TURNING OVER A NEW LEAF: Will Barack Obama's call for one million electric vehicles on U.S. roads by 2015 be realized? Some predict there could be as many as 14 million on the road by 2020. Either way we should soon be seeing many more signs like this one.
Image: Photo courtesy Quinn Dombrowski, Flickr
-
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 »
Dear EarthTalk: In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama called for a million electric vehicles on American roads by 2015. How likely is it that we’ll attain that goal?—Jerry Mitlitski, Salem, Ore.
“We can break our dependence on oil…and become the first country to have one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015,” President Obama said in his January 2011 State of the Union address. “The future is ours to win.”
It’s difficult to say how likely such an arbitrary goal might be, but green leaders and others are optimistic. The waiting list for the new electric Nissan Leaf, rolling off the factory floor as we speak, is some 20,000 Americans long. The auto industry expects similar demand for other new electric and plug-in hybrid cars hitting U.S. roads this year and next from General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Mitsubishi and others.
Of course, the Obama administration realizes that attaining such a goal will be impossible without help from the federal government. To that end, consumers and businesses can get tax credits worth up to $7,500 on the purchase of each new electric vehicle (EV). The feds have also committed $2.4 billion for research and development into improving EV batteries, and another $115 million for the installation of EV charging infrastructure in 16 different metro areas around the country—not to mention some $300 million in clean cities grants to dozens of American communities working to reduce petroleum use, and the $25 billion being doled out to help U.S. automakers retool. So much federal involvement has helped spur state governments and private industry to make significant investments in the EV sector as well.
But even with all this funding, a million EVs on the road by 2015 may still be just a pipe dream. James Sweeney of Stanford University’s Precourt Energy Efficiency Center calls the plan “very aggressive.” He reasons that it took over a decade for hybrids—which “did not require any difference in infrastructure and had as great a range as conventional vehicles, neither of which is likely to be the case with electric vehicles”—to capture three percent of the U.S. passenger car and light truck market. EVs would have to achieve the same market share in just four years if Obama’s goal is to be realized. “Even with a large subsidy, it would be very hard to move to such a large market share that quickly,” Sweeney concludes.
The Electrification Coalition, an organization of pro-EV business leaders from companies including Nissan, Federal Express, Coda Automotive and Coulomb Technologies, would take issue with that conclusion, however. The group’s November 2009 study, dubbed the Electrification Roadmap, predicted that as many as 14 million EVs could be on American roads by 2020 if lawmakers create “electrification ecosystems” in several major U.S. cities simultaneously. If the group is anywhere near the mark, reaching Obama’s goal of a million EVs by 2015 should be a no-brainer. The group also says that EVs could account for as many as 75 percent of all miles driven by light duty vehicles in the U.S. by 2040.
Now if only we could clean up our supply of electricity too, then we really might be onto something good for the planet…
CONTACTS: Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, http://peec.stanford.edu; Electrification Coalition, www.electrificationcoalition.org.
SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentIf Obama had tied his early term bailout funding of GM to electric vehicles, we might have seen a resurgence of the electric vehicle. However, GM's history with the electric car demonstrates the company's ambiguous commitment to this technology (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8 for a preview of the 2006 film "Who Killed the Electric Car", and then make an effort to see the film. Once and a while you can catch it on the Sundance TV channel, and it is probably available through your local public library inter-lending system). The barriers to the electric vehicle are complex. They involve technological problems yet to solve, contention over patent ownership, economies of scale, and the survival of certain industries which are deemed vital to US national interest. The film "Who Killed the Electric Car" investigates these issues in depth, though it is dated (5 years old), and the depth to which it investigates certain aspects of the problem is limited by its sources and the producer's own bias. Yet, this film is the best source of information on the rise and fall of electric vehicles in California during the late 1990s - early 2000s, and will educate the majority of Americans who take the time and effort to see it. Only through public awareness can this problem be properly introduced to the public forum, so please make the effort to see this film. For a vast majority of American drivers, the electric vehicle is a viable answer to reducing carbon emissions while still providing the needs of families to transport children around town, run errands, commute to work, small business delivery, and any other activity that requires driving 100 miles or less per day. Oh, by the way, the EV saves money on fuel and auto maintenance, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--kwgm, near Denver, Colorado
Of course this is very doable. The reason? Obama's administration will do what GWBush would not do... let the law of supply and deman determine gas prices and not artificially manipulate the prices for political gains.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the attorney's that make up 99% of US legislators plan on spending $8B subsidizing electric cars, the half wits have yet to sit down and figger out where the electricity is a gonna come from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the most promising research area the US spends less than $250M on nuclear fission research - an energy form which currently receives almost no subsidies?
