EVs are awesome, but they can’t save the world. What now?
Can the world wait for electrification?
I was never much of a car guy growing up. It wasn’t until the first hybrid cars hit the street that autos started catching my attention, especially since code was such a big part of their powertrain, and coming from the software industry, that was compelling. Plus, after 9/11 it just seemed obvious that things needed to change, and batteries and fuel cells seemed so necessary.
For years I didn’t care about any new vehicle technology except those with batteries. I even wrote off fuel cells for a while. Sure I believed they would happen one day, but my focus was today. In that regard hybrids, including those with plugs, seemed the game-changing call to action.
Of course, in the early days, I had never heard of issues such as the legacy effect. Nor did I have any understanding of the depth of automotive supply chains and their impact on scale in the auto industry, nor how long it takes to move a car from concept to reality or to retool a production platform. Likewise, I didn’t know much about battery technologies themselves. I just assumed once lithium hit the street, it was on.
Well, lithium has hit the street, but the revolution is far from on. Why?
For one, there is little consensus in the auto industry regarding how exactly the auto industry is going to move forward according to a recent KPMG study of automotive industry executives. While automakers are investing heavily in all forms of electrification — hybrids, plug-in hybrids, range extended electrics, battery electrics, and fuel cells — there is no consensus regarding which will dominate and when. In fact, it seems obvious that their won’t be ONE powertrain solution for many decades into the future.
By 2025, for example, automakers expect all the above forms of electrified powertrains, combined, to achieve less than 15 percent of total auto sales, combined. Sure, some form of hybrid is the dominant technology, but there isn’t even one hybrid technology that dominates.
Several years ago I might have questioned such a study, arguing that these automotive execs just can’t think outside of their box, or they don’t realize how fast technologies are going to evolve. But, today, I look at things differently.
While there can be some surprises and things can change, I now accept the fact that these are the guys and gals that have to sell future business plans to their corporate boards to determine how money is spent heading into the future — often many years into the future. These are the people that set new supply chains in motion and order new manufacturing capabilities to be built or old ones retooled — processes that take many years to execute, even for just one new vehicle.
Consequently, all of the above can be broken down into very simple numbers. It’s exactly such numbers that powertrain analysts from JD Power, for example, used to make hybrid sale’s forecasts that I would mock many years ago. But the joke was on me. Many years later those forecasts were spot on. If you have access to the numbers, forecasts aren’t fortunetelling, just simple math. New supplies and supply chains don’t magically appear. They’re planned, many years ahead of time. Nothing in the auto industry happens over night.
The legacy effect, for example, is one of those real head spinners that exemplifies this reality. If you have a few hundred million vehicles already on US roads, and you sell 13 million vehicles per year, how many years does it take to replace the fleet?
Yet, America is nowhere near any huge embrace of automotive change — in terms of automakers and/or consumers at large.
When it comes to plug-ins, for instance, recent analysis found that more than half of all Californians have no off-street parking and, consequently, no place to charge. Couple that with the fact that 50 percent of all US vehicle sales are light duty trucks and the difficult road ahead for EVs becomes ever more apparent. I mean where are the plug-in pick up trucks — THE most important vehicle segment in America today? Furthermore, if a hybrid pickup truck like the Chevy Silverado hybrid can only achieve a few hundred sales every year, how is a more expensive plug-in pickup with less range supposed to compete?
Ohh, but batteries are going to become drastically cheaper and change everything, and there will be wireless charging along every sidewalk.
Maybe, but the people most responsible for understanding such possibilities certainly aren’t betting on such a reality. Betting on just 10 percent EV penetration by 2020, for instance, is a HUGE gamble today. Moreover, even if a major breakthrough were achieved today and it were instantly scalable, it would still take many, many years to develop all the supply chains and manufacturing capabilities necessary to set the revolution in motion.
Typically, however, even a revolutionary breakthrough will still require time to scale into a truly cost-effective one. Lithium batteries have been around for more than 30 years already. And they’re still not ready to mainstream.
None of that is a problem, of course, as long as the world — especially America — has the luxury of time. Do we? Do we feel lucky America?


KP,
I can see where you would be PO’ed.
But does that mean we should get rid of the EV tax credit, because you got burned?
I agree it is bogus… Since when did we think politicians would be straight with us?
But.. It is an easy sell politically if you leave out a few important details.
Like I said. Republicans are good at winning elections…
Smurf – we are, in effect, exporting oil as refined products instead of retaining it and selling those refined products domestically
… INSTEAD of ….
…. CONTINUING TO IMPORT OIL that we refine into fuels…
there is no way to flip this.
