There is no one-size-fits-all vehicle (or anything else). When I was living in SoCal I had a 30 mile each way commute plus about 400 miles on the weekend. I could have done this with one electric car and one gas burner. Where I now live I could use an electric car for local runs and the gasser for the monthly 300 mile trip. The problem is the cost. Gassers are (relatively) cheap up front but you do pay more in the long run. If we can get the purchase price of an electric car down so it competes with the cost of a gasser, about 100 mile range, recharge of under an hour, and a reasonably long battery life (8 to 10 years) then yes, I'll buy one. And I'll keep the gasser for the long trips.
Now, if they would just bring back the manual transmission...
Now, if they would just bring back the manual transmission...
7
I haven't read every single comment, but one thing I don't see anyone talk about is sourcing the rare earth metals needed for these batteries. Where do they come from? How much can be sourced domestically? Does moving to a battery technology sacrifice petroleum self-sufficiency for metals dependancy?
10
Although Bell Labs is sadly mostly gone, there are still industrial labs that have taken over: Microsoft Research, and Google being just two well known examples. Google after all seems about ready to provide us with self-driving cars, and they're doing a lot in quantum computing and other fields. Did I mention Intel?
It wouldn't surprise me that some group at Google is quietly working on batteries.
It wouldn't surprise me that some group at Google is quietly working on batteries.
3
I don't know about you but every night I go to sleep. As I see it there is no reason a car could not be build with a 70 to 100 mile range and charged every night. The charge would be enough for 1 days driving. True you may need a second car for long trips but most people already have second cars.
This car can be built today. The cost to operate would be 1/3 what a gas car requires. It would pay for itself. We really don't need a 300 mile range. What we really need is to separate our real wants from our real needs. Besides saving money while saving the planet is always nice.
This car can be built today. The cost to operate would be 1/3 what a gas car requires. It would pay for itself. We really don't need a 300 mile range. What we really need is to separate our real wants from our real needs. Besides saving money while saving the planet is always nice.
7
So it's starfish and powdered magic beans that will power electric plants that free us from the pricing whipsaws and carbon emissions of fossil fuels? Thank goodness.
3
Regardless of the battery or mileage of the vehicle, developing an infrastructure into a sustainable system for electromobility, that is, affordable to the consumer is just as important. Tesla and the Germans need to figure the riddle out.
3
Here is a question I have yet to see addressed. You want to put everyone in the world into battery powered cars? Fine. Where do you plan to get the rare earths necessary to do that? Strip mining half the planet for them is not really a great idea. Do these new battery technologies take this into account? Or is the problem being ignored?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/business/global/26rare.html?pagewanted...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/business/global/26rare.html?pagewanted...
20
Leap frog toxic, impractical batteries and invest in inexpensive hydrogen production and distribution for fuel cells, a much more elegant and practical. technology. The best current science is that there are currently no fundamental breakthroughs in battery science that would improve much on Tesla's efforts.
7
The technology is already here. We've had a Leaf going on two years. It's roomy, comfortable and requires virtually no maintenance. My wife commutes daily about 30 miles round-trip daytime, and I commute about 50 miles round-trip a couple nights a week. For days when we both use the car we top it up for about an hour at a dedicated charger in our garage. Our other car is a Prius, which is far less pleasant to drive (all-electrics are a hoot!) but useful for longer drives. We're all for continued improvement in range but scratch our heads at the thought that electric cars have not yet "arrived." Huh?
13
What about a column, Joe, on Mr. LeVine's confidence (or lack of it) on the ability of the US to create a real economy? One that isn't based on financial manipulations, real estate bubbles, or high tech booms and busts. That's the central question for our times. The battery project may or may not be a help, but it's really too small to reverse the trends of outsourcing and manufacturing job loss. Mr. LeVine, can you give us any hope?
7
The dig at Solyndra is, at a minimum, lazy. Linking to a 3 year old article is poor form is as well.
The government program that funded Solyndra has turned a profit. (see here: http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-l... A modest amount of research would have turned this up though this fact argues against the thesis presented here.
As other have said, these types of investments have a very low hit rate. The goal is to be profitable over the portfolio. Calling out the Solyndra loss and implying failure is akin to suggesting a mutual fund with one stock that loses value is not worth investing in.
Propping up myths just adds fuel to the "anti" view of government programs and falls in the same category of parents relying on a discredited study to justify not vaccinating their children.
The government program that funded Solyndra has turned a profit. (see here: http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-l... A modest amount of research would have turned this up though this fact argues against the thesis presented here.
As other have said, these types of investments have a very low hit rate. The goal is to be profitable over the portfolio. Calling out the Solyndra loss and implying failure is akin to suggesting a mutual fund with one stock that loses value is not worth investing in.
Propping up myths just adds fuel to the "anti" view of government programs and falls in the same category of parents relying on a discredited study to justify not vaccinating their children.
26
There are many company and government labs in many countries researching new batteries. Some of them will be successful in finding a good one. A few of them will become market leaders. Most of the rest will either die or licence the technology from the leaders if they want sales.
Research to take the technology to the next level will continue as breakthrough after breakthrough occurs
I would not call investments in new technology research a lottery, but rather very high risk investment. Strong patent laws and strong demand are required to justify the effort.
In most of the developed world, very high fuel taxes drive the demand. In the U.S. only government fuel economy mandates and subsidies drive it. That difference permits our rural and suburban population to survive.
Research to take the technology to the next level will continue as breakthrough after breakthrough occurs
I would not call investments in new technology research a lottery, but rather very high risk investment. Strong patent laws and strong demand are required to justify the effort.
In most of the developed world, very high fuel taxes drive the demand. In the U.S. only government fuel economy mandates and subsidies drive it. That difference permits our rural and suburban population to survive.
4
If the ubiquitous government is deep in the battery research business how about it start here: Require that all CAR batteries adhere to standard sizes. If I buy a battery powered gizmo today, it's a pretty good bet the batteries that gizmo needs are some standard size (C, AA, AAA, etc.). If we standardize on batteries for electric cars, then changing CAR batteries (which are interchangeable because they are standardized) will help grow a market for battery changing stations. These stations would charge replacements around the clock. Pull your power depleted car in, "fill 'er up", and off you go. Range constriction solved! You know, like GAS stations - that sell standardized GAS! Not a radical idea IMHO. Start there, and while that bakes in, proceed in finding the super battery. I think you'll find this guy (what's his name? "Musk?") is already working along these lines...
5
The article ends with a rhetorical question: "If the government won’t try to solve that problem, who will?'
I offer, "If the government won’t keep subsidizing charlatans who promise to accomplish the hopelessly impracticable, who will?"
I offer, "If the government won’t keep subsidizing charlatans who promise to accomplish the hopelessly impracticable, who will?"
2
The financial rewards for revolutionary new battery technology would be so great that there's no reason for the government to subsidize research into such technology. This is not a case of market failure. There is no shortage of private money chasing better battery technology. The government's R+D money (and I am hugely in favor of government support for R+D, especially for pure scientific research) would be much better spent on technology for which there is no obvious market and hence no reason to think that private firms would research it.
4
Where are the studies on what the effect would be on the electric power supply if everyone switched over to EV's tomorrow? Wind and solar have made advances, but are far from being ready to fill that void.
We know no one's clamoring for more coal fired power- what then, more nuclear plants? The ozone might benefit, but the "Green" story of EVs ends when one considers where and how the power would be provided should they be adopted en masse.
We know no one's clamoring for more coal fired power- what then, more nuclear plants? The ozone might benefit, but the "Green" story of EVs ends when one considers where and how the power would be provided should they be adopted en masse.
6
Something has to be done. And as with all innovation, there are many false starts and sometimes the best technology doesn't even come out ahead (witness Microsoft vs Apple or Betamax vs VHS). But look where Betamax AND VHS have gone, into the dust heap of technology. No, we don't like failure, and yes, we 'pile on' when something doesn't work and the failure is easy to see.
But 'failure' is often just another way of eliminating a path (for now) and helps EVERYONE figure out what to do next.
But 'failure' is often just another way of eliminating a path (for now) and helps EVERYONE figure out what to do next.
10
Beta and VHS were far from failures, and had you bought a new car when VHS came out, you would have replaced it several times before the format died out. With any car, there will be new features in subsequent model years, and you will move on. But unlike VHS, electricity isn't going away so you will still be able to drive where you want and charge your car no matter what new cars that company comes out with.
I wouldn't call the internal combustion engine a failure, but cars that use them won't be around forever either.
I wouldn't call the internal combustion engine a failure, but cars that use them won't be around forever either.
6
Corporate America led by the MBA class either greatly diminished institutions like Bell Labs, or eliminated R&D departments completely.
There is little incentive for the brightest young people to become scientists and researchers because there are no places for them. In addition, their salaries and bonuses are a small fraction of what their managerial overlords receive.
Practical science is difficult. It's hard to get raw matter to conform to specifications. For better or worse, spread sheets always work out, or give data that points to a way to better sales. It's relatively facile. You manage, and you move on.
The research lab can be dirty, onerous, frustrating and it definitely is not sexy. It's much better to be an MBA who can manipulate a science employee as an object on the ledger, and not be the object itself.
Thus, in the quest for profits, Corporate America has alienated us from the very basic task of addressing nature, either exploiting nature for economic gain or limiting our plundering of nature to protect ourselves, ecosystems and the planet.
There is something very wrong malignant in our society, but no one has caught on. We are as benighted as an Iron Curtain apparatchik in 1987.
There is little incentive for the brightest young people to become scientists and researchers because there are no places for them. In addition, their salaries and bonuses are a small fraction of what their managerial overlords receive.
Practical science is difficult. It's hard to get raw matter to conform to specifications. For better or worse, spread sheets always work out, or give data that points to a way to better sales. It's relatively facile. You manage, and you move on.
The research lab can be dirty, onerous, frustrating and it definitely is not sexy. It's much better to be an MBA who can manipulate a science employee as an object on the ledger, and not be the object itself.
Thus, in the quest for profits, Corporate America has alienated us from the very basic task of addressing nature, either exploiting nature for economic gain or limiting our plundering of nature to protect ourselves, ecosystems and the planet.
There is something very wrong malignant in our society, but no one has caught on. We are as benighted as an Iron Curtain apparatchik in 1987.
17
Once the problem with the mileage one can get on an electric car battery, one will have to tackle the problem of the 12 hrs it's going to take to get the battery back up to the promised mileage.
That's not going to happen any time soon.
Far more sensible would be researching practical ways of using hydrogen to power vehicles both safely and efficiency.
The nation's thirst for power to continue our wired and mobile lives is not going to abate any time soon, and remaining aloof from technologies, including nuclear, that can meet the needs of the present...let alone the future...is a disservice to us all.
But just try to have an intelligent discussion of power, its use, and from whence it is derived, and you'll find the zealots and the hypocrites all over you like locusts, devouring all in their path and leaving nothing but waste in their wake.
That's not going to happen any time soon.
Far more sensible would be researching practical ways of using hydrogen to power vehicles both safely and efficiency.
The nation's thirst for power to continue our wired and mobile lives is not going to abate any time soon, and remaining aloof from technologies, including nuclear, that can meet the needs of the present...let alone the future...is a disservice to us all.
But just try to have an intelligent discussion of power, its use, and from whence it is derived, and you'll find the zealots and the hypocrites all over you like locusts, devouring all in their path and leaving nothing but waste in their wake.
2
"Far more sensible would be researching practical ways of using hydrogen to power vehicles both safely and efficiency"......And where does the hydrogen come from? It requires more energy to produce than it provides. It is a gas and therefore has a poor energy to volume ratio unless it is compressed, which requires even more energy. All this ignoring the fact that because of its molecular size it is prone to leak and it is highly combustible. CO2 neutral ethanol is less problematic, potentially derived from any source of cellulose - newspapers, grass clippings, yard leaves, paper mill waste; anything made of wood, practically everything that grows. And remember with ethanol if you have a major industrial spill, instead of an ecological disaster, you have a party. And of yes, with only slight modification it works in present day internal combustion engines and could be delivered by existing gas stations.
3
The non-hybrids-- Leaf et al-- won't ever be successful without air conditioning, and there is immense reluctance to acknowledge that elephant.
1
How could you not mention Tesla?? Their absence in this article is conspicuous to the point of being bizarre...
17
Part of the problem is that so many of our best and brightest finish their Ivy League educations and then hop onto the Wall Street Express where they move money around and stuff their pockets with cash, but basically provide nothing for the larger economy. We need many more people trying to actually create something vital, rather than just coming up with ever-more ingenious ways to siphon off their cut.
15
Moving to an electric car (a basic Nissan Leaf, the Model T of EVs) for a tough commute has not just improved my quality of life immensely but led to the obvious next step of looking at solar panels to provide electricity for home and car both. (Elon Musk gets the connection; his company, Solar City leases solar panels affordably. By the time Tesla is ready for middle class prime time, our roofs will be ready to fuel it.) The future is most endangered by the political efforts of vested and very rich "dirty energy" interests trying on a state by state level to legislate for punitive taxation of clean energy users.
12
I don't know how you could write an entire column on this topic and not mention Tesla, as they are already achieving 200-300 miles per charge - albeit with thousands of small batteries rather than one large one. This may in fact be the better (and more cost effective) engineering approach than a single large battery, given the nature of the battery supply chain.
Please see this interesting post for further elaboration on Tesla's battery strategy: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084682_what-goes-into-a-tesla-model...
Please see this interesting post for further elaboration on Tesla's battery strategy: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084682_what-goes-into-a-tesla-model...
11
Battery technology is primitive. The batteries used in electric cars are heavy, don't hold a long charge and are expensive to the tune of 10 thousand dollars. What we need is massive funding programs for battery technology. Toyota basically said they wouldn't invest in any battery technology improvement as the cost of it wouldn't be recovered by selling their products. The Japanese government which is more intune with their business sector hasn't wanted to invest in battery technology either from the small article I read. So private business won't be able to overcome the cost hurdle of improving batteries due to the cost.
