Startups take the plunge
But the plug-in revolution does not stop at the major manufacturers. Startup companies smell blood in the water with the big manufacturers struggling. Tesla has already started selling its two-person Roadster, Fisker Automotive Inc. plans to introduce a four-door luxury car at the end of this year, and a number of other smaller companies are in the business of converting traditional gasoline-powered cars into plug-ins.
"The ideas is to start with a small niche segment, very often a high-price segment and after demonstrating success within that segment, to move to higher volumes and lower prices," said Diarmuid O'Connell, vice president of business development for Tesla, which plans to release its second all-electric car—a $50,000 sedan—late next year, thanks in part to the $465 million it received in DoE loans.
Still, the plug-in effort faces a variety of hurdles. In March, the president's auto task force questioned whether the Chevy Volt—which has carried the torch for the emerging technology since the prototype debuted in 2007—could be a short-term success for GM as the troubled company tried to survive in a depressed economy and car market.
Tony Posawatz, GM's vehicle line director for the Volt, admitted as much in an April briefing with lawmakers. "While the Volt holds promise, it certainly is a new technology that has not hit the optimum cost," he said.
In addition to the high cost of the lithium ion batteries that power most plug-ins, the cars face a high hurdle to acceptance by the American public. According to a Kelly Blue Book 2008 survey, 40 percent of Americans said hybrids were on their way to achieving mainstream status.
The biggest challenge facing the industry is not the economy, according to Ed Cohen, Honda Motor Co. vice president of government affairs. "Our biggest challenge is to reinvent the automobile, and that is a huge task," he told lawmakers earlier this year. "This industry has been built around the internal combustion engine, and that's not going to change quickly and it's not going to change easily."
Will the Rust Belt buy it?
While regular hybrids—which, unlike plug-ins, rely mostly on their gasoline engines—have gained toeholds in places like California, Oregon and Washington, they have so far fallen flat in the Rust Belt. According to a study by R. L. Polk and Co., hybrids accounted for 1.8 percent of all new car registrations in the Midwest last year, compared with 5.5 percent on the West Coast.
According to Lonnie Miller, Polk's director of industry analysis, hybrid sales are stronger in the West for a variety of reasons. "One is that the hybrid market is dominated by the Toyota Corporation, which has maintained an average 75 percent of the U.S. hybrid segment from 2003 to 2008," she said in a report. "The Great Lakes region has the strongest 'buy American' mindset when it comes to the purchase of vehicles, which makes Asian-branded hybrid vehicles less popular in that part of the country."
Even though hybrid vehicle sales fell from 2007 to 2008, they garnered a greater share of total light vehicle sales. According to a separate Polk report, hybrid sales accounted for 0.3 percent of the market in 2003. That number increased nearly nine-fold by 2008 but that still left the market share at 2.6 percent.
Neither the industry nor lawmakers know what to expect in the coming years in terms of how many new cars and trucks will be sold. But even if the numbers return to roughly 16 million a year, as they were for much of the decade, the success of any push toward hybrids—plug-in or not—may ultimately end up bumper to bumper with the price of gasoline and the sticker price on the new cars.
"It is important that we are realistic because there are two things that you cannot trump, politics aside," Cohen said. "One is technology and the second is cost."
Reprinted from Greenwire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
26 Comments
Add CommentI'm not an expert, but my understanding over the past few years was that Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology was much more promising and realistic than plug-ins; if not only for the fact that if every american car had to plug-in at night, that would put a significant increase on the grid - thus causing power plants to work more, thereby polluting more. Six in one, half dozen in the other, no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, the infrastructure is non-existent. Will I buy a plug-in car? Of course I won't - There aren't enough places to recharge yet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael, you are not an expert or even in the same county as one. There are 1000x's + as many EV's as fool cell cars. I know of only a handful plus the 100? Honda I think is testing here.
We can build reasonable cost, very eff plug in hybrid now. A fuel cell car would cost 10x's as much-and on the same base fuel, get only 1/4 the mileage.
Your plug in at night myth is bogus as we won't have even 1/10 the US fleet as plug in hybrids or EV for 5 yrs and never have 100%. Nor is there a problem with 30 million of them with our present grid.
