment battman.
> The purpose of my first post was to show that John's sums are misleading.
> If you use the value of higher 'gallons per kWk' as a measure of
> what the future of car design should be then my figures show that
> normal cars with a normal car battery but with better mpg give the
> highest value (13952 compared to the hybrids 5568).
>
> But this will only give a 50% reduction in fuel consumption (using
> the 55mpg example). That is not enough! The aim should be to reduce
> oil consumption by 80-90% by 2050. Cars with Improved fuel economy
> or (the current) hybrids do not achieve this. PHEV and EV will.
>
On Aug 26 11:14 AM John Petersen wrote:
> Mrfnd, the scarce commodity is the batteries. One GM Volt uses the
> same batteries that could be used to power 10 Prius class hybrids.
> One Nissan uses the same batteries that could be used to power 15
> Prius class hybrids. So for every EV you build, you are going to
> keep 10 to 15 Prius class hybrids off the road.
But if "NiMH batteries are terribly resource constrained" as you said, then how realistic is it to assert that one could build 16 times as many NiMH as Li-ion?
special interests
On Aug 26 10:57 AM doubleguns wrote:
> Congress has sabotaged our opportunity for energy independence since
> the 70's oil crisis. Why can we go to the moon in a decade in the
> 60's (no doubt) but cant achieve energy independence in forty years.
>
>
> One word!!! Congress.
Now we need to add to the "comparison" some more facts. Facts like 50% of our energy comes from coal. I've yet to see how more CO2 emissions from power plants compare to the savings in CO2 from gasoline.
Electric cars are another misdirection to appease the special interests that control Washington. Just like corn based ethanol is nothing more than a distraction and when you dig done, saves NO CO2 and arguably, could actually increase the environmental impact.
As always, the law of unintended consequences will come into play.
Building batteries and cars in foreign lands, to ship to our shores and then burning coal to power them sounds like a big problem in this "environmental" save that MSM and Washington touts.
Yet one more case of solve nothing, increase debts and move facilities off shore to save a buck.
Never fear, I'm sure the government will hike gas taxes to punish those of us that can't afford a $40,000 vehicle and help to subsidize both the car unions and their foreign suppliers.
Along with subsidizing the states in their collection of taxes on electricity. Watch for fixed expenses and taxes to increase on your bills, it has already started in Michigan.
What are we going to do when the cost of electricity skyrockets as coal plants are punished in the "energy" scheme coming out of Washington?
On Aug 27 10:44 AM cjkubx wrote:
> The amount of "battery" in the world is not limited. We can have
> plenty of both types of battery, unless you are leaving out limited
> supplies of certain rare elements. There are limited subsidies to
> go around however; but we could say that standard hybrids no longer
> need the subsidy (the technology can fund itself). On a cost basis
> standard hybrids may make more sense today; but we will eventually
> need plug-ins for when oil is less available.
Michigan sits on huge natural gas supplies, our governor has been telling us for 6 years that we must "go green" and must "go high tech."
Yet, we gift contracts to Korea on tax abatements and totally ignore that which is abundant and sitting beneath our feet.
This isn't about the environment, any more than health care is about reform or our health. It is about massive government picking winners & losers with NO common sense and crushing innovation and small business (your jobs) in their wheels of destruction and growth.
They just paint a pretty picture, mislead and lie and reap the rewards while WE pay for them.
On Aug 27 10:32 AM John Bowman wrote:
> Right on! At this stage of the game, CNG is the only alternative
> (if that's what you're into) we have for fueling vehicles. The conversion
> is cheap in comparison to electric or hybrid vehicles and more efficient..
> The recently discovered veins of natural gas in Pa. and nearby States
> guarantees decades of cheap energy.
>
> The main problem is the infrastructure. The State of New Jersey currently
> has a small fleet of vehicles utilizing CNG. It has been in use for
> over a decade. Range can be a problem if the tank is not sized correctly.
>
1) Switch transportation (truck, train and mass transportation) and agriculture to natural gas freeing up diesel for auto transportation.
2) Build Generation 5 Nuclear out ASAP, exponentially dropping CO2 emissions.
3) Use the transportation diesel freed in #1 for auto, combing hybrid technology for auto with TDI diesel.
Why is this not happening? Coal lobbies, Oil interests (domestic and foreign), unions and the eco-terrorists (concerned about oil shale drilling for NG).
Where is the energy independence program promised us by every President since Nixon including the Eco's handpicked Pres? Out to lunch with a lobbyist in Washington.
I would bet my entire portfolio on the rational economics of this proposal if I thought the rational had any sway in the "free" market system. Instead we get windmills (thank you J. Immelt, hi-tech in the 11th century) solar (which only makes electicity when the sun is out and thus we don't need it) subsidies.
The deck is stacked my friends...
1. The time of electric motors in cars has come for whatever reasons.
2. Whatever the solutions will be, we should preserve what makes American unique: the right to make decisions and to enjoy the fruits of our labor (and taking the lumps for the wrong decisions).
3. The less the government tinkers with cars the better off we will be.
4. I have a personal stake in these matters as I own TM, HMC, JCI and RZ.
5. Americans want big cars, Pick up trucks and this has not been addressed in this exchange of facts and opinions.
6. There is a company called Raser (RZ) that has an electric motor that approaches theoretical efficiency. This motor has been used for the Electric Hummer that has a range of maybe 50 miles in all electric mode and gets 33 mpg when the gasoline-driven generator is in operation:
www.rasertech.com/medi...
7. Raser also is set to deliver power from geothermal plants that has economics close to natural gas-driven power plants.