This compares to the same $1B for ludicrous clean coal schemes and $2.5B for worthless not so renewables - mostly well understood and already receiving $hundreds of billions in subsidies world wide?
By any standard the LiquidFlourideThoriumReactor or its variations promises to be the answer to all the world's energy needs. Virtually nobody in the industry disputes this.
Our Big Oil bought and paid for attorney politicians who couldn't change a tire to save their lives are giving bupkis for research funding on this sure fire tech while the engineers who run China and most assuredly can change a tire are spending $billions developing our technology. Is Obama just stupid or corrupt or both?
The LFTR prototype the MoltenSaltReactor was operated from 1965 to 1969. Worked perfectly. It was shut down by corrupt scheming politicians.
For more Google wired thorium
The ultra simple version - really just a big sealed tube - DenaturedMSR could likely be built for 20% the cost of current reactors. It is utterly safe shutting down when it heats up, produces no nuclear waste, burns nuclear waste, runs high efficiency gas turbines and burns up all its uranium. Current reactors burn less than 2%.
With a $billion or two in research, the DMSR version is so simple, it could start coming out of factories mass produced in 5 years.
For more Google dmsr thorium phoenix
The annual $800B we paid Big Oil/Coal for their deadly product, would in a year or so cover the conversion of all of the United States from fossil fuel to these reactors.
Drop them on site at coal and gas plants as a like for like replacement with a one time national environmental/ operating permit under a national power authority like Bonneville or TVA - no attorneys, corrupt politicians or Wall Street pirates required.
The money spent on electric cars is getting the cart before the horse. We need to ensure an adequate electricity supply first, eliminate fossil fuels and oil imports and make sure the current vehicle fleet get greened up real fast.
You're right that your post is about 5 years too late. The movie itself was dated before it came out (the subject was about the late 90's, I think). I believe the climate is so changed now that the fundamental dynamics no longer apply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my own opinion, back when "what is good for GM is good for America" logic applied, any move by any automaker ("the big three") into the realm of EVs could prompt the oil industry to raise the price of gas significantly enough to reduce car sales.
Again, in my own opinion, the oil industry, while on a path of consolidation in a race to monopoly, found they could actually impact our nation's economy in the mid seventies. While much of this was blamed on OPEC, I believe this new found strength by the oil industry allowed for pressure on government to allow mergers and buyouts, and the resulting acts of GM in the movie you described, where GM bought back and accounted for every single unit produced and crushed them. (and also military engagements for the purpose of oil commerce/pipeline development) For you to believe this, you would have to believe that there is collusion between the big 5 oil giants.
I believe that if GM found a market in EVs (which it did) it would have exploited that market for profit (which is it's purpose) if not for my supposed "outside controls."
We have had electric forklifts that use capacitor / battery combination and regenerative braking for decades. Those lifts used a battery cycle that lasted for 8 hrs of work, 8 hrs of recharge, and 8 hrs of rest, 6 days per week. While such batteries were not suited for automobiles, EV autos and battery technology could have been developed long ago.
It took politics to pave the road, regardless of which party took down the barricades.
The only reason that 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015 would not be feasible would be because of GM, Chrysler and the GOP. If there is any way for those people and companies to damage Obama's plans for America, they will do it. What did GM and Chrysler do with those billions of dollars Bush and Obama handed out to them...no body knows. They should had used those welfare bucks to retool for electric car manufacturing. If we can manage to build Nissan another factory real quick, they may be able to reach that goal by 2015.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswow! is that a "supply sider" economic thinker talking? Haven't most people learned that without demand there is no reason to invest capital, or produce supply?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreate supply, and demand may or may not materialize. Create demand, and supply will "find a way"
Also, the USA government usually only performs basic research. In the arena of new battery technology, the subsidies are provided to "shorten the time to market" of new products, not to pick one winner.
Fission research would be a much longer term reach, as it has only been accomplished small scale at astronomical temperatures. (excepting the stars, of course)
I am with you on big oil, but government is not bad when there isn't someone trying to make it intentionally incompetent. Lawyers are not evil. They are the civil method of recourse if you have been harmed by a giant corporation. The people who write new laws should well be educated in existing law, and the effect that it produced. (although you could argue that that is not what we have now, I suspect you would not).
The Bush bailouts (to banks as well) was "no strings attached - go out and enjoy!" The Obama bailouts forced some amount of behavioral change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause of that, and other actions that bring gradual decline of subordination to big oil, the dynamics are changing. Now the auto companies can realize that if the oil companies raise the price of gas to reduce car sales, so what?! It just means you will sell more EVs.
That dynamic is not pure, of course, as we rely on oil for manufacturing, transportation, and electric generation. So if oil goes high enough to slow the economy (rising price ripple), all car sales will slow. Also, the supply of money and credit by the Federal Reserve and Wall Street financial institutions have a large role in this as well. It is not a simple equation.
Much as I am in favor of development of EV's, this goal looks to me like a classic government boondoggle: going into production without first solving the fundamental underlying problem(s). In the case of EV's, the limiting factor is well known: they need reliable batteries which are high-capacity and/or fast charging. What the government should be doing at this point is speeding up research in these areas. Without this, trying to force production is pointless, except possibly for making the politicians' campaign donors happy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith enough taxpayer money he should be able to achieve any given goal. The real question is whether it is an effective use of that taxpayer money. Like most ham handed government interventions, the answer will be a clear no when looked at in retrospect. As gasoline prices rise the market will sort things out on its own. Remember the 1970's when the government poured billions into that "fuel of the future" - coal liquids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama's meddling with GM will produce another crisis when people don't buy the cars GM has been forced to produce. Allowing European type turbodiesels to be sold in this country would be a far more efficient way to reduce petroleum consumption at far lower costs to the consumer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDemocracy: Pursuit of the lowest common denominator. Well illustrated by some of the comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Greeks who invented democracy realised this and only the educated were part of the democratic system.
Black Swans are emerging in the energy arena. They make it possible for all future vehicles to one day be electric or hybrid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee Green Light at www.aesopinstitute.org for an overview of how and why.
Obama, he knows damn well that Chevron stole the NiMH battery patent, and sues anybody who tries to make large format NiMH batteries for "stationary" or "transportation" applications. Obama doesn't have the balls to step on any of his Big Oil money pipelines, even though the American Taxpayer financed the development of the NiMH battery through the Advanced Battery Consortium. Those NiMH batteries, the Panasonic EV95 batteries are still going strong in RAV4EV's after 10 yrs and 150,000 miles, but Chevron doesn't allow them to be sold anymore.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, with Obama to give Big Oil/Chevron a gift of $1.8 Trillion for their Iraq Oil War, but wouldn't consider using Eminent Domain to force Chevron to release the NiMH battery patent, which they stole off of the American Taxpayer who paid for its development.
But, Chevron in their DISINFORMATION campaign claims they are PRO-RENEWABLE Energy:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lfibbBnlKt8/TU_BmapqMVI/AAAAAAAAA9w/THzBOkD8KSg/s1600/Chevron+ad.png
I personally think the Electric Vehicle goal is doable and urgent for oil depletion and global warming reasons. The more vehicles we produce the more the price will come down. The market will take over and new and improved models will be produced. However, the range of EVs will be a constraint and we have proposed a National Superconducting Maglev Network that would run alongside our Interstate Highways. This network would carry passengers, where there is demand, for about 5 cents a passenger mile but its big contribution will be carrying tractor trailer trucks, freight containers, and electric delivery trucks in special roll-on, roll-off Maglev truck ferries, which would provide overnight deliver to all points in the United States for about 10 cents a ton mile. The roll-on, roll-off truck ferries and the auto carriers would make the electric transport future for the United States feasible. This Maglev system with the capability to provide this lifting capability has been invented and developed by Drs. James Powell and Gordon Danby, the renowned inventors of the Superconducting Maglev Passenger System developed by the government of Japan. The American government needs to invest in a Test and Vehicle certification facility similar to the facilities built and financed by the Governments of Japan and Germany. The 2nd generation superconducting Maglev Transport system is a much more capable and much more affordable than the proposed high speed passenger rail system that are copies of the European steel-wheel rail system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresident Obama admired Japan’s superconducting Maglev system when he introduced the high speed rail system in April, 2009 but failed to follow through with the development of Powell and Danby’s superconducting Maglev technology. http://www.readinessresource.net/maglev/2000.html
The President said, “And Japan, the nation that unveiled the first high-speed rail system, is already at work building the next: a line that will connect Tokyo with Osaka at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. So it's being done; it's just not being done here.”
“There's no reason why we can't do this. This is America. There's no reason why the future of travel should lie somewhere else beyond our borders. Building a new system of high-speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways or adding to an already overburdened aviation system –- and everybody stands to benefit.”
We agree!!!!
President Obama must know that the grid has to be updated with its extension to the southwest solar generation area, to the Dakotas' wind generation area, and to pick up the current generated in the near Atlantic ocean. This has to be done simultaneously with the placement of charging stations in the big and medium sized cities. Both of these things will be required to allow for the rapid increase in electric vehicles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this