And the grid is much cleaner now and the EPA says that EV's even charged from coal is much less polluting as EV's are 3x's as eff as gas cars.
The infrastructure non existance? There are 4 billion 120vac plugs in the US that says differently. By the time EV. Plug in hybrid are in real numbers RE will be wide spread as it's now the low cost energy source in most cases.
I drive my EV's everyday that get 250 and 600mpg cost equivalent to gasoline. That's why EV's will be the future. Sadly I had to build mine as many have and many of them buy or make RE to power them.
Google EV clubs and EV racing and follow the links to find out the real facts from those who drive them every day. And stop spreading lies.
There are thousands of hybrids on the road, already possessing the "plug-in" technology. They're just optimized for it. At this point, even making the conversion is already so simple that DIYers are doing it in their garages. When a cottage industry of tinkerers can do it, you had better believe that enterprising companies aren't far behind. As usual, it requires a push to get the American companies going in the right direction, their heads still collectively up... ...in the clouds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis technology is and has been here. Developing HFC tech is a good thing, but by no means do we have to sit around on our hands and wait for that day to make any progress at all.
ahem... just [not] optimized for it
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce we can cheaply produce hydrogen, I have a way to rapidly implement distribution - fleets. The reason is fleets stick to a particular geographic area. Think: pizza delivery, taxis, US Postal delivery vehicles, police cars, FedEx and UPS delivery vans, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA company like GM could go into a market along with one or more hydrogen suppliers and say, "OK, if you order a fleet of hydrogen-powerd vehicles we will build and sell them to you at a terrific price in order to seed your market. And while we are building them these nice folks will install refueling facilities since they know there will be a need."
Catch-22 solved by the simultaneous introduction of hyrdogen vehicles along with the needed refueling stations.
Plus, once the fleet vehicles are delivered and in use, the general public will see the vehicles in their area delivering food or the mail or packages or patroling their neighborhoods and thereby get used to the idea of hydrogen fueled personal vehicles. At that point GM can have cars, trucks and SUVs in their dealer showrooms.
As the size of the fleets grow the refueling firms will be encouraged to install refueling stations between towns and cities which have hydrogen fleets. This would allow, if needed, fleet vehicles to travel out of their supply zones.
I believe using my idea we could rapidly move to hydrogen fueled vehicles in two to three years. This would take the pressure off shrinking oil supplies.
Terry Thomas...
the photographer
Atlanta, Georgia USA
www.TerryThomasPhotos.com
Jerryd:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe I started my response with "I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that..." I'm expressing what I've been led to believe based on whatever limited research I've done, if for no other reason than to spark a discussion on the topic.
I found your reply to be excessively aggressive. "Stop spreading lies"? I'm no propagandist, Jerryd, I'm simply taking part in a discussion. Perhaps you would better serve your cause if you took the time to explain your thoughts without making it feel like such a personal attack on those who are simply stating the way that THEY understand the situation to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but stop implying that I'm some kind of agenda-motivated spinster.
Also... This quote is from a paper published by Ohio State University:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"While studies of the pollution-reducing ability of electric vehicles in California are quite favorable, they cannot be applied to the rest of the world as a whole. The truth is that when using electricity generated from dirty sources such as coal and oil, electric vehicles may actually create more of some pollutants than comparable internal combustion engine vehicles. A report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) cited a German study that estimated the environmental impact of electric vehicles with two distinct energy mixes: one comprised of only 49% coal-fired electricity, and one comprised solely of coal-fired electricity [1]. The estimates provided by the study are given in table 1. Assuming that 49% of an electric vehicle's charging energy being derived from coal, the study found that electric vehicles would cause comparable levels of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide to be emitted, and that sulfur oxide emissions would increase by a factor of 10 [1]. Furthermore, when assuming that an electric vehicle is charged with 100% coal-fired electricity, the study estimated that the electric vehicles would emit 150% more carbon dioxide, 250% more nitrogen oxides, and 2400% more sulfur oxides than a comparable internal combustion engine vehicle [1]."
