Electric cars 5 – 10 percent of new car sales by 2020
Electric cars a mid-to-long term solution
Impacting US fleet won’t be easy
A new study by the Boston Consulting Group contains some good news regarding alternative energy – some alternative energy sources could be viable market alternatives faster than many expect. In terms of electric cars, however, BCG is relatively inline with what most research has suggested: 5 – 10 percent penetration by 2020.
Also, BCG warns that electric cars could lose their luster as an environmental solution.
“If there is insufficient low-carbon power-generation infrastructure, EVs will struggle to be seen as a solution for reducing carbon emissions significantly.”
Along those lines, BCG suggests that “off-shore wind and carbon capture and sequestration” technologies will probably be unsuccessful. However, advanced biofuels, on-shore wind energy and solar power seem headed for cost-effective viability, possibly within the decade.
In fact, the BCG study suggests that biofuels could “significantly disrupt the status quo in fuel markets” if remaining obstacles are overcome, but EVs, the study warns, will have limited timely impact. Even under best case adoption scenarios through 2020, the time it takes to turn over the current fleet, otherwise known as the legacy effect, would require decades of new sales. Biofuels on the other hand could plausibly replace much gasoline and be implemented without replacing much of America’s 250 million vehicle fleet.
Pretty interesting biofuel forecast. I’m not sure I’ve seen any other study quite so bullish on the possibility of biofuels, which makes me wonder if Boston Consulting Group has any indirect connection to that industry.
Yeah, I saw that Zen. I thought about making a post, but I’m not sure how I feel, especially about charging systems, and particularly since GE’s moves are self-serving, but what isn’t in the corporate world?
Anyway, that’s not what really bothers me. At one time the big move to EVs and their possible increase in CO2 emissions, as well as the possible need for extra coal-fired electricity production were countered by the idea that all charging would be at night during non-peak hours to better utilize excess, unused capacity. Instead, these chargers seem to suggest that people will be charging during the day, even during peak load times. that means more power generation, almost assuredly from coal, resulting in higher electricity costs – already set to increase – and greater CO2 emissions, not to mention the other pollution caused by coal.
Is that really the direction we should be headed? Just yesterday BCG warned that EVs might do little in the next few decades to reduce CO2 emissions, and I’m finding that more and more believable, and disappointing. once again corporations are taking something with good intentions behind it and turning it into just another power grab that will probably result in solving many less problems than could be solved in the name of profits.
That’s the big debate about the Volt right now. At highway speeds in some situations the engine basically helps power the wheels, although this happens in an overly sophisticated way so that GM can call the Volt an EV – just an added expense in my opinion. To me its all blah, blah, blah. It’s too much of a focus on marketing spin. The fact is the Volt is a plug-in hybrid if you use gasoline. It’s only a true EV if gasoline is never used. Almost all Volt drivers will use gasoline sometimes, some will probably use a lot of gasoline.
Ultimately, mainstream consumers care about one thing: cost.
According to the science on batteries, if a best case scenario is assumed on scale and manufacturing improvements, lithium-ion batteries will still remain uncompetitively expensive based on commodity prices alone. Thus, researchers have said that small battery plug-in hybrids offer the most cost-effective plug-in choice. That means something like a plug-in Prius, but still such a Prius will still not be cost-effective without much higher gas prices. Additionally, a Leaf is more cost-effective than the Volt because it has less parts, such as the engine.
Furthermore, according to the battery research, the biggest battery bang for the buck is just a basic full hybrid powertrain, such as what Ford and Toyota are selling. Moreover, according to battery researchers, including many that have been working on lithium for 30 years – since the beginning – any breakthrough will probably take decades to cost-effectively scale into automobiles.
Anyway, I believe the second generation will not do much to make the Volt cost-effective for mainstream consumption without major breakthroughs in battery technologies plain and simple. The second generation might be able to offset the federal tax credit, for example, but it still won’t be profitable, and you could still buy a Cruze and lifetime’s worth of gasoline for less than just the cost of the Volt.
GE not GM… right? In one of those articles, it said that the gas engine for the Volt was primarily to run a batter charger as opposed to propelling the car.
I had previously read the opposite.
the article said that the Prius is a gas engine car that has a batter whereas the Volt is a true EV with an gasoline engine to recharge the battery.
but that engine is still 149 horsepower.
It would seem to me that it would not take much of engine to recharge a battery….. maybe a 50 horsepower or so or less..
think of one of these little portable gasoline-powered generators…. that have two 110 outlets on them.
If a 2nd generation Volt becomes primarily a batter-powered guy with a very minimal gasoline engine – just big enough to sufficiently charge the battery – my view changes and I think the designers of the Volt have the right approach.
What are the cons, downsides of this kind of arrangement?
Did you see that GM committed to buying 25,000 EV’s by 2015? They are trying to give a bump to the industry to help sell their charging system.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11735143