We are exporting what it is we refine when we import oil.
As long as we have a deficit and have to import oil to refine for fuels – why are we exporting refined fuels
…. IF THE GOAL is “energy independence”?
?????
my complain is that we are arguing for energy independence but then we switch the argument to ” we are using less fuels”.
well..we ARE using less fuels but we ARE STILL importing oil to refine those fuels.
why are we exporting fuels instead of using them to replace fuels derived from oil imports and reduce our oil imports IF OUR GOAL is energy independence?
so why are we promoting the keystone pipeline as helping us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?
it’s BOGUS to the CORE!
the right wing has succeeded in getting other more normal people to buy their convoluted way of thinking!
Larry,
The only correction I would make is that we are not exporting oil, we are exporting gasoline and diesel. While we don’t have the oil, we do have the refineries.
Oil companies are still refining the same amount of gas as when we had a strong economy, but today they exporting all the excess gasoline. By doing so, they keep gasoline prices from dropping even though US demand for gasoline is weak.
This is why the oil companies have retained record profits and gas prices have remained high in the middle of a recession.
I appreciate the dialogue and the genteel nature of it.. refreshing given the rough and tumble I see in some blogs…
I remember the same things that Smurf does save the local Arizona issue but again my point is that we say we want energy independence and to be free of OPEC and “unfriendly” countries but when we get right down to it – we’re drilling and pipelining to sell oil overseas and not to reduce our dependence.
All I’m saying here is that we are saying one thing and doing another but pretending otherwise.
It’s pretty clear to me that the developers of new energy sources in the US and Canada don’t give a rats behind about “energy independence” nor apparently do all the folks who say that’s an important goal.
And all I’m saying here is for us to recognize the hypocrisy of the positions.
we say we want energy independence but we only use that argument for Hybrids/green stuff but when we find new oil and other fossil fuel resources on our own soil (and Canada).. we’re selling it to the high bidder on the world market and energy independence is a forgotten idea.
wrong?
hit me hard if I am wrong on this…
Here is a different view of energy independence. Energy independence I guess can also mean exporting gasoline, diesel and aircraft fuel.
BEGIN QUOTE
“One of my Top 10 Energy Stories of 2011 was the fact that the U.S. had become a net exporter of finished petroleum products such as diesel and gasoline. In fact, because gasoline and diesel prices were so high, U.S. fuel exports were valued at $88 billion, which made them the top value export in 2011 for the first time ever: Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990. It will also be the first year in more than 60 that America has been a net exporter of these fuels.”.
END QUOTE
If I wasn’t so darn old I would drill an oil well, buy some refinery time and turn U.S. oil into U.S. gasoline and diesel. Screw the world energy market.
Larry,
I wish that energy independence was just about patriotism but it isn’t. Not to me….
My motivation comes from experience:
- I was there during the 1st OPEC oil embargo in the 1970′s, when gas suddenly shot up from 25 cents per gallon to over $1.00 in one month.
- I was there in 1979, when the second OPEC oil crisis caused us to ration gasoline so you could buy gas only every other day. We were vacationing that summer and had to park every other day because we could not buy gas. The economy crashed, Jimmy Carter was defeated and Reagan became President. In 1984, OPEC flooded the market with oil, oil prices dropped to $12/barrel, the economy soared, and Reagan was re-elected. (I’ll bet you thought it was lower taxes and small gov’t that boosted the economy)
- I was there in Phoenix in 2005 when the only gasoline pipeline feeding the Phoenix area broke. Within 48 hours every gas station ran out of gas and gas shot up from less than $2 to over $4 overnight. Within 72 hours people could not buy gas to get to work. When a station got gasoline delivered, the line of cars was more than 1/2 mile long.
- I was there in 2003, when I got the news that my brother was killed in Iraq.
We’ve been burned several times because we rely only on gasoline as our transportation fuel, but we have done very little to change that for 30 years and counting. Today we are more at risk than ever.
When are we going to get the message????
To me this is not about politics or even patriotism. To me it is about not having to live in fear of what will happen if we have a sudden disruption in our supply of gasoline….
well… I think most people support “green” …until they find out it costs more…
and the GOP plays that game quite well…that’s why you see Hannity bragging that he has a Monster SUV “hybrid”.
their basic mantra is drill baby drill… cheap energy is king…yadda yadda yadda…
they cynically promote the energy independence concept while having zero problems with any extracted oil in the US being sold overseas even as we have to import more of it.
