Subscription Center
Jan 14, 2009 04:48 PM | 15
.jpg)
DETROIT-- The North American International Auto Show held this week was positively electric in an economically dark world in which buyers shun gas guzzlers and manufacturers struggle to go green as well as convince consumers to fork over tight funds. There was less talk of biofuels and almost no talk of hydrogen than in previous years, with the emphasis instead on quick environmental fixes that can be implemented within five years—if not immediately.
There were three real classes of environmental innovation on display here: traditional hybrids, extended-range electric vehicles, and pure electric vehicles. Every step represents another leap away from the internal combustion engine, a goal that wasn't even a goal a mere three years ago.
Hybrid vehicles—each representing a significant advance in the technology—made a strong showing, , including the all-new Prius, the all-sleek Honda Insight, and the Ford Focus Hybrid. All of the hybrids rolled out here are expected to be available to consumers by the end of the year.
Ford says that its Fusion brings a higher mileage-per-gallon to a larger more luxurious car, getting at least five more miles per gallon of gas in the city than its Toyota rival, the Camry Hybrid. Toyota's new Prius offers updated styling, the highest mileage of any car on the road, and a slightly larger interior and faster engine than its predecessor.
The Honda Insight may have been the most important hybrid at the show, not because it's the most efficient car on the road (with MPG expected to be in the mid-40s) but because it's so inexpensive. With a base price of around $20,000, it costs around $4,000 less than the Prius, opening the hybrid market to a whole new segment of buyers.
Next we have the extended-range electric vehicle (E-REV). The public doesn't really know what to think about E-REVs, mostly because only two or three people have ever driven one. These new cars run entirely on electric power, but they contain a small gasoline generator to recharge the batteries when they run low. The idea is that you get all of the benefits of an electric car for the first 40 miles or so (which is longer than the average commute of Americans) but you don't have to worry about running out of power and being stuck without a way to recharge.
The idea of an E-REV may be fantastic, but it's apparently tricky to build. Nonetheless, several automakers are working on E-REV prototypes, and Chevy's E-REV (the Chevrolet Volt) is set to be on the road in 2011.
General Motors, it seems, looking to double-down on the E-REV idea, released a concept for a Cadillac E-REV coupe dubbed the Converj. The stated intent of the Converj is to show that its E-REV system is more about innovation than compromise. I imagine GM is also encouraged by the idea of selling these cars for a profit, since they're banking on losing money on the Volt for at least a few years.
Chrysler has also jumped on the E-REV bandwagon, showcasing a large concept sedan, the 200C. Of course, the company also admitted it may build the 200C with a regular internal combustion engine. Honestly, Chrysler's display smacked a bit of green-washing, sometimes literally, with two different Jeeps sporting green "extended-range electric vehicle" paint jobs, but absolutely no stats on how the vehicles would be powered and whether Chrysler had done any of the work to figure out if it could make such a large car into an E-REV.
We've seen plenty of E-REV and hybrid cars at recent auto shows, but fully electric ones have been noticeably absent. Major manufacturers have been slow to adopt pure EV technology for a variety of reasons. Among them: batteries are heavy, most cities (where EVs would be most useful) don't have charging ports, and carmakers have had a hard time keeping costs down while delivering a manageable sized vehicle.
But this year shows just how jittery today's auto industry may be. Ford announced an ambitious EV plan, saying that it would have a commercial electric van on the road in target markets by 2010 and an electric car (based on the Fusion platform with a 100 -mile range for urban drivers) in 2011. Ford also said it's in talks with several major municipalities (no word on which ones) about developing re-charge stations.
While GM is putting most of its eggs in the Volt basket, I asked Denise Gray, GM's chief of battery development, whether the idea of totally electric cars was an insane one. "It's neither crazy nor insane," she said. "In fact, I think its right round the corner." And GM is poised to take advantage. The company announced at the show that it plans build its own electric vehicle battery manufacturing plant, and the world's largest automotive battery testing facility. GM seems to finally see a future in electric cars.
Toyota apparently agrees. It was the only company at the show that had more than plans to show. While its FT-EV is only a concept right now (largely based on Toyota's iQ microcar), Toyota has promised that the FT-EV, or a car like it, will be for sale in America by 2012.
The bottom line: This is the first auto show I've attended where it seems that manufacturers and car enthusiasts agree that the future of automobiles is electric.
Tags:
detroit,
electric car,
naias,
GM,
ford,
plug-in hybrid,
auto show,
volt,
chevy,
toyota
More News Blog:
Next: Apple's Jobs takes medical leave of absence
Previous: Is combating climate change worth the cost?
