News Electric vehicles to pay for detroit bailout?

[mgb_phys]

An article by the boss of Tesla motors asking that the $25Bn promised in september for advanced technology transport research doesn't just get switched to paying for Detroit's corporate jets.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=66

I imagine some people here might have an opinion.

 

[LURCH]

I am glad the Big Three bigwigs got slapped down for their extravagance, and I'm glad that congress wants a plan showing what they intend to do with the money before they just give it away. It does put them in the bizzar position (as Democrats) of opposing unions, but the current brutal reality has shown that the extravagance of the unions can no longer be supported, either.

As for EV's, I don't think much additional motivating is needed; Chevy knows that the Volt is the best chance they have to survive. And their competitors will soon see the same light. I wonder if Congress will cut back on their use of corperate jets?

 

[cronxeh]

They should just let them go into chapter 11, merge, and come out as a new company that only has 4 models - an off road Jeep-Escalade-Pickup hybrid, a sports car, a hybrid-electric-flexfuel sedan, and some kind of a minivan. Enough of those combinatorial crap cars that equally suck in the same lineup and have no additional advantage. Let them fail before the country goes bankrupt bailing others out, we'll end up like Iceland at this rate

 

[WarPhalange]

We can also limit it to 2 paint colors: black and red.

 

[Proton Soup]

wow, and i bet it will be just as successful as other communist cars. just imagine the newfound demand for spare parts and repair technicians. this could be the biggest thing since the .com bubble.

 

[mgb_phys]

Interestingly someones PR agency got right onto this, with the completey coincidental planting of this story painting Tesla as a rich toy wanting government handouts from the poor oppressed taxpayer. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi.html?_r=1

 

[Proton Soup]

you think it isn't a rich man's toy?

 

[mheslep]

They should just let them go into chapter 11, merge, and come out as a new company that only has 4 models - an off road Jeep-Escalade-Pickup hybrid, a sports car, a hybrid-electric-flexfuel sedan, and some kind of a minivan. Enough of those combinatorial crap cars that equally suck in the same lineup and have no additional advantage. Let them fail before the country goes bankrupt bailing others out, we'll end up like Iceland at this rate

I don't know about four between the three, but GM alone has a couple dozen models and that is no doubt one of the major problems.

 

[LURCH]

I really hope they don't merge. Competition is a necessary part of the free market aconomy; we can't let anyone gain a monopoly.

Yes, the Tesla is a $100,000 novelty item for the rich and bored, but the Volt is a $35,000 "real" car for getting to and from work. I believe it could turn things around, if Chevy can stay in business long enough. The full-scale release isn't 'till 2012, and it would take about a year for sales to make a difference. Stocks, on the other hand, could go up immediately, as they depend solely on what people think is about to happen.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Yes, the Tesla is a $100,000 novelty item for the rich and bored, but the Volt is a $35,000 "real" car for getting to and from work.

Personally I'm not buying a $35k car to get to and from work. I paid $28k for a top end honda accord and now I feel that was a huge waste of money. Next car I get will be a bottom barrel Civic.

 

[mgb_phys]

It's probably a sensible market to go after for a new product.
Instead of trying to build a cheap electric car for the masses (anyone remember the Sinclair C5?) prove the critics wrong, build one with a healthy profit margin and cash-in. Let Honda/Toyota/VW build the cheap ones.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think natural gas vehicles would be a better investment at this point than electrics. but that's more of an "infrastructure" type investment. GM already knows how to make them, people just need a convenient system for refueling.

 

[mgb_phys]

people just need a convenient system for refueling

There already is a convenient system, most filling stations in Europe have LPG filling.
The main difficulty with natural gas is that it all seems to be under the same countries as the oil.

 

[russ_watters]

Personally I'm not buying a $35k car to get to and from work. I paid $28k for a top end honda accord and now I feel that was a huge waste of money. Next car I get will be a bottom barrel Civic.

What I see implies to me that the Volt is an improperly conceived attempt to bridge two markets that should be kept separate. They should be making a low-end (say, $16k) two-door plug-in hybrid (or even pure electric) that falls into the same class as the Civic, Mazda3, etc. That's the kind of car that a plug-in hybrid should be. A commuter car. A general-purpose, full-sized family car/luxury sedan doesn't get anywhere near as much benefit from being a plug-in because it will be driven further and the extra cost of such components on a full-sized car just amplifies the problem.