I was basically told by an engineering friend of mine, to instead buy a good gas efficient car for 15 thousand dollars brand new. Saving myself the 10 thousand dollar battery for an electric car. Most of our technological inventions are derived from military spending that discovered the initial design. An inadvertent funding source for research and products that find their way into the market place. Basically the private business sector can churn out a cheap to make I phone or similar small gadgets. It is going to take a huge initial investment to get batteries smaller, cheaper and able to hold charges that are meaningful for normal driving patterns.
I was basically told by an engineering friend of mine, to instead buy a good gas efficient car for 15 thousand dollars brand new. Saving myself the 10 thousand dollar battery for an electric car. Most of our technological inventions are derived from military spending that discovered the initial design. An inadvertent funding source for research and products that find their way into the market place. Basically the private business sector can churn out a cheap to make I phone or similar small gadgets. It is going to take a huge initial investment to get batteries smaller, cheaper and able to hold charges that are meaningful for normal driving patterns.
1
As Mr. Nocera tells us, it would be a very good thing if a bank of batteries carried by a car, could have the same energy storage capacity of a tank of gasoline. Even better would be if they could be fully recharged in a few minutes; better still if the cost of operation would be only a few cents per mile.
Does anyone wonder, as I do, why Chevrolet does not put ads for the Volt on television?
Does anyone wonder, as I do, why Chevrolet does not put ads for the Volt on television?
2
Congress for 50 years has cut its funding of physical science, sparing only space and medicine. Congress is destroying American physics. So it's no surprise that the Koreans, the Chinese, and the Indians will become the leaders in battery research and the physical sciences.
An electric car charged with electricity made by a coal-fired power plant is dirtier than a car running on gasoline. We need nuclear power and better batteries.
An electric car charged with electricity made by a coal-fired power plant is dirtier than a car running on gasoline. We need nuclear power and better batteries.
8
Kevin Cahill,
Tell people that most of their electricity to charge their batteries comes from burning carbon.
Tell people that most of the electrical energy to operate electric vehicles will be used to haul the batteries up hills, unless you live in a flat city without any bridges that you have to travel up and over.
Tell people that most of their electricity to charge their batteries comes from burning carbon.
Tell people that most of the electrical energy to operate electric vehicles will be used to haul the batteries up hills, unless you live in a flat city without any bridges that you have to travel up and over.
2
People seem to forget that electricity comes from somewhere, and in this country, that somewhere is coal. Batteries and electric cards do not solve the problem, and the inefficiencies in electricity transport and battery losses contribute to less effective use of coal/fuel.
The riddle of powering electric cars is not the battery, its that we have not changed the source of the power.
The riddle of powering electric cars is not the battery, its that we have not changed the source of the power.
3
Exactly!
Why don't people invent a perpetual motion machine?
Why don't people invent a perpetual motion machine?
Instead of trying to perpetuate the privately owned car as the basis for transportation and hence all public infrastructure in the US, we should be moving to greater concentrations of living, working, and recreating that can be serviced by trams, metros, buses and bicycles (even walking on our two legs). The search for a battery reminds me of those island cultures that denuded their natural environements by stripping away the trees to build giant statues to their gods, and, inevitably, collapsed and disappeared.
6
The US Government established the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1915 "to supervise and direct the scientific study of the problems of flight with a view to their practical solution" and "to promote military and civilian aviation through applied research that looked beyond current needs." This government funded agency, the forerunner of NASA, conducted research and built state-of-the-art test facilities that were a major reason for United States leadership and dominance in aviation between the 1920s and 1950s, and especially during World War II. Today, we need a similar government agency to promote American leadership and development of advanced technologies such as energy systems, batteries, wind and solar power. In the last century, the United States had the foresight, social cohesion and political consensus that helped it to become the world leader in aviation. The same approach is needed today if we are to regain our leadership in technology instead of being surpassed by other nations willing to commit their resources to education and promotion of 21st century technologies.
3
The solar power market has really taken off since some companies learned how to overcome the upfront investment burden by leasing equipment.
The electric car industry could take off by similarly overcoming their major hurdle - the need for an alternative for long trips, at least until Tesla gets a denser network of fast charging stations. An electric car company could contract with a nationwide rental agency to provide a certain number of annual days of rental of hybrid or gas-powered cars for long trips. (They could even arrange a swap so local renters could drive the owner's electric car while s/he is off on a longer trip in the substitute vehicle). I'm sure some creative business people (yes, there are some) could work out a plan that would overcome the problem of occasional long trips.
The electric car industry could take off by similarly overcoming their major hurdle - the need for an alternative for long trips, at least until Tesla gets a denser network of fast charging stations. An electric car company could contract with a nationwide rental agency to provide a certain number of annual days of rental of hybrid or gas-powered cars for long trips. (They could even arrange a swap so local renters could drive the owner's electric car while s/he is off on a longer trip in the substitute vehicle). I'm sure some creative business people (yes, there are some) could work out a plan that would overcome the problem of occasional long trips.
2
Here was I, so hopeful that Joe Nocera had finally gotten hold of something that would help us all in our need for energy, and he seems to have invested his space here in knocking down something that has proven itself and has great potential. It is hard not to be suspicious that he has bought, innocently most likely, the propaganda big fossil and its clever phony infrastructure of unskeptical "skepticism" is selling. I could wish that he would trouble to go to one of the many experts in the field and learn the basics of climate science. It goes something like this:
We are accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gases that are increasing the energy (heat) in our system (global warming) which are resulting in a disturbed planetary circulatory system (climate change). The physics were first explained almost two centuries ago, and nothing has intervened to make the more probably less probable.
Fact is, those alternatives are gaining market share. Local sources are becoming more possible. Big industry doesn't like it one bit.
A little research into integrated systems and alternative energy might turn up some interesting material that trump the silly Solyndra bashing; big fossil wastes more than Solyndra lost almost every day.
here's one source. I hear of a project in Birmingham that was startlingly successful and note the bits from Japan here:
http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.com/2014/09/hey-joe-where-you-goin-wit...
We are accumulating heat-trapping greenhouse gases that are increasing the energy (heat) in our system (global warming) which are resulting in a disturbed planetary circulatory system (climate change). The physics were first explained almost two centuries ago, and nothing has intervened to make the more probably less probable.
Fact is, those alternatives are gaining market share. Local sources are becoming more possible. Big industry doesn't like it one bit.
A little research into integrated systems and alternative energy might turn up some interesting material that trump the silly Solyndra bashing; big fossil wastes more than Solyndra lost almost every day.
here's one source. I hear of a project in Birmingham that was startlingly successful and note the bits from Japan here:
http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.com/2014/09/hey-joe-where-you-goin-wit...
4
This all sounds good, and especially for urban environments with their high concentration of vehicles it would help deal with air pollution there. BUT, my problem with electric cars has always been: where is the electricity to charge these vehicles coming from? Somewhere the electricity has to be generated by some means, and most of those methods in use today pollute their environment or where the fuels come from. And then there is the transmission of the electricity to god knows how many stattions. The mere fact that the space that the vehicles are moving in is spared the immediate pollutants does not solve one of the major problems. Yes, I'm aware 'green' energy has improved by leaps and bounds, but it isn't there yet. Out of sight, out of mind, but Mother Earth is still being polluted.
4
One problem that is constantly overlooked in the battery/electric car debate is that we are really robbing Peter to pay Paul as far as emissions goes. Although there are "zero" emissions from the vehicle itself, that energy has to come from somewhere. Power plants (fossil fuel or nuclear powered in most cases) provide electricity to charge said batteries. Those plants are certainly not Zero emissions or zero impact in the case of nuclear power. Furthermore, those batteries have all sorts of heavy metals etc. in them that become a huge environmental problem upon disposal. We still have a long way to go. Solar really seems like the most environmentally sound, but is way far away from being realistically useful.
3
Regarding "a hard problem":
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
John F. Kennedy
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
John F. Kennedy
7
The Tesla meets these range requirements. Not a very comprehensive book...
Isn't the problem that batteries require chemical reactions, not physics, and people are less knowledgeable about improving such reactions?
1
Read about the nanotube ultracapacitor being developed by Prof. Joel E. Schindall at MIT. A power source that charges in minutes not hours, holds a charge for weeks, and does not contain a volatile electrolyte. Electric cars are much closer than you think.
3
The taxpayers invest in R&D and the corporate stockholders get all the profits. Sounds like socialism to me, only without the profits going to we-the-people who funded it.
3
How is it that your article fails to mention the recent announcement by Tesla Motors that it has chosen Nevada as the site for its new 5 billion dollar lithium battery manufacturing facility. It will purportedly double the number of available high-efficiency batteries for electric automobile manufactuting, at markedly lower costs. Seems like it might be worth mentioning.
8
Joe I always read your column and admire your writing, but am stunned that you did not mention Tesla which as you now know by reading other comments here has been making successful 200 to 300 mile range EVs for almost 7 years. I own two Teslas. I do not own any other cars. Yes they are expensive but Tesla is building a giant battery factory in Nevada right now that will drive down battery costs and allow them to launch a 200-mile range, under $40K EV, in 2017. The future is already here because of American innovation driven by the fertile mind of Elon Musk, a South African who came to the U.S. because of what the country Had to offer.
9
Mr. Nocera says that "the effect on climate change could be lowered." That will happen only if the electricity used to charge the batteries is generated by sources other than fossil fuels. Energy is lost in generation and transmission of electricity, so if fossil fuel energy is used, more CO2 will be produced than if the fuels were burned directly in the cars. Of course, the only way to run a car on coal is to make the coal into electricity first! Today and in the reasonably near future, with the possible exception of hydropower, the only non-CO2-producing source that makes enough reliable power to charge lots of automobiles at any time of day or night is nuclear. Wind and solar are awaiting, you guessed it, better batteries for storage.
7
I have a plug-in car and solar panels that work well together, thus avoiding the use of "dirty electric power".
Solar panel leasing is economical and provides me with a way to keep my utility bills under control. In fact over the past two years of net metering, the electric portion of my PG&E bill has been negative.
Solar panel leasing is economical and provides me with a way to keep my utility bills under control. In fact over the past two years of net metering, the electric portion of my PG&E bill has been negative.
6
The "battery problem" might be insurmountable in the context of cars intended to meet all the needs of drivers and families as on the roads today.
The goal should actually be a car that can go from 400 to 500 miles on a charge or one that will go that far with a modest recharge somewhere around 300 miles. Beyond 500 miles of driving, individual cars are not that much fun. It is more like a punishment to be stuck in one for that length of time, in fact.
Can electric cars become the universal answer to personal transportation needs? I am sure the scientists would disagree, but we might be tackling a problem similar to trying to run up a 9,000 ft. mountain in half an hour. We also have to be careful not to pursue a new goal that itself becomes a trap.
Why can't we have specialized cars for particular needs? How about a super light weight car that is intended only for urban commuting and other local trips? The ownership model would be in conflict, because most families are not going to purchase four five different cars with specific needs. The ownership model, however, can be changed and probably easier than we can make an adequate battery for a heavy car.
Another point: I have never seen a comparison of the total pollution created by electric generation for a battery car compared to fossil fuel cars. If a car is going to be electric, then the power needs to be generated cleanly and stored until it is needed for a charge, another problem.
Doug Terry
The goal should actually be a car that can go from 400 to 500 miles on a charge or one that will go that far with a modest recharge somewhere around 300 miles. Beyond 500 miles of driving, individual cars are not that much fun. It is more like a punishment to be stuck in one for that length of time, in fact.
Can electric cars become the universal answer to personal transportation needs? I am sure the scientists would disagree, but we might be tackling a problem similar to trying to run up a 9,000 ft. mountain in half an hour. We also have to be careful not to pursue a new goal that itself becomes a trap.
Why can't we have specialized cars for particular needs? How about a super light weight car that is intended only for urban commuting and other local trips? The ownership model would be in conflict, because most families are not going to purchase four five different cars with specific needs. The ownership model, however, can be changed and probably easier than we can make an adequate battery for a heavy car.
Another point: I have never seen a comparison of the total pollution created by electric generation for a battery car compared to fossil fuel cars. If a car is going to be electric, then the power needs to be generated cleanly and stored until it is needed for a charge, another problem.
Doug Terry
2
This truly is more of a question than a comment.
As I understand electric batteries, all will be recharged from the usual sources of electricity which typically burn carbon (coal, natural gas, oil, etc.) to produce electricity. Is it more efficient use these to produce electricity or have we simply put the pollution and other environmental damage out of immediate view?
Solar, wind, and hydroelectric production have major impacts on the environment when one considers the manufacturing, installation, maintenance, etc.
Does the electric car really benefit the environment when all impacts are considered?
As I understand electric batteries, all will be recharged from the usual sources of electricity which typically burn carbon (coal, natural gas, oil, etc.) to produce electricity. Is it more efficient use these to produce electricity or have we simply put the pollution and other environmental damage out of immediate view?
Solar, wind, and hydroelectric production have major impacts on the environment when one considers the manufacturing, installation, maintenance, etc.
Does the electric car really benefit the environment when all impacts are considered?
3
Your question is exactly the one I have and one I think we should be asking. Ideally, electricity for a car would be generated by solar power and then stored somehow in the house and at the office until it is needed to recharge the car. This would require another type of battery or some system of storing the energy.
At the present time, power is cheap overnight, but generating it still produces pollution in the air and ground. In the transition period, we could use that cheap overnight power to charge cars, but ultimately the power needs to come from cleaner sources. Not putting pollution in the air "right now" as you drive might be satisfying, but it is not the complete answer.
It is my belief that electric powered cars are a modest improvement over fossil fuels (I haven't seen exact studies cover net results of one versus the other), which is a further indication to me that electric cars are not the complete answer to clean transportation needs.
A couple of companies, including Toyota and Kia, will be fielding hydrogen powered cars in California this year, but those also have pollution questions associated with power production, making the hydrogen.
Doug Terry
At the present time, power is cheap overnight, but generating it still produces pollution in the air and ground. In the transition period, we could use that cheap overnight power to charge cars, but ultimately the power needs to come from cleaner sources. Not putting pollution in the air "right now" as you drive might be satisfying, but it is not the complete answer.
It is my belief that electric powered cars are a modest improvement over fossil fuels (I haven't seen exact studies cover net results of one versus the other), which is a further indication to me that electric cars are not the complete answer to clean transportation needs.
