Image: ALINA NOVOPASHINA Corbis
In Brief
- The car fleet of 2030 will use a patchwork quilt of different fuels and power trains, with some cars meant for short hops and city driving.
- As the years go by, vehicles will become increasingly connected to one another electronically,
for crash prevention and social networking. Driver distraction will be an ongoing concern. - Whether cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells will be common in 20 years remains an open question.
For a glimpse into what automobiles will be like 20 years from now, contributing editor Stuart F. Brown conducted a group interview with executives at General Motors, Tesla Motors and Toyota and also spoke separately with a program manager at the Electric Power Research Institute. The interviewees, whose comments have been edited for length, foresee increased communication among cars and a combination of vehicle types. Some, like Tesla’s current sports cars, will draw their energy from a battery pack. Others, in common with today’s Toyota’s Prius and the 2010 Chevy Volt, will be hybrid designs, relying on both electric motors and small internal-combustion engines. Many forthcoming hybrids will charge batteries by plugging into the electric grid, and hydrogen fuel cells might be a reality. But that is not all that the participants see. Read on.
—The Editors
This article was originally published with the title The Future of Cars.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentFor a while now I have been suggesting that the most energy efficient way of powering road vehicles could be from in the road power supplies. This could come from a row of contacts,suitably embedded in a durable elastomer hump that depressed flush with the road when rolled on by something heavy like a vehicle. The electrical contacts should only switch on under authorised vehicles who would access the supply by feeding a signal to the contacts. Energy consumption is directly related to vehicle and cargo weight. Not having to carry about a large energy store and the means to convert that into useful mechanical energy saves a lot of weight. This type of development would best be tried out in bus and taxi lanes, and in light of experience spread where ever in the road network it can show a net benefit. Less radically internal combustion engines married to exhaust turbines, with catalytic converters in between should get the most useful energy out of hydrocarbon fuels, especially if the ICE is a two stroke, fed air by a compressor which is not powered by the exhaust turbine (or the crankshaft ), and that exhaust turbine, which might be multi staged, powers a generator. Compressing the air remotely from the engine compartment and useing hollow chassis elements as combined aircoolers /reservoirs gives a controllable supply of cool compressed air for both the engine and the passenger compartment. If sufficiently pressurised it can act as it's own refrigerant when used for air conditioning. Exhaust turbine speed / torque characteristics are better suited to generators than blowers. The combination of two stroke ICE and efficient exhaust turbine gives a high power to weight ratio and that also reduces the weight from the support structure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was intersting to read the expert's views cocrening how cars will look like 20 years ahead. However, Sinec it is difficult to wait so long to see if they were right, I beleive it would be most interesting to read what experts visioned two decades ago and see if they were right!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the statistics that I have seen do not change, in 20 years autos would be involved in about 120 million accidents, 60 million injury accidents and 800,000 deaths. It is surprising how little space the authors devote to this problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo flying micro-fusion cars? I like the safety of networked cars though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Tim Wilson says, "Where the f*** is my jetpack?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off does anyone else find it stupid I have to buy this article? Second, why doesn't everyone get over cars? They just don't work. At least in the sense we look at now. This isn't some hippie save the earth thing either, even though the earth is important. Why not make all cars connected to a track in the middle of the road. No more accidents! No more traffic jams! No more high gas prices! Just a tax to up keep the roads which probably wouldn't run more than we are already being taxed. Everyone could still have a personal vehicle, but it isn't controlled by the driver just the tracks. Could simply use a GPS type device to control it, but of course many safety concerns here. This article is propaganda! Cars were a good idea to replace the horse and buggy, but not a good idea any more. Not for the environment, not for the world's pockets, and not good for the system of driving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see why GM went downhill and Toyota is going that way too. Anyone thinking gasoline will be cheap for the next 6 yrs doesn't know what they are talking about. Next yr as the world economy recovers, it will be $5/gal again and up $1/yr after that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext both Toyota and GM are not going to be building EV's in any numbers. As oil/gas hits $5'gal, they will be left behind as Ford, Nissan can ramp their lines up fast. Ford will have multiple EV's, PHEV's and hybrids ready just in time. Since they are based on their production vehicles, they just switch the line over to more Electric drives.
