Long live horsepower: Can electricity really ever compete?
One of GM's Equinox fuel cell electric vehicles.
The good, the bad, and the ugly of electric vehicles
The ugly truth about plug-in and fuel cell vehicles is that they cost too much. That’s bad because it means gas-guzzlers are going to be around a long time, and it will take a decade or two to replace them even when a real cost-effective solution emerges. You simply can’t replace a billion vehicles overnight, over the year, or even over the decade — at least not using today’s automotive business model.
However, the good thing is, when electrically-powered vehicles overtake fossil-fueled ones, we’ll enjoy our cars and personal transportation far more. OK. Hardcore car guys and gals will take longer to convince, but they’re a small minority, so why care?
Boy, I sure remember the first time I drove an electric-powered car. It was a fuel cell powered Chevy Equinox. And, it was awesome, even though it was based on old fuel cell technology compared to today’s capabilities. Nevertheless, even then it was instantly obvious that electrification IS the future of automotive transportation. That was a great experience with which GM hooked me up (BTW – I’m ready for the latest fuel cell drive, GM).
Anyway, it doesn’t matter whether it’s hydrogen converted into electricity via a fuel cell or grid electricity pumped into a battery powered electric car, electrification is the future of the automobile. We all know it.
But what does the ‘future’ really mean?
The key questions regarding electrification are the path, and the amount of time it’s going to take to mainstream. Unfortunately, because of the ugly electric truth — that costs and supplies just don’t add up — the road to electrification will be long and winding.
In, CAFE and the EPA: Fuel economy for advertising deception, not the real world I point out that America can’t even speak honestly about CAFE and real world automotive fuel economy. Instead, fantasy rules the day.
Mainstream electrification anytime soon is equally as mythical. Can’t we just be honest about that?
For instance, combined GM and Nissan are selling about 2,000 plug-ins per month, with the help of a $7500 tax credit plus other incentives. But in a country where more than a million vehicles are sold every month, 2,000 plug-in vehicle sales per month is absolutely meaningless. At this time, it’s all about marketing, spin, and testing the waters.
More important, countless technological breakthroughs are going to occur between now and electrification domination — when there are more plug-ins in the fleet than petroleum powered ones — countless. Pretending we have the solutions for tomorrow based on today’s knowledge is both assumptuous and even worse, ignorant.
We probably have the direction, the trend, in view. But that’s it. It would be like a company betting its entire future on the Commodore 64 right after its debut. That would have been stupid even though it was obvious that computers were the future.
It wasn’t just computers that mattered, but also the business models built around, and upon, computers that most mattered.
Similarly, companies like Facebook, for example, have added little technological innovation compared to the their market capitalization. It’s Facebook’s business model that broke new ground, not its technology.
Along those lines, as we head into the future, it’s quite possible that the world will become less dependent upon cars, at least personal ownership of such vehicles. In fact, Americans might be even more dependent upon cars and other forms of personal mobility. We’ll just own them less and less. Instead, we’ll share them. Often, we might not even drive them.
At least that’s one potential game-changing business model already bigger than today’s plug-in market.
The fact is, there is no doubt that electrification is the future of personal transportation, but it might not be electrification that is critical to a revolutionary new personal transportation market. Instead, it might just be an out-of-the-box business model that might turn the oil-based economy upside down.
Still, lectric cars will dominate one day, some day.
Smurf:
Sounds like you got some free juice [electricity] from the dealer. Oh wait; electricity is only about $.12/kW so even if they fully charged the Volt they only spent a couple of bucks.
You are really going to enjoy driving now that you have a sweet and comfortable ride. Did I forget to mention it would also be CHEAP
Tom G. responds to LarryG who said [in part]:
Larry G. said: this is a decent conversation… and I do appreciate the links but I remain convinced that economics will drive change not govt dictates.
Tom G. responds: Almost everyone on this blog site seems to be decent and interested in adding value to the topic at hand. It is not necessary to either agree or disagree since either one can add value to a conversation. While at times it might seem like the conversation is all about the money; most people recognize that the United States is still a capitalist nation. You BUY food, cars, houses, pay utilities, purchase gas, pay for movies; all with MONEY. However, money only goes so far and to quote from a very good TV commercial there is also a “human side to the equation”. Humans give to charities and humans help other humans by choice, not by government mandate. No government regulation forces me to support my local charities but I do by choice. The government does however encourage me to donate by allowing me to reduce my taxes [an incentive]. There is a role for government to play in our society. The what and when is constantly debated and I think we call that politics, LOL
Larry G. said: Here’s why – each one of us has the option right now to install solar panels and have a propane/nat gas backup generator … so.. my question is .. do we want the govt to essentially mandate that …?