A couple of companies, including Toyota and Kia, will be fielding hydrogen powered cars in California this year, but those also have pollution questions associated with power production, making the hydrogen.
Doug Terry
2
Currently hydrogen fuel is made from nonrenewable natural gas in a process that creates enormous CO2 emissions, according to Consumer Reports.
We purchased a Volt in 2013 and it has turned out to be the absolutely best car we have ever owned. Even with a 4000+ mile and a number of 700+ mile trips, our "lifetime" average is 53.3 mpg. Wonderful!
1
Electric vehicles have been touted as environmentally responsible. But I question just how "green" these cars really are. Unless their batteries are being charged with electricity from sources such as wind and solar, aren't we just shifting the site of the pollution from the streets to the power plants? Where is the net benefit?
4
If you live in a place that has a lot of power outages, an electric car may not be for you.
Being a one-car-owner, works against me if I buy an electric car and want to drive to places in the country that don't have charging stations. While an e-car would be great for city driving, even a 200 mile range would limit where I could go.
Being a one-car-owner, works against me if I buy an electric car and want to drive to places in the country that don't have charging stations. While an e-car would be great for city driving, even a 200 mile range would limit where I could go.
1
In my little town we have these things called "rental cars." Unless there's someone you desperately need to impress at the end of that 200-mile trip, they work just fine.
1
Why can't we put a charging strip down the middle of the lanes on major highways that will charge the car battery and power the car as we drive along? That way I could take I 80 from NY to SF without stopping to for a charge. But I'm sure there are a million reasons why this isn't a good idea.
1
It strikes me that if the potential of Graphene is realized, the electricity storage problem will have been solved. https://www.youtube.com/embed/WFacA6OwCjA
People have already commented on the fact that a Tesla can already drive 265 miles on a single charge.
But people ignore the Volt. The Volt is an elegant solution, it's not a "drawback". GM should be applauded for its ingenuity!
Currently, batteries are expensive.
Tesla solved this by making a high priced car. Downside: it's only for the rich. (so far)
Nissan solved this by making an affordable limited range (90 mile) car. Downside: "range anxiety"
GM solved this by making a car that goes 40 miles on electric only, then has 300 additional miles that it can use on gas.
This solves several problems
-Electric range covers the daily driving habits of most Americans
-it has no "range anxiety" whatsoever
-it can "fill up" using electricity
-if electricity not available, or if charging takes too much time, it can be filled up with gas like any other car.
On a side note: the 2016 Volt goes 50 miles on a charge!
The 2017 Leaf will likely go around 200 miles on a charge!
That's 25% to 100% improvement in 6 years!
With so much positive in the Battery and electric car World, I find it troubling that you focused on Solyndra and the not YET successful NMC 2.0 Project
Lastly:
The Chevy Volt made the Fuel Cell obsolete for Passenger Vehicles.
It performs like a "normal" car (Mirai is worse than Prius)
It can be filled up at any electrical outlet OR gas station. (Hydrogen stations are $3m PER STATION, so no place to refill Mirais)
it can be affordable (Mirai is not)
But people ignore the Volt. The Volt is an elegant solution, it's not a "drawback". GM should be applauded for its ingenuity!
Currently, batteries are expensive.
Tesla solved this by making a high priced car. Downside: it's only for the rich. (so far)
Nissan solved this by making an affordable limited range (90 mile) car. Downside: "range anxiety"
GM solved this by making a car that goes 40 miles on electric only, then has 300 additional miles that it can use on gas.
This solves several problems
-Electric range covers the daily driving habits of most Americans
-it has no "range anxiety" whatsoever
-it can "fill up" using electricity
-if electricity not available, or if charging takes too much time, it can be filled up with gas like any other car.
On a side note: the 2016 Volt goes 50 miles on a charge!
The 2017 Leaf will likely go around 200 miles on a charge!
That's 25% to 100% improvement in 6 years!
With so much positive in the Battery and electric car World, I find it troubling that you focused on Solyndra and the not YET successful NMC 2.0 Project
Lastly:
The Chevy Volt made the Fuel Cell obsolete for Passenger Vehicles.
It performs like a "normal" car (Mirai is worse than Prius)
It can be filled up at any electrical outlet OR gas station. (Hydrogen stations are $3m PER STATION, so no place to refill Mirais)
it can be affordable (Mirai is not)
3
Why is there no mention of Tesla Motors, whose founder Elon Musk is constructing a mammoth battery factory in Nevada to power its highly rated electric cars? It surprising that Nocera mentions the Volt, Bolt, and Leaf but not Tesla's Model S, rated the safest car on the road.
2
If the market is great which it is, private enterprise will solve it. It it can be solved. Simple as that. The government cannot do a web site, they can do a battery?
3
The government didn't do a website. They contracted it out. Private industry could not do the website.
1
Wonder how much power (and from what source) it'll take to mine the nickel-manganese-cobalt? Wonder where the mineral reserves are located, and how big area the reserves?
1
Check out Burning Man and the $5 billion Telsa/Panasonic lithium battery gigafactory rising out of the Nevada desert on rgj.com at this very moment.
Reno casinos are already giving away model S Teslas. By 2020, there will be a mass produced $35,000 model to compete with budget priced BMWs and Mercedes. I think I will get one.
Reno casinos are already giving away model S Teslas. By 2020, there will be a mass produced $35,000 model to compete with budget priced BMWs and Mercedes. I think I will get one.
3
Tesla and University of Nevada, Reno announced today that they will be training 350 interns this summer in the fields of chemistry, electrical and computer engineering. Students were told to come "dressed" for a possible interview.
Check rgj.com for details.
Check rgj.com for details.
Batteries that get between 200-300 miles per charge do not exist? I have heard of an innovative car company that actually produces a vehicle with a battery that gets you close to 300 miles on a charge. It's called Tesla.
6
Electronics follows Moore's Law and double in computing power every few years. Some people assume batteries might be like that, but in fact battery technology has progressed very slowly over the past century. A 20 year old computer or cell phone is a museum piece, but a 70 year old flashlight will work just fine with today's batteries because they aren't that much different than what was available during WWII. It's pretty to think that dumping enough Federal money will solve the problem just as it led to breakthroughs in computers but there are also physical and chemical limits to what can be achieved.
There's a sweat spot with cars -- cost under $30,000, range 300 miles, refill the gas tank in 15 minutes -- that battery powered cars are a long way from matching. Electric cars were big in the 1920s and had a renaissance in the 1970s and again today. But they are no closer to the sweet spot and no amount of wishful thinking or Federal largess guarantees they will be successful now.
There's a sweat spot with cars -- cost under $30,000, range 300 miles, refill the gas tank in 15 minutes -- that battery powered cars are a long way from matching. Electric cars were big in the 1920s and had a renaissance in the 1970s and again today. But they are no closer to the sweet spot and no amount of wishful thinking or Federal largess guarantees they will be successful now.
1
I ride on an electric bus from time to time, which comes to my neighborhood. AC Transit here in Oakland has a dozen such buses, which generate electricity from hydrogen using fuel cells. The exhaust is water vapor. I think they get about 300 miles per fill-up, which takes about as long as filling a diesel bus. There are batteries for hybrid efficiency, but it takes a lot fewer than it would to operate the entire bus, and they only need to be topped off by the fuel cell, rather than plugged in for a long time to charge enough to operate continuously. The trade-off is that fuel cells take quite a while to start up, but since there is no pollution, they can run continuously. (I have wondered whether one might want to plug them in to feed electricity back to the grid when they are not running.)
I have not been able get a good idea of the relative merits of batteries versus fuel cells. Critics tend to emphasize that obtaining hydrogen from methane reduction creates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, ignoring that methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas, and that burning methane to run a generator to provide electricity for charging batteries also reduces it to carbon dioxide. But I would like to see a comparison of the systems that would allow us to compare them accurately, including the availability of materials, material recovery (recycling), charging times, and other factors, short-term and long-term.
I have not been able get a good idea of the relative merits of batteries versus fuel cells. Critics tend to emphasize that obtaining hydrogen from methane reduction creates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, ignoring that methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas, and that burning methane to run a generator to provide electricity for charging batteries also reduces it to carbon dioxide. But I would like to see a comparison of the systems that would allow us to compare them accurately, including the availability of materials, material recovery (recycling), charging times, and other factors, short-term and long-term.
2
While it is true that better batteries will make for better electric cars, most people don’t appreciate just how good the currently available electric vehicles are. I have driven 27,000 miles on my Chevy Volt, 16,000 miles of those were all electric. I’ve been to the gas station only twice in the past 6 months. My daily commute, like those of most people, is easily within the car’s all electric range. Plus there is no range anxiety, as I haven’t hesitated to drive long distances where the Volt’s performance on gasoline is like any other high-mileage hybrid. Technological issues such as better batteries is not the only, or even the main, obstacle impeding wide spread adoption of electric vehicles. Rather, it has more to do with attitudes and a general resistance to change.
41
Mr. Nocera, the jab at President Obama was uncalled for. The billions of dollars in subsidies to big oil, pharma, agra and prison are much more a failure of government support than the loss of the investment in Solyndra.
When someone complains to me that government doesn't build anything I hand them a map and point out the interstate highway system. Government and industry have always partnered in the push to build and rebuild America.
From land grants to railroads through tax policies today WE the People have always worked hand in hand with business.
Until republicans decided that We the People didn't really matter and government was to be savaged so it could be sold to the highest bidder. Only business matters to the modern conservative.
When someone complains to me that government doesn't build anything I hand them a map and point out the interstate highway system. Government and industry have always partnered in the push to build and rebuild America.
From land grants to railroads through tax policies today WE the People have always worked hand in hand with business.
Until republicans decided that We the People didn't really matter and government was to be savaged so it could be sold to the highest bidder. Only business matters to the modern conservative.
8
We learn to live in balance with the paper thin environment we call Earth. We figure this out in a hurry or life as we know it falters.
- if you cannot power your home with 5000watts of solar panels you are using too much elec.
- if you cannot get where you need to go without a car then your community is designed wrong.
- consumption based capitalism as we now practice it is destroying the environment.
- the planet will do just fine, the environment that supports human life will not survive.
- if you cannot power your home with 5000watts of solar panels you are using too much elec.
- if you cannot get where you need to go without a car then your community is designed wrong.
- consumption based capitalism as we now practice it is destroying the environment.
- the planet will do just fine, the environment that supports human life will not survive.
3
If recharging batteries requires energy generated from coal or fracking; are we really any further ahead?
3
So the great job creators winnowed, trimmed, and started to shut the private & corporately funded laboratories that invented new technologies and engineered new designs all through the post-WWII decades. Instead of new products, new techniques, new engineering, the job creators turned to finance. Every car company became a loan company. GE brings new loans to life.
And the jobs went where?
The real story here is not about batteries
And the jobs went where?
The real story here is not about batteries
2
Nostalgic reference to Bell Labs should perhaps note that AT&T had agreements to make Bell Labs' work widely available in tacit exchange for continued monopoly on the telephone industry. When the monopoly ended and competition began, the company could no longer afford the labs.
3
I don't think the 200 mile battery range is a holy grail for electric auto sales. Cars like the Volt already have the battery capacity to cover an all-electric commute for most people and the piece of mind a gas engine for longer trips. So why aren't these new tech cars flying off the shelf? I think its about money. If the price of the vehicle is low enough and / or the price of gas is high enough people will buy the all electric or hybrid option. The number one selling passenger car in America right now is the Toyota Camry. It retails for $20K. Make and all electric or hybrid with the ride and comfort of a Camry that sells for $20K and you're done.
23
Dan,
That's a big part of the problem. The auto companies themselves would be 'done', because of what Gary points out-- the longevity and radically reduced maintenance costs of electric drivetrains-- as will dealerships and other profit centers.
Think about the rabid opposition to Tesla selling cars the way Apple sells computers. Think about how long the motors, with their two moving parts, will last, as battery tech improves, so you swap out at half the weight and double the miles.
We're talking about very serious "creative destruction" here. Automakers know how to profit from business as usual, but they are just as vulnerable as the buggy makers in this new paradigm.
That's a big part of the problem. The auto companies themselves would be 'done', because of what Gary points out-- the longevity and radically reduced maintenance costs of electric drivetrains-- as will dealerships and other profit centers.
Think about the rabid opposition to Tesla selling cars the way Apple sells computers. Think about how long the motors, with their two moving parts, will last, as battery tech improves, so you swap out at half the weight and double the miles.
We're talking about very serious "creative destruction" here. Automakers know how to profit from business as usual, but they are just as vulnerable as the buggy makers in this new paradigm.
5
The Camry Hybrid has been available for nine years. At one point it was second most popular hybrid in the USA.
1
It depends on what you mean by "flying off the shelf." Tesla is selling far more cars than it can currently produce, even with no advertising. They are beating out other cars in the same class in terms of sales. In some countries they are the top selling car.
People won't buy EVs if they are slow, ugly, and have a short range. They will buy them from a company that makes the fastest sedan in production, can easily charge at home nightly but has more range than the typical American drives in a week, and can be charged on long trips at superchargers in 20-30 minutes to get as much as 170 miles of extra range, and charging is free.
When they realize how much time they save by taking two seconds to plug it in each night instead of regular trips to the gas station, they will dread going to the gas station if they have other cars.
People won't buy EVs if they are slow, ugly, and have a short range. They will buy them from a company that makes the fastest sedan in production, can easily charge at home nightly but has more range than the typical American drives in a week, and can be charged on long trips at superchargers in 20-30 minutes to get as much as 170 miles of extra range, and charging is free.
When they realize how much time they save by taking two seconds to plug it in each night instead of regular trips to the gas station, they will dread going to the gas station if they have other cars.
1
Think hydrogen powered electric cars. Lots of work going on to reduce the costs to extract and store the hydrogen. I visited a hydrogen extraction plant in Connecticut that removes hydrogen from purified water, stores it and pumps it into a small fleet of Toyota Highlanders. Range is about 380 miles per fill-up, which takes no longer than liquid gasoline; about 3 minutes.