8. Raser's power generators can be hooked up to anything that generates hot water and recover some of the heat in electricity generated.
Go and check out the tech.
Mayscribe, States/Asks
>How to turn 6 pounds of gasoline into 20 pounds of carbon dioxideA< >premium gallon of gasoline has a gravity weight of 54, and weighs 6.35< >pounds. How does that translate into 20 pounds of CO2 emissions?<
>Methinks something's awry here. <
Adam Stein | March 21, 2006
The secret is in the air. Get ready to dust off your high school chemistry.
Chemistry is coolThe curious (or suspicious-minded) among you have occasionally wondered about our claim that one gallon of gas turns into about twenty pounds of carbon dioxide exhaust. Your high school chemistry teacher would be very disappointed with you for even thinking the question, but there’s no judging here at TerraBlog. Let’s walk through the math.
Short answer:
When you burn something, it might feel like you’re turning it into lightness, air, nothingness. But what you’re really doing is simultaneously vaporizing it and chemically bonding it with oxygen in the air. It’s the weight of that oxygen that makes up the difference.
Carbon dioxide — or CO2 — is one carbon atom joined to two oxygen atoms. Carbon dioxide. Oxygen is a little bit heavier than carbon, so when you stick two oxygen atoms onto every available carbon atom, you end up with an amount of CO2 that is roughly triple the weight of the gasoline.
Long answer:
One gallon of gas weighs about 6.25 pounds. The weight fluctuates with temperature and octane, but this figure is good enough for government work.
Let’s pretend that gas is entirely made up of octane (more properly referred to as 2,2,4-trimethylpentane). It’s not, but that also doesn’t really matter for our purposes. Octane contains 8 carbon atoms (hence the oct- prefix, like Dr. Octopus) and 18 hydrogen atoms. Carbon has a molecular weight of 12 and hydrogen has a molecular weight of 1, so octane has a total molecular weight of 114 (8 x 12 + 18 x 1).
Oxygen has a molecular weight of 16, so CO2 has a total molecular weight of 44 (12 + 16 + 16). Every molecule of octane makes 8 molecules of CO2, with a total molecular weight of 352 (44 x 8).
6.25 pounds x (352 / 114) = 19.3 pounds
Et voila! All it takes to convert one gallon of gas into 20-ish pounds of carbon dioxide is some highly confusing algebra!
Bonus material:
Gas doesn’t burn 100% cleanly. You also get some carbon monoxide and other nasty stuff coming out of your tailpipe. But that doesn’t really affect our math very much. The official World Resources Institute conversion rate that we use in our carbon calculator is 19.564 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline. Although we round this number to 20 pounds when we speak informally of the amount of carbon dioxide from one gallon of gasoline, all of our online calculators use the more precise figures.
Also, bear in mind that the 19.564 pounds of CO2 are just the direct result of burning gasoline. The process of extracting, refining, and transporting the product adds an extra few pounds per gallon to the actual environmental impact of filling your gas tank.
Finally, your exhaust is quite a bit heavier if you count the steam that is generated. Those 16 hydrogen atoms attached to every octane molecule have to go somewhere. They combine with oxygen to create water (H2O). Every gallon of gas creates roughly 8 pounds of water vapor. And water vapor is, believe it or not, a greenhouse gas, although not one we generally concern ourselves with, for a variety of reasons.
Aren’t you sorry you asked?
I think America is trying to look for tech miracles, so they can continue to drive big cars & trucks, rather than take the low hanging fruit of smaller cars, diesels, more public transport or live, shop, work closer together. I have a friend in London that does not own a car and cycles to work, in some parts of the US that would define you as loser. Well may be Americans should try getting out of their cars more, my friend is a partner in a law firm and earned over a million dollars last year.
This is a bad assumption, and poisons all conclusions drawn from it.
It is more likely (certain ?) that battery production will increase in line with PHEV/EV vehicle production - and subsequent economies of scale and efficiencies will do what it always does - drive down price.
Since we are making very little electricity from imported oil, then yes, the car that gets most of its range from batteries will be the one that gives us the biggest push towards independence from Chavez and the Sheiks...no doubt about that.
However, in the short term, until newer techology becomes available, we need to be developing ALL available sources of energy (geothermal, oil shale, wind, nuclear, solar, coal, responsible off-shore drilling) to get our country less dependent on foreign sources. Unfortunately, our government is only focused on extremely expensive ultra-green policies that will only drive higher prices, eliminate jobs, and stifle economic growth.
However, in the short term, until newer techology becomes available, we need to be developing ALL available sources of energy (geothermal, oil shale, wind, nuclear, solar, coal, responsible off-shore drilling) to get our country less dependent on foreign sources. Unfortunately, our government is only focused on extremely expensive ultra-green policies that will only drive higher prices, eliminate jobs, and stifle economic growth.
Compression ratio determines thermal efficiency for any internal combustion engine. The higher the thermal efficiency, the greater the amount of work/power produced per BTU put into the tank.
Gasoline has an octane rating of 85-87. Ethanol has an octane rating of 115-120{depending on testing method}. Octane rating is a measure of the fuel resistance to pre ignition(knock)---the tendency for the fuel to ignite too soon in the power cycle. This will destroy the engine. Gasoline engines are limited to compression ratios of about 9.5~10:1 on regular gasoline. Ethanol can achieve compression ratios of 18~24:1 without problems.
We can build engines to run on ethanol that can easily double the thermal efficiency and power output vs. gasoline fueled engines. This efficiency is across the board for the entire range of engine function-----not just the stop and go of city driving. Hybrids offer no advantage in efficiency for highway driving.