Ford's small van EV comes out next yr and the Focus EV, Escape hybrid and PHEV comes out in 2012. The Focus EV is what Jay Leno races on his show.
None mentioned composite bodies which in 10 yrs either you will have them or be out of business. They weight 1/2, thus need 1/2 the battery, drive, thus cost far less. Interestingly GM built exactly that 20 yrs ago in their Ultra-Lite showcar and Toyota is doing one now called the X-1. Though both need to be done in medium tech composites, not carbon fiber. But neither will build them for production.
We buy Lithium EV batteries now for under $.30/wthr and soon they will cost less than lead batteries once in real mass production.
Foolcells need 4x's the energy to go the same distance as an EV and for that reason alone thought their are many others, it will never be viable.
EV's go 3-6x's as far as ICE's on the same energy so in 5 yrs they will start being a large factors along with very eff, high mileage ICEs/hybrids.
In say 20 yrs from now EV's with 300 mile range with composite bodies because they will be far cheaper to buy, run along with NG for trucks, semi's done in composites, aluminum with micro cars and mass transit, high speed trains will be our future as any other way will be too costly.
I see why GM went downhill and Toyota is going that way too. Anyone thinking gasoline will be cheap for the next 6 yrs doesn't know what they are talking about. Next yr as the world economy recovers, it will be $5/gal again and up $1/yr after that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNext both Toyota and GM are not going to be building EV's in any numbers. As oil/gas hits $5'gal, they will be left behind as Ford, Nissan can ramp their lines up fast. Ford will have multiple EV's, PHEV's and hybrids ready just in time. Since they are based on their production vehicles, they just switch the line over to more Electric drives.
Ford's small van EV comes out next yr and the Focus EV, Escape hybrid and PHEV comes out in 2012. The Focus EV is what Jay Leno races on his show.
None mentioned composite bodies which in 10 yrs either you will have them or be out of business. They weight 1/2, thus need 1/2 the battery, drive, thus cost far less. Interestingly GM built exactly that 20 yrs ago in their Ultra-Lite showcar and Toyota is doing one now called the X-1. Though both need to be done in medium tech composites, not carbon fiber. But neither will build them for production.
We buy Lithium EV batteries now for under $.30/wthr and soon they will cost less than lead batteries once in real mass production.
Foolcells need 4x's the energy to go the same distance as an EV and for that reason alone thought their are many others, it will never be viable.
EV's go 3-6x's as far as ICE's on the same energy so in 5 yrs they will start being a large factors along with very eff, high mileage ICEs/hybrids.
In say 20 yrs from now EV's with 300 mile range with composite bodies because they will be far cheaper to buy, run along with NG for trucks, semi's done in composites, aluminum with micro cars and mass transit, high speed trains will be our future as any other way will be too costly.
Thinking about the future of energetics is always difficult. Nevertheless there are strong experimental evidences about the efficiency of Hydrogen engines. The problem is definetely much more deeper: the point is produce Hydrogen in a cheaper way (probably without using electrochemical synthesis) and find much more safier tank for it with very particular properties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThinking about energetic future is always difficult. Nevertheless there are strong experimental evidences about the effinciency of Hydrogen engines. However this technology is definetely not ready to wide commerce in termes of economical convenience and security. First of all there is the need for finding a cheaper process for the sythesis of Hydrogen (maybe replacing the actual electrochemical way). Second of all we need to find definetely more safier tanks for Hydrogen. There's a lot of work yet to come, but our research is confirming that we're on the right way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjerryd,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat makes you think gasoline will be much more expensive in the future. We heard that prediction in the 70's, the 80's, the 90's and the 00's.