1
Think natural gas, which is a vastly cheaper source of hydrogen than hydrolysis.
1
"With the closure or winnowing of many of corporate America’s industrial labs...industry now relies heavily on the federal government’s national labs for basic scientific research."
Yeah, why pay for research when you can have the public pay for it.
As for electric cars, one or two people riding around in individual metal boxes is not sustainable, no matter what the power source. Petroleum, manganese, cobalt etc are all finite and their extraction and use on the scale necessary to continue the folly of single-occupant vehicles, while capable of generating huge profits, is causing a serious disruption in our climate and geopolitical stability.
There are a billion Chinese that would love one of those 300-mile electric cars. Of course they would be essentially coal-fueled cars, but hey - it's commerce.
And therein lies our problem: energy and transportation policy is being made by people seeking profit from these unsustainable, environment-destroying devices. Public transportation doesn't generate the profits - actually, it cuts into the profits of the unsustainable modes of transport - but it is the only sensible solution.
Yeah, why pay for research when you can have the public pay for it.
As for electric cars, one or two people riding around in individual metal boxes is not sustainable, no matter what the power source. Petroleum, manganese, cobalt etc are all finite and their extraction and use on the scale necessary to continue the folly of single-occupant vehicles, while capable of generating huge profits, is causing a serious disruption in our climate and geopolitical stability.
There are a billion Chinese that would love one of those 300-mile electric cars. Of course they would be essentially coal-fueled cars, but hey - it's commerce.
And therein lies our problem: energy and transportation policy is being made by people seeking profit from these unsustainable, environment-destroying devices. Public transportation doesn't generate the profits - actually, it cuts into the profits of the unsustainable modes of transport - but it is the only sensible solution.
5
The Tesla Model S already gets 265 miles per charge.
Government funded research has a 30 to 100 percent return on investment. Many of our biggest companies and areas of applied science are the product of government research. Since the end of the space race in the 1960s spending on research has decline to roughly half of what was spend then. And cross the board budget cuts like the sequester reduced the scientific work force by 8% or roughly 31,000 people, targeted cuts would have avoided such gross errors.
The problem seems to be that we hate big government because we have no idea what it does. We can't solve the challenges of the future because we are too busy tearing up our government for the short term cash flow. We've exchanged big government with big business, while we are cultivating a distrust of science, we are the problem.
The problem seems to be that we hate big government because we have no idea what it does. We can't solve the challenges of the future because we are too busy tearing up our government for the short term cash flow. We've exchanged big government with big business, while we are cultivating a distrust of science, we are the problem.
7
Discussions about EV efficiency, including this one, usually overlook the upstream carbon emissions associated with electric generation. Out of pocket costs for fueling an EV are lower owing to the lower cost per BTU of electric vs petrol.However, in the US, where 80% of electric comes from coal and gas, the carbon footprint of an EV is no lower than that of an efficient gasoline or diesel powered vehicle:
http://tinyurl.com/o7mr877
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evghg.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/ccznnju
http://tinyurl.com/o7mr877
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evghg.shtml
http://tinyurl.com/ccznnju
3
Great comment. Alas, you buried the lede:
"However, in the US, where 80% of electric comes from coal and gas, the carbon footprint of an EV is no lower than that of an efficient gasoline or diesel powered vehicle..."
"However, in the US, where 80% of electric comes from coal and gas, the carbon footprint of an EV is no lower than that of an efficient gasoline or diesel powered vehicle..."
As with so many things we now take for granted, the federal government has always taken a role in innovation. Sometimes more visible, sometimes less so. One long-forgotten example is the giving to railroad companies rights-of-way to encourage westward expansion.
Perhaps the most forgotten example is that of Great Britain and its encouragement of methods to determine longitude. Today's GPS is simply the logical extension of the final solution to the problem: keeping and measuring time accurately.
There's no doubt that the battery problem will be overcome. The question is, for this society, will we overcome our standard of instant gratification, and wait for the solution? Or will we, after a series of non-successes, say, well, government can't do anything? Edison tried over a thousand filaments before hitting on the one that worked; and he used government subsidies to start the electrification of the nation. Yes, he did - those early dams weren't built by local small businessmen.
Perhaps the most forgotten example is that of Great Britain and its encouragement of methods to determine longitude. Today's GPS is simply the logical extension of the final solution to the problem: keeping and measuring time accurately.
There's no doubt that the battery problem will be overcome. The question is, for this society, will we overcome our standard of instant gratification, and wait for the solution? Or will we, after a series of non-successes, say, well, government can't do anything? Edison tried over a thousand filaments before hitting on the one that worked; and he used government subsidies to start the electrification of the nation. Yes, he did - those early dams weren't built by local small businessmen.
7
I am all for energy innovation, and battery research is an important part of the mix. But why are you rummaging around in the battery basement for a climate solution when Toyota just came out with the Marai, a beautiful hydrogen-fusion sedan? Of course, the fueling stations are not there. The Japanese government is taking the lead in building the fueling stations as fast as possible, in order to get that country off dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, as much as possible. We just have to have the political will to do it. Why wait for a better battery for cars, when we do not have the solar capacity to recharge them? The answer is hydrogen fusion, but then, good luck, we have the Koch brothers and a broken political system. Take to the streets!
2
I am all for energy innovation, and battery research is an important part of the mix. But why are you rummaging around in the battery basement for a climate solution when Toyota just came out with the Marai, a beautiful hydrogen-fusion sedan? Of course, the fueling stations are not there. The Japanese government is taking the lead in building the fueling stations as fast as possible, in order to get that country off dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, as much as possible. We just have to have the political will to do it. Why wait for a better battery for cars, when we do not have the solar capacity to recharge them? The answer is hydrogen fusion, but then, good luck, we have the Koch brothers and a broken political system. Take to the streets!
When Dwight D. Eisenhower was a young man in Abilene, Kansas, he could often be seen driving an electric car around town. It was a 1914 Rauch and Lang owned by his mother-in-law. Eisenhower drove that same car in 1952 during his presidential campaign.
http://cosmolearning.org/images/us-president-dwight-d-eisenhower-in-a-19...
This car, which is now in the Eisenhower Presidential Museum in Abilene had an 80-volt electric motor which could take four passengers up to 100 miles at 13 mph--99 years ago!
https://paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/100-year-old-electric-cars/
The brief electric car renaissance at end of the last century in California was literally crushed to death by automakers once they were able to muster enough votes to overturn the 1990 California Air Resources Board's Zero-emissions vehicle mandate which required the seven major U.S. automakers to sell electric vehicles in California. "Who Killed the Electric Car"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F) the excellent documentary on this effort, reveals the auto industry's successful efforts to suppress new NiMH battery technology developed by inventor Stan Ovshinsky despite field tests that indicated Ovshinsky's battery had a range of over 150 miles. It's taken a hundred years but we're almost there.
http://cosmolearning.org/images/us-president-dwight-d-eisenhower-in-a-19...
This car, which is now in the Eisenhower Presidential Museum in Abilene had an 80-volt electric motor which could take four passengers up to 100 miles at 13 mph--99 years ago!
https://paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/100-year-old-electric-cars/
The brief electric car renaissance at end of the last century in California was literally crushed to death by automakers once they were able to muster enough votes to overturn the 1990 California Air Resources Board's Zero-emissions vehicle mandate which required the seven major U.S. automakers to sell electric vehicles in California. "Who Killed the Electric Car"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F) the excellent documentary on this effort, reveals the auto industry's successful efforts to suppress new NiMH battery technology developed by inventor Stan Ovshinsky despite field tests that indicated Ovshinsky's battery had a range of over 150 miles. It's taken a hundred years but we're almost there.
6
There's a lot more to this. Work is going on everywhere in the world. See for example http://web.stanford.edu/group/cui_group/news.htm Nothing succeeds instantly, it takes time for all the pieces to come together. A bigger problem is that it still takes a source of electricity to charge the batteries, and that's an area that seems to be ignored in the some of the conversations. Amazing advances have happened in the past few decades. Look for more than one anecdotal example.
While people bash the electric car for still being "on the grid" due to charging off of electricity generated from fossil fuels, they overlook all of the other benefits. The electric car has fewer mechanical parts in the drive train. Maintenance and longevity will be notably higher than with traditional combustion powered vehicles. Also... the idea is to not remain on fossil fuels for our power grid. While a few accidents and preventable mistakes have happened with nuclear power (e.g. Fukushima's diesel generators should have been mounted up on the hill behind the plant -- it would have survived the tsunami waters and the plant never would have had a meltdown), it really is the answer. Molten salt bromine nuclear reactors have real promise, which were dismissed in the 1970's over fission due to the technological limitations back then. The molten salt approach is much safer.
Anyway, as soon as the grid is off of fossil fuels, then so too will be electric vehicles. It will be a stepwise advancement. But yes, the battery technology must be improved and it will, in time.
Anyway, as soon as the grid is off of fossil fuels, then so too will be electric vehicles. It will be a stepwise advancement. But yes, the battery technology must be improved and it will, in time.
5
Not to mention the grid gets cleaner every year, and many people who own an electric car also have solar panels - at least in California.
1
It is in the public interest to conduct basic research. Hence it qualifies as a 'public good' and worthy of government support. Given the strategic importance of energy, the role of government can be extended to the 'proof of concept' stage. Where many US Presidents go wrong is to attempt to supplant the role of private industry. From Pres. Carter to Obama there is a history of failed programs.
Despite Government indifference to the value of superconducting maglev technologies for advanced surface transport and grid-scale energy storage, and against the odds of an energy storage culture fixated on batteries or pumped hydro, America scientists have continued to make great strides in cost-effective superconducting maglev solutions. The latest of which is encapsulated in a short animation at http://youtu.be/Db4_PUbXMqM. One solution is hidden in plain sight.
This issue of the electric car can be extremely deceiving. Electric cars get their power from the electric grid. Most of the power on the electric grid is provided by burning fossil fuel and when all the efficiencies are taken in consideration, there is no advantage in electric cars. Only when power plants will be using a lot more than the present 15% of renewable energy there will be an advantage in using electric cars.
2
This is an important point. But please note that internal combustion engines are highly inefficient in comparison to big electric power plants.
2
The math on this question isn't unsolvable. We already know that by using the grid, the Tesla Model S uses about as much greenhouse gases as a conventional car that gets about 100 MPG. Many people who own electric cars also have solar panels, thus offsetting this completely.
Another concern follows from the fact that batteries, by definition, only store energy, they can' t create it. Energy has to be taken from the sun, wind, water, nuclear, or currently, fossil fuels. The oil glut slows research and investment.
Progress has been made and will continue to be made developing better batteries. The Tesla is just a hint of what can be done here. Saying we need better batteries diverts attention from a bigger question: how are we going to generate the increased demand for electricity that is needed to support a meaningful deployment of electric cars?
No way solar and wind can cover it, no matter how much we wish it would. The country doesn't seem to have the stomach or sense to look at nuclear. Burning fossil fuel to power electric cars really gains us little or nothing compared to sticking with traditional internal combustion engines.
No way solar and wind can cover it, no matter how much we wish it would. The country doesn't seem to have the stomach or sense to look at nuclear. Burning fossil fuel to power electric cars really gains us little or nothing compared to sticking with traditional internal combustion engines.
1
You'd do well to pay some attention, W. Solar is already cost-competitive to fossil fuels in 40 states and the price continues to fall. In most states, it is now more economical to install solar than it is to build another coal power plant.
Whenever there's a "hard problem" we should ask ourselves whether we're asking the right question. The quest for an ecologically-sane free-range self-powered personal vehicle that can also take a family of 4 on a vacation strikes me as akin to developing lighter-weight chainsaws for cutting butter. My vehicle (a bicycle) weighs less than I do, and I suspect we could invent a shared transportation system that meets the same standard if we only thought in that direction.
2
We have been here before. In my youth, which is to say before Nixon was president, the great shining hope for humanity was fusion power. The sage of the sixties, Robert Heinlein made it a recurring feature of his speculative fiction. Popular science magazines carried articles and splashed covers announcing that it was just around the corner.
We view it today as further away then it has ever been. For what we have discovered over the last half century is all the problems and virtually none of the solutions.
Of course we have created a truly magical future from the detritus of the fusion revolution. From laser technology to rail guns and all the physics in between.
There are physical limits to how much power you can imbue in a reversible chemical process. To expect to solve the two main problems with small, portable batteries in any reasonable amount of time is laughable. It is not only necessary to be able to recharge to a level in the 200~300 KWh thousands of times without damage but to fully recharge in just a few minutes or be able and willing to completely change the battery package in the same short period of time. All in a package that weighs less than a tenth the weight of the car being driven.
Such a battery should become available about a decade after it will be possible to recharge the battery from a working fusion power plant.
But the effort will pay for itself with all the serendipity. So not a total loss.
We view it today as further away then it has ever been. For what we have discovered over the last half century is all the problems and virtually none of the solutions.
Of course we have created a truly magical future from the detritus of the fusion revolution. From laser technology to rail guns and all the physics in between.
There are physical limits to how much power you can imbue in a reversible chemical process. To expect to solve the two main problems with small, portable batteries in any reasonable amount of time is laughable. It is not only necessary to be able to recharge to a level in the 200~300 KWh thousands of times without damage but to fully recharge in just a few minutes or be able and willing to completely change the battery package in the same short period of time. All in a package that weighs less than a tenth the weight of the car being driven.
Such a battery should become available about a decade after it will be possible to recharge the battery from a working fusion power plant.
But the effort will pay for itself with all the serendipity. So not a total loss.
2
In this discussion of electric cars and their advantages, no mention is made of the necessary electricity generation and associated infrastructure. Nor have I been able to determine the efficiency of charging a battery. In cold weather I'm sure the range of electric cars will be significantly reduced because of the electric load for the heaters, blowers and wipers.
1
Envision renewable energy sources, wind, sun and water, being stored in battery packs in our homes to power our appliances, heating and cooling and our cars.
Now, let's make it happen.
Now, let's make it happen.
Must reading: google Harvard organic battery.
This is a flow battery. The charge depends only on the size of
the electrolyte tanks. One of the tanks contains a quinone dye, made from inexpensive chemicals. It changes color as it passes though a carbon electrode, giving up its charge. The other tank is for spent electrolyte. It can be charged to fill the first tank. No expensive catalysts are required.