Also, this conclusion is from the same paper:
"At present, for the vast majority of the country, neither electric vehicles or comparable gasoline-powered vehicles holds a solid advantage over the other in cleanliness. This balance will probably not change any time in the near future as the problem with electric vehicles is not inherent to them, but rather to the means by which we generate our electricity. Although electric vehicles offer some compelling advantages over internal combustion engine vehicles in terms of pollution management, the real advantage of electric vehicles lies in the future when more electricity is produced from cleaner sources. For those living in California, or in other regions with a high percentage of energy production coming from clean sources, the future is already here."
[link: http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/policy/voytishlong.html]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the EPA ratings, try to find another vehicle better.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/17328.shtml
Here's another report of many sources
http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml
Can't find the EPA comparison.
Here are to real sources for EV emissions
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml
And the EPA.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/17328.shtml
There is another EPA comparison but I can't find it.
Michael you started by misleading everyone just to see yourself up here which does no one any good.
If you want to start a conservation, ask a question rather than show how little you know.
I never understood the big deal about hydrogen anyway. It is a form of energy, not a source of energy. The hydrogen would be produced probably via electrical energy, which would ultimately come from coal or nuclear. So it seems the EV skips an unneccesary and costly step.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those interested in the current status of plug-in vehicles, check out this site:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pluginamerica.org/plug-in-vehicle-tracker.html
If you want to convert your 2004-2009 Prius to a plug-in:
http://www.greengears.net/about.php
If you want to convert a gas engined car to electric:
http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electric-car-conversion-kit.html
And, if you need a reason to electrify your gas car:
http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1715
"For the amount of electricity it takes to refine oil, we could leave the crude in the ground."
It is indeed a good development. However will this also mean lower running cost for the consumers? If not, the product will not find favor in the market place
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresident Obama is cutting back on hydrogen fuled cars because of the dirty and polluting way hydrogen has to be produced. When technology in producing hydrogen advances, hydrogen fuel cell cars will also advance. President Obama knows that plug-ins are more practicle and quicker to manufacture. We can convert to electric cars a lot faster than we can convert to hydrogen cars, but that may not be the case when hydrogen technology advances towhere people can power their hydrogen powered car from home like they can their electric cars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey mentioned Telsa Motors of California in the article as receiving stimulus money. Telsa says that their electric car can be charged from any home outlet in about 45 minutes and can get over 300 miles between charges and it does not put anymore strain on the grid than your freg keeping itself at the proper tempture. I do not believe Telsa Motors is lying about this. Everybody will not be charging their electric vehicles at the same time, just as everybody will not be using the toilet at the same time. You can also install a solar panel and us You fear mongers should go visit a psychologist and get rid of your phobias. As soon as Ford changes the Mustang over to all electric, it will be sitting in my garage so fast you will think it is magic and burn me at the stake. When Telsa Motors brings the price of their very attractive electric car down, it will be in my garage too.
President Obama is cutting back on hydrogen fuled cars because of the dirty and polluting way hydrogen has to be produced. When technology in producing hydrogen advances, hydrogen fuel cell cars will also advance. President Obama knows that plug-ins are more practicle and quicker to manufacture. We can convert to electric cars a lot faster than we can convert to hydrogen cars, but that may not be the case when hydrogen technology advances towhere people can power their hydrogen powered car from home like they can their electric cars.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey mentioned Telsa Motors of California in the article as receiving stimulus money. Telsa says that their electric car can be charged from any home outlet in about 45 minutes and can get over 300 miles between charges and it does not put anymore strain on the grid than your freg keeping itself at the proper tempture. I do not believe Telsa Motors is lying about this. Everybody will not be charging their electric vehicles at the same time, just as everybody will not be using the toilet at the same time. You can also install a solar panel and use that source for charging your electric car when the sun is out. You fear mongers should go visit a psychologist and get rid of your phobias. As soon as Ford changes the Mustang over to all electric, it will be sitting in my garage so fast you will think it is magic and burn me at the stake. When Telsa Motors brings the price of their very attractive electric car down, it will be in my garage too.