Tom G. responds: Nope the capitalist market place will pretty much take care of that for us. Utility rates will continue to rise while solar and wind prices will continue to fall. When YOU decide it makes financial sense, you will go solar, or wind or some other form of renewable or standby energy. As of now the government can not force you to install some form of renewable energy system and I hope to heavens they never do.
I certainly don’t want our government to mandate everything. I believe the best role for government is to fund the heck out of things like research and development at our colleges and universities. The most promising technologies should be initially funded by the government and turned over to private industry to determine what works best.
Larry G. said: I’m not at all convinced that we should have the govt pick one technology over another – either.
Tom G. responds: Amen to that LarryG. The government is not very good when it comes to picking winners and losers. The government IS however very efficient at giving away our tax money, LOL. They start programs and almost never stop one even thou it may have outlived it’s usefulness. For example, the renewable energy tax credit of 30% should be reduced 5% each year until it no longer exists. If solar has not become competitive by then it probably never will be. Actually solar and wind are already competitive when done at the utility scale and even at the homeowner level in many areas of the U.S.
Have a great day LarryG.
this is a decent conversation… and I do appreciate the links but I remain convinced that economics will drive change not govt dictates.
Here’s why – each one of us has the option right now to install solar panels and have a propane/nat gas backup generator and to operate off the grid and use a Chevy Volt.
this is not a pie-in-the-sky unachievable goal – in fact, if not mistaken Smurf is 2/3 of the way there right now.
but we have this option.
there are people right now who live in net-zero homes – that uses grid power as supplemental power that is then paid back when the solar generates excess.
so.. my question is .. do we want the govt to essentially mandate that we all do this so we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and at the same time not increase pollution from coal?
I’m not at all convinced that we should have the govt pick one technology over another – either.
I think a huge impediment to more solar is the lack of a grid that can handle widespread – locally generated power…but again.. what role should govt play on this?
I agreed with the concept of the rural electrification program… and I agree with the concept of rural internet connectivity…etc so perhaps it is these types of things that govt should do.
Tom,
They kept my Volt at the dealer for 24 hours to make sure it was fully charged when I picked it up. We also drove to the nearest gas station where the dealer paid to fill the tank.
I caught a break when the dealer mistakenly ordered leather seats, which I didn’t ask for. They gave me the option for half the normal cost. Everything else was priced at MSRP.
So don’t believe all those stories about Chevy dealers jacking up the cost….
My dealer will definitely get high marks when they call in for my customer satisfaction survey.
Totally agree Smurf:
While I am a big solar supporter there is a lot more to the energy picture than solar. We need more wind, bio-fuels, geothermal, wave, hydro, ocean and river current and yes even more oil on a short term basis. A few weeks ago I wrote a piece about the Keystone pipeline suggesting it has very little to do with importing oil to the U.S. Our EXPORTS of oil are increasing and Canada wants a dual purpose pipeline to the Gulf. Some oil for the U.S. and some to export. Smart business venture.
Here is another website both you and LarryG might enjoy. Lots of oil experts who seem to have seen the light so to speak. The blog site does a weekly Q&A and are quite informative.
consumerenergyreport[dot]com/blogs/rsquared/
P.S. How much of a charge was in the Volt when you received it????
Nice link Tom…
My hope is that improved efficency and the introduction of alternative fuels can help to offset the increased global demand for oil, and help to “buy time”….
None of this will solve the OPEC problem though. I think we are just stuck with that problem until we develop sufficent alternatives (Alt Fuel, electric or otherwise….)
We know it will take many years to develop “some” alternatives, but others could be developed much sooner. What we need is the political will to develop real energy policy that brings these short term and long term solutions to market as soon as possible…..
Hey Tom. I appreciate the link…much.
I don’t think we’re going to hit the disaster scenario in our lifetime.
Oil will get more expensive but the more expensive it gets.. the more entrepreneurs will seek it out.
At some point when oil get “too” expensive, entrepreneurs and innovators will seek and find more cost effective alternatives.