The size of the tanks might make this unfeasible for small vehicles such as automobiles, but who knows what the future may hold?
What happens if you try to fill a tank with dye from a refueling station? That
should pique your curiosity. Will a lightning bolt jump through your body as you attempt to fill up your tank?
This is a flow battery. The charge depends only on the size of
the electrolyte tanks. One of the tanks contains a quinone dye, made from inexpensive chemicals. It changes color as it passes though a carbon electrode, giving up its charge. The other tank is for spent electrolyte. It can be charged to fill the first tank. No expensive catalysts are required.
The size of the tanks might make this unfeasible for small vehicles such as automobiles, but who knows what the future may hold?
What happens if you try to fill a tank with dye from a refueling station? That
should pique your curiosity. Will a lightning bolt jump through your body as you attempt to fill up your tank?
1
Applicable science does not happen just because we want it to be so. When I was a kid, in the 1960's, we were told that a Fusion Reactor was just around the corner. We spent Billions and decades and it never happened.
The battery holy grain is the same as the fusion reactor holy grail.
Everyone who has bought in to the electric car (EC) myth keeps telling everyone that the "average trip" is some short distance and so the EC with current batteries will sell. I told everyone that was hogwash. People buy cars not for their daily use, but the exceptional use like pulling a boat once a month or going to grandmother house twice a year 2 states away. Then they use it for basic transportation the rest of the time.
In the 1930's there was a Presidential Committee that hammered out a design for a street car that could be made in mass and that a lot of cities could use. It was called the PCC. Some 75 year later some of them are still in daily service as a testament to such an approach.
When the economic melt down happened a few years ago I sent a real letter to the "Big Three" telling them to create a common standard batter pack for all electric cars. To then ID the main long distance travel sites around the country areas and to build "car washes" that would swap out the batteries in the time it took to wash the car.
Figure out how to make it work with what we have wail waiting for the scientists to come up with the battery Holy Grail.
The battery holy grain is the same as the fusion reactor holy grail.
Everyone who has bought in to the electric car (EC) myth keeps telling everyone that the "average trip" is some short distance and so the EC with current batteries will sell. I told everyone that was hogwash. People buy cars not for their daily use, but the exceptional use like pulling a boat once a month or going to grandmother house twice a year 2 states away. Then they use it for basic transportation the rest of the time.
In the 1930's there was a Presidential Committee that hammered out a design for a street car that could be made in mass and that a lot of cities could use. It was called the PCC. Some 75 year later some of them are still in daily service as a testament to such an approach.
When the economic melt down happened a few years ago I sent a real letter to the "Big Three" telling them to create a common standard batter pack for all electric cars. To then ID the main long distance travel sites around the country areas and to build "car washes" that would swap out the batteries in the time it took to wash the car.
Figure out how to make it work with what we have wail waiting for the scientists to come up with the battery Holy Grail.
2
My 11 year old Prius is going strong, if not a little ragged around the edges. Almost 0 maintenance (tune-up, what tune-up?) and still 50+ mpg on the highway. My 90-year old die-hard republican father bought a brand new Volt - he claims he hasn't spend a nickel on gas in ~ 2 years. Mt 62-year old die-hard republican brother is buying a Tesla as we speak. The revolution is here and it's not going away. The giant SUV dinos will be sad when gas goes back to 4 bucks (5 would be better) and Russia's back in the driver's seat. Batteries will get better - yes there are environmental issues with them but here's the deal - they are local issues that are much easier to mitigate than the wide 'spreadedness' of fossil fuel emissions. I'd like someday to see an impartial accounting of those issues compared among the current and nascent transport technologies. There's no one solution - let's kill the use of fossil fuels for transport by a thousand cuts.
"Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black is an informative narrative about how big oil defeated the joint efforts of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison to make a battery that would sufficiently power automobiles in the early 1900's. Originally, the automobile was electric battery powered, but the batteries were not good enough to compete with gasoline. Ford wanted electric cars, and Edison was working on an improved battery when his battery factory in New Jersey mysteriously burned down.
Batteries are not only "a hard problem" but a global one. America clearly isn't ready to do research as any failure is looked at as a political gain for the other party. (ie. Solyndra a small story blown way out of proportion - seems even Steve is wrapped around the axle on this one.) Unfortunately this story reads as the end result of Nocera's coffee talk with one guy. Poorly researched and lacking sources. If one isn't fixated on American products they can find many products meeting the requirement of 200miles/charge.
The article states that in the absence of the great industrial research labs of the past like Bell Labs, the government labs are the only alternative. How about allowing companies to bring some of their overseas profits home tax-free, as long as they spend it on domestic US R&D? The large industrial labs of the past became untenable because their costs were so much higher than doing R&D overseas and of course, R&D is risky with no assurance of a return. Repatriating profits tax free to support US R&D would diminish (although not eliminate) the cost differential and make risky investments more attractive. In addition, US R&D would create lots of very attractive jobs here.
Still largely unexamined is the efficincy of fossil fuel use for socalled electric cars. The cars need to be charged and fossil fuel is almost always the sole source for their electricity. They do use fossil fuel. How much? How does this compare with gas-powered cars?
The perfect solution is using photovoltaic cells on your roof to keep the batteries in your car charged. No fossil fuels, no emissions.
When the battery problem is solved, rooftop solar energy can also be stored for use when the sun isn't out.
When the battery problem is solved, rooftop solar energy can also be stored for use when the sun isn't out.
The "charging problem" for electric vehicles leans a bit in their favor for two reasons. First, power generation bu fossil fuel plants is more efficient than that done in small internal combustion engines, probably by more than enough to compensate for transmission losses. Second, central generation of electric power will facilitate collection of pollutants, including carbon dioxide if we have the will. Central generation in nuclear plants, of course, replaces the atmospheric pollutants with radioactive nuclear ash that requires disposal, and vehicle batteries have a limited useful life and contain a good deal of toxic material that will need disposal or recycling Both nuclear and battery waste, however, are solids or liquids that are less voluminous and mostly easier to handle than the high volume gases produced by both fossil fuel generating plants and internal combustion engines.
The optimum choice, if we can get past political issues and unjustified fears, probably is extensive nuclear generation and standardized interchangeable vehicle batteries to allow refills to be done in about the same time it takes to refill a gasoline or diesel fuel tank.
The optimum choice, if we can get past political issues and unjustified fears, probably is extensive nuclear generation and standardized interchangeable vehicle batteries to allow refills to be done in about the same time it takes to refill a gasoline or diesel fuel tank.
For the Tesla Model S, the equivalent of 100 MPG. Twice as efficient as a Prius. And most owners are in states with above-average renewables (i.e. California), and many owners themselves have solar panels on their homes.
1
Solving the battery problem is like solving any other really hard science/engineering problem. It's not just about the funding, government or otherwise. The first thing you need is excellent scientists and engineers. With the way Western society has developed, we aren't turning out so many of them anymore. Never mind the numbers in STEM, there is all kinds of analysis on whether it is a problem or not. It's about the quality not just quantity. Our best and brightest want to be lawyers and finance people where rewards are perceived to be highest. The rest want to be celebrities and athletes. I tried to raise kids that could solve problems like this but so far, it doesn't look like I will succeeded. The influence of the masses (and my wife) are too great to overcome. Figure this out and we may have a chance. That or we let more of the best from overseas immigrate.
1
Great column. Electric transport is inevitable because of global warming & we are depleting hydrocarbons. No one really knows when the Earth's warming will trigger irreversable, runaway release of greenhouse gases from frozen deposits in the
Permaffrost and in the ocean floor but it is likely unless there is an urgent Worldwide shift away from fossil fuels for energy.
A second factor is the Earth will deplete its fossil fuels. We calculate that if he World average per capita reaches 1/2 the US value with a World population of 9 Billion, oil will be depleted in 17 years, naural gas in 17 years and coal in 60 years. So, there is urgency in bringing electric tranport into service. My collegues, Dsr. James Powell and Gordon Danby invented superconducting transport in 1966 and it was developed by Japan and holds the World speed record off 361 mph. It is a beautiful passenger train but we believe very strongly that the real revenue market is carrying highway freight trucks as well as passengers and have. proposed that the US test and certify a new 2nd generation Maglev transport for a modest government investment so that we can compete with the Maglev offerings of Japan, Germany, and Korea. Once tested and competed we have confidence that investors will finance the construction of Maglev networks in the US and the World. The economics are sound. A US Maglev Network will save Americans, annually, about $1,000 per capita in travel and goods purchased. www.magneticglide.com
Permaffrost and in the ocean floor but it is likely unless there is an urgent Worldwide shift away from fossil fuels for energy.
A second factor is the Earth will deplete its fossil fuels. We calculate that if he World average per capita reaches 1/2 the US value with a World population of 9 Billion, oil will be depleted in 17 years, naural gas in 17 years and coal in 60 years. So, there is urgency in bringing electric tranport into service. My collegues, Dsr. James Powell and Gordon Danby invented superconducting transport in 1966 and it was developed by Japan and holds the World speed record off 361 mph. It is a beautiful passenger train but we believe very strongly that the real revenue market is carrying highway freight trucks as well as passengers and have. proposed that the US test and certify a new 2nd generation Maglev transport for a modest government investment so that we can compete with the Maglev offerings of Japan, Germany, and Korea. Once tested and competed we have confidence that investors will finance the construction of Maglev networks in the US and the World. The economics are sound. A US Maglev Network will save Americans, annually, about $1,000 per capita in travel and goods purchased. www.magneticglide.com
2
The integrated circuit was the result of government-led industrial policy (in that case the need NASA had for electronics that could get us to the moon). In the same vein multi-engine jet aircraft grew out of the military's need for a fast long-distance bomber. In both cases, government inspired/led/financed efforts spawned American technical and economic leadership that continues to this day in the integrated circuit and commercial aircraft industries. Imagine the leadership and economic benefits that will be bestowed on the country that cracks that cracks the riddle of longer-lasting auto batteries!
3
The integrated circuit is a poor example to use in justification of government inspiration, leadership, and finance. NASA purchased devices based on technology that already had been developed and was being marketed by Fairchild, Texas Instruments, and others.
Tesla just announced they will install a 300 mile battery in their cars. A group of Japanese inventors has a organic battery modeled after our intracellular mitochondria enzymes and using plant starch as the fuel source to strip electrons, The French have a engine that runs on compressed air. Its happening and quickly. If we were to spend just 10% of our defense spending, or one month bombing ISIS expenses we would really get going in many fields. One bombing raid with a bunch of 1 million dollar missles plowing up the desert sands is not a good investment.
Our emphasis is on war and weapons and thats where our money goes.
Our emphasis is on war and weapons and thats where our money goes.
Richard, Tesla announced no such thing. They did announce a battery upgrade for the Roadster model which, along with multiple other minor mechanical changes to the car, and different tires, they claim will enable that model to make a 400 mile trip from SF to LA. They did not specify the range of the new Roadster battery. That said, the current TSLA Model S 85 kWH car can travel 300 miles on a full charge at 55-60mph on a flat road in good weather, and can do 250 miles at 65-70mph.
Consider how much computer technology has improved in the last 30 years -especially storage. I remember buying a 100mb hard disk to supplement my Mac in about 1986 - it was over $1000. Now the SUPERMARKET carries SDHC cards that will hold 8gb for about $14. But in the same time battery technology has hardly improved - the chances are you will get new cellphone because the battery no longer holds charge and battery powered cars are not really viable as long distance transport. Actually, we have made more technical progress with internal combustion engines. and there is the clue - it is the engine that is the problem - it the source of the fuel. If instead of digging it out of the ground we used solar/wind/hydro power to make hydrocarbons (eg octane) from CO2 and water we would have clean fuel used in a mature technology with less environmental impact than battery technology seems able to offer. We would be simply cycling from CO2 and Water to hydrocarbon and oxygen and back again. It may not thermodynamically very efficient but who cares? We have essentially unlimited energy of solar origin to drive the process.
2
"industry now relies heavily on the federal government’s national labs for basic scientific research"
Maybe industry should say something about this to the Slash-and-Burn Republicans in charge of the national budget.
Maybe industry should say something about this to the Slash-and-Burn Republicans in charge of the national budget.
1
You had to turn this into a dig on "Obama's" push for alternative solutions and Solyndra. Yes, in the vastness of the government's programs, you've been able to find 2 companies in this program that didn't work out - and Solyndra was more a victim of falling panel prices and pressure from Chinese competitors (at least their government really gets behind them). If you're not failing, you're not trying - and the reality is, dear commentator, we desperately have to try whatever we can to get us out of the horror our children and all those to follow will face.
1
Someone help me out here. As I was reading the first few paragraphs I thought Joe Nocera was speaking in the past-tense when he said, "a battery designed for electric cars and capable of powering them for 200 miles or even 300 miles per charge," but such a battery does exist; Tesla has such a battery today. As I read on I realize he must have written this before Tesla was released, or he really just wanted to write about national labs? What did I miss?
1
A car burning a gallon of gas an hour is roughly 35 kilowatt. 35000 watts is equivalent to a 288volt Prius battery discharging at 122amps over one hour. There's a tendency in discussion of electric vehicles (Tesla et al) to ignore the incredible energy density of petrol.
1
Yes it is well known that gasoline has a higher energy density than the best commercially available batteries for cars. There is also a tendency to avoid discussing how much energy an internal combustion engine car wastes; they are typically only about 25% efficient whereas a well designed electric car is 90% efficient. Also, batteries are improving at about 7% a year on average over time while also becoming cheaper. Gasoline is not improving at all.
1
We already have batteries that can power cars for 200 miles. Tesla uses them. The problem is the cost and size. The Chevy volt has a 40 mile battery range because of the size of its battery. That was a design decision, not a battery limitation. Nocera is incorrect in asserting that the Volt's range is limited by battery type. The Volt doesn't even require greater range because it is a hybrid. He is making an apples to oranges comparison.