In fact the price of gasoline has ranged between 1.87 and 3.38 at the end of each decade for the past 60 years in today's dollars. In 1950 the price of gasoline in today's dollars was $2.37 per gallon. In 1960 it was $2.25. And that was an era of supposedly cheap oil. It was lowest in 1990 and highest in 1980 in constant dollars. Despite predictions to the contrary such as yours, the price has been remarkably constant.
The bigger problem, which will push up gasoline prices as well as all other prices, is inflation. Unfortunately rampant inflation (inflating away the debt) is the only way your man Obama will be able to fund his "change".
A heavy investment in EV's is a sure way to require another future bailout for the geniuses at GM.
Because Soccerdad now oil has peaked and anyone who seriously studies the oil numbers, knows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are at the top of the production curve and no where to go but down. Which of course as China, India get richer, they demand more oil.
Even if we managed to double our oil production, it would only add a few yrs to peak oil. But that is not going to happen because we don't have the equipment or oil experts, oilmen to do it even if we had the oil.
EV's because they are so cheap to build, run even at present prices makes sense. My Harley size MC trike costs under $100/yr to use. My EV sportwagon costs under $300/yr to use. Sadly I had to build my own because Car companies won't. And I use forklift EV drive tech, far cheaper than the too expensive on purpose car companies are about to put out, trying to make them look bad.
Only Ford, Nisssan is trying to put less expensive EV's on the road.
If you want to spend money for oil of which 40% goes directly to Iran, Russia, oil dictators because oil is fungible, then you are supporting our enemies, making us bankrupt.
Freedom in the world goes in direct relationship to the price of oil. If we cut oil imports by cutting our use 10%/yr which cuts imports by about 18%/yr, we can drive the price of oil down, cutting the money for our enemies, people who oppose freedom while making jobs, far more wealth here. But you don't think beyond today so can't see what your oil buying does and how it hurts us.
Using NG for trucks is both far more profitable, lower CO2 and cuts our oil problems very quickly. Every major truck stop at least should have NG pumps. There are Fed funds available so no cost to the stations.
Your lack of economic knowledge is glaring. First it's not Obama's debt. He is just trying to fix the huge debt, economic mess left by repubs, No? Only a biased or ignorant person would say it was him who made it. Which are you?
It's people like you that have bankrupted this country and blocking most ways to fix it. What would you call someone who on purpose hurts our country like the repubs do just for political points? They have made it Of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.
Well, according to Jerrryd - this time it's really going to happen. Really. It's not just another unwarranted scare like it was in the 70's, the 80's, the 90's etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama is trying to fix the debt????!!!! Surely you are joking.
Obama is on track to double the debt in his term. Something that no other President has even come close to accomplishing. I'm no fan of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. But Obama's irresponsibility dwarfs that of Bush.
Very dull. I think a group of bright high school students would evidence more vision and knowledge of emerging technology than the group you picked to interview.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the nation has depended on executives and managers such as your interviewees for R&D leadership - and it seems that we have - then we should expect continued heel-dragging from the auto and supporting industries.
I recommend you invite a different group for your next interview focused on this topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry Soccordad, I didn't realize oil going from $3/bbl in 1970 to $80/bbl now wasn't an increase!!
And it's not Obama's debt, it's Bush's, repubs. No? It is Bush's recession, bank, car companies and AIG bailouts along with his massive debt that Obama is stuck with fixing. Obama is just being honest, putting it on the books instead of hiding it like the liars you voted for did, No? Didn't Bush, repubs get a $250B surplus? Didn't Obama get a $1T/yr deficit, $10T in debt, almost a depression and 2 wars?
My. Obama's plan is how to get us out of it, not congresses though as energy is still controlled by repubs and oil, coal state dems, No? It's people like you and repubs that are traitors selling our country down the river.
You talk a bad game, what's your solution that can work?
