ELECTRIFICATION COALITION With the number of vehicles on the planet expected to grow from 600 million today to 2.5 billion by 2050, a group of companies sees electric vehicles as the best alternative, given concerns of foreign oil dependency, oil prices and climate change.
Image: © ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/JOHN KROPEWNICKI
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Although the widespread adoption of electric vehicles and their related infrastructure has always suffered from chicken-and-egg syndrome, Nissan and FedEx, along with several utilities and technology companies have formed a coalition to break the stalemate. At a press conference Monday in Washington, D.C., the Electrification Coalition announced its formation as well as a new 130-page report on the dangers of oil dependence, the benefits of electric vehicles, and ways to overcome roadblocks that have kept these vehicles from being deployed en masse.
Sixty percent of the petroleum used by the U.S. daily comes from foreign sources, FedEx CEO Fred Smith said at the launch event, adding that 90 percent of all U.S. transportation is petroleum-powered. Smith made clear his position that reliance on foreign oil is "in no small way related" to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This energy mentality has to change because the U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil has created what amounts to a security risk for the country as a whole, said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D–N.D.), who also spoke at Monday's event.
The coalition's position is that a move to electric vehicles would help the U.S. combat the economic, environmental and national security vulnerabilities caused by the country's petroleum dependence. The coalition's "Electrification Roadmap" report predicts that if by 2040, 75 percent of light-duty vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. are covered by electric vehicles, oil consumption in that fleet would be reduced by more than 75 percent, and "U.S. crude oil imports could effectively be reduced to zero."
The coalition estimates there will be 2.5 billion vehicles on the planet by 2050, up from 600 million this year. Smith pointed out that the continued economic development of India, China and Brazil will lead to a "staggering increase" in the number of vehicles on the world's roads. If they are powered by internal combustion engines, "we are on an unsustainable path," he added. "When you look at the alternatives that are available, electrification of short-haul transportation becomes the only viable alternative."
Smith acknowledged that electric vehicle owners, including his own company, pay a premium today for their fleets—whereas a hybrid pickup and delivery van costs about $90,000, FedEx can buy a diesel vehicle for about $60,000.
The problem with mass-producing the number of electric vehicles that would drive down costs has always been the standoff among carmakers, consumers and utilities—none of which are willing to invest in the technology until they are sure it is ready to meet their needs, both logistically and economically. "Car companies have not wanted to build cars in bulk for infrastructures that don't exist, while infrastructure companies such as ourselves don't want to build infrastructures for cars that don't exist," said David Crane, chief executive of coalition member NRG Energy, Inc. Still, the risk of doing nothing has become apparent. For 2008 the U.S. net trade deficit in crude oil and petroleum products was $388 billion, Crane said, adding, "I don't think anyone in America is happy about that."
Legislation to control carbon emissions, public concern over the environment, and high gas prices are driving the demand for electric vehicles, said Carlos Ghosn, chief executive of coalition member Nissan Motor Co., whose all-electric Leaf is set to debut in the U.S. in 2010 (although it will not be widely available until 2012).
The coalition's proposed solution is in part to deploy fleets of 100,000 to 200,000 electric vehicles in six to eight U.S. cities that can invest in the necessary infrastructure. If this limited investment of resources leads to increased interest in driving electric cars, the coalition hopes to expand its program to 20 or 25 cities. Although the coalition did not reveal which urban areas it is planning to use as its initial test bed, the U.S. Department of Energy has already promised to provide $99.8 million to a project led by Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec), a subsidiary of Scottsdale, Ariz.–based ECOtality (not a member of the coalition), for installation of up to 12,750 charging stations across five markets: Tennessee, Oregon, San Diego, Seattle and the Phoenix–Tucson region. The project also includes the deployment of up to 1,000 Nissan Leafs in each market.
Coalition test runs in the selected cities will also provide the parties involved with a better understanding of just how extensive the infrastructure needs to be, not to mention how much it will cost. There may not be a need for that many fast-charging stations, given that 90 percent of Americans drive fewer than 65 kilometers each day, Crane noted. He pointed to a project in Tokyo where the installation of fast charging stations throughout the city boosted electric vehicle use, even though the stations were hardly ever used.
In the end, the drivers themselves will make the final judgment on whether electric vehicles succeed, Dorgan said. The image of the rugged American cruising along in a gas-guzzling vehicles transposed against the stereotype of bookish hybrid drivers has been an impediment to electric vehicle adoption. "There's been a notion that real men dig and drill," the senator said, "but I think things have changed a lot."