Nocera confuses basic research and development with product commercialization. Government can and should fund basic R&D, which mostly occurs at our universities, the Department of Defense, and the NIH. Commercialization, or the practical application, of new technology invented by basic research is best done by private industry. A researcher develops a new chip process, the chip houses develop new chips with it, and manufactures make new computers and products with the new chips.
In the case of batteries, there is a phenomenal amount of private development activity ongoing throughout the world. Improvements are being made one step at a time as battery technology constantly improves. There probably won't be a completely new chemical formulation, but steady improvements. It has always been this way. This process cannot be pushed. Give it five more years. We are getting close.
This editorial is not up to NYT standards. Citing one book as defining battery development cursory at best.
Nocera confuses basic research and development with product commercialization. Government can and should fund basic R&D, which mostly occurs at our universities, the Department of Defense, and the NIH. Commercialization, or the practical application, of new technology invented by basic research is best done by private industry. A researcher develops a new chip process, the chip houses develop new chips with it, and manufactures make new computers and products with the new chips.
In the case of batteries, there is a phenomenal amount of private development activity ongoing throughout the world. Improvements are being made one step at a time as battery technology constantly improves. There probably won't be a completely new chemical formulation, but steady improvements. It has always been this way. This process cannot be pushed. Give it five more years. We are getting close.
This editorial is not up to NYT standards. Citing one book as defining battery development cursory at best.
9
That battery was invented long, long, ago. It's called the Fuel Cell. A decade ago GWBush gave it his kiss of death ("Freedom CAR") and development promptly stopped. Time to get started again.
1
The fuel cell is not an energy storage medium like a battery. A fuel cell vehicle uses hydrogen (which is also not an energy storage medium and is costly to produce from natural gas) to produce electricity via the fuel cell which is then used to charge a battery which is then used to run an electric motor. Very inefficient compared to an electric car which can charge its battery from multiple fuel sources (solar, wind, natural gas, coal, etc.) and then run its electric motor. Fuel cells are a poor choice to power a car, but they seemed compelling back in the nineties when battery energy densities were much worse than they are today (and batteries continue to improve and get cheaper, just like consumer electronics). Better to just use the natural gas to run an internal combustion engine than use a fuel cell. Fuel cell vehicles are already losing out to electric cars in terms of cost and convenience. Hydrogen fueling stations cost millions to build (while a 240V power socket in your garage costs a few hundred dollars) and can only fuel one or two cars per hour at a cost more than gasoline right now. Nothing about fuel cell cars makes sense except the fact that the big oil and gas companies can still keep consumers hooked on fossil fuels by selling them hydrogen made from natural gas while telling them their fuel cell car is "green" and all that come out of the tailpipe is water, ignoring where their hydrogen fuel actually comes from.
If it made any sense, somebody would. Any idea of the cost to keep hydrogen contained ?
A fuel cell is not a battery.
Most basic research fails. It's just a fact of life. If success were probable then private companies would do it and you wouldn't need government funded research. NMC seems to have run into some unanticipated physical limitations. But some think there is a work around and haven't given up. Time will tell.
I'll still get the book though. The Envia story should be worth a read.
And battery electric cars will eventually win out. An electric drive is vastly superior to anything you can get with a combustion engine short of a massive V8 or V12. Super smooth. Super quiet. Super responsive. Super cheap to run. Plus you don't have to go to a gas station, which is an abomination of a shopping experience -- unless you like going to Walmart on Black Friday every week. Progress is also being made. GM has just announced a 200 mile BEV for $30K, which is a good substitute for most, and solid state batteries, which replace the liquid electrolyte with solids, should double that range for a lower price.
I'll still get the book though. The Envia story should be worth a read.
And battery electric cars will eventually win out. An electric drive is vastly superior to anything you can get with a combustion engine short of a massive V8 or V12. Super smooth. Super quiet. Super responsive. Super cheap to run. Plus you don't have to go to a gas station, which is an abomination of a shopping experience -- unless you like going to Walmart on Black Friday every week. Progress is also being made. GM has just announced a 200 mile BEV for $30K, which is a good substitute for most, and solid state batteries, which replace the liquid electrolyte with solids, should double that range for a lower price.
48
You had to turn this into a dig on "Obama's" push for alternative solutions and Solyndra. Yes, in the vastness of the government's programs, you've been able to find 2 companies in this program that didn't work out - and Solyndra was more a victim of falling panel prices and pressure from Chinese competitors (at least their government really gets behind them). If you're not failing, you're not trying - and the reality is, dear commentator, we desperately have to try whatever we can to get us out of the horror our children and all those to follow will face.
121
Indeed. And both programs that funded the failures were financially successful (higher returns that expenditures). Research has a high failure rate; one is far more likely to fail than to succeed, but the successes are extremely valuable. Similarly, implementation of research into real-world application (starting up companies) sees a lot of failures, but the successes usually return more than was invested in the failures. Without taking the risk, we get nowhere; and for strategic initiatives, society (read government) has to take the risk.
6
Better batteries will not solve many issues related to energy security as batteries are not a source of power—they still have to be charged. Since the majority of electricity is generated using fossil fuels, battery powered vehicles just shift the fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions to power plants and don’t save energy. Using wind and solar power to charge the batteries would be beneficial; however, windmills and solar cells still require mining, maintenance and manufacturing processes relying on fossil fuels. In addition, wind and solar power have very low energy densities requiring large installation and infrastructure changes to the gird. Nuclear power would eliminate most of the CO2 emissions issue and require less grid updates, but would still entail installing a large number of plants…a whole extra set of controversial issues.
There is a map of the USA divided into utility regions and it conveys where the best and worst places are to own an electric car, based on that region's electrical mix. I'm in the worst region of the country bit it's still slightly better for the environment for me to drive an electric car (which I don't) than a gas car.
In 1975, I attended a conference on nuclear power at Argonne National Laboratory. There were a number of very interesting and hopeful presentations on advances in nuclear fusion; each speaker predicted that within 20 to 30 years fusion would become viable and that we would have a nearly inexhaustible energy supply; then, in the mid-1980's we heard that cold-fusion would solve all our energy problems. It's 2015, and I'm still waiting for fusion. I hope that, unlike fusion, the 200 mile battery eventually becomes a reality.
2
If battery powered cars are charged from our coal heavy generation grid I don't see how that amounts to clean transportation. The energy loss from the production and transport of electricity is staggering. Add in the mining, production and disposal of batteries... I'd say the environmental consequences are about equal. Mass transit is what we need, not more individual vehicles.
5
Much of the U.S. gets its electricity from sources other than coal, and the shift away from coal is accelerating. And here is something to think about: gasoline will always be a dirty polluting process to create it by pulling oil out of the ground, but electricity production will continue to get cleaner as the shift to renewables accelerates and solar panel efficiency rises. An internal combustion engine car will always be just as polluting as the day it was built; an electric car can actually get cleaner over time as the electricity it uses shifts to cleaner production methods.
1
A car using electricity produced by coal still gets 60-80 miles for the same carbon emission as burning a gallon of gas... so, no, it's not completely clean, but still cleaner than gas powered for the most part....
In 1975, I attended a conference on nuclear power at Argonne National Laboratory. There were a number of very interesting and hopeful presentations on advances in nuclear fusion; each speaker predicted that within 20 to 30 years fusion would become viable and that we would have a nearly inexhaustible energy supply; then, in the mid-1980's we heard that cold-fusion would solve all our energy problems. It's 2015, and I'm still waiting for fusion. I hope that, unlike fusion, the 200 mile battery eventually becomes a reality.
The 2015 Volt's electric range is now 50 miles, a 25% increase over the 2013 that I own. Our Volt is getting 150 mpg over 13k miles. We would be doing much better if there were more convenient charging stations, 200 miles is the commonly accepted range for EVs to take over the market, but they are very competitive right now. Pencil it out -- app. $15,000 for five years fuel for the average U.S. vehicle vs app. $1500 for the 80 or 90 mile range Leaf. Less if you produce energy from pvs. And, EVs have very low maintenance and projected long lives. Plus, EV prices are on a rapid downward trend that is unlikely to be broken for the near future. Think about the decrease in the price of computers over the years. Range anxiety is a transparent ruse from the people who give us climate change denial and 6000 lb SUVs that are used for commuting and carrying 20 lbs of groceries. The point is EVs are a great choice right now and the trend is clearly toward higher battery ranges and lower costs.
10
You've got to start thinking in terms of carbon and environmental consequence, not cost. Fuel (including electric which is produced by fuel) is ridiculously cheap because there is no environmental cost attached to it. That's "free" to the producers and users
1
Based on the article, the US is backing the development of batteries, which is a good thing. If the research is postive for a given battery a "for profit" company gets the results of the research. The "for profit" company then sends the work overseas, makes a large profit but is only taxable when the money is brought back to the US. And we wonder why the country is in trouble.
8
Two unrelated comments. First, funding basic research is a legitimate function of government, and we might have more of it if government didn't spend so much on consumption. But subsidizing private companies like Solyndra and Envia is not what government should be doing.
Second, I suspect that the perfect battery is like nuclear fusion as a power source - it will always be 10 years in the future.
Second, I suspect that the perfect battery is like nuclear fusion as a power source - it will always be 10 years in the future.
1
With apologies to the author- I think this article understates the challenges to developing a new battery industry in the US.
Some points to consider:
1) The two major gorillas in the current Lithium ion battery space are LG and Panasonic. Both of these firms have constructed multi billion dollar plants to manufacture batteries.
2) Existing US battery manufacturers such as Exide- which produces lead acid batteries- use very different technology and don't have the skill set to produce lithium ion batteries.
3) Much of the global chemical production has moved offshore from the US. We no longer have the infrastructure to supply battery manufacturers for the most part.
4) I suspect the real battery market is measured in the trillions globally.
5) VC's successes in the materials space are few and far between. Developing a new battery will require a far longer time horizon and much more capital than VCs are comfortable with.
6) Tesla's technology is something of a technological dead end. Smaller cells today have much better energy density than larger cells- so they used a lot of them to make a pack. Practical, affordable batteries are going to require higher energy density in a larger format.
7) National labs can do some good research- but they don't have a good track record at commercializing their technology.
8) Our current gov't has failed to respond to climate change appropriately- co the US is unlikely to be a major player in the upcoming battery industry.
Some points to consider:
1) The two major gorillas in the current Lithium ion battery space are LG and Panasonic. Both of these firms have constructed multi billion dollar plants to manufacture batteries.
2) Existing US battery manufacturers such as Exide- which produces lead acid batteries- use very different technology and don't have the skill set to produce lithium ion batteries.
3) Much of the global chemical production has moved offshore from the US. We no longer have the infrastructure to supply battery manufacturers for the most part.
4) I suspect the real battery market is measured in the trillions globally.
5) VC's successes in the materials space are few and far between. Developing a new battery will require a far longer time horizon and much more capital than VCs are comfortable with.
6) Tesla's technology is something of a technological dead end. Smaller cells today have much better energy density than larger cells- so they used a lot of them to make a pack. Practical, affordable batteries are going to require higher energy density in a larger format.
7) National labs can do some good research- but they don't have a good track record at commercializing their technology.
8) Our current gov't has failed to respond to climate change appropriately- co the US is unlikely to be a major player in the upcoming battery industry.
3
A lot of good points, but overly pessimistic. National labs do a lot of great research and don't have such a bad record spinning it off. This is a very hard problem, the type that is well suited for national labs. Few companies, even Korean ones, have the ability.
2
Tesla is driving down the cost of the batteries it uses by partnering with Panasonic to build a massive battery factory in Nevada, which is under construction right now, that will decrease costs by over 30%. Their technology is far from a "dead end".
A battery capable of 100 mile range is enough to transform society from the standpoint of energy usage.
More than 95% of car trips are less than 40 miles (and 80% are less than 10!).
Such batteries are already available, and there are a number of "low-cost" (relative to Teslas) EV's are available (Nissan Leaf, BMW i3, etc) with range around 100 miles. The leaf is ~$22,000 after tax breaks. (Presumably, the cost and thus the need for tax breaks will decrease with increased adoption.)
Most American families would be able to use such a car for almost all of their driving. "almost all" sounds like a problem, except that
1) most working families have more than one vehicle.
2) It is inexpensive to rent a car for an occasional long trip (and this saves from adding miles to the owned car)
The future is already here... we just need to embrace it.
More than 95% of car trips are less than 40 miles (and 80% are less than 10!).
Such batteries are already available, and there are a number of "low-cost" (relative to Teslas) EV's are available (Nissan Leaf, BMW i3, etc) with range around 100 miles. The leaf is ~$22,000 after tax breaks. (Presumably, the cost and thus the need for tax breaks will decrease with increased adoption.)
Most American families would be able to use such a car for almost all of their driving. "almost all" sounds like a problem, except that
1) most working families have more than one vehicle.
2) It is inexpensive to rent a car for an occasional long trip (and this saves from adding miles to the owned car)
The future is already here... we just need to embrace it.
54
Wes is right: I own a Volt, which varies from summer, about 48 miles/charge, to 30 miles/charge on coldest days of winter, so average of 39/charge. 39 times 365 days equals 14,235 miles. In my case, the house mounted rooftop solar provides the charge. My guess is this would provide most people with all they need, except for the occasional long trip. Since I sometimes run past my charge, I chose the Volt for its gasoline back-up over the Leaf, but Leaf (and others) even better for that 2-car family, or one car with a predictable commute. Waiting for the perfect battery makes the mountain of climate change harder to climb day by day. How bad will it be, and how soon will it be that bad? Starting now with what we have changes the answer to that question, not only by our own carbon savings, but also by showing the carmakers we want these cars, so they will continue to innovate.
2
"More than 95% of car trips are less than 40 miles (and 80% are less than 10!)."
And the distribution of those trips in terms of time? Is there enough recharge time after that 35 mile trip for two 10 mile trips back to back within 36 hours? How about 24 hours? 6 hours?
You are also baking in the second car. In terms of renting a car for the "occasional" long trip, you're not saving money adding miles to the rental car instead of yours.
The future according to your planning is here.
And the distribution of those trips in terms of time? Is there enough recharge time after that 35 mile trip for two 10 mile trips back to back within 36 hours? How about 24 hours? 6 hours?