And so clearly we've come to the bigger problem, which is our lack of ability to switch from coal-fired plants to renewable energy sources to power the country. Also, the current grid system is simply not set up to take advantage of the sources we have available to us. If we are to truly take a significant step towards reducing our carbon footprint, a "smart-grid" must take the forefront of our focus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd so clearly we've come to the bigger problem, which is our lack of ability to switch from coal-fired plants to renewable energy sources to power the country. Also, the current grid system is simply not set up to take advantage of the sources we have available to us. If we are to truly take a significant step towards reducing our carbon footprint, a "smart-grid" must take the forefront of our focus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith tax credits for solar,and wind power generation at every home.The energy for commuting would be coming from those who are using it.Then the surplus would go out on the grid already in place,thus reducing the need for coal,oil,other source's, create millions of jobs,and keep money now going out of the country here at home.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand why hybrid cars aren't more popular in large cities. My Altima hybrid went from Rochester NY to Toronto and back on a little over 1/2 a tank of gas. I was caught in 2 major traffic jams in Toronto caused by a festival I wasn't aware of and stuck crawling for 2-3 hours each. Every time I see pictures of daily grid lock in NY, Washington DC etc., I wonder what can they be thinking?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand it, the the thing about EV's is two fold. #1. The batteries. Lots of toxic heavy metals, and if they develope (discharge/recharge cycle) memories, or don't last any longer than my rechargeable radio batteries. Well there is going to be a major problem with pollution and recycling. #2. Also, it would take no more than 10min. to fill up with hydrogen, perhaps hours with electricity. Who really wants to wait more than a very few min. to get back on the road? It's definately a major inconvenience that would have to be planned around. In time perhaps those drawbacks will not be a problem. But right now they are. While I'm sure there are drawbacks to fuel cells, but I am not currently aware of what they are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen is a wasteful, hideous and environmentally destructive source of energy. It destroys the ozone layer far more than CFC's, it extremely difficult to store (leave the container alone long enough and the H2 molecules are so small they leak by the seals and your tank is empty).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat it boils down to is what is THE cleanest, most efficient way to make a wheel go around? Turbo diesel.
Soshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease tell me how turbo diesel (even new ones) can be cleaner than a plug in hybrid being charged from a renewable energy source? Diesel is efficient when compared to gasoline, yes, but in no way is diesel clean, even on the newest of cars. If you don't believe me, get behind a TDI VW jetta and watch what comes out of the tailpipe when the driver really steps on it.
I'd like to point out as well that people are ignoring the offset energy costs of battery creation, maintenance, and disposal. Battery technologies have a long way to go for the environmental costs of the damage done to the ecosystem for lithium extraction and battery production/shipment to be offset as well. With current industry standards, we've just moved the pollution to a mountain in China or Canada, the pacific ocean, and a landfill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this***Offset energy costs of batteries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Initial extraction of lithium. Highly intrusive and polluting process.
-Processing. Also costly.
-Shipment. Has high costs as traditional lithium batteries have high weight and bulk.
-Disposal. A complicated and rather undeveloped procedure.
This country has some serious goals relating to air quality, global warming and oil dependency. To reach them, we need advanced biofuels, batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. All three are very promising, but still developing technologies with technical and economic barriers that they will overcome. It's important to support all three and let the market choose the ultimate winners.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pollution of battery production transport & disposal is a drop in the bucket of a comparable gas ICE. It's not perfect, but it's about five million trillion times better. We need to update our grid anyway. This just ensures cars come along with. Low tech is mo tech.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlug-in hybrids are the best short and medium term solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe grid is there and can be used more efficiently i.e. night charging. The 40 miles you get on each charge will cover 70% of your driving. For longer trips the existing gasoline stations will do fine. By using batteries you can save energy every time you break or in downhill slopes. By adding a smarter GPS in those cars it will help your planning since the car will empty the battery going uphill using the knowledge that it will get it back soon (generating) when going downhill. This is the most efficient and immediate solution. Going into hydrogen then you do not have the storage tanks in the cars, no distribution network, no hydrogen production facilities. The fuel cells are still too expensive for another 10 years, at least. Using hydrogen in normal Otto-engines is working (BMW V-12) but is not yet for regular efficient use. Those pushing the hydrogen line could be backed from oil companies since they like to keep their share of future "fuel markets"?
Obama has understood all this, as it seems...