We can build ethanol engines that make efficiency gains from hybrids look paltry----on the order of 2X. We can power large SUVs with engines less than 1/2 the size of gas powered V8s and equal power. And we can do it completely without any complicated and expensive battery technology. All we need to do is change the fuel----not the technology.
Ethanol is produced from plants---every atom of carbon in an ethanol fuel was first removed from the atmosphere by the plant----using ethanol as a fuel does not contribute any new carbon to the atmosphere. We can produce ethanol from any type of plant material at all, including wood, cellulose. We have been able to do it for over 100 years.
Gasoline fueled engines are limited to about 20% efficiency---ethanol engines can achieve 45% efficiency and do now, with entirely off the shelf technology.
There is no need for hybrids.
www.cars21.com/content...
On Aug 26 11:52 AM John Petersen wrote:
> blindpete, I don't think we have a long-term constraint on lithium,
> but over the short term there may be a whopping constraint because
> the miners are holding off on increasing production capacity until
> they see whether the demand will be there. Once that metric is clear,
> it will take years for the miners to respond. See:
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
The Prius is a very good start, but that start was 10 years ago! We've spent 8 years in the wilderness under Bush. Thank the good Lord we are finally seeing some innovation. Can't wait to see what wins the X-prize. Hope I can bolt Poulsen Hybrid wheels on my 98 Corolla next year (that oughta be good for another 200,000 miles).
On Aug 26 11:08 AM mfrnd wrote:
> If one EV saves 400 gallons, then wouldn't 10 EV's save a combined
> 4,000 gallons just as 10 Prius-class Hybrids saved 1,600 gallons?
> What did I miss?
T. Boone Pickens
Natural Gas
Only thing better is: small battery biodiesel hybrid.
As for Don Harmon's ignorance: he needs to read about the Chorus Motor requiring no Neodymiun while surpassing existing magnet- motor performance at:
www/http:chorusmotor.gi
Admittedly I am not doing so well with my wife's new Camry that gets 26-27 mpg. But this an apples to oranges comparison. Give me ten more years.
But what has this to do with the price of tea in China. More than you might think.
Call me narrow-minded, but with a spouse and two teenage drivers, that total cost/ mile thing is big on my mind. It will influence every auto decision I make for years to come. This thinking is not "anti-green", it is not "un-American", it is simply logical and frugal. Many in this country actually think this way.
Cost means something; for some , it may mean everything.
For those who mean to save the planet, pay your dollar per mile cost for your all electric cars (or sixty or seventy, you get the point)
Please don't go for legislating the rest of us into more forced stupidity, where we seem to be going at each and every step!
there is always someting "better" in the wings but until it is proven viable most of the electric motors being used in the new cars will be using Neodymium.
"In America we wake up in the morning, we go to work and we solve our problems."
---
If that were really true, why do we still have such a dysfunctional government? I think the problems there have persisted much longer than a day. ;)
As to the major car companies using, testing, etc. the Chorus - the car companies have been blind to many disruptive technologies which is one of the reasons they are in the trouble. The roadblocks are many, but the Chorus Technology is not the roadblock.
Maybe, just maybe, the hybrid airplane will have to lead the way if the form of Wheel-Tug, see
www.wheeltug.gi
In the meantime, maybe the other readers would like to be informed about the super motor that requires NO Neodymiun at
www.choruscars.com/cho...
Thanks for listening, and keep your eyes open for something "better".
While many don't want to hear the truth, the Volt and the Leaf are going to be extremely limited production vehicles like the first Prius was. They will be hooked into all manner of monitoring equipment so that the automakers can develop enough of an information base to make an educated decision to roll the vehicles into mass production. I have every confidence that the shape of the product acceptance curve will be the same shape as the historical Prius curve which you can view here:
www.hybridcars.com/hyb...
These are extremely new technologies that will not be suitable for mass production until the costs are driven down to a point where there is some fundamental competitive advantage to make up for the screaming inconvenience.
Mule123, an extremely fuel efficient car that can get 55 mpg would probably get something on the order of 85 to 90 mpg with HEV technology. I used the CAFE standards because they are a readily identifiable starting point for comparison and provide analytical uniformity. No mater what gas mileage assumption you start with for an ICE, PHEVs and EVs cannot compete with HEVs in terms of aggregate gallons of gasoline saved per kWh of battery capacity.
Renim, you're right on the resource constraints since all of them will likely use permanent magnet motors that will be hard to find if Jack is right on the REM supply constraints, but if I add to many problematic variables, somebody's head is going to explode.
mrpitchfork, that 240 miles of range requires a 60 kWh battery pack. So for each Tesla roadster that saves it's buyer 400 gallons of gas per year there will be 40 unbuilt Prius class hybrids that could have saved 6,800 gallons of gas per year. The Tesla may be fun, but subsidizing its purchase is a national energy policy travesty.
once the risk of prospecting for oil is not funded by the taxpayer and one battery is not favored by congress over another. once the government decides that corn ethanol is not the answer a level playing field for all sources of energy can emerge. when this happens, the consumer will decide which is the most efficient and the others will have to go back to the drawing board at their own expense. this is the American way
the.bighouse, thanks for the kind words. Currently recycling technology for lithium-ion and NiMH batteries is what you'd call nascent. Toxco claims that it can do so cost effectively, but aside from a plant in Vancouver they have no facilities. So I guess recycling will be possible when we build a whole new recycling infrastructure from the ground up.
seekingalpha.com/insta...
All kidding aside, using batteries to power 3,000 pounds of steel at highway speeds is just about the only activity I can imagine that is more wasteful than using gasoline to power 3,000 pounds of steel at highway speeds.
ICE - 218 gallons per year
Single Prius savings - 87 gallons per year
Single Volt savings - 281 gallons per year
10 Prius Savings - 870 gallons per year.
The PHEV still loses by a 4 to 1 ratio on aggregate gasoline savings.
Iowa Corn, thanks for reminding my alternative energy friends that when it comes to working Americans the choice has to boil down to a vehicle that does the job and is affordable. At the end of the day, all the technology in the world is worthless if the 95% of us that didn't get straight A's in high school are unwilling to pay the price.
That depends on what you are trying to accomplish. From the standpoint of eliminating the use of petroleum on economic, security, and pollution problems----yes.
If we double the efficiency of our fleet, even though ethanol contains less BTUs per gallon than gasoline----we can do exactly the same things we are doing now, and still use 40% less fuel. This is a savings that would be impossible to achieve even if we suddenly magically had a hybrid in every garage. Why bother with the added expense and complications and resource waste trying to use hybrid technology. Using biofuels(ethanol and biodiesel) means we have no problem with demand or availability of lithium, neodymium or anything else-----we just build our vehicles as we always have, only changing the specifications to take full advantage of the suprerior qualities that biofuels offer over petroleum. Indy Circuit Racing League cars are the fastest most advanced cars in the world. All Indy League cars run on 100% ethanol, and have run on alcohol base fuels for over 40 years. Indy League cars typically produce 1200-1600 hp(about the same hp as 3-4 over the road diesel truck rigs) from 3L V8 engines and hit 240~260 on the straights-----ethanol can certainly power any size truck or SUV we want with no sweat.
We can do the same thing hybrids are trying to do---but we don't need batteries, or electric motors.
Diesels are already high compression engines. Diesel engine vehicles achieve the same type of efficiency that hybrids do, but they do it across the entire performance spectrum---long haul as well as stop and go. Similar class vehicles in hybrid and diesel get about the same mileage. VW Jetta TDI gets roughly the same mileage as Toyota Prius. However, Jetta does not have an expensive battery pack to replace----and diesel engines are routinely run as much as 500,000 miles before they need to be overhauled or replaced. Biodiesel is a significantly better lubricant than petroleum----and will extend engine life.
Starting Oct. 1, all diesel fuel sold in the US must be ULSD(ultra low sulphur diesel). When sulphur is removed from petroleum---it quickly loses the lubrication it needs for use as a fuel. ULSD petroleum alone will destroy an engine very quickly. You need to add biodiesel(which contains NO sulphur) to get it to work.
The petroleum industry is calling ULSD S15(meaning >15 ppm sulphur)----I've seen the signs on the pumps already.
They are not calling it by its true name B5----they don't want people to know that it is actually 5% biodiesel. They are afraid that people will figure out, if 5% is good, 50% is better, and 100% is best.
The very first engine that Rudolf Diesel built in 1893 ran on peanut oil.
The way I see it----the entire problem is the fuel that we are using,(petroleum vs. biofuels) not the technology of how we build our vehicles.
As for compressed natural gas, methane can be derived from natural sources as well as fossil fuel sorces. CNG is clean and efficient and does not require strip mining and related ecological damage to acquire. It has an octane of about 120 so it can be used with both gasoline or diesel engines in a bifuel arrangement. Biomethane can be mixed with fossil methane in any proportion with no loss of performance, chemically,it is exactly the same.
VW already has several gasoline/CNG bifuel vehicles on the market now---and will be introducing a clean diesel/ CNG bifuel later this year. Excellent technology---clean, efficient, can use renewable/sustainable low environmental damage fuels, do everything we need our vehicles to do---and use no expensive, complicated or difficult to maintain drivetrains.
What more do we need? We can do everything we need to do with exactly what we have now----and have had since the very begining.
my knowledge happens to be focused on the day to day types of electric motors LiFeBATT has to deal with - most of which are DC motors to begin with, although we also work with AC, but the DC solution happens to be more common in electric vehicles at least at this juncture. It's simpler and much more cost effective also.
i am sure we will work with many other electric motors as this field continues to develop - but please refrain from using derogatory remarks on this forum, as it only serves to highlight your own limitations my friend.
Don Harmon
On Aug 27 01:11 PM nakedjaybird wrote:
> Don - your "ignorance" stems from the fact that there is a solution
> requiring NO Neodymiun for motors as if you were ignorant to the
> fact that there was a solution AND since you have confessed knowing
> of it, makes your "IGNORANCE" even more serious.
>
> As to the major car companies using, testing, etc. the Chorus - the
> car companies have been blind to many disruptive technologies which
> is one of the reasons they are in the trouble. The roadblocks are
> many, but the Chorus Technology is not the roadblock.
>
> Maybe, just maybe, the hybrid airplane will have to lead the way
> if the form of Wheel-Tug, see
>
> www.wheeltug.gi
>
> In the meantime, maybe the other readers would like to be informed
> about the super motor that requires NO Neodymiun at
>
> www.choruscars.com/cho...