Hey dipstick - all my numbers are in constant dollars. Probably too advanced a concept for an economic illiterate like you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSoccerdad, so oil inflation has went up 2666% or so in 39 yrs isn't a price increase?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalling people names to avoid looking wrong is a sign of someone who is. And in the next yr and a half it's going to double again. Is that still in constant $? Is that too advanced for you? Did your wages go up that much?
Facts are you and your buddies Bush/Chenney/neo-cons/ repubs have run this country into the ground, why? I call people who do that traitors. What would you call them, you? The truth hurts doesn't it?
What is too advanced for you is figuring out those you voted in screwed you big time and you still back them? Now that is what I call a smart person. You should be so proud of yourself ;^P
Maybe you can fool yourself, wingnuts but I can do math, think clearly, unlike you.
I give up. You are beyond help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave fun going down the drain with your man Obama.
Don't write off hydrogen power to quickly. Hydrogen cars do not need to run using expensive fuel cells. The first motor car invented in the early 1800's ran on hydrogen obtained from distilling wood. Look up 'gazogene' on the french wikipedia site to see a hydrogen car of the sort highly used in the fifties. These cars take a few minutes to start, but can run all day on one small load of biomass. Therefore it is not a car for short runs such as going a few miles for shopping or to work, but is fine for long runs. There is no pollution, as the exhaust fumes are just water vapour, leaving a few pounds of charcoal which you can spread as a fertiliser on farmland...before you load up again with more biomass, which can be wood, straw, sewerage sludge etc...Ideal for countries that don't have a hydrogen distribution infrastructure, that is, everywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer to where are the air cars is more of a political question rather than a technical one. F=MA . The problem is a whole bunch of light vehicles flying around with no way to control them can cause great harm. One answer would be to hook up a persons cell phone with a g.p.s. To log where ,when who , how ,and why and any other question that might arise. They have them for ships to tell where you are and where the other guy is, and everyone else on that system. Make it so the motor won't run untill you have logged on. I would rather go 80 miles an hour at 1000 feet and miss all of the traffic than to be stuck behind a truck doing thirty m.p.h. A motor cycle engine of most makes would serve the purpous hooked to twin counter rotateing blades seperated to both sides like the marine vtwin osprey. You could then place a ballistic deployed parachute in the middle for real safety. Electric motors would be more efficient. There could be rechargeing stations just like gas. Rent them and they won't fly unless your licenced. Flying highway patrolmen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe, that the invention of gravity control, an offshoot of the technology of the Flying Saucer which I discovered in 1967 and patented later will be foremost. A "Flying Car" does not have to go thousands of feet in the air, it can also float a few feet above ground. For long distances it will probably be "flying".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven your future aircraft will use the technology.
Roads will not be necessary everywhere. A flycar can go wherever you want. Even in high density traffic they will be safe, as the inherent force-field will repel any possible collisions, even from pedestrians.
They may also be powered by just "tapping" energy out of the aether like a Flying Saucer does (and was probably be used by Tesla for his Pierce Arrow Car in 1931).
You will be able to have a home in places that are now virtual inaccessible as you can go wherever you want.
It was suggested to Nasa but even now Nasa's Management is still wedded to One Billion Dollar rockets.
Russia might have more sensible brains.
Pity
Why not think of a combination of approaches including battery,hydrogen,solar and even wind on the car,as well as power from transducers on the road ,and also from grids for transport linked to renewable energy based systems which like wise combine solar,wind and biomass based ones.A lot of synegistic developments and linkages are needed at the micro,meso and macrolevels,linking various fuel sytems,powerdrives and trains,road based and grid based systems,at the different levels.This is perfectly possible at the current levls of technology and infrastructure potentials or feasibility,if you plan and aim for it ,and have suitable policy and political instruments or governance models.Thes should take into account the strengths and weaknesses and potentials of different components and elements and structure the inter phase accordingly.That is the big challenge and opportunity for the coming decades,in systems and infrastructure and policy and framework
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSURESHKUMAR.S,SCIENTIST AND ADVISER,NIIST,CSIR,INDIA