At this point, I’m not convinced that batteries/EVs will be there unless we have a huge/blockuster breakthrough in battery technology.
What I see more likely is something like doubling the efficiency of ICE which for all practical terms… double our supply…or at least extend it far into the future….
there are other wild cards. If blockbuster breakthroughs are made in solar panels..such that it becomes cheaper to “fuel” an EV with solar..then we’ll be our inevitable move away from fossil fuels (and I cannot wait for that to happen but my body may preempt that idea).
but …bottom line… economics will drive the direction… we take.. IMHO…respectfully..
Hi LarryG:
Here is something to read that tries to shows why many of us are concerned about oil. It goes far deeper than just a pipeline or some shale or tar sand oil.
While there is still oil to be had in many places around the world it will continue to get more and more expensive as time passes. If we ARE NOT prepared to deal with these higher prices, things MIGHT get really ugly. The article is difficult to read but provides some good stuff to think about. I hope the link doesn’t cause this to go to moderation and I used the old [DOT] trick.
energybulletin [DOT] net/print/60110
Smurf – you need to grab a map of Canada…seriously.
90% of the population lives near the US border.
gasoline up there is $5 a gallon…
much of Canada is small evergreen trees less than 10/20 ft high… much of Canada is lakes and rivers and they have a TON of hydro.
they have so much Hydro they sell it to us…also.
one more thing to be aware of..with respect to the proposed Keystone Pipeline..
it’s 3 times longer than the TransAlaska pipeline…
in Alberta where the tar sands are …are 9 gasoline refineries yet the pipeline is going all the way across the US to Texas and the Gulf of Mexico…
Canada COULD build that pipeline WEST and reach the Pacific in 1/3 the distance and cross no more mountains than the Trans Alaska pipeline crosses.
Bonus Question – the Prudhole Bay oil goes to Valdez… a port in Alaska…
where do you think that oil goes after it gets loaded on a tanker in Valdez?
No disagreement that the damage from mining coal is just as bad as oil, but…..
1. We have some alternatives for generating electricity other than coal. We have little or no alternative to gasoline (in the US).
2. The efficiency of electrically driven vehicles is such that it uses less coal than gasoline cars use gasoline
3. You have to use a lot of electricity just to “make” gasoline at a refinery. This makes using gasoline twice as bad, as you burn up a lot of coal too.
But if you are trying to increase Canadian tar sand oil production to make up an additional 40% of US imports, you have to increase production by an additional 400%:
1. Increase the rate of deforestation by 400%
2. Increase the rate of digging up the dirt hauling it to a processing center for oil extraction by 400%
3. Increase the production capacity of oil extraction at processing plants by 400%
4. Suck all the oil out of Canada 4 times faster…
I don’t see how this could ever happen, or if Canada would even allow it to happen……..
Even if OPEC was only 20% more instead of 40%, everything would need to doubled from what it is today. Even that is not a realistic option.
well coal nowdays does the same thing ..and worse with mountain top removal.
While I agree on the scope/scale of environmental damage.. if you’ve ever been to Canada you know that unlike the US there are vast, vast areas of …not rain forest…or even temperate forest but stunted trees growing close to the tree line.
the problem with shale/oil sands is they are like coal.. there are vast, vast reserves of it and while there is environmental damage… both will produce relatively cheap fuel.
I’m not advocating this.. I’m pointing it out as a realty and how from a practical perspective you’d have to convince a majority of people to willingly not use those sources – at great cost to consumers.
For instance, if you outlawed mountain top mining for coal – it would drive up the costs of electricity tremendously – and ironically making it even harder for people to afford plus-priced EVs.
them’s the facts.. they’re not pretty.
Another issue in regards to Canada, fracking and deep water drilling is the impact and cost of this oil.
The shale oil in Canada is UNDER A FOREST. To get the oil they have to tear down all the trees, then dig up truckloads of dirt, take that dirt to a processing center, then extract the oil from the dirt. After they are done, they will replant the forest and in 100 years things may be close to being back to normal. Needless to say, the cost to extract this oil is higher than in Saudia Arabia, when all they need to do is poke a few holes in the ground.
Fracking in the Bakken region has a similar level of difficulty, a big risk to the environment, and once again, a higher cost.
The same is true for deep water drilling. The level of difficulty, the risk of impact to our enviroment, and the cost is much higher.