 

[Proton Soup]

There already is a convenient system, most filling stations in Europe have LPG filling.
The main difficulty with natural gas is that it all seems to be under the same countries as the oil.

they seem to have the lion's share, but it'll still take some of the demand off of petroleum.

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

 

[mgb_phys]

The nice thing about LPG is that you can use the existing petrol/gasoline engine, you need some extra injectors and a second fuel system - it costs about $2000 to convert most cars. They still run on gasoline as well, generally you can't start the engine on LPG.

It's popular in Europe because the tax on LPG is much lower, so it's 1/3 the price of gasoline, of course once it's as popular the tax will go upto the same amount.

One problem is that you can't take the cars on ferries and through some tunnels.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

they seem to have the lion's share, but it'll still take some of the demand off of petroleum.

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

Yeah interesting. It will work for 150 years, then we start the cycle over again with the ME holding 10x the natural gas we hold.

 

[mheslep]

I really hope they don't merge. Competition is a necessary part of the free market aconomy; we can't let anyone gain a monopoly. ...

A GM-Chrysler-Ford merger would have no monopoly - there are dozens of other foreign car makers, four of five of them with factories here in the US.

 

[Proton Soup]

What I see implies to me that the Volt is an improperly conceived attempt to bridge two markets that should be kept separate. They should be making a low-end (say, $16k) two-door plug-in hybrid (or even pure electric) that falls into the same class as the Civic, Mazda3, etc. That's the kind of car that a plug-in hybrid should be. A commuter car. A general-purpose, full-sized family car/luxury sedan doesn't get anywhere near as much benefit from being a plug-in because it will be driven further and the extra cost of such components on a full-sized car just amplifies the problem.

i think you're on the right track. what we need is something akin to the original toyota corolla, stripped down, stick shift, rubber mat on a metal floor and no maze of contraptions under the hood. something approaching a street-legal golf cart to serve the grocery-getter functions. but this is the same thing that will give GM a coronary. they want as many doo-dads and what are youmacallits as possible to drive up the sticker price. i honestly think that's all they care about. a big engine and vehicle is just a means to an end.

 

[mheslep]

What I see implies to me that the Volt is an improperly conceived attempt to bridge two markets that should be kept separate. They should be making a low-end (say, $16k) two-door plug-in hybrid (or even pure electric) that falls into the same class as the Civic, Mazda3, etc. That's the kind of car that a plug-in hybrid should be. A commuter car. A general-purpose, full-sized family car/luxury sedan doesn't get anywhere near as much benefit from being a plug-in because it will be driven further and the extra cost of such components on a full-sized car just amplifies the problem.

I agree. However, there are some valid considerations likely pushing the Volt design into its current class. The Volt batteries alone will probably be $10-12k of the cost of the five-door Volt as of the 2010 release date. Yes downsizing to a two-door would also shrink the battery size/cost some, but not as linear percentage of the cost of the car. That is, it would be harder to hide the battery cost in a two-door for the moment, and in that car class cost really is everything with tight profit margins. One might then claim that the battery technology is not quite there yet, but the cost has been coming down significantly with innovation. Similarly, when Toyota first came out with its non plug-in hybrid it sold at a loss, but Toyota captured market share in the interim, the Prius is profitable now, and Toyota gained 'green' and technical prestige in the public eye. I speculate GM feels it has to make a play now to risk losing that position forever, rather than wait another five years for batter tech. to come in range.

 

[WarPhalange]

What I see implies to me that the Volt is an improperly conceived attempt to bridge two markets that should be kept separate. They should be making a low-end (say, $16k) two-door plug-in hybrid (or even pure electric) that falls into the same class as the Civic, Mazda3, etc. That's the kind of car that a plug-in hybrid should be. A commuter car. A general-purpose, full-sized family car/luxury sedan doesn't get anywhere near as much benefit from being a plug-in because it will be driven further and the extra cost of such components on a full-sized car just amplifies the problem.