See what we're tweeting about
Myrmecos Recipe for a Photograph #2: Bee in Flight | Compound Eye http://t.co/s5JuowiF5H via @sciam
FlyingTrilobite I like the dinosaurs on this Avengers cover! Nice one, @mikedeodato ! #sciart http://t.co/40UlDISPE8
BoraZ #SciAmBlogs Wednesday – niche construction, cicadas, ageing, Moon, pirates’ dodo, sick caecilians, hurricane forecast http://t.co/TRjVahV9vW
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
15 Comments
Add CommentNice summary. It is nice that the car companies are finally going to make electric vehicles. I remember the prototypes for the past decade at least from the Detroit auto show and others and kept hoping they would get electric cars on the road before the industry bankrupts itself. Apparently it takes an economic disaster to instill sanity in the industry and invest in long term vehicle design.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy does it take car companies so long to do electric. I know of a few people that have converted existing car models to fully electric. If Ford, GM, Etc wanted to do electric they could take they could offer the same conversions on existing models. From what I have seen the standard of electric distance for auto makers is about 40 miles. But some others using bateries have done around a max of 100 miles per one charge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso I have wondered for some time why cars built in the early 90's that are well maintained get better gas milage the the vast majority of the vehicles coming off the line today. Also it is with the customers I find a lot of people that get the huge SUV's and large gas hog trucks never even need they. They do not go off road nor do they ever actually use a truck to haul items. They are picked up simply for status. So when will people get over their status symbols and start buying cars that are better suited for their pratical needs or better yet start using and asking for more public transportation. I do see hat one day in the future the idea of a car being used on a daily basis as an obsolete idea.
Hey Everyone! I wish that this car company had been featured at the Detroit Auto Show this year cause they are leaps and bounds ahead in battery technology that only charges in ten minutes and can go about 350 Km!! Check out the links below for a video and the official Phoenix Motorcar site!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCkXwwEC2p8&feature=related
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/index.php
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe Reason it has taken the Big three so long is that they needed the technology. The earlier electric cars with their lead acid battiers were more dangerous than the old Ford Pinto so they had to pull them off the market. and as for Phonexmotorcars you can't get them yet at least in large quantities. You may ask well Toyota did it with the Prius yes but they lost a lot of money on everyone they made.
memyselfandI -Why does it take car companies so long to do electric?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause electric cars need far less servicing as compared to combustion engines. Car manufactures make more off the servicing than they do from the actual sale of the vehicle.
My grandfathers friend used to work for GM and he said they, spent more time and money designing a drive train that would break at a certain point (just after the warranty has expired), than making one that would last longer. Funny how newer less experienced Japanese car manufacturers were the first to offer 100,000 mile warranties, and it took some time for American manufactures to follow.
If electric cars dont break as much, then they cant make money fixing them.
drafter-
Didn't one of the Big three buy the newer battery technology and squash it? I am pretty sure I saw that in movie Who killed the electric car. It could have been propaganda, but the documentary looked pretty legit to me.
I just wonder if our current infrastructure can handle the load of all these cars charging in the summer during peak periods. I would guess it wouldn't be long before people were asked to avoid plugging in their cars during certain times. I do understand that there is power lost in the transmission of power through the grid and also power lost during changing. Not to mention that much of the energy powering the grid is coming from burning coal. Let's push CFL lighting to reduce power and with the power we save, lets plug in the car. :P I think e are better off making cars that are lighter ( made from composite materials) to save on fuel. Then drive them less. Also make them last longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith all due respect, Tim - you are an idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectric cars are implicitly more energy-efficient, ESPECIALLY if you look at the well-to-wheel ratio (the one that takes all the energy into account that is spent from getting the energy carrier like oil or uranium out of the ground until the energy is converted to motion at the wheel). If you look at the Tesla roadster, for example, it uses about HALF the energy per mile as a Toyota Prius, while offering supercar performance. This is because electric motors have better torque from low rpm and a generally higher efficiency coefficients (less loss as heat and friction at the "engine" - about 95% efficiency compared to ~25% for an internal combustion engine).
Yes, that holds true even if the energy is generated from burning coal.
Plus, most EVs will actually be charged at OFF-PEAK hours, making the electricity currently generated work harder and smoother. Even if every car on the road in the US today were an electric, projections are that we'd only need between 6 and 12 % more generating capacity, because we'd finally use that 'wasted' energy that coal and nuclear plants generate at night.
Also, once the electricity generation goes greener (wind, solar, tidal...), cars AUTOMATICALLY become cleaner, if they run on electricity (--> well-to-wheel ratios, when measured for CO2 approach infinite). Much more efficient than throwing away millions of gasoline cars built until such a time and then build EVs later... no?