You are also baking in the second car. In terms of renting a car for the "occasional" long trip, you're not saving money adding miles to the rental car instead of yours.
The future according to your planning is here.
4
The auto industry is deluding itself with this line -- that people don't generally drive more than 40 miles per day -- because aside from wealthy eccentrics, it is only people who must drive let's say, 100 miles a day (me!), who would be motivated to invest in a long-range electric car thus saving thousands of dollars a year. For the so-called typical driver, it's a bridge too far right now.
Anyone who still believes that if only we had a better engine/battery/etc. that this business of hauling 300 cubic feet of 2 tons of metal, glass & plastic per-person around is a "solution" to transportation is not numerate.
6
Was this column written 5 years ago? Sure seems like it.
6
If we subsidized the battery industry at the same level as the oil companies, who knows what advances we would have brought to market by now...
11
My 2011 Prius is a joy. Better battery, hydrogen power, sun power, wind, fusion. We need it all.
6
Had the team succeeded, would the US now be the flourishing center of battery production? Based on recent history, I doubt it. Both the large-format “Ovonic” NiMH battery and the Lithium-Iron-Phosphate (LiFePO4) battery were invented in the US. In the case of the Ovonic battery, Chevron bought the patent, did everything possible to discourage its use in fully electric cars, and instead sat on it until it faded into irrelevance and eventually expired. On the other hand large-format LiFePO4 manufacture is a thriving industry – in China.
3
“a loss of confidence in the U.S. in our ability to create a real economy” Never better stated. Now to the correlated problem of true representative government.
2
Electric transit, mobility without driving, a mode of transport which can carry people in ten times less space, that reduces pollution, oil usage and highway deaths?
We already have it!
It is electric Rail, LightRail and trolleys!
We do NOT need more cars of any sort which require a football field of asphalt for every 5 cars, which kill 30,000 people a year and injure hundreds of thousands, which according to the AAA cost on average $9300 a year for the privilege of harrowing driving in traffic,snow and congestion!
Grid controlled electric public transit is already here but vastly underutilized.
In New Jersey we have Rail lines which do not even run on weekends, and run only 5 peak hour trains in each direction. Auto Addiction consumes 70% of US Oil and directly generates 35% of US greenhouse emissions AND ends up costing Americans 2 1/2 times the costs of transportation in Europe.
If we want to save pollution, oil, greenhouse emissions, lives AND money then we should be running Green public transit. Brookings in 2011 found that ALREADY without any new Rail lines that 70% of Americans in the top 100 US metro areas already live 3/4 ths mile from a transit stop. BUT due to infrequent service, lack of local/express service, and lack of connection for the last mile only 30% could reach a job even during peak transit hours in
less than 90 minutes. The answer is obvious - run the trains and promote Green transit and add shuttles, bikeways and sidewalks for connections.
We already have it!
It is electric Rail, LightRail and trolleys!
We do NOT need more cars of any sort which require a football field of asphalt for every 5 cars, which kill 30,000 people a year and injure hundreds of thousands, which according to the AAA cost on average $9300 a year for the privilege of harrowing driving in traffic,snow and congestion!
Grid controlled electric public transit is already here but vastly underutilized.
In New Jersey we have Rail lines which do not even run on weekends, and run only 5 peak hour trains in each direction. Auto Addiction consumes 70% of US Oil and directly generates 35% of US greenhouse emissions AND ends up costing Americans 2 1/2 times the costs of transportation in Europe.
If we want to save pollution, oil, greenhouse emissions, lives AND money then we should be running Green public transit. Brookings in 2011 found that ALREADY without any new Rail lines that 70% of Americans in the top 100 US metro areas already live 3/4 ths mile from a transit stop. BUT due to infrequent service, lack of local/express service, and lack of connection for the last mile only 30% could reach a job even during peak transit hours in
less than 90 minutes. The answer is obvious - run the trains and promote Green transit and add shuttles, bikeways and sidewalks for connections.
11
Does anyone doubt that the future of power will not lie in solar or hydrogen or batteries--or something other than the fossil fuel powered cars that everyone admits foul the air with unhealthful contaminants? Providing funds to foster research into science to improve living conditions is one of the best uses of government money. Consider the billions spent decade after decade on pork barrel projects of no lasting value or, better yet, to subsidize annually the fossil fuel industry.
It is only knee-jerk politics and vested financial interests that rail against government funding to assist in basic research areas. We can only hope that the recent elections have not brought us to a tipping point where science is now on hold while a tiny fraction of the population prospers.
It is only knee-jerk politics and vested financial interests that rail against government funding to assist in basic research areas. We can only hope that the recent elections have not brought us to a tipping point where science is now on hold while a tiny fraction of the population prospers.
8
The cure is very easy to see. It is right in front of our faces. We're watching the limitations of the private markets in solving really complex problems.
While there are some rich entrepreneurs that temporarily afford to operate at a loss, most private companies feel internal and external pressures to market themselves, and marketing in this country has become almost exclusively the territory of creative deception.
We need a government program funded by taxes and carried out by government employees. The fruits become public domain. In order to do this right, the employees should not be pressured to deceive. Can anyone imagine a private company producing a safe nuclear weapon? While not impossible, it is highly unlikely that it could be done. The same goes for our energy future.
While there are some rich entrepreneurs that temporarily afford to operate at a loss, most private companies feel internal and external pressures to market themselves, and marketing in this country has become almost exclusively the territory of creative deception.
We need a government program funded by taxes and carried out by government employees. The fruits become public domain. In order to do this right, the employees should not be pressured to deceive. Can anyone imagine a private company producing a safe nuclear weapon? While not impossible, it is highly unlikely that it could be done. The same goes for our energy future.
9
There was a time when a number of major companies funded basic research, which led to applied research and many of the developments. That time has past. In the case of Bell Labs, it began with Judge Greene's decision which forced the breakup of AT&T, possibly the worst judicial decision every made.
3
Nobody broke up GE or IBM , but they shed much of their basic research capability as well. I don't think the AT&T break-up was necessarily the smoking gun which killed basic research at Bell Labs. Companies adopted a much shorter-term outlook.
What ever happened to the idea of making electric cars that get their energy from sources laid in the roads, much like the way buses and trolleys often work?
Such a system wouldn't have to be universal, but could be initiated on major thoroughfares, then gradually adding the system to secondary roads, etc.
The system would need to rely on the use hybrids in the beginning, but would eventually become so universal that all cars would need only electric motors, replacing gas guzzling internal engines altogether.
Induction charging is becoming more reliable so that exposed sources wouldn't be a problem either. If the future depends on eliminating internal combustion engines, it seems this is a more viable alternative. Most, if not all, of the technology already exists.
Such a system wouldn't have to be universal, but could be initiated on major thoroughfares, then gradually adding the system to secondary roads, etc.
The system would need to rely on the use hybrids in the beginning, but would eventually become so universal that all cars would need only electric motors, replacing gas guzzling internal engines altogether.
Induction charging is becoming more reliable so that exposed sources wouldn't be a problem either. If the future depends on eliminating internal combustion engines, it seems this is a more viable alternative. Most, if not all, of the technology already exists.
3
As Edison said of his search for the electric light, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” Those who object to energy research failures don't understand the nature of cutting-edge research: it is impossible to make great strides without taking risks. What is truly shameful is when something doesn't pan out, like corn from ethanol, and is then kept alive by bottom-feeding politicians in the employee of special interests.
7
Living in a sun drenched state led me early to solar. The biggest barrier to being off the grid completely is battery, storage of energy to be used when the sun doesn't shine. Solve the storage problem and sun and wind and tides are powerful but not totally reliable sources of "free" energy.
Without that the substitution of these alternatives will not solve our energy problems and pollution from carbon.
Without that the substitution of these alternatives will not solve our energy problems and pollution from carbon.
3
A typical solution before the answer.
When we had engineers and scientists working at NASA we put a man on the moon in approx. 10 years What happened and what about Hydrogenfueled cars, like http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/toyota-begin-selling-f..., as they have the engineers
When we had engineers and scientists working at NASA we put a man on the moon in approx. 10 years What happened and what about Hydrogenfueled cars, like http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/18/toyota-begin-selling-f..., as they have the engineers
1
We put a man on the moon in 1969 using technology that was developed in the 1930's and enhanced over three decades.
Would you like to live next to a tank full of hydrogen owned by a cash-constrained small businessman?
Would you like to live next to a tank full of hydrogen owned by a cash-constrained small businessman?
I hope that any group working on battery technology would have an expert thermodynamicist on staff. It is too easy to get carried away by seductive ideas that have no chance of working because the chemistry does not add up. It would be nice if something orders of magnitude better than the lithium battery existed, but I am skeptical.
3
I own a BMW i3, the electric-only version. I think people really need to take a look at their driving habits before reflexively buying a gasoline-powered car. In our case, the 80-mile range of the i3 will cover almost every trip we take. Those few that it will not can be covered by a rental car (or, in our case, our VW diesel wagon, or a loaner from BMW). Even if you are a one-car family, 80-mile range will do the job for many of you. The running-cost savings (though diminished by the reduced price of gasoline, which desperately needs to get fixed by increasing the gasoline tax, which hasn't happened in 25 years, so we can start to repair the crumbling infrastructure we keep hearing about, brought about by great minds like Ronald Reagan: "Government is always the problem, never the solution"; remarkable) will help pay for the occasional rental.
People who haven't experienced an electric car don't have a clue how great they are. No trips to the gas station, no oil changes, no tuneups, no anti-freeze. And they are so smooth and quiet. The BMW is quite peppy -- I've read that it will do 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, though I haven't tried it myself.
Think about it folks, before you buy some climate-damaging old technology that you don't need.
People who haven't experienced an electric car don't have a clue how great they are. No trips to the gas station, no oil changes, no tuneups, no anti-freeze. And they are so smooth and quiet. The BMW is quite peppy -- I've read that it will do 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, though I haven't tried it myself.
Think about it folks, before you buy some climate-damaging old technology that you don't need.
13
Electric cars will only become a mass market reality if we let the natural forces of technology and markets lead the way. Have we properly considered the environmental impact of battery disposal? Practical technology just doesn't exist yet. I live in a nice high income area where you see Teslas all over the place. The problem is they are third or fourth cars for folks who can afford to pay $100,000 for a third or fourth car. When electric cars can practically serve our transportation needs they might actually gain some traction. What I can guarantee is that any efforts by the government to steer us into electric cars will end in failure. Think about the ethanol fiasco.
2
Ethanol was polititical pork for large corporate farms. This is far different. The article plainly states that says that "industry now relies heavily on the federal government’s national labs for basic scientific research." Knee jerk right wing responces saying 'keep the goverentment out' are a waste of breath.
"Think about the ethanol fiasco."
One effect of higher ethanol levels in the gasoline:
Denver's air is a lot cleaner,
One effect of higher ethanol levels in the gasoline:
Denver's air is a lot cleaner,
> Have we properly considered the environmental impact of battery disposal?
At least as well as we've considered the environmental impact of extracting and burning petroleum fuels from the ground...
At least as well as we've considered the environmental impact of extracting and burning petroleum fuels from the ground...
It's possible to encourage specific areas of innovation without engaging in "industrial policy". Although privately funded, the X Prize is probably the best known example of funding the objective, not the research itself. How did the US choose Solyndra to invest in? And why are we now choosing a lab that has failed to make significant advances for several decades.
$1B would be a trivial investment in this social good -- if it worked. It's also enough money to persuade a lot of creative people to compete for it. Break the money up into several smaller hurdles, and let people and companies who want to work on the idea do so. If they need capital, let them compete for investors who would share in the prize. Venture capitalists and angel investors fund thousands of companies every year who are pursuing much smaller financial returns.
$1B would be a trivial investment in this social good -- if it worked. It's also enough money to persuade a lot of creative people to compete for it. Break the money up into several smaller hurdles, and let people and companies who want to work on the idea do so. If they need capital, let them compete for investors who would share in the prize. Venture capitalists and angel investors fund thousands of companies every year who are pursuing much smaller financial returns.
I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that the rapidly changing automobile business is full of overoptimistic entrepreneurs and some charlatans.
Look, there are going to be failures. If people aren't failing sometimes, they're not trying hard enough. When Romney was running for president, he slagged the DoE venture fund (who backed Solyndra and Tesla) for a roughly 15% failure rate in their portfolio companies. At the same time Bain Capital (Romney's) venture firm had a failure rate of about 27%. So what? It only takes a few successes to solve the problems.
The whole national-lab and giant-corporation-lab approach to innovation looks to the general public like it ought to produce steady, predictable, progress. It does, but the people in it need to have the freedom to fail if they're going to take enough risks to succeed.
We have the illusion that certain problems are so vast that only vast enterprises or governments can solve them. The people introducing the railroad, the telegraph, the telephone, and the automobile had that illusion too. There are other ways.
Mr. Nocera asked who will work on the battery problem. The answer is "lots of people."
Look, there are going to be failures. If people aren't failing sometimes, they're not trying hard enough. When Romney was running for president, he slagged the DoE venture fund (who backed Solyndra and Tesla) for a roughly 15% failure rate in their portfolio companies. At the same time Bain Capital (Romney's) venture firm had a failure rate of about 27%. So what? It only takes a few successes to solve the problems.
The whole national-lab and giant-corporation-lab approach to innovation looks to the general public like it ought to produce steady, predictable, progress. It does, but the people in it need to have the freedom to fail if they're going to take enough risks to succeed.
We have the illusion that certain problems are so vast that only vast enterprises or governments can solve them. The people introducing the railroad, the telegraph, the telephone, and the automobile had that illusion too. There are other ways.
Mr. Nocera asked who will work on the battery problem. The answer is "lots of people."
15
Well if there is so much money to be made the private sector will do the work. Now I support basic research by the government but if successful it must be produced only in the US. Now no battery is going to "save the world" that is as with most things that are in the popular media an overstatement.