>
> Thanks for listening, and keep your eyes open for something "better".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
JerryR, A123 just got a grant to build a factory that can make 1 GW of batteries per year. If those batteries go into PHEVs and EVs there will be roughly 62,500 cars that burn no gas. If those batteries go into HEVs, there will be roughly 667,000 cars that burn 40% less gas. If the goal is to reduce aggregate gasoline consumption, the only sensible choice is HEVs.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Alessandro, battery size and weight are critical metrics if you are talking about a PHEV or EV that needs to lug around 16 to 24 kWh of stored energy. In a Prius class hybrid that only needs 1.5 kWh of battery storage, the weight difference is a maximum of 77 pounds and the size difference is 0.7 cubic feet. I have a hard time about saving 77 pounds of weight on a 3,000 pound car. For more detail on this issue please see:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
theLonelyTrucker, I think exporting hundreds of billions of dollars per year to countries that don't like the Western World is a very bad plan. It feels much better to use domestic natural gas instead of oil and use HEV technologies to make that fuel use as efficient as sound engineering and economics allow.
Given that battery cost will adjust, vehicles that use more batteries will cost more. (Unless a vehicle subsidy distorts market forces by favoring one over another.) Vehicle price will determine market penetration, with some offset for operating cost.
Buyers will tend to optimize their capital allocation for their own purposes, whether that is an EV, PHEV or an HEV or a 1969 Camaro with a blown 540ci big block.
As always, government attempts to control the economy will cause distortions, and rational consumers will take those distortions into account in their own decision of optimal capital allocation. (Irrational consumers are, well, irrational.)
goodmuse, it's wonderful to hear from the other half. Over the long term I agree with your vision of where the world is going in terms of energy use. I fully expect that at some distant future date academicians will ponder how we could have ever burned a resource as useful and versatile as oil. But over the long term I'll be dead and if I want to make a contribution I need to focus on the cost-effective baby steps we can take today to lead to the brighter tomorrow. The watchword has to be eliminating waste at every possible turn because there are 6 billion people on this planet who want their fair share of the lifestyle you and I take for granted. The tough news is that unlike ages past, they all understand that there is more to life than subsistence farming.
Peace!
John Bowman, the US natural gas distribution infrastructure is awe inspiring. The only thing that is lacking are filling stations. Don't let the "no infrastructure" folks tell you otherwise.
cpellot, the magnitude of the battery shortage is mind boggling. The US manufactures 18 million or so cars a year. Europe is another 15 million. By the time you add Asia and the rest of the world, it's pushing up into the 80 million range. The $1.2 billion the DOE just agreed to distribute as grants (matched with another $1.2 billion in investment capital) will build facilities that can manufacture batteries for roughly 300,000 PHEVs or EVs per year, calling it a drop in the bucket would be gross overstatement. The $250 million A123 systems will get could make batteries for 667,000 HEVs. The $34.1 million Exide and Axion will get could make batteries for 750,000 HEVs. Which is the more efficient use of scarce capital?
That said, the market will sort this out. I believe you answered your own question when you compared the cost of a Prius to the Volt. Unless Washington manages to interfere with the market enough to cut the cost of the Volt by 50%, the Prius and its clones will continue to dominate in the market that it can satisfy. It will never satisfy the market that requires vehicles to do more than transport a single person over a relatively short distance. It's not going to replace 18-wheelers, airplanes, tractors, or trains, and so is going to remain a minor solution to transportation fuel usage. As for carbon output, the EV is hands down the largest emitter of carbon as long as coal-fired electricity is the source of its power.
As a geologist who has worked in the Atacama Desert looking at lithium deposits, I do still disagree that the ECONOMIC supply of lithium is unlimited, especially when its afficionados see it replacing millions of cars (and still acting as the major supply for electronics, computers, commercial power back-ups, and other device batteries). At current lithium prices, the supply is not large enough to build large numbers of EV's. The market may also solve this problem, as a tenfold increase in lithium prices will significantly increase the economic supply- but seriously damage the economics of EV's. That, influenced by a political trend among lithium producers leaning toward an "OPEC" of lithium exporting countries, is what I see coming as EV's hit the market.
Full disclosure: I own stock in lithium mining companies and oil companies. I don't own stock in GM or Toyota, and none in any battery manufacturers.
On Aug 26 12:16 PM kmi wrote:
> Since the batteries going into non-Priuses could be going into Priuses?
>
>
> Why not let the market determine this?
So long as you have the Government skewing the cost with tax rebates the market will have difficulty making its decision.
I believe that this was one of John's points. That tax breaks for EVs are greater than for for Hybrids.
As far as I am concerned, 40K for a Volt. Not out of my pocket.
cjkubx, if you honestly believe you'll be able to talk 46 Chinese out of their electric bicycles so that one lazy American can drive a PHEV, all I can do is wish you god's speed. In the real world where almost every imaginable use for batteries is more cost effective than PHEVs and EVs, there won't be any transportation batteries till everybody has his cell phone, ipod, laptop etc. etc. etc.
Geezer Bela, if we didn't live in a world where 6 billion people want their share of the lifestyle you and I both take for granted, your hypothesis would work fine. Since the secret is out and all of them know there is more to life than subsistence farming, we have to change our wasteful ways (a) because it's the ethical thing to do, and (b) because we will have catastrophic conflict if we don't.
developments in the nickle metal hydride or lead acid battery fields?
Could they be as good a substiute in the power to weight ratio as
the lithium battery."
Probably the best batteries on the horizon are Molten Salt and Ion-sulphur batteries, both probably have kinks to be worked out.
Large format NiMh technology is owned by chevron. Good luck with that one.
Interesting article and point of view, I agree really, but then again I don't see it as selfish to pile my home built EV with enough batteries to build 10 priuses when the american public is buying SUV's and large trucks like oil will never run out. Every argument has a counter.
As the electrical infrastructure is built out and employers build solar parking structures for their employees the masses will never stop at a gas station.
What am I missing ?
"saboteurs that will undermine America's drive for energy independence while stridently claiming to be part of the solution?. Look in the mirror.............