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentThe adoption of electric vehicles is the only way to capture vehicle CO2 emissions, which nascent technology can extract from power-station chimneys, but not from car exhaust pipes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut this does not exclude hydrogen technology, which may be developped subsequently from biomass pyrolysis for example, which powered vehicles in europe for decades, even if it is a little less convenient to operate than gasoline tanks.
The easiest way to start would be with car-share programs such as Autoshare or Zipcar, they are generally for city use, and could easily have charging stations installed at the pick-up points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese programs should be extended by allowing cars to be picked up at one location and dropped off at another, this would make them truly useful.
But how long do the batteries in e-car last: 80,000 miles? I think thats the major problem! And hour long charges are also gonna hold it back
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBig companies banding together to obtain handouts of taxpayer money. Where's the news in that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubsidies are OK if you want to kick startthe revolution -- but isn't really necessary. http://bit.ly/eQSO6 Capitalism will take care of it. First they'll be used for in-city commutes. Then, as that number grows, there will be sufficient incentive to tackle the battery issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCharging stations are a nonstarter. Electric vehicles will need to be charged at night anyway to prevent stressing the grid. It makes more sense to lease them, with a portion of the lease going for instantly available conventionally powered vehicles that can be accessed conventiently by driving to participating car rental outlet. Do your daily commute (say under 100 miles) in the electric vehicle; use the lease vehicle for longer commutes (e.g., the family vacation).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is missing in this article, but I hope not in their overall plan, is a discussion of using renewable energy sources, wind, water, sun, for generating the electricity for the vehicles. If biofuels, petroleum, natural gas, coal, are used for electricity generation, then the carbon footprint is still large even though it might reduce use of foreign oil. They should follow the project in Denmark using wind generation for the electrical generation. Since a large paradigm change is required to reduce foreign oil usage, it should also carry the mandate of being truly green as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the system that is going into Denmark: http://www.itwire.com/content/view/17370/1103/ the electric vehicles are "recharged" while on the road by swapping out the battery packs. Refueling takes less than a minute. Wind is used for battery pack charging and any battery packs that are not being used in active vehicles either at the refueling stations or when the vehicle is plugged in for charging can be tapped as a power source back to the grid to ride through low wind times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no doubt; we should stop using gasoline to feed internal combustion engines in our cars and all kinds of transportation vehicles for land, air, watercourses, at sea, or even under the water. There is not much time left. Pollution is reaching unbearable, unendurable levels. For me the way to go is hydrogen. But that is not the only way. But we need and want faster vehicles that do not require frequent refueling, and at affordable prices. Also we need and want less noisy means of transportation; especially, particularly in the air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectricity generation should be entirely clean; otherwise the efforts would be futile, completely ineffective. Good thing that you bring up the subject. Who knows what other problems we may encounter with the new ways of doing things? But there is little doubt that change should occur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere in the UK cars and other road vehicles require heating for passenger comfort and to combat condensation and frost on the windscreen and other windows for a large part of the year. This comes in abundance from the waste heat produced by the petrol or diesel motor. Electrically driven vehicles would need a source of heat and this will have it's carbon footprint in addition to the energy source for propulsion. I wonder if advocates of electric vehicles take this into account when making comparisons. I also suspect that railway enthousiasts are less than frank about these other energy requirements for electric trains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have yet to see a type of battery that is environmentally friendly. While electric vehicles sound great, in reality they could potentially be the worst pollution hazard of all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough, I fully agree that whatever the solution, it needs to focus on delivery, family and personal vehicles first.
Typical electric motor efficiencies run between 75% and 95%. Thus between 5% and 25% of the electricity that flows through the motor is lost to heat generation. This heat generation can be used to heat a vehicle as well as the waste heat from an internal combustion engine is currently used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen fuel cell vehicles are very good candidates to move us away from oil dependence and also provide a more ecologically friendly means of transportation, provided the hydrogen is produced in an ecologically friendly way. You may be surprised to know that most of the industrial hydrogen gas is produced from cracking natural gas. This is not particularly eco-friendly because of the byproducts of that process. If we move to using water and electrolysis, we must, again, look at the means of electric generation that is used to separate the hydrogen and oxygen from water. If we are using fossil fuels like coal, natural gas, or petroleum for the generation, then we are back to not really making zero emission vehicles when we produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Its sad that the economy of Iceland has taken such a hit with the current economic crisis. They were working on converting their country to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (they currently have converted to hydrogen fuel cell buses for public transportation) and using their abundant geothermal resources as their electric generating means to guarantee that the conversion to hydrogen would be zero emission.
