Shouldn't we hybridize every car?
Not really a good EV candidate?By 2050, decades from now, there will still be many internal combustion-powered vehicles on the road. In fact, in 2050 the road might be equally filled with ICE, fuel cell and plug-in vehicles.
If true, that would mean 2/3's of all autos are going to need some kind of battery, as the smartest fuel cell vehicles will be battery-using fuel cell hybrid vehicles.
Unfortunately, the US lithium battery industry is just short of nonexistent, especially when it comes to cell manufacturing.
So, why not hybridize everything starting in the next five years to guarantee the need for US battery manufacturing immediately, or at least as soon as possible?
And this isn't just about somtimes expensive full hybrids cars or plug-in hybrids, GM is proving that cost-effective lithium-based BAS hybrid systems can improve overall vehicle fuel efficiency by 20 percent. Such a system will pay for itself. Thus, if the government is going to help GM retool its business, shouldn't incorporating, minimally, this kind of hybrid technology into every vehicle line be required?
In fact, make each hybrid capable of being a BAS hybrid, a dual mode hybrid, or maybe even a dual mode plug-in hybrid.
Certainly, GM could use other tricks to make every vehicle efficient enough for new CAFE regulations, but a focus on batteries is critical if the US auto industry is truly going to compete in the next few decades, as batteries will become significantly important supplies.
But we're so far behind, we can't move fast enough. We have to be aggressive.
Since the US auto industry is, essentially, largely dependent upon the government, isn't this the perfect time to step into the next century of automaking via government assistance?
Moreover, why not unlimited tax credits for every hybrid made with a US manufactured battery? And/or, for any hybrid assembled in the US?
Labels: Hybrid Vehicles, lithium battery, tax credits
posted by Dahcredyns at
11:13 AM
6 Comments:
That is ambitious! It reminds me of Obama's goal. what is it, a million electric cars by 2015, which also seems terribly ambitious.
It also ties in to the original legislation at the source of everything, CA's 10% electric car mandate from the early 90's. Of course as that rule evolved it led to the creation of the Hybrid market as we know it today.
So could I suggest a refactoring of your idea? What if CA creates a 50% hybrid/fuelcell/EV mandate by 2015-2020? I think that might effectively hybridize everything due to critical mass.
I would even settle for a less ambitious CA mandate of 25% by 2015, or whatever the minimun mandate would need to be create the battery industry incentive you are writing about. I'm sure some smart economist could work out the number.
But I think your point stands: Create a mandate for battery/electrified drivetrains (hybrids/EV/fuel cells). It costs the government no money, creates market incentives that smart businesses would thrive under, and it was completely successful at creating Hybrids so we know it can work.
It's the mandate, stupid! ;)
i think it's as ambitious as obama's, but more realistic. dare i say even achievable?
for instance, developing reliable batteries for a mild hybrid is far easier than for a pure EV or plug-in hybrid as the demand on the batteries in such vehicles isn't as intense. yet, developing batteries for mild hybrids doesn't have to limit production of batteries for full hybrids, plug-in hybrids and EVs. they are complementary.
it's also a more efficient utilization of battery resources in the short term. for instance, battery replacement in a mild hybrid isn't nearly the expense it would be in a plug-in hybrid or EV. and that's just one cost-savings.
moreover, the same amount of lithium batteries to produce 1 million EVs could probably produce a few hundred million mild hybrids, almost enough to replace the entire US fleet.
it's ambitious, but i think its actually achievable in a way that limits risk to the auto and battery industries, as well as consumers.
moreover, the government is offering $25 billion, minimally, to help automakers retool. thus, shouldn't we think ahead and retool in a way the is built around batteries?
btw - i love that mandate line.
We put a man on the moon within ten years of it being considered realistically. And yet we can't make electric cars in 40 years? And after a 100 year history of cars?
The only thing getting in the way of making this happen is people...not technology.
Well 2/3's would be electric in 40 years, if you accept a fuel cell hybrid as an electric vehicle.
Unless of course we ban pickup trucks, large SUVs, etc., as they are not very good candidates for pure battery powered electrification. Of course, that's just the US.
Worldwide, EVs won't make sense for many as there will be no infrastructure to support.
Still, your overall point is right. The technology to revolutionize the auto industry is available today.
Noz, the federal govt put a man on the moon. I think it will take the federal govt to electrify the car, doing the same things they did in the Apollo program: Massive R&D investments and retooling subsidies.
Of course the federal govt was motivated to improve our ICBM rockets, so even then it was not just about going to the Moon.
So with cars, the govt will need to be motivated by a vision and national security interest. A vision for a cleaner planet and the national security of oil independence.
Then again, nobody had a vested interest in stopping Apollo and the oil and auto industries of today have been serious roadblocks. Fortunately Detroit appears to be completely tamed. But we still have to deal with the oil industry.
This will be an interesting battle.
Unfortunately, the oil companies can easily pander to the people. The saber of higher gasoline prices is so effective at rattling the rationality of the average American that I think this will be a bloody battle for some time yet.
Post a Comment
<< Home