10 percent EV by 2016, or 100 percent hybrid?
Bigger impact: $19,000 hybrid or $30,000 plug-in?A while back I was reading about how EnerDel was increasing its battery producing capabilities in expectation of some new lithium-ion contracts. Essentially, EnerDel will have the ability to produce enough batteries for 45,000 electric vehicles per year, or 450,000 hybrid electric vehicles. For weeks now, these numbers have been churning in my head.
Then, on the eve of the LA Auto Show, Nissan CEO Carol Ghosn told CNBC that he believed that by 2016, the combined auto industry would be able to make 10 percent of the US fleet electric.
Well, using those EnerDel numbers, if there are enough batteries to convert 10 percent of conventional vehicles into electric vehicles, then there would be enough batteries to convert 100 percent of conventional vehicles into hybrid vehicles.
Which path is more productive? Are some automakers focusing on EVs because it delays a fast, massive change, while offseting the fuel economy of CAFE-killing guzzlers?
Labels: electric cars, Hybrid Vehicles, lithium battery
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:29 AM
3 Comments:
This is a fascinating point. If you are right, this needs to be the number one discussion point around hybrids.
Please keep this discussion going, so that it gets picked up around the other blogs and eventually policy discussions.
I like your thinking. Not sure if the math works for all systems, but I think the principle is solid. Hybrids provide a way to prove and improve battery technology without forcing such a large infrastructure change.
It also provides a period for manufacturers of ICE parts to become more capable with parts required for electric drive-trains.
More affordable hybrids for all seems like a way better plan than electric cars for the rich.
Very interesting. Would like to know more....
Post a Comment
<< Home