On Aug 27 03:07 PM nakedjaybird wrote:
> Don - Investor! Or is it Inwestor?
>
> Either way, w.r.t. (the company you do own and) Eestor: the Chorus
> motor, with Boeing participation, was demonstrated taxing a loaded
> Boeing 767 both forward and backwards on the strip during a hot summer
> day in Phoenix several years ago (without using it's main engines).
> The video can be seen on
>
> www.wheeltug.gi
>
> So some real proof exists. Roadblocks and fluff, on the other hand,
> are shameful.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
I would be all over a subsidy regime that gave $7,500 to an EV that saved 100% of the average annual gasoline use and $3,000 to an HEV that saved 40% of the average annual gasoline use. Lopsided subsidies for wasteful technologies are offensive.
Don Harmon: Comments (297) FollowBlog: lifebatt.com/•Biz.
Naked- Do you work for Chorus or are you an investor? Full disclosure please.
And also:
Don Harmon: Comments (297) FollowBlog: lifebatt.com/•Biz.
Naked - i seriously doubt anyone on this forum knows much about the Chorus solution except you! That would make your remark of my being "ignorant" apply to the rest of us here also? Those kind of remarks are common on other forums, but seldom seen here on SA, which is why i prefer to hang out here - peace!
oh - and keep your eyes open for Eestor as they are supposed to conquer the entire market with their true "game changer" any year now!
My answers remain:
Don - Investor! Or is it Inwestor?
Either way, w.r.t. (the company you do own and) Eestor: the Chorus motor, with Boeing participation, was demonstrated taxing a loaded Boeing 767 both forward and backwards on the strip during a hot summer day in Phoenix several years ago (without using it's main engines). The video can be seen on
wheeltug.gi
So some real proof exists. Roadblocks and fluff, on the other hand, are shameful. Aug 27 03:07 PM |Report abuse| Link | Reply 00
And if you are questioning the parenthetical "(and the company you own)" which refers to the company that comes up in your SA Profile, my reply w.r.t. that is that I'm just an inwestor in Chorus, which if being a shareholder still implies ownership, an owner, by default, by being an inwestor.
I just wrote an instablog which may be of interest to you:
Energy Storage is Not Needed for Renewables Integration
seekingalpha.com/insta...
Or, put another way, it's a bit bizarre that you've managed to "prove" that a pure EV saves less gasoline than a hybrid--bizarre because the pure EV uses ZERO GALLONS.
You are assuming that the battery is the limiting resource, even though the HEV and the EV's use different types of batteries (by your assumptions, the 60 wheels and 15 bodies cost the same as 4 wheels and 1 body).
A more level playing field would be to use cost (after all, the cost of the battery pack should be reflected in the MSRP of the car); with that argument, 1 EV = 2 HEV's, and the numbers fall slightly in favor of the EV (436 vs 348 gallons of gas).
I believe the "battery subsidy" is a good move as we are in danger of becoming as dependent on foreign batteries as we are on foreign oil; right now, I can buy LiFePO4 batteries from China inexpensively. All domestic sources are 5-10x the cost of the inexpensive Chinese batteries...
-Thor Johnson, CTO
www.thormacev.com (an EV conversion company that uses even more batteries than the LEAF because we want 100+ mile range to handle the typical 35 mile Atlanta commute)
On Aug 26 12:03 PM John Petersen wrote:
> saperaude, 15 HEVs will save more oil than one EV by a very wide
> margin. If you want to dispute the facts please feel free, but let's
> not get personal about it. I'm either right or wrong. Please make
> your case.
Your thoughts are appreciated, but might be respected a little more if you weren't writing the SAME THING on this web site every other day!
Who knows if the PHEV technology will eventually be a success or not, but you are clearly rooting for it to fail before it's even begun! I for one am rooting for GM and others to win on this one because they're actually doing something that's in the country's interests and trying to get us off of foreign oil.
On Aug 26 02:49 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Davewmart, Mitubishi, Nissan, GM and Renault, among others, ignored
> HEV technology while Toyota and Honda went charging forward.
I don't know about ignored... GM has their 2 mode hybrid transmission that they independently invented, but it operates close enough to the Prius system that they pay royalties to Toyota anyway.
> are all staring down a double barreled shotgun held by the California
> Air Resources Board which is insisting on a fixed percentage of vehicle
> electrification in a very short period of time. Since they can't
> do it with HEVs that make sense now, they're "planning" ultra-expensive
> PHEVs and EVs that will be introduced in the next year or two. The
> strategy gives them the perfect out because they'll always be able
> to tell CARB, "We introduced PHEVs and EVs and nobody wanted them
> so it's not our fault."
True. This is one of the consistent ways the auto mfrs have sabotaged the government... the unfortunate truth about all this crap is that the reason GM has fallen out of favor with the public isn't this energy bullshit, but is that for *years*, Honda/Toyota/Nissan have been considered *more reliable* than GM. Ford's revamping of quality in 2006 is starting to make their reputation better.
> A brand new report out of UC Berkeley that says "The most recent
>
> price estimates from a leading Li-ion battery manufacturer is that
> automotive batteries will achieve the Department of Energy price
> goal of $500 per kWh in 2012" is available here.
>
> cet.berkeley.edu/dl/CE...
I pay slightly less than that *today* for ThunderSky or Sky Energy LiFePO4 batteries. My last pack was 32 KWh, purchased for $15K, delivered from evcomponents.com ($1.05/Ah @ 3.2V).
Now, these are "raw cells" and need to be managed and the like (which is probably what the reports go into), but the management/health can be done separately from the cells (and is done separately from the cells in laptop batteries).