I like this idea. Currently I don't need to drive anywhere really far. If it can last me two hours, I can get to school and back without worrying. But I take the bus to school normally, so it's a 10 minute drive to the park & ride. Or 10 minute ride to get groceries, go to the bank, etc. I don't need something that has a lot of energy capacity or physical storage space. I don't have a family to drive around.

 

[aquitaine]

China beat detroit http://www.motorauthority.com/chinas-byd-to-sell-plug-in-hybrid-by-2010-in-us.html

Detroit doesn't deserve a bailout and here's why:

In the 1990's, the Clinton administration had a program called the "Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles", which was a partnership between the Federal government and the automakers to develop hybrid cars and fuel cells. The automakers didn't want to do it, since they were convinced they couldn't make any money off of these cars and, for the most part, invested most of their resources into making large, wasteful SUVs and pickup tricks. They effectively dragged their feet through the program, took 8 years and who knows how many millions of dollars of taxpayer money (effectively just waiting out the administration), and as soon as Bush got elected they just threw it all in the garbage and walked away.

They had their shot. They should crash and burn for it.

 

[teslarachel]

To answer the fundamental question that the NY Times rant poses: Yes, absolutely, the federal government should provide low-interest loans to Tesla (and other R&D-focused automakers that have already demonstrated a commitment to building fuel-efficient vehicles) to encourage and hasten the time to market of a sophisticated all-electric, zero-emission powertrain for affordable, family cars. If this isn't in the public interest, what is?

Just to set the record straight with the good folks in at Physics Forums:

The silly headline of the NY Times drivel says Tesla shouldn’t get a low-interest loan from the Department of Energy because "only the rich can afford it." Afford what? The loan would NOT fund anything having to do with the $109,000 Roadster but with future generations of more affordable sedans and a powertrain facility to make battery packs and other components for other automakers, who will also use them for affordable sedans.

The columnist says Tesla's technology "remains woefully immature" and the Roadster is "not much more than a functioning concept car." Absolutely untrue, as anyone who has test-driven or owned one attests -- it's a viable production vehicle that competes on fit and finish, performance and handling with vastly more expensive cars. We have delivered nearly 100 to customers already and are increasing production starts to 30 per week in 2009.

Most worrisome: Stross pontificates about Silicon Valley all the time for what is arguably world’s most influential newspaper, yet he doesn't grok something that will ring true with the most rudimentary students of technology: R&D and early-adopter technology is relatively expensive. Whether it's a cell phone (even the iPhone from Stross' beloved Apple) or photovoltaic panels, the first owners pay the most. But the technology inevitably becomes affordable within several product cycles, whether on the time frame of Moore's law or (in the case of battery capacity) at the fair clip of 8 percent per year. Given the Model S (base price expected at $57,500) and the Bluestar project (all-electric, zero-emission subcompact for $30,000), why did his rant focus on the Roadster, which isn't part of the loan application proposal? Makes no sense.

Finally, the columnist does readers a gross disservice by utterly failing to grasp the difference between the Detroit Three's perverse "bailout" and what was originally a progressive and well intentioned program to encourage fuel-efficient vehicles. In fact, the columnist calls Tesla's loan application the "Bailout of Very, Very High-Net-Worth Individuals Who Invested in Tesla Motors Act" -- again, catchy but dead wrong. The loan wouldn't be used for the Roadster or ongoing operations. Our blog clarifying the distinction (published before the article and sent to Stross, who apparently didn't read it):

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=66

One of the most thorough (and hilarious) refutations of the article if you need further clarification:

http://calacanis.com/2008/12/01/on-bailouts-and-sports-car/

Thanks for listening. FWIW, I'm all for spirited debate about public policy, but it should be based on facts, not catchy buzz words and misinformation. Blog on!

Rachel Konrad
Senior Communications Manager
Tesla Motors, Inc.

 

[mheslep]

To answer the fundamental question that the NY Times rant poses: Yes, absolutely, the federal government should provide low-interest loans to Tesla (and other R&D-focused automakers that have already demonstrated a commitment to building fuel-efficient vehicles) to encourage and hasten the time to market of a sophisticated all-electric, zero-emission powertrain for affordable, family cars.
...
Given the Model S (base price expected at $57,500) and the Bluestar project (all-electric, zero-emission subcompact for $30,000),
...