Hydrogen fuel cell and rechargeable batteries to power electric vehicles is the way to go as long as the basic means for generating the electricity for charging the batteries and extracting the hydrogen from water comes from eco-friendly power sources: solar, wind, tides, hydro-electric.
CO2 footprint, eh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiso.k., how are you going to power the grid? Exactly.
Now, what grid *was* that again?
You got some 'splainin' to do Lucie.
Hi PhysicsGuy - accepting what you say would mean an average loss of about 15% - more probably in stop start driving of urban traffic.Supposing you did have the systems in place to collect most of this heat ( you won't get it all without some form of heat pump ) you might only be talking about one or two kilowatts which might not be enough in winter.There are some problems with hydrogen as a fuel among them being it's low density and potential to form explosive mixtures in the event of leakage. Most of the proposed fuel cells use platinum, which is already scarcer and more expensive than gold. Yes I was already aware that most hydrogen presently liberated comes from cracking hydrocarbons. Part of the economics of a successful hydrogen economy will be having a useful outlet for the eight kilos of pure oxygen released for every kilo of hydrogen. This suggests to me that the electolysis will be mainly done near waste treatment plants where non recyclable waste is incinerated at temperatures that allow efficient electrical generation. If vehicles could access the power they need as they were travelling on the road, most of the time they would not need to carry much fuel or battery capacity. There are ideas on how this could be done safely, but it is a jump forward no one seems to want to make.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "Better Place" model is the ONLY way to go. People are suspicious of electric cars for 2 reasons: limited range and cost of replacing the battery in 4 years. Better Place solves all these by selling you the car while THEY own the battery. Most days you'll just drive to work from your overnight charge or office charge, but on the odd occasion you need a longer range the Battery Swap station is there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the side effect of battery swap stations? Your battery NEVER gets old. The moment a given battery reaches the end of its life the Battery Swap detects it and removes it from circulation!
Both problems solved!
If I ran the world, I would mandate that ALL new suburban driving domestic cars HAD to be compliant with the Better Place international standards. That way, we'd still have competition amongst car makers etc but they'd comply with the new electric standards, just as they have to comply with certain petroleum and diesel standards (filling pipe to fuel tank is a certain standard size to accommodate petroleum bowsers, etc).
Using small biomass pyrolysis hydrogen generators, there would be no need for fuel cells, as the hydrogen could feed a combustion engine directly, leaving water vapour as the only exhaust. Admitedly, hydrogen has less calorific potential than hydrocarbons, but as speed limits need to be reduced to 50mph for energy efficiency, it would have the beneficial effect of decreasing road accident injuries drastically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the complaints here are myths made by car and oil companies. Ev's have no problems heating or defrosting, defogging taking less than 10% of the battery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost batteries can charge in 15 minutes to 80% charge at least. Batteries like engines do wear out but the cost is modest/mile. I have some Ni-cad batteries that are hitting 35 yrs old and still put out rated power in EV's. Some Baker Electrics from 1911 like Jay Leno's still have some of their original NiFe batteries. It also had 110 mile range back then.
As an EV goes 3-6x's as far on the same powerplant fuel equivalent and 1 source is far easier to control pollution than 1,000's of cars, thus even charged from coal, EV's cause much less pollution. On RE it's far, far better.
EV's in mass production need not cost more than ICE's, in fact less as they are far more simple. I make them custom for myself and others using medium tech composites, fork lift EV drive tech, lead batteries and get 100+ mile range, 80 mph EV sportswagon that get 250mpg cost equivalent for fuel. my Harley size trike MC gets 600mpge. GM built 2 similar, the Ultra-lite and the Impact that did about the same. The Ultra-lite was the police car in the movie Demolition Man among other futuristic movies.
The only thing holding up batteries are orders from car companies. Lithium now costs retail no more than sealed lead batteries.
Building your own is not hard. Google EV racing, EV clubs and follow the links.
Hi Jerryd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut what would the effects on the electricity grid be if too many cars all plugged in on the way home from work, and all wanted to charge in 15 minutes?
Zero impact if these Hyperion nuclear batteries ever eventuate. (Small scale 25megawatt nuclear batteries that are buried underground and don't need servicing, and are replaced by the company every 5 to 7 years). They'd be off the grid.
But until such things are a reality, shouldn't we be planning something like the Better Place model that draws down power from the grid slowly, not risking crashing it, and indeed with V2G they can actually help 'smooth' the grid by selling back some electricity during times of peak demand?