I just think the whole energy independence thing is bogus … similar to “green washing”.
just wrap the flag around it and promote it like it’s patriotic.
re: each party supports different technologies.
hmmm….
how a a few examples the Dems support and the GOP does not then list the ones the GOP supports that the Dems do not.
My impression is that the GOP is uniformly opposed to ALL “green” technologies and I can recall a single GOP proponent of hybrids…
the whole GOP uses the Volt as an example of socialist government, right?
Tom – I think one can be a fiscal conservative without being a hard rightie…. we used to have these guys in the GOP but now they’ve been banned. Is that what you mean by “hiding”?
If the party disavows you and you have to hide why would you ever still claim to be one of them?
Tom,
The Republican party lost its way somewhere in the 1990′s. I think we can pinpoint it to 1994 and Newt Gingrich’s contract with America. That was the beginning of real partisan politics.
At that point they replayed all of Ronald Reagan’s Speeches about less gov’t, deregulation and lower taxes and became convinced that this was the “cookie cutter” solution to solve ALL problems.
That Republican class of 1994 is now running Congress. Boehner, Cantor and McConnell all were first elected in 1994. They were raised in era of partisan politics. I don’t think they know any other way of operating.
I don’t think we’ll see much change until those guys are voted out and a new generation of Republicans takes over….
Smurf:
And if the Republicans aren’t careful how they approach renewable energy, EV’s and Hybrids it could cost them the election.
Most of the studies I have read indicate that >70% of all Americans want to continue down this new cleaner energy path and are willing to pay for it.
Larry,
Today’s political environment makes it difficult to support a technology that is championed by the other party.
Historically, Democrats and Republicans have supported various technologies. That was all fine and good.
What is different today, is that when one party supports a technology/company today, the other party now becomes an opponent of it, and tries “actively” to prevent it from being successful.
So to answer your question….. You CAN be a Republican and like hybrids, but be aware that if the Republican party obtains full control, they will introduce legislation that inhibits hybrid technology advancement.
This is one of the primary reasons I left the Republican party. As I became aware that I supported hybrids/EV’s, I also became aware that Republicans do not support hybrids/EV’s, and are actively trying to suppress them.
LarryG:
You know I am a big supporter of Hybrids and EV’s and also a mostly conservative individual which I guess makes me a 70/30 person [more Republican than Democrat].
However, today we have Democrats, Republicans and Independents as parties you can be a part of. O.K. there are others but these are probably the major ones. Within each of these major groupings there are sub groups. Like the Tea Party [is that a party/subgroup?], you can be a Liberal, Right Winger, Conservative, Left Winger and even a Radical.
It is even conceivable that some [a few] Republicans are registered as Democrats just so they can get an opposing point of view. Just like myself; I watch FOX NEWS most of the time but also watch MSNBC/CNN/ABC to get opposing points of view.
So I guess to answer your question; yes a Republican can be a supporter of Hybrid and EV’s but don’t tell anyone – it’s suppose to be a secret, LOL.
so…..can someone be a supporter of hybrids and EVs and support Republicans also?
or is that incompatible??
Republicans do have the right strategy…….FOR WINNING ELECTIONS.
They do so by convincing enough Americans that we can have more oil than we actually do.
They then convince us that the Gov’t should stay out of business THAT THEY DON’T LIKE, all the while supporting HUGE INCENTIVES for other businesses that they do like, including oil subsidies, and tax breaks for corporate jets.
Americans fear change, and Republicans have built a strategy playing upon that fear. They demonize hybrids and EV’s and convince us that we don’t have to change. We can keep driving out super-sized gas guzzling trucks forever, and there will be no consequences.
They also succeed by convincing enough Americans that we can lower taxes and balance a budget with cuts only.
Republican’s strategy can be described in two words….SHORT SIGHTED.
It may win elections in the short term, but it will destroy this country in the long term.
the technology to extract oil from shale and sands is going to expand worldwide and help to extend the time period that “relatively” cheap fuel is available.
Combine that with more and more conventional ICE engines are achieving greater and greater fuel efficiencies and you have a race between ICE and Hybrid and the ICE is not really losing as fast enough for hybrids to take over anytime soon.
In fact …dual engine ICE/Hybrids are going to be more likely than pure EVs for a while with the caveat that whenever battery breakthroughs occur to provide EV’s with competitive range and recharge time – they will pull ahead of ICE will gradually recede.
I do not think govt can make this go any quicker and should not involve itself in the private sector however I do support the govt working on battery technology for hybrid military vehicles much like they have been the R&D originators of many modern-day technologies that started in DOD and then transitioned to the public realm.
At the end of the day, I think the Republicans have it right – sad to say.
EVs and PHEVs ares still too new and gasoline prices in the US, still too low for there to be a groundswell of electric vehicle purchases in America. Republican hostility towards the new technology is also not helping!
But the long term goal of completely ending automobile dependence on greenhouse gas polluting petroleum fuels within 30 years is achievable as petroleum fuels continue to climb in price over the next few decades.
The best thing about PHEV’s, IMO, is that they make carbon neutral synfuels from biowaste and hydrogen and air synthesis much more affordable, if not cheaper than current transportation fuel utilization.
This posting by our host is exactly why I have long promoted a different automotive technology between now and about 2035 when everything will most likely become electric. I get so frustrated reading things like:
1. No manufacturers agreement of where to put the charging plug if the vehicle is to have one. How do architects design houses for electric vehicles? How do Super Markets install charging stations? Should it be in the front or side? This is insanity.
2. Manufacturers can’t seem to agree on the location of inductive charging plates or if a vehicle should even have one. Do you think your wife is going to get out of an electric vehicle to plug it in while shopping. Are we going to be willing to give up efficiency for convenience?
3. A standardize battery cell designs to maximum manufacturing capability and to minimize cost. We should be able to standardized the cell and let the battery package be unique to the vehicle. After all it is our tax dollars that built the battery manufacturing plants, and;
4. It appears to me that in the absence of leadership by the automotive industry others have stepped in to fill the void. It seems like automotive executives have become nothing more that puppets to the lobbyist they employee. They get called to Washington to plead for help instead of creating products people want and can afford. Washington is NOT the answer.
I have long promoted the hydraulic hybrid. It doesn’t require a plug-in or battery to get 50 mpg, it does not care if someone parks on/off the street, it works well in both small to medium sized cars and light duty trucks. It doesn’t care if it is below 0 or 115 degrees. It is cheap to build and easy to integrate into existing automotive technology; it recaptures 90% of breaking energy instead of 40% and did I mention – ITS CHEAP.
LarryG is correct that a business must make money to survive. They also usually fill a need in society. I don’t believe the current leadership in the automotive industry has any idea of what is coming. They are sitting in their Corporate offices thinking of the next quarter instead of the next quarter century. Wait till the crisis hit us – then we can ask for another bailout.
What I see happening now is the oil industry trying to hold on to a business model that is doomed to fail. Oil will continue to get more and more expensive until only the wealthy will be able to drive. Will we be able to change fast enough to preserve the American Way of Life?
Or is our way of life also an outdated model?
Nice to see you being more of a realist.
I’ve long come to the realization that EV development will be much slower than we want. But if you compare the last 5 years to the previous 5, it is clear we are make solid progress. EV’s are real vehicles now, not pipe dreams, even if they are higher priced than we want. I’m still tickled pink that I am now driving an EV. I have wanted one since the 1970′s when our first oil crisis hit.
I just hope that politics doesn’t slow down the development…..
It is a shame how US politics is now killing innovation in this country. New products are now assigned to political parties. Instead of each party simply waving the flag and promoting the technology they support, the opposing party now feels the need to crush the new technology as if it were a political opponent. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this behavior.
But when it comes to EV’s, we who supposedly support these products are part of the problem as to why the development is so slow…… Because we are not putting our money where our mouth is and buying these products.
Why? Because the price is too high? Well guess what. The price for a new innovative product IS GOING TO BE HIGHER. As this article pointed out. It costs a lot of money to develop new technology and car companies have to make a profit. We can’t wait for someone else to buy EV’s to bring the price down. If everybody waits, the price will never come down.
In reality, the chevy Volt is only priced $2500 more than the average vehicle purchased in the US (after tax rebate) The Nissan Leaf is priced the same as the US average. Not bad for such marvels of innovation. So what is the big problem?
Now that EV’s are on the market, we are running out of excuses. If EV’s fail, we will have noone but ourselves to blame…..
good editorial! Business has one purpose – to not go broke! It’s that simple. They can only devote so much money to R&D before they hurt their own bottom line when selling against competitors who don’t have such costs and can shave their costs lower.
The people who run auto companies are charged with not taking risks that will bankrupt their companies.
We already know that just competition alone can drive a company into bankruptcy.
So what is the proper role of companies trying to stay in business with regard to advancing technologies?
They cannot change the American people. If they try.. some other company will give them what they want at a price they want.
the reason for the timidity is they don’t know that people will be willing to pay more for an EV… and if they go forward with EVs and the public rejects them… they go broke.
I do not think it is much more complicated than this. Corporations are not that complicated.