How does $58k qualify as an affordable family car, that will be limited to out and back trips absent an overnight charge?

 

[mgb_phys]

The point is that the grants are to develop new technology that will become cheaper.
A lot of government money went into developing copmputers/auircraft/etc before they were cheap enough for everyone.

 

[mheslep]

The point is that the grants are to develop new technology that will become cheaper.
A lot of government money went into developing copmputers/auircraft/etc before they were cheap enough for everyone.

That is not my reading of the history at all. Government money went into buying computers/aircraft for the government (military, etc). I don't see much evidence where the government made them cheap. Henry Ford did that. Intel/National Semiconductor et al did that. I would say that when the government tries to pick a technology winner it does more harm than good. Government funded basic research is ok. In the case of EV's and Tesla, why does Tesla rate a loan and not its direct competitor and law suit target http://www.fiskerautomotive.com" ?

 

[mgb_phys]

They are availabel to anyone - even Detroit, they are government research grants. Just the same as the money spends on Nasa, NSF, University research etc.
What Telsa were warning about was this future research money being used to plug a hole in the car companies current finances. That's like a university deciding to take everyone's research grant and spend it on building maintenance.

Given the strange coincidence between the amount Detroit needs and the amount announced in the research program - this is probably a reasonable concern.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's like a university deciding to take everyone's research grant and spend it on building maintenance.

i know the med school back at my old alma mater did just that. they are legally entitled to apply a certain percentage of grant money to facilities, and i think it was a pretty good chunk. 40% is the number that springs to mind, but my memory's a little fuzzy.

 

[drankin]

I just want to point out that a strictly electric car will never replace a fuel burning vehicle. It may work as an inner city commuting vehicle for some but it will always be more expensive than a fuel burning vehicle. We should start with natural gas and work are way to hydrogen.

 

[mgb_phys]

I just want to point out that a strictly electric car will never replace a fuel burning vehicle.

Not for all roles (yet).
But the majority of journeys are short at low speed in built up areas.
Adverts aside, you do not need a V8 truck to take a single 5year old 3miles to school.

You can already buy natural gas powered cars - but in the long term it isn't much of a solution to swap reliance on scarce middle eastern oil for reliance on scarce Russian methane!

 

[drankin]

Not for all roles (yet).
But the majority of journeys are short at low speed in built up areas.
Adverts aside, you do not need a V8 truck to take a single 5year old 3miles to school.

You can already buy natural gas powered cars - but in the long term it isn't much of a solution to swap reliance on scarce middle eastern oil for reliance on scarce Russian methane!

According to Mr Pickens, we have a lot of natural gas in the US. Also, our land fills create an enormous amount of unnaturally accurring methane that we simply let burn away day and night thru large vent chimneys (I forget the proper term for them). There are projects going on right now to capture those gases that come from our own garbage.

What I'm getting at is that should be our focus. We have the fuels here in the states. Electric cars aren't practical. Especially if you consider where a good portion of our electricity comes from in the US... burning fossil fuels.

 

[mheslep]

I just want to point out that a strictly electric car will never replace a fuel burning vehicle. It may work as an inner city commuting vehicle for some but it will always be more expensive than a fuel burning vehicle.

Never? Major problem is energy density in the batteries and charge time. In near every other way electric has the advantage: efficiency, maintenance, complexity, energy transmission. Stick around.

We should start with natural gas and work are way to hydrogen.

Forget H2.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
and in general:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=251887"

 

[drankin]

Never? Major problem is energy density in the batteries and charge time. In near every other way electric has the advantage: efficiency, maintenance, complexity, energy transmission. Stick around.

Forget H2.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
and in general:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=251887"

Looking at it energy vs energy out you are correct. I propose we make nuclear power plants dedicated to H2 recovery. Nuclear hydrogen refineries. And I'm thinking we bottle and burn it as apposed to fuel cells.

Batteries will not power a semi or trains or planes (basically, our shipping industry) or cars for winter driving in our northern states. And it's not practical for distance travel. Fuels need to be burned to get that kind of energy. Batteries have theoretical limits. Pound per pound there is more energy in fuels.