Only today’s oil prices have made extracting oil in these regions profitable.
One thing is for certain….. The fact that we are putting so much effort into obtaining this “hard to reach” oil is a testament to the fact that globally, we are beginning to run out of oil. We have found all of the “easy to get” oil, and now are being forced to get most of our oil from the ” hard to reach” areas.
Larry,
It depends on whether you measure a single country or OPEC as a single entitity.
Saudia Arabia is the top OPEC exporter of oil to the US and represents 20% of US oil imports, but if you put all the OPEC nations together, they represent 40% of US oil imports…
I have seen this number confirmed at several places, including US DOE. Ironically, one place where I have also seen this number is Republican Senator Dick Lugar’s web site.
To answer your question:
NO. Canada cannot simply increase it’s tar sand production and allow the US to end oil imports from OPEC. Nor can we simply increase oil production from “fracking” in the Bakken region in North Dakota to offset OPEC imports.
BOTTOM LINE….
Whether we want to admit it or not. If we use gasoline as our primary fuel, we will be dependent on OPEC oil for the forseeable future…..
on the percentages of where we get our oil.. can we find a source of facts that we agree on?
What I’ve seen is about 20% from OPEC…
that’s a number that Canadian tar sands could replace.. right?
I think the American people might be on board with finding other non-OPEC sources if they exist but i think the idea of not buying foreign oil at all is a much harder sell..
it would be worse than $10 a gallon.. it would likely mean rationing and $10 a gallon if you could find it.
I don’t think the country is ready for that.
Larry,
I know you like to sing the praises of Canadian & Mexican oil but…
While Canada is the largest exporter of oil to the US, Canadian oil represents only 20% of US oil imports, and only 12% of all US oil consumption. Mexican oil predominantly comes from offshore drilling, just like the US. We all know the issues regarding offshore drilling.
We still import 40% of our oil from OPEC today. Mexico and Canada combined could not increase their oil exports to the point that we are free of OPEC oil.
But Tom is right about the economics of buying foreign oil (from anyone)…. A lot of money and jobs are leaving the US to buy foreign oil, even if it is from Canada. Economically, it would be much better if that money was spent on American fuel and created American jobs…
I can’t speak for anyone else LarryG. but I really do enjoy your opinions. They help make my world go round.
Tom G.
I REALLY DO appreciate the time ya’ll took to provide answers.
I don’t have any judgments… I have some opinions …which evolve as I learn more about how others feel so thanks again for sharing.
Good questions LarryG. Let me see if I can provide some sort of answer in less than 1,000 words, LOL
Q1. Is energy independence not buying oil from unfriendly countries?
Answer: NO
That is my personal feeling and answer but here is what Wikipedia has to say regarding the matter.
“North American energy independence is a stated goal of those who believe that the North American nations – the USA, Canada and Mexico – must reduce their reliance on oil purchased from outside the continent. The benefits are argued to be the reduction of North America’s energy dependence on unstable regions such as the Middle East and South America and limiting oil imperialism to the North American Free Trade Area, reducing exposure to terrorism abroad; lower balance of trade and foreign exchange stresses on the U.S. economy in an era when suppliers may begin to price oil in euros; the development of renewable energy sources to displace fossil fuels; and the promotion of energy conservation and technology (such as insulation, green roof, and lighting efficiency) exportable to energy-poor nations.”.
SUMMARY:
While the write up in Wikipedia takes a more North American view [U.S. Canada & Mexico] I have a more limited view. I believe it would be in the best interest of the United States as a country to become energy independent regardless of what actions Canada, Mexico or any other country might take. We; the United States; needs to get over the mentality of buying anything we want regardless of the consequences it might have on another nation.
Q2. Is accomplishing that goal different from energy independence for all foreign oil?
Answer: YES
It is different in my mind because I believe the United States of America is a separate nation just like Canada and Mexico are separate nations. It is my belief that each nation should govern itself based upon the combined wishes of their people. I really dislike world order mentality but that is another subject isn’t it, LOL
Q3. If we can buy enough shale oil from Canada that we don’t need to buy other foreign oil does that meet the goal of energy independence? If it does not – please explain why “independence” is a goal.