You can "go through several iterations" to build management into the systems (a la packs from Johnson Controls). But you can do this today, with technology that exists today at a price less than "Estimated by 2012."
Thor Johnson, CTO
thormacev.com
Also see Wayne at evblue.com
Mark Stanford, I'm far more comfortable with the lithium resource issue today than I was at this time last year. But there is an immense difference between a known natural resource and a productive mine. That difference is measured in years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars. The resources may well be adequate. The mines are most certainly not adequate. For more detail please see:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
regeya, there is nothing in the world more relevant than the amount of gasoline that is not burned because people use a given quantity of batteries. Ferdinand Banks is a well known energy economist and he had no criticism of the logic or conclusions. I have managed to prove that 10 HEVs that save 40% of the gasoline are a more cost effective use of 16 kWh of batteries than 1 PHEV that saves 100% of the gasoline. If you don't understand the math, you need to look at mutual funds.
My hat is off to you and I truly do wish you the best of luck.
As for the "Why bother with the plug" HEV/PHEV argument, let us take, for example, a 40-mile commute in a (P)HEV that has a 20-mile all-electric range. For the HEV, the state of charge of that 20-mile battery pack is entirely dependent on how much the engine has been run. So if the pack is at 50%, the engine will have to run for 75% of the journey. By simply adding a plug-in charger, and plugging the car in when you get home (thus making it a PHEV), you guarantee the battery pack is at 100% before you start out, meaning the engine will only have to run for 50% of the journey, and saving you 25% (or 10 miles-worth) of petrol (gasoline, for the Americans here).
The US government is subsidising battery production in the US, as the main producers at the moment are in China and Japan. They believe that with the proper incentives, they can attract (what is going to be) a huge market to US shores, creating long-term jobs and providing more money in taxation that would otherwise be going overseas.
Also, battery technology is not just important for EVs. Batteries are also crucial for all kinds of renewable power systems, to "smooth" the availability of power when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, and for laptops, cellphones, and other portable devices. Nobody claims you should stop making T-Shirts because they take cotton away from pants and jeans, yet you see fit to draw the same conclusions here.
And, incidentally, even when a Lithium-Ion battery reaches the end of it's life, it can still be recycled and the main parts (the lithium) recovered to make more new batteries. Try doing that with petrol!
Currently, the major hybrids on the market aren't using Li-ion. There is a push in that direction, but I might be wrong. I never said that the batteries "suck," as you crassly put it. What I said was that the initial cell, and subsequent pack, lots that come off the line would be for qualification and validation purposes only. There would be several months of lag between batteries coming off of a new line and incorporating them in consumer available devices. This would have to be done regardless of if the chemistry or form factor is constant. It makes good business sense to cover your bases and prevent lawsuits down the road for using substandard products.
And, as much as I am loathe to agree with you, I do feel that there would be greater savings in oil consumption with more EVs IN THE LONG TERM. IN THE SHORT TERM, at least until production for the packs can meet be increased and manufacturing can be optimized to help lower some costs, HEVs are a more sensible alternative. This would allow for people who need to travel substantial distances or use trucks to keep that option.
Speculawyer wrote--
>Hmm . . .so when did they start working on the VOlt? And when will it be released? Yeah, plenty of time to build factories.
>Uh . . . if they suck so much then why would they put them in HEVs?
ZING!
>That is a totally different argument. The article was whether you get more gas savings from PHEVs & EVs than hybrids. I agree that PHEVs and EVs have a difficult time being cost effective. I put that in my first post. But this article is about how to save the most gas and the answer to that is to build battery more battery factories and put the batteries in PHEVs and EVs. There is absolutely no disputing that and John doesn't even try, I think he realizes he is wrong on this.
Leaving that aside and quite apart from fundamental arguments about electric vehicles, the problem with the OP's argument is that he doesn't really don't make it.
To actually make the argument, the OP has to demonstrate that marginal dollars into PHEVs and EVs WOULD OTHERWISE BE INVESTED in boosting sales and production of efficient vehicles.
Given the highly negative reaction to the CARS program in the financial media, I'd say that's a long shot. It's reasonably clear to me that the reasonable, efficient and timely alternative to inefficient, individual, combustion vehicles has to focus on investment in and rethinking of "mass transit" systems from the ground up, emphasizing - but by no means limited to - wire-electrified vehicles.
Make wire-electrified transport in particular and "mass" transit in general more efficient and you get the biggest bang for the buck. It's just the low-hanging fruit for efficient subsidy.
After that, we have to talk mileage regulations. There's no particular reason to subsidize what you can make necessary by regulation.
Right now you can buy cheap batteries from several sources because supply exceeds demand. That dynamic is changing constantly as increasing numbers of lithium-ion cells are used in ipods, cell phones, laptop computers, electric two wheeled vehicles and any number of other devices. When I buy a cell phone, I couldn't care less whether the battery costs $0.50 or $5.00 per watt hour because I only need one. When you start talking about a PHEV or EV that needs 16,000 watt hours or 24,000 watt hours of batteries, every penny counts. There is no way PHEVs or EVs will ever be able to compete with alternative uses for lithium ion batteries. The same thing goes for the 23 million electric two wheeled vehicles they made in China last year. When you have to bid against 23 Chinese for the batteries in a single PHEV or EV you will lose every time. That's the way markets work.
Nobody is going to recycle lithium-ion batteries until hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on recycling plants. Of the $1.2 billion allocated for battery manufacturing, the only open category at the end of round one was for recycling facilities. When two grants are offered and only one is taken, I get the sense that recycling is not quite the snap you make it out to be.
In 2015, when gas is $4/gall and batteries are $200/kWh, I see a 25kWh BEV containing a $5000 battery back against a HEV getting 50mpg.
Fuel cost-
12,000 mpy at 50mpg at $4.00/gal = $960
12,000 mpy at 100miles / 25kWh at $.06 /kWh (off peak) = $180
Vehicle drive train cost variant-
BEV- Leaf- 25kWh batteries- $5000
HEV-Prius- ICE with fuel system (gas tank, emissions equipment), exhaust system (including cat converter, muffler), cooling system (radiator, fan), transmission (variable ratio), incremental cost of control and drive system for two power sources (motor and ICE)(generator and extra drive motor, electronics, software) - $10,000
Bottom line - In 2015, not only will a BEV be cheaper to operate and provide energy independence, it will cost less to buy. The competition isn't HEV, it's high economy ICE vehicles, and the main factor is the price of fuel.
To the extent that people buy HEV's now, they are slowing the ultimate conversion to EV and sabotaging America's drive for energy independence.
On Aug 27 12:34 AM John Petersen wrote:
> TinyTim, the variant on the numbers you presented would be as follows:
>
>
> save 200 GPY in a Prius - 1.5 kWh
> save another 100 GPY in a Volt - add 14.5 kWh
> save another 100 GPY in a Leaf - add 8 kWh
>
> At a current cost of $1,000 per kWh and a 2012 target of $500 per
> kWh, that description works for me.
>
> The real question is which use of batteries do you think the Federal
> government should subsidize?
John,
What you've got here is an APPLES and ORANGES comparison. By your numbers we get a 40% increase in Prius mpg with 1.5kWh of batteries. So, we would get an 80% improvement with 3.0kWh of batteries, or a 100% improvement with 3.75kWh of batteries if things were linear, but we all know that they aren't.
Prototype PHEV Prius conversions currently under test use about 7kWh of batteries to get the 100% reduction in gas (this assumes that the average commute is accomplished using the PHEV Prius "all electric range"). That is about 2X the amount of batteries than if things were linear, so maybe it's not "apalling" in emotional terms. Notes: 7kwh, 7 vehicles, 3,052 gallons vs 5,568 gallons.
Now, the apples and oranges part: If you take one of these PHEV Prius and then remove *all* of the ICE, gas tank, radiator, and related parts then the "all electric range" would go up -- but the *average* gas consumption wouldn't go down. So you've compared the average commute of a Prius and Prius HEV with the amount of batteries required to have all-electric range *beyond* the average commute. The *extra* batteries affect *extra* range, not the average consumption, so you cannot penalize them in a calculation involving average consumption. Does this make sense?
"As I have stated before (and my background is in Li-ion research with a PhD in chemistry before that), Li-ion will ALWAYS win out when size is an issue and cost is no object. Beyond that all bets are off..."
I'm posting this note as a caution to the less well informed that want to challenge your assessments.
As always, thank you very much for taking the time to read, comment and respond.
Like it or not, we have to change behaviors or die.
marketquant, an HEV will never need more than 1.5 kWh of batteries to save 40% of the gasoline. Anything above that level is electric drive range. If you don't like the initial equations try this one.
The first 1.5 kWh saves 40% of the gasoline, or 26.7% per kWh,
The next 14.5 kWh saves 60% of the gasoline, or 4.1% per kWh.
Any way you cut the cabbage, the battery capacity that is used for regenerative braking, stop-start and electric only launch using energy captured by regenerative braking is a money saver. The batteries to power a PHEV or EV in electric only mode are a colossal waste of resources.
But that's my point! You don't need 14.5 kWh more -- you only need 5.5 kWh more!
So the next 5.5 kWh saves 60% of the gasoline, or 11% per kWh -- but at that point it's carrying around a *useless* heavy ICE with respect to its *average* consumption. Drop the ICE stuff and the number would greatly improve.
Let me try this another way. The Leaf uses 24 kWh to go up to 100 miles. But in terms of *average* mileage (12,000/365=33 miles per day) it needs only 1/3rd the batteries or 8 kWh. So updating your chart: 872 gallons times 3 equals 2,616 gallons saved versus 5,568 -- which is around 2X again. It's far from appalling.
OK, one more:
1) The first 1.5 kWh saves 40% of AVERAGE gasoline consumption
2) The next 5.5 kWh saves 60% of AVERAGE gasoline consumption
3a) The next amount above that of kWh is baggage with respect to AVERAGE gasoline consumption.
3b) The ICE engine is baggage with respect to AVERAGE gasoline consumption.
Now do you get it?
There should be no penalty for 3a or 3b when dealing with the average.
But since the biggest criticism of PHEVs and EVs is their limited range, discussing the impact of a less costly and lower range alternative merely confuses the issue by adding more variables than one could ever include in a blog.
One barrel of oil in . . . so many liters of all the above products coming out. Again, ALL the above products including as much gasoline as all the others combined.
This discussion needs a national energy policy first and foremost. Until then, its just noise.
Excellent analysis. I actually like the idea of plug in hybrids and hope to own one in the future; but it will not be at the same cost as the Volt/Leaf.
As for the words for the resource wasters, my words for non-hybrid SUV drivers who ride on my bumper or accelerate and screech to a halt is unprintable. ha ha
On Aug 27 03:19 PM John Petersen wrote:
> Gadfly, but if you inflate gas prices at 17% per year the discounted
> present value of a PHEV turns positive in year 9 or so. Don't be
> so darned tough on our clean and oh so green resource wasters. See:
>
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...