Electric usages on cars are going to be the best in future. All the auto parts are made into a electric based technology which will make the fuel consumption. Making into advantage in the automobile industry, automobiles are growing and they are giving much profits and good reviews.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.chiefenterprises.com
@ Blackpriester
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCall me what you will, but I'm not the only one that has concern about the fact that the electrical grid is already at it's max. It's not that I don't see that electrical cars use less power. I just don't think the switch is as easy as simply plugging in a few million electric cars into the power grid we use today. Even if the load is 6-12% more that's still enough to bring down the entire grid if it comes at the wrong time. Asking people to only use power at non-peak times is only a short term solution. At some point every time will be a peak time. Using wind and solar also doesn't solve the problem if people are charging at night, since wind and solar power don't tend to produce as much at night. Really, the only carbon free solution we will have to power all these cars is nuclear power. We will need to build more nuclear plants, I'm just worried that they won't have enough up and running in time to meet the demand of all these cars. These plants take a long time to build, if we want to drive electric cars they better start building plants now.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/549429
If we want to drive clean cars without nuclear, than we need to turn to hydrogen fuel cell so energy collected with wind or solar can be stored and used on demand.
I don't care how efficient the new cars are, we are still better off doing our best to have fewer cars on the road. I seems like we simply develop new technology that lets us feel like we are still free to waste because we are wasting more efficiently.
We seem to be using more energy more efficiently instead of less energy more efficiently.
A "nuclear powered" car is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Just how much more nuclear waste do you think we can safely dispose of. The billions of dollars needed to create a power plant and the 10 years or more to 'online' could be spent upgrading the grid that exists even without adding solar and wind which pay for themselves over a short time which is something that certainly can't be said for nuclear which continues to require mega bucks to maintain over the life of the plant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Tim,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I want to apologize - there was no need for name-calling in the first place. Please understand that I tend to get tied into a lot of these discussion with people WAY less informed than you are and WAY SURER that they know best ;). Still, I have reason to apologize and hereby do so.
Now, for the arguments:
I DO see that a 12% increase in power loads could be a problem for many local electricity grids, particularly in California. Which is why I'm so fond of president Obama's infrastructure recovery plan for the energy sector. Politics aside, though, an investment into the enegery grid is
a) needed anyway, so why not go big instead of going home and
b) a better environmental proposition than putting that same amount of money and ressources into fossil-fuel transportation technologies
You also make a mitake when you assert that wind and solar do not produce at night - while solar is a daylight-based technology, wind actually tends to produce more energy at night. This is what makes wind and solar such a good "match" for balancing energy loads.
As for nuclear power:
I'm a BIG proponent of nuclear, but not necessarily of building new plants. This is because of two reasons:
a) they are EXPENSIVE (see this TIME article): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869203-1,00.html
Those Nuclear plants already written off should run until they die, though - nuclear is a relatively clean, CO2-free energy with fairly low environmental impact when compared with coal or gas.
b) Scientific Progress marches on - I believe that possible Nuclear fission plants we build NOW will soon be obsolete, if ITER & Co. come around the corner with controlled fusion soon. Since both types of nuclear plants are expensive to build, we really should hold out for the better, cleaner, more efficient solution.
@ Tim,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, I want to apologize - there was no need for name-calling in the first place. Please understand that I tend to get tied into a lot of these discussion with people WAY less informed than you are and WAY SURER that they know best ;). Still, I have reason to apologize and hereby do so.
Now, for the arguments:
I DO see that a 12% increase in power loads could be a problem for many local electricity grids, particularly in California. Which is why I'm so fond of president Obama's infrastructure recovery plan for the energy sector. Politics aside, though, an investment into the enegery grid is
a) needed anyway, so why not go big instead of going home and
b) a better environmental proposition than putting that same amount of money and ressources into fossil-fuel transportation technologies
You also make a mitake when you assert that wind and solar do not produce at night - while solar is a daylight-based technology, wind actually tends to produce more energy at night. This is what makes wind and solar such a good "match" for balancing energy loads.
As for nuclear power:
I'm a BIG proponent of nuclear, but not necessarily of building new plants. This is because of two reasons:
a) they are EXPENSIVE (see this TIME article): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1869203-1,00.html
Those Nuclear plants already written off should run until they die, though - nuclear is a relatively clean, CO2-free energy with fairly low environmental impact when compared with coal or gas.
b) Scientific Progress marches on - I believe that possible Nuclear fission plants we build NOW will soon be obsolete, if ITER & Co. come around the corner with controlled fusion soon. Since both types of nuclear plants are expensive to build, we really should hold out for the better, cleaner, more efficient solution.
I feel using global warming as a reason to force the world into becoming more symbiotic instead of parasitic is not being taken seriously, given the unusually low temperatures being experienced in most of Europe. I think the phrase "human driven global climatic change" would be more acceptable and more believable to most...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectric cars ae to be MUST.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTesta Motors has a good but very expensive version (roadster).
We need a e-card, which we can re-charge at home and to which we can also (when on the road) change the batteries on "fuil"-stations to full-loaded batteries with only some dollars.
mikko.reunanen@gmail.com
A hybrid car is one thing, but nuclear powered is quite another. I have a used hybrid that I got at <a href="http://autos.mlive.com/used_cars">Detroit Used Cars</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this