Answer: YES & NO [philosophical question]
IF and that is a very big IF, Canada could produce enough oil from the tar sands to meet the energy needs of the United States would that be acceptable to the people of Canada? I think in the end that might become a really significant question. When will the Canadian people say enough is enough? When will they say – go strip your own country and stop polluting ours. If the United States consumes the resources of Canada is that REALLY any different than consuming the resources of OPEC?
I hope I understood and answered your questions LarryG.
I couldn’t agree more with the idea that we need more energy put into the US energy plan.
Unfortunately, there will be many tough decisions to make, which falls into line with Larry’s questions.
So, Larry, in a perfect world, energy independence would be completely foreign-oil free. And I like the idea of distributed, localized energy. But that’s almost assuredly too perfect world to become reality anytime soon, if even ever.
Besides, it’s not just foreign energy we’re dependent upon, but also lots of foreign resources, and becoming massively dependent upon foreign lithium, for example, will also result in unforeseen issues.
Thus, I’d prefer that the US do more to keep things local, such as accepting the fact that we need Canadian tar sands oil for sometime. Surely, we can sign a fair deal with Canada that’s more advantageous than dealing with OPEC?
Plus, I think it helps reduce our military exposure in the Middle East.
Consequently, I’d prefer that the US increase production enough — via new resources/fuel economy improvements, etc. — to theoretically not have to use OPEC oil. Let China take over that mess. Ultimately, I think nat gas fits in well here, but only if part of a larger plan that sees the end of fossil fuel use by say 2040 or something along those lines.
Kind of circling back to Tom, I think we need a comprehensive plan such as what the Rocky Mountain Institute has proposed — completely petroleum free by 2050 with no need for nuclear or any other fossil fuels. Take advantage of all the low lying fruit as we make the long transition — and it will be long — to sustainable alternatives.
In a nut shell, we can make ICE 50 percent more efficient with new technologies. Overtime we add more and more batteries to this equation. Likewise, we tap something like nat gas as fast as possible — creating numerous jobs along the way — for auto fueling, then just electrical generation, then just back up for sustainables until fully phased out.
I really believe we have far more power to dramatically alter our energy present and future today to the benefit of at least the 99 percent, while still profitable enough for the 1 percent.
Instead, we end up with fossil fuels versus renewables when its obvious that the interim solution has to include both. But in today’s partisan world, its better to keep things divided, rather than to compromise, as compromise is equated to a loss of power by politicians and their lobbyists.
re:energy independence
question;
Is energy independence not buying oil from unfriendly countries?
Is accomplishing that goal different from energy independence for all foreign oil?
Bonus Question: if we can buy enough shale oil from Canada that we don’t need to buy other foreign oil does that meet the goal of energy independence?
If it does not – please explain why “independence” is a goal.
What do I think? I think that with enough research and development we will someday find those magic bullets we need somewhere.
We need a new Internal Combustion Engine [ICE] and one is coming. A new engine factory is being build in Michigan to produce the Eco Motors OPEC engine. It is touted as improving fuel efficiency by about 30-40% Now I am certainly for a higher efficiency ICE but by the same token it’s really sad. Why aren’t we building a new electric motor factory instead? Everyone knows the answer – its around the corner from your house and is called a filling station.
Another company called Transsonic Combustion is also touting it’s new fuel injectors which can improve fuel efficiency by 10-30% and has agreements to produce the injectors with a couple of companies.
So we might be about 2-5 years away from some pretty good improvement to the old ICE. But will that be enough to save us? Of course not:
It does nothing to promote the orderly transition from oil to something else like electricity and it doesn’t make much difference if the oil comes from OPEC or Canada. Of course we are not at war with Canada so that certainly is better; but it’s still the same amount of dollars leaving our country which we should be spending in our own country. I hate to sound like an alarmist but oil is slowly sucking the life out of our country.
But are we really ready for the transition to electricity for transportation – I don’t think so. Our electrical grid is 30-50 years old in most locations and falling apart. But where are we going to get those hundreds of billions of dollars to improve the system? How can we spend those hundreds of billions upgrading the system when we are spending those same billions on foreign oil? The answer of course is; if you think $.12/kW is high now just wait a few years.
We need an energy plan for America. We need to identify the steps we need to take to become energy independent while protecting our environment. As a country we can no longer afford to send 420 billion dollars a year out of our country. In my not so humble opinion, it is time we stop listening to the oil commercials and lobbyist and start planning a sustainable future. What do you think?