1
Private industry will if it makes sense. "If the federal goverment were running the Sahara, in 10 years there would be a shortage of sand", Milton Freedman
Our country has used the federal labs to private sector manufacturing model to success for nearly 100 years. Communications technology from WWI was deemed essential and transitioned into communications pioneer The Radio Company of America (RCA), the digital revolution began when IBM was commissioned by the Army to build a machine which could analyze artillery trajectories. The Internet started at DARPA, and was transformed by the vision of Al Gore into what we have today. NIH has kept the US at the forefront of the biotech revolution.
We need to build upon this model in batteries and other technology and ignore the advice of clueless politicians who declare that all we need are fewer regulations on banks and polluters and lower taxes on rich people. Instead we need to invest in our public labs. The public to private model has worked for decades.
We need to build upon this model in batteries and other technology and ignore the advice of clueless politicians who declare that all we need are fewer regulations on banks and polluters and lower taxes on rich people. Instead we need to invest in our public labs. The public to private model has worked for decades.
17
I'm surprised there's no mention of all the forces in the US aligned against alternative energy: the sclerotic auto industry, that doesn't have the will or the wherewithal to retool; the petrochemical industry that stands to lose market share if/when one of these alternative fuels becomes viable; and the finance industry that is heavily invested in these vested interests, just to name a few
7
This is a red herring. The real fear in industry is to be blindsided by a new technology. Once a realistic technology is discovered the capital costs to bring it to market are enormous. There is no guarantee that even then there will not be very large fiscal falures (see the introduction of railroads and air travel). Only an outsider believes in conspirousy theories in this arena.
2
ds
Very cautious business practice is not a conspiracy; it's a norm.
i.e. Don't yield to a competitor when you're doing just fine with things as they are.
It's good policy for quite a few people. It's a lousy way to move a country - and a planet - forward.
Very cautious business practice is not a conspiracy; it's a norm.
i.e. Don't yield to a competitor when you're doing just fine with things as they are.
It's good policy for quite a few people. It's a lousy way to move a country - and a planet - forward.
Nice piece. I have two questions:
1) Ok, this is a quibble, but is it accurate to say we need to "invent" a new battery? Batteries were invented, what, 200 years ago, we're just improving them now. Yes? No?
2) Why does paying $40,000 plus for a big pickup, or a muscled sports car seem like a reasonable thing; and yet paying $30,000 plus for electric vehicles which, despite the "coal powered" fallacies, might help save the world, seem like an extravagance that no one in their right mind would undertake.
I am not a rich man. But I can afford to buy a new car every ten years or so. My current ride is a Prius, my next one will be a battery/electric whether or not batteries have improved significantly.
1) Ok, this is a quibble, but is it accurate to say we need to "invent" a new battery? Batteries were invented, what, 200 years ago, we're just improving them now. Yes? No?
2) Why does paying $40,000 plus for a big pickup, or a muscled sports car seem like a reasonable thing; and yet paying $30,000 plus for electric vehicles which, despite the "coal powered" fallacies, might help save the world, seem like an extravagance that no one in their right mind would undertake.
I am not a rich man. But I can afford to buy a new car every ten years or so. My current ride is a Prius, my next one will be a battery/electric whether or not batteries have improved significantly.
35
Good for you, but no battery is saving the world, and you Prius is not towing a boat or being a tool for businesses that need trucks. A real car powered by batteries is not 30k but more like 80K including charging. If you want solar charging the number goes up more. Today only for the rich.
Besides the battery research itself, we have to create an infrastructure that supports easy battery recharge and replacement. Best idea I have heard is to convert existing gasoline service stations into "recharge or replace centers", where a vehicle can enter the station, have a machine remove its low-charged battery, and replace it with a battery that was fully-charged at the same shop. If this can be done at low cost for all, with the service station making a suitable profit, and the battery can last 250 miles or more, we'll be in business.
3
Swaps only make sense for Taxis and perhaps urban delivery vehicles, not for those of us who go on vacation. In addition swaps would mean compatible batteries not happening any time soon.
1
What happened to hydrogen fuel cells? They were supposed to be an alternative to batteries. Of course the big excitement over them probably came about because many people thought they were a new source of energy. Anyway they seem to have faded completely from the media.
Nocera also does not mention the environmental problems with battery manufacture and disposal. The new electric cars are still relying on society to shoulder these costs. Another example of this is the disposal cost of fluorescent bulbs, which the manufacturer does not pay. It's past time that energy technology development should take account of these costs.
Nocera also does not mention the environmental problems with battery manufacture and disposal. The new electric cars are still relying on society to shoulder these costs. Another example of this is the disposal cost of fluorescent bulbs, which the manufacturer does not pay. It's past time that energy technology development should take account of these costs.
3
It is not just fuel cells but the hydrogen infrastructure (making the stuff, storing it, refueling systems etc). Hydrogen can be used in many different pwer generating devices, not just fuel cells. A hydrogen powered internal combustion engine has been around for decades.
1
Such fuel cells are being developed by Toyota. The issues are H2 leaks very easily, and of course were to you get it at all.
We love our Chevy Volt. Great mileage (first 40-50 miles using battery which is usually enough to get us where we're going, then 40+ mpg using gas) and it's a very comfortable car. And we have enough solar power to charge it (plus they power the house, hot water and some heat/ac). (Total for car & Solar = $44,000). When I see neighbors and friends spending $50,000 on a new SUV or car, I think we made the better investment.
18
Most of the year I leave for work in the dark and return in the dark. How will solar power fuel my car?
I see no way of spending 44k or 50k on a car. A Nissan versa goes for half the price of a leaf. 15K vs. 44K for your set up. A difference of 29K is nothing to you but to others?
Once again the hubris of the 5%.
I see no way of spending 44k or 50k on a car. A Nissan versa goes for half the price of a leaf. 15K vs. 44K for your set up. A difference of 29K is nothing to you but to others?
Once again the hubris of the 5%.
1
First of all the car cost $27,800. Very affordable for most Americans. Solar power (the entire system cost about $15,000) provides all the electricity for my home, car, hot water and heat & a/c (except in the dead of winter when there isn't much sun). If I lived in Texas, the panels would produce MUCH more than I use, and I could sell it back to the power company. It makes no difference that it's dark when you go to work. The car is plugged in while you sleep. You unplug it when you leave for work and plug it in at the office when you get there, so that you have a full battery for your drive home. Then you plug it in again. You don't need to buy solar panels....you can use electricity from the grid, but I chose to install solar. After the first 7 years, I'll have free electricity for the next 30 years. Got it??
1
We need a factor 10 improvement in battery and solar generation technology.
Our family investigated solar power for our house. With present technology, we would need to fill the entire roof of our house with solar panels. A 10x improvement would cover only 1/10th of the area. Battery technology goes hand-in-hand with solar generation, storing energy for use during the nighttime hours. Home heating/cooling -- which is very energy intensive -- is well beyond current battery technology.
A crash scientific program to produce a 10x improvement is exactly the kind of science that would excite our young people. A highly visible program with funding for (under)graduate research would stimulate more people to enter STEM and, when successful, would provide a huge permanent stimulus to the economy through lower energy cost.
Government needs to lead this vision in partnership with universities and industry.
Our family investigated solar power for our house. With present technology, we would need to fill the entire roof of our house with solar panels. A 10x improvement would cover only 1/10th of the area. Battery technology goes hand-in-hand with solar generation, storing energy for use during the nighttime hours. Home heating/cooling -- which is very energy intensive -- is well beyond current battery technology.
A crash scientific program to produce a 10x improvement is exactly the kind of science that would excite our young people. A highly visible program with funding for (under)graduate research would stimulate more people to enter STEM and, when successful, would provide a huge permanent stimulus to the economy through lower energy cost.
Government needs to lead this vision in partnership with universities and industry.
2
If it was so easy to do it already would be done. Getting past the laws of physics and chemistry is really not possible. Now if you had room temperature super conductors that would work, also very difficult to impossible.
If only we all had your "vision" the world would be a better place, 10x better.
Hi --
Never claimed it was easy which is why I'm proposing a "space program" approach to the problem. The space program, which was visible, exciting and well-funded, helped educate and train an entire generation of scientists, engineers and technicians. Many of those folks are retiring. We need new blood!
All the best -- pj
Never claimed it was easy which is why I'm proposing a "space program" approach to the problem. The space program, which was visible, exciting and well-funded, helped educate and train an entire generation of scientists, engineers and technicians. Many of those folks are retiring. We need new blood!
All the best -- pj
When I read the title of this piece "The Riddle of Powering Electric Cars", I thought of the reality that these cars will be powered (for the most part) from the electric grid. The largest primary source of this energy now is fossil fuels (mostly coal and natural gas). When mined (mountain-top removal, fracking, etc.) there are enormous environmental and public health costs. When burned to produce electrical energy there are more costs in terms of toxic air pollution (smog), global-warming carbon emissions, and toxic ash.
Admittedly, wind energy (now with a small contribution to the grid and growing fast) produced largely during times when electrical demand is otherwise low could go toward charging these vehicles.
The problem of batteries is not trivial and I'm no expert. However, a quick perusal of elements shows that lithium is the lightest and most energetic metal; it's already in most advanced batteries. Getting to higher energy densities (per unit of weight or volume) and maintaining safety, stability, and efficiency is at least difficult.
The fundamental transportation problem (which included congestion and traffic delays) cannot be solved by just electric cars or even better vehicles. It's the absurd inefficiency of transporting a solitary person in a one ton plus vehicle. Communities based upon walking, bicycling, and transit would be more more active, healthier, and less stressful.
Admittedly, wind energy (now with a small contribution to the grid and growing fast) produced largely during times when electrical demand is otherwise low could go toward charging these vehicles.
The problem of batteries is not trivial and I'm no expert. However, a quick perusal of elements shows that lithium is the lightest and most energetic metal; it's already in most advanced batteries. Getting to higher energy densities (per unit of weight or volume) and maintaining safety, stability, and efficiency is at least difficult.
The fundamental transportation problem (which included congestion and traffic delays) cannot be solved by just electric cars or even better vehicles. It's the absurd inefficiency of transporting a solitary person in a one ton plus vehicle. Communities based upon walking, bicycling, and transit would be more more active, healthier, and less stressful.
11
Lithium is also in limited supply.
And, like so many in these arguments, you look at one solution as the only one - if we go with electric cars, we also need to get away from fossil fuels as the power source. Of course, if the fossil fuel generators actually had to update their technology to capture the carbon (or all those other fun by-products of coal burning) it would be even cleaner. Unfortunately, they take their profits and hide in the loopholes of the EPA that allow them not to update their old plants.
And, like so many in these arguments, you look at one solution as the only one - if we go with electric cars, we also need to get away from fossil fuels as the power source. Of course, if the fossil fuel generators actually had to update their technology to capture the carbon (or all those other fun by-products of coal burning) it would be even cleaner. Unfortunately, they take their profits and hide in the loopholes of the EPA that allow them not to update their old plants.
1
Good points except the "enormous" costs are offset by the "immense" or "infinite" benefits.
This article should make clear that the Energy Department's loan guarantee program is actually turning a profit. It has been quite successful, despite the failure of Solyndra.
24
Exactly. How many investors pick winners every time? Enough about Solyndra as a whipping boy proxy for the president.
The problem with battery technology is a root the physics (or is it chemistry?) of the fundamental processes that it uses to generate electricity. The processes are such that it is very, very difficult to get the kind of energy density (energy per weight) that we have come to expect from fossil fuels. Maybe someone sometime will come up with an innovation that will improve things, but I wouldn't bet on it in the short run.
As a culture, we are used to research that improves technology by changing the way we harness energy. For example, the development of the jet engine to improve on the reciprocating engine for powering airplanes. The problem here is different. The development of a better battery is more akin to trying to get the power of an atom bomb using chemical processes like those of TNT. What is needed to improve batteries is a new process analogous to a nuclear reaction. Lots of research on TNT probably just wouldn't improve things much. Maybe batteries can ultimately be markedly improved, but I wouldn't bet on it at least in the short run.
As a culture, we are used to research that improves technology by changing the way we harness energy. For example, the development of the jet engine to improve on the reciprocating engine for powering airplanes. The problem here is different. The development of a better battery is more akin to trying to get the power of an atom bomb using chemical processes like those of TNT. What is needed to improve batteries is a new process analogous to a nuclear reaction. Lots of research on TNT probably just wouldn't improve things much. Maybe batteries can ultimately be markedly improved, but I wouldn't bet on it at least in the short run.
4
Battery technology is not the only problem. Cars currently weight over 3000 lbs, and SUV 6000 lbs all to carry the average 185lb person around. They could be 1500 lbs or less with the best of materials technology. Can we afford not to pay the costs.
1
Very interesting, thanks. Re: industrial policy, what no conservative will admit is that there is such a thing as an externality: costs and benefits of economic activity beyond its short-term financial return. But they are ubiquitous. As you note energy consumption fouls our atmosphere and strengthens our adversaries. This activity should be taxed to the hilt, and massive support given to new technologies that seek to reduce it. Anyone except the Koch Brothers and their minions can see that. The only "winner" being picked is the people of the world.
13
Electric cars pose two significant problems .
Firstly in the majority of cases the batteries are still charged by using carbon based fuel thereby minimizing the environmental gain.
Secondly what are we going to do with these at batteries at the end of their life?
Actually there is a third problem cost.
My preferred solution Solar power.
Mine will be installed next week ,only regret the panels are made in Asia
Let the sun shine at night
Firstly in the majority of cases the batteries are still charged by using carbon based fuel thereby minimizing the environmental gain.
Secondly what are we going to do with these at batteries at the end of their life?
Actually there is a third problem cost.
My preferred solution Solar power.
Mine will be installed next week ,only regret the panels are made in Asia
Let the sun shine at night
4
And your car is running on solar power? The trucks that bring things you need to your store run on solar? Everything that we need uses carbon based power and will for many years. Nothing will replace it for decades, if then.
With electric power and batteries (and fossil fuel burning power plants) the problem is still going to be one of scale: if 5 billion people are using electric cars it will be an environmental nightmare just as oil is. The research should go into nuclear fusion.
Such is being done and of course as with everything the laws of physics are not easy to foil. Now conventional nuclear power in the latest versions need to be produced. They are safe and reliable.
"Now conventional nuclear power in the latest versions need to be produced. They are safe and reliable."
No, they aren't safe and reliable machