4
Electric Cars Will be Mainstream Soon
9 Comments | Posted by George in Environment, Money, Technology
There has been a lot of talk about electric cars this summer. With movies such as An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car sparking much needed environmental inquiry in the US, it has become apparent that one of best ways the world could reduce energy use and clean up the environment is to change the way our automobiles are powered.
Until just recently, it appeared that hydrogen was going to be the miracle energy that would revolutionize the automobile industry. Cheap, efficient, and abundant – initially the promise of hydrogen fuel cells - now simply three words that describe qualities hydrogen fuel cells lack. Still, a plethora of potential solutions exist, yet unfortunately we can’t have them all. Of these potential solutions, the one I see that rises above all others is electricity.
The electric car is a concept that failed in the past. I don’t know for sure whether it was killed by a conspiracy or the market, but it is clear that the electric cars made in the mid 1990s had problems such as short driving ranges, long recharge times, and were expensive. It was simply a technology that wasn’t ready yet. Because of this, many people have simply given up on the electric car.
Many of these problems stem from one simple concept: the battery. From Wikipedia:
The first generation EV1s used lead-acid batteries in 1996 (as model year 1997) and a second generation batch with nickel metal hydride batteries in 1999. Some of the Gen 1 EV1′s were refurbished and upgraded to Panasonic Lead Acid batteries.
This battery issue is vastly different today. Although hybrid vehicles today still run on nickel metal hydride batteries, these batteries are not going to be used for long in cars. People who have converted their Toyota Prius to a plug-in hybrid using a lithium ion battery have fuel efficiency over 100 miles per gallon. Due to the increase in power and recharge abilities of a lithium ion battery, the car can rely more on the battery and much less on the gasoline engine. With lithium ion batteries, you get an electric car that runs longer, charges in less time, and is more reliable. And batteries are only going to become more efficient and cheaper year after year.
Futhermore, there is a market for purely electric cars. Why else would there be so many people spending money voiding their warranties to convert their hybrid cars to plug-in hybrids? Why else would the $100,000 Tesla Roadster, a purely electric car, have a gigantic waiting list? If people are going out of their way to get an electric car now, it’s clear that if someone makes it easy and affordable to own an electric car, it’s going to sell. Demand is clearly present in this very lucrative market.
Finally, electric cars do in fact aid us in reducing our energy crisis and limiting pollution. One of the most common arguments made against electric cars being environmentally friendly is that the energy has to come from somewhere, and it it is probably going to come from a dirty power plant. That is false on many levels. First, tying the car the the power grid simplifies our pollution problem. Rather than having to clean up both car pollution and power plant pollution, we only need to clean up one source. Cleaning up one thing is a lot more cost efficient than having to research methods to clean up two totally different sources of pollution.
Secondly, not every power plant produces dirty power. Although some electric cars will be powered by dirty coal plants, there will be others powered by clean wind or nuclear power plants. So although some electric cars will be responsible for some emissions, others will be responsible for zero emissions. Compare this to gasoline cars, where every car is responsible for some form of emissions.
Thirdly, it enables us to take advantage of economies of scale. For those of you who don’t understand the concept, when you produce a lot of something, you can produce each unit for a cheaper price than if you produced a smaller quantity, for instance, building 1000 cars on an assembly line versus building one car by itself. In this regard, we can focus on producing a lot of energy in our power plants, and not worry about gasoline. This will result in cheaper per-unit of power than if we divide our efforts between moving and fixed point power generation.
Finally, electric vehicles do not necessarily require oil to be powered. The energy can come from anywhere. This greatly decreases America’s reliance on the Middle East, something that every American should wish for. It also keeps transportation costs much more stable than they are today.
Electric cars will probably not be mainstream within the next year. To be truthful, there are still technological improvements that need to be made. But I are nearly certain, within ten years, electric cars will be everywhere. As batteries continue to improve in quality and fall in price, and as demand for the vehicles increases, suppliers will notice the lucrative market and dive in.
9 Comments for Electric Cars Will be Mainstream Soon
jon h | September 4, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Author comment by george | September 5, 2006 at 8:29 am
The reason I say demand is present is because the cars are only available to those who either are willing to spend tons of money on them, or to those who are willing to tinker around in a garage to make the electric car themselves. Imagine these barriers to entry were gone. At one point cell phones were expensive toys that wealthy people could only lug around in their cars… now they’re mainstream and virtually everyone owns one.
Ben I | September 5, 2006 at 4:18 pm
But you’re talking about two completely different things, a cell phone and a car. A cell phone is easier to develop and manufacture than a car, especially a car using a technology not yet shown to be completely effective or reliable for a nationwide or mass use. And converting a car could void all or most warranties that were either bought by the customer or given by the manufacturer such as Toyota, Honda, GM, Ford, etc. But I suppose that cars developed in the same pattern that cell phones did so you may be onto something. But you have to realize that this technology (for what you intend to do with it) would eliminate things that are mainstream in the society now such as large vehicles. This is opposed to when the cell phone and the car were first introduced; they simply added to the things that people could have and use. How would you like it if I took out the bread from your sandwich? You would probably feel mad.
Author comment by george | September 12, 2006 at 12:04 am
Does that mean I cannot make comparisons? What would we do in this world if we could set no precedents based on previous information?
The fact that converting a car to electric voiding all warranties only adds to the argument that demand for electric cars is present. The voided warranty is yet another cost that consumers are willing to bypass simply to get the electric car. Imagine if that cost, along with many others, did not exist? Lower costs will only bring more consumers into the market…. (hopefully you can see where my argument is going…)
And like you sort of alluded to, cellular phones developed over time and became mainstream. Initially, though, people lugged around car phones that couldn’t hold a charge for 10 minutes and had terrible reception. They also cost a fortune to buy and pay for service. However, as producers saw the demand for such a useful tool, they developed the cell phone into what it is today. Exactly the same thing will happen with electric cars.
And electric cars are not mutually exclusive from large cars. You can drive any size car on an electric motor, it just requires different levels of electricity, and since electricity is converted more efficiently than gasoline into movement, you’re getting a better deal.
I have no idea what the sandwich argument you’re talking about is, but you’re right that I like my bread. Wheat bread or multi-grain is the best, although I like exotic breads now and then. White bread isn’t that good, though.
Ben I | September 12, 2006 at 5:15 pm
So for the hundreds or maybe thousands that converted their cars to a plug in, voided their warranties, and now have to pay for any and all expenses that the car incurrs such as repairs, they have a car that sves a little sliver of the environment.
And for the millions if not billions that still have substantial warranties and a car that gets decent mileage for its vehicle class and is not a burden for them, they have the same thing that can do the same thing as a plug in or electric car could do, drive.
So now you saying two things, you emphasize not spending money and to save it but then you seek out and vie to have technologies which are 5-6 times the cost of a regular car.
Electric car parts are another thing, where are they, who can install them, and how much do these parts cost?
Do the math, elecrtic cars will make no sense until they are developed further and are practical, because right now they are about as practical as flying to work 20 miles away every day.
Much love.
Author comment by george | September 13, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Benny,
You realize you’re in complete agreement with my article, right? You say: “electric cars will make no sense until they are developed further and are practical”.
Isn’t this what my article is about? Aren’t you agreeing with me here? They’re not practical for everyone yet, but they’re getting there. But this is in complete agreement with my article.
The entire article is about electric cars being mainstream in the next 10 years. Not today. Read closely, it will help you in school.
Love,
George
Shaniqua | September 15, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Good article in the NYT today on the subject of global warming, economy and regulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/15/us/15energy.html
Taking on global warming is a tougher challenge. Though California was second in the nation only to Texas in emissions of carbon dioxide in 2001, and 12th in the world, it produced just 2.5 percent of the world’s total. At best, business leaders asked in a legislative hearing, what difference could California’s cuts make? And at what cost?
California, in fact, is making a huge bet: that it can reduce emissions without wrecking its economy, and therefore inspire other states — and countries — to follow its example on slowing climate change.
Initiatives addressing climate change are everywhere in California, pushed by legislators, by regulators, by cities, by foundations, by businesses and by investors.
Four years ago, California became the first state to seek to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide from automobile tailpipes. Car dealers and carmakers are challenging the law in federal court.
In late August, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a measure requiring builders to offer home buyers roofs with tiles that convert sunlight into electricity. Homeowners in some communities are already choosing them to reduce their electric bills.
California, which has for decades required that refrigerators, air conditioners, water heaters and other appliances become more energy efficient, just added to the list: first, chargers for cellphones or computers; second, set-top boxes and other remote-controlled devices. Those categories consume up to 10 percent of a home’s power.
Last fall, California regulators barred major investor-owned electrical utilities from signing long-term contracts to buy energy unless the seller’s greenhouse-gas emissions meet a stringent standard.
“We are dealing with it across the board,” said Michael R. Peevey, the president of the Public Utilities Commission. By contrast, the Bush administration has been averse to any legislative assault on climate change.
Opponents say California may hurt its own residents with its clean-energy mandate.
Shaniqua | September 15, 2006 at 6:12 pm
You may want to check out here:
http://video.on.nytimes.com/
There is a nice 5-6 min clip on a green subdevelopment in california. Good press. Also that article above has some interesting infographics.
I assume that the videos are available to the general public.
Author comment by george | September 15, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Nice, thanks for the links, I’ll definitely read up on the NYT article over the weekend.
george…how many people do you know who are in the market for a tesla roadster?
“Demand is clearly present in this very lucrative market.”
This is similar to the demand for yachts and jet renting. The only person I know who wants one is one of the founders of my company who can definitely afford 100k toys. Right now it is still a toy.
http://www.ondisruption.com/my_weblog/2006/07/disruption_for_.html
This is an OK page that talks about Tesla’s strategy. It is another one of these tech challenges taken on by ridiculously wealthy, young, tech geeks. Somewhat like the X-prize for the space deal.
Unfortunately, it seems their strategy is dependent upon some good sales on the high end cars that will fuel their R&D. It is risky as heck… they are betting that they can develop faster than their money runs out…. elon musk and the guys from google can shell out quite a bit to fund it.
It should be interesting to see if it works…