 

[mheslep]

According to Mr Pickens, we have a lot of natural gas in the US. Also, our land fills create an enormous amount of unnaturally accurring methane that we simply let burn away day and night thru large vent chimneys (I forget the proper term for them). There are projects going on right now to capture those gases that come from our own garbage.

If all landfill methane was captured (650,000 million cubic ft) it amounts to 1/35th of US consumption (23,000,000 million cubic ft/yr)

What I'm getting at is that should be our focus. We have the fuels here in the states. Electric cars aren't practical. Especially if you consider where a good portion of our electricity comes from in the US... burning fossil fuels.

Yes, but ~all of ground vehicle transportation comes from ... burning fossil fuels, and less efficiently in the car than at the power plant. I like Picken's idea at the moment - switch to natural gas in the cars now; then I favor slowly switching to PHEVs.

 

[drankin]

If all landfill methane was captured (650,000 million cubic ft) it amounts to 1/35th of US consumption (23,000,000 million cubic ft/yr)

Yes, but ~all of ground vehicle transportation comes from ... burning fossil fuels, and less efficiently in the car than at the power plant. I like Picken's idea at the moment - switch to natural gas in the cars now; then I favor slowly switching to PHEVs.

Maybe they could dedicate gov't vehicles to using methane from landfills (they can use our garbage .

Looking at a purely energy standpoint cars don't efficiently burn the fuel. But with burning H2 there is no consequence. But how much of that wasted energy is heat? That is always a useful byproduct in a vehicle. Electric cars cannot afford to create heat for the passengers (or AC). Growing up in cold winters makes me an unbeliever in the electric vehicle. And those in the southern states would be partial to having lots of AC available in their commuting.

 

[mheslep]

...Batteries will not power a semi or trains or planes (basically, our shipping industry) or cars for winter driving in our northern states. And it's not practical for distance travel. Fuels need to be burned to get that kind of energy. ...

About 30 percent of all oil use in the US goes into commuting short distances in cars: 70% of oil goes to transportation, of that ~66% goes to cars, and of the total car miles 60-70% goes into short distances. (And obviously scratch electric trains from the can't do list.)

 

[mheslep]

Maybe they could dedicate gov't vehicles to using methane from landfills (they can use our garbage .

Yes that's Picken's plan: mandate only the fleets, everyone else will follow on their own.

Looking at a purely energy standpoint cars don't efficiently burn the fuel. But with burning H2 there is no consequence. But how much of that wasted energy is heat? That is always a useful byproduct in a vehicle. Electric cars cannot afford to create heat for the passengers (or AC). Growing up in cold winters makes me an unbeliever in the electric vehicle. And those in the southern states would be partial to having lots of AC available in their commuting.

Drankin, c'mon, it is not a matter of what you believe, go look at the numbers. Nobody is saying you have to go drive around in a golf cart today, but generally speaking as energy storage technology improves it makes sense to electrify transportation as much as economically possible.

 

[drankin]

About 30 percent of all oil use in the US goes into commuting short distances in cars: 70% of oil goes to transportation, of that ~66% goes to cars, and of the total car miles 60-70% goes into short distances. (And obviously scratch electric trains from the can't do list.)

But what we need is an all encompassing solution in order for it to be economical. Please post a link for those stats, I want to read that (I believe your numbers I just want to see what else they have on the subject).

Electrical vehicles will work for short distances. No question about it. But, will families now have two vehicles? One for short commutes and another for long? That's where it won't work for the masses. And the masses need a complete solution in order to buy into it in order to get the costs down. We need a progressive answer so that won't slow our country down while the rest of the world, that doesn't have our ecological concerns, industrially overruns us.

 

[mheslep]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1784408&postcount=47

US Oil for transportation, yr 2007: 69% and rising as oil is no longer preferred for E power generation. http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/diagram2.html
Transportation breakdown, yr 2002: light duty vehicles 61%, commercial light trucks 2.2%, 14.3% heavy trucks, 10% airplanes.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/pdf/appa.pdf , table A7
Both gas and diesel can use plug-in technology, indeed electric/diesel should be preferred for efficiency reasons over gasoline/electric. I believe plug-in charged over night by solar (cheap enough solar) makes sense for all ground transportation, it is just that it can't support but a fraction of the longer hauls... .69 transportation x ~.64 gnd transport x 2/3 short distance = ~30% or only half of imported US oil; not quite there w/ plug-in cars alone.

And here's the driving pattern breakdown, page 4. Forty miles covers near 70% of all driving.
http://www.calcars.org/epri-driving-solution-1012885_PHEV.pdf

 

[mheslep]

...Electrical vehicles will work for short distances. No question about it. But, will families now have two vehicles? One for short commutes and another for long? That's where it won't work for the masses. And the masses need a complete solution in order to buy into it in order to get the costs down. We need a progressive answer so that won't slow our country down while the rest of the world, that doesn't have our ecological concerns, industrially overruns us.

Hybrids. Plugin hybrids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHEV

One hybrid to rule them all, one hybrid to find them, one hybrid to bring them all, and in the Obama administration bind them.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree. However, there are some valid considerations likely pushing the Volt design into its current class. The Volt batteries alone will probably be $10-12k of the cost of the five-door Volt as of the 2010 release date. Yes downsizing to a two-door would also shrink the battery size/cost some, but not as linear percentage of the cost of the car. That is, it would be harder to hide the battery cost in a two-door for the moment, and in that car class cost really is everything with tight profit margins. One might then claim that the battery technology is not quite there yet, but the cost has been coming down significantly with innovation. Similarly, when Toyota first came out with its non plug-in hybrid it sold at a loss, but Toyota captured market share in the interim, the Prius is profitable now, and Toyota gained 'green' and technical prestige in the public eye. I speculate GM feels it has to make a play now to risk losing that position forever, rather than wait another five years for batter tech. to come in range.

That's a good point, but it basically means that plug-in hybrids are not currently viable and car companies are just hoping they will be in the future. That's a surprising thing to see from GM (good to see them thinking ahead and betting on technology), but it's a much tougher gamble than conventional hybrids. It requires much more in the way of [economic] technological advancement.

 

[russ_watters]

Never? Major problem is energy density in the batteries and charge time. In near every other way electric has the advantage: efficiency, maintenance, complexity, energy transmission. Stick around.

The energy density and charging time (and don't forget cost) problems are fundamental, so I think the hope for a pure electric is overly optomistic.

Drankin, c'mon, it is not a matter of what you believe, go look at the numbers.

There are other relevant numbers that you aren't looking at, though: such as the cost, weight, and energy density of batteries. For example, the energy density of gas is 46 MJ/kG. The energy density of a lithium battery is .75. Assuming that only 1/3 of the gas's energy makes it to the wheels of the car (and this includes the inefficiency of sitting in traffic), we need to do about 20x better than lithium batteries to power our cars. That's a lot - it's not something that should be expected to be technologically possible.

 

[mgb_phys]

You don't need to reach anything like the energy density of gasoline if you aren't building a formula one car. Most trips are short and slow.
Even if the electricity is generated from fossil fuels it's easier to desulpher flue gases at a few powerstations than a million tailpipes at street level.
It also helps you regulate baseline load - in the US most baseload is coal fired which is difficult to adjust and peak demand is during the day (for AC and offices). Charging the vehicles at night on cheap rate electricity is good for consumer and supplier.

The cost of batteries is high because of supply and demand, exactly the same arguments were made about catalysts 20years ago - it would add $10K to the price of a car, it would be impossible to scrap them becase of heavy metals etc. There is no shortage of Lithium, even Ni doesn't cost that much in mass production

The main problem is the public perception of small quiet gren electric vehicles - the obvious solution is to fit them with Van def Graff generators so you can sit atthe lights reving the engine and shooting 20 foot sparks into the air.

 

[drankin]

You don't need to reach anything like the energy density of gasoline if you aren't building a formula one car. Most trips are short and slow.
Even if the electricity is generated from fossil fuels it's easier to desulpher flue gases at a few powerstations than a million tailpipes at street level.
It also helps you regulate baseline load - in the US most baseload is coal fired which is difficult to adjust and peak demand is during the day (for AC and offices). Charging the vehicles at night on cheap rate electricity is good for consumer and supplier.

The cost of batteries is high because of supply and demand, exactly the same arguments were made about catalysts 20years ago - it would add $10K to the price of a car, it would be impossible to scrap them becase of heavy metals etc. There is no shortage of Lithium, even Ni doesn't cost that much in mass production

The main problem is the public perception of small quiet gren electric vehicles - the obvious solution is to fit them with Van def Graff generators so you can sit atthe lights reving the engine and shooting 20 foot sparks into the air.

What you need to do is convince people to turn in their current vehicles for a short range, small, expensive, unusual to maintain, electric vehicle. Compare your new electric bill to your old gas bill (provided gas doesn't go through the roof again), and your initial cost never eclipses the cost of fuel. And after your batteries go out, you need spend a fortune for new ones. Hybrids work but the cost savings aren't there. Think of the used car industry. A used electric car or even a hybrid wouldn't be worth buying because the batteries will most likely need to be replaced for thousands of dollars. If you just need a ride from a to b, most people buy an inexpensive $2000-$3000 beater. And what is the ecological impact of all these dead batteries? Too expensive to be practical. We have to burn fuel. So if we are going to burn fuel, let's focus on the best fuels to burn for our environment and are plentiful in our country.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't need to reach anything like the energy density of gasoline if you aren't building a formula one car. Most trips are short and slow.

We need to keep clear that we are talking about two different things here:

1. Electric cars as a limited performance (ie, 30 mi each way) replacement for, say, 50% of gas powered cars.
2. Electric cars as a general/total replacement for gas powered cars.

I believe everyone is in agreement that electric cars could be viable for scenario 1. Where we seem to disagree is if electric cars are ever going to be capable of fulfilling scenario 2.

Keep in mind, my percentage for scenario 1 (50%) was lower than yours (60-70%), but someone who mostly drives his/her car <30 miles to work during the week may still want to drive >30 miles to grandma's house on the weekend. So the actual number of people who would not feel much of an adverse effect of buying a car capable of scenario 1 is probably very, very small.

The cost of batteries is high because of supply and demand, exactly the same arguments were made about catalysts 20years ago - it would add $10K to the price of a car, it would be impossible to scrap them becase of heavy metals etc. There is no shortage of Lithium, even Ni doesn't cost that much in mass production

There are millions of laptop computers out there and currently a manageable growth rate, yet the market has yet to make the batteries inexpensive. I don't know why you would think a vast increase in demand would cause the prices to drop.

 

[mheslep]

I believe everyone is in agreement that electric cars could be viable for scenario 1. Where we seem to disagree is if electric cars are ever going to be capable of fulfilling scenario 2.

Yes, and I am continuing on the scenario 2 line below here, in the interest of exploring how much research electric energy storage technology warrants versus other lines.

The energy density and charging time (and don't forget cost) problems are fundamental, so I think the hope for a pure electric is overly optomistic.

These are limitations with the current state of the art, but to say they are fundamental(?) is a bold statement, or I'm uninformed of the relevant physics. For traditional electrolyte battery technology, there probably is indeed some energy density limit far short of the several eV per molecule obtained from burning a hydrocarbon fuel, but I'm guessing we are far short of that yet - chemists feel free to jump in here. And I was careful above to say electrical energy storage, not just chemical batteries, and that includes ultracapacitors and who knows what else. Ultracaps already have the charging time problem solved - they can accept and discharge energy as fast as you can pump gasoline into your tank.

There are other relevant numbers that you aren't looking at, though: such as the cost, weight, and energy density of batteries. For example, the energy density of gas is 46 MJ/kG. The energy density of a lithium battery is .75. Assuming that only 1/3 of the gas's energy makes it to the wheels of the car (and this includes the inefficiency of sitting in traffic), we need to do about 20x better than lithium batteries to power our cars. That's a lot - it's not something that should be expected to be technologically possible.

I agree there's no technology on the table today that will grant such an improvement on a timetable, but if you are informed of the physics of why it is indeed impossible to store charge in any kind of matter at 20x greater density than is currently possible, other than via chemical bonds, then please share.

Tangent: There's another avenue of attack on the 20x shortfall - vehicle mass, instead of attending to the motive force, attend to its mass. Most of the energy goes into moving the 3000 lbs of car down the road, when the object is simply to move a couple of people.

 

[russ_watters]

These are limitations with the current state of the art, but to say they are fundamental(?) is a bold statement, or I'm uninformed of the relevant physics. For traditional electrolyte battery technology, there probably is indeed some energy density limit far short of the several eV per molecule obtained from burning a hydrocarbon fuel, but I'm guessing we are far short of that yet - chemists feel free to jump in here.

I'll admit to being a little thin on the chemistry too. I base my opinion on where batteries were 100 years ago vs where they are today. Lead acid batteries have been around at least that long and have energy densities of 1/10th of lithium batteries. With all of the advances in science and technology in that time, batteries have not advanced all that far. I think that is a chemistry problem. This isn't a Moore's law where we can expect consistent progress like a doubling every 2 or even 10 or 20 years. What is needed is a breakthrough like nothing that's never happened before with batteries.

And I was careful above to say electrical energy storage, not just chemical batteries, and that includes ultracapacitors and who knows what else. Ultracaps already have the charging time problem solved - they can accept and discharge energy as fast as you can pump gasoline into your tank.

Ultracaps are also limited by chemistry: it's about the number of electrons (at what energy) you can pack onto a surface.

I agree there's no technology on the table today that will grant such an improvement on a timetable, but if you are informed of the physics of why it is indeed impossible to store charge in any kind of matter at 20x higher density than is currently possible, other than via chemical bonds, then please share.

Like I said, I'll admit to being a little thin on the chemistry. My opinion is that the rate of advancement implies fundamental limits. I see no reason to expect a sudden breakthrough that changes everything. Moreover, no prudent investor uses the Lottery as an investment strategy. You must use history as your guide. In this case, betting on the necessary breakthrough in battery technology is playing a lottery where the only thing you know about the odds is that no one has ever won.

Tangent: There's another avenue of attack on the 20x shortfall - vehicle mass, instead of attending to the motive force, attend to its mass. Most of the energy goes into moving the 3000 lbs of car down the road, when the object is simply to move a couple of people.

When your 3,000 lb car weighs 5,000 lb due to the 2,000 lb of batteries you are carrying, you are severely limited in your ability to make cars lighter. It is a catch-22: you can't make the cars lighter unless you make the batteries lighter.

[edit] What we can safely say about the chemistry is that the main reason for the energy density improvement of lithium batteries is that the metal used is lithium, which has an extremely low density. About 1/20th of lead. There is no metal that is another 1/20th of that density.

 

[mheslep]

That's a good point, but it basically means that plug-in hybrids are not currently viable and car companies are just hoping they will be in the future...

I agree its a marginal bet, but again Toyota's hybrid was not quite viable when it first appeared.

 

[mheslep]

... Ultracaps are also limited by chemistry: it's about the number of electrons (at what energy) you can pack onto a surface.

Well I know this much: ultracaps to do not involve chemistry in the sense that there is any requirement for covalent or ionic bonds. Capacitance is dependent only on the surface area, the distance between the surfaces, and the dielectric constant of the intervening material, nothing more. The recent advances in ultracaps are due to big increases in surface area for a given device mass and volume (via nanotech for instance).

When your 3,000 lb car weighs 5,000 lb due to the 2,000 lb of batteries you are carrying, you are severely limited in your ability to make cars lighter. It is a catch-22: you can't make the cars lighter unless you make the batteries lighter.

Good point.

[edit] What we can safely say about the chemistry is that the main reason for the energy density improvement of lithium batteries is that the metal used is lithium, which has an extremely low density. About 1/20th of lead. There is no metal that is another 1/20th of that density.

Good point, for electrolyte based energy storage.

 

[russ_watters]

Well I know this much: ultracaps to do not involve chemistry in the sense that there is any requirement for covalent or ionic bonds. Capacitance is dependent only on the surface area, the distance between the surfaces, and the dielectric constant of the intervening material, nothing more. The recent advances in ultracaps are due to big increases in surface area for a given device mass and volume (via nanotech for instance).

Ehh, chemistry, physics, whatever. Sometimes I don't know where one starts and the other stops. Either way, atoms have a finite physical size and QM tells us that electrons can jump around. Those present a hard limit to how tight you can pack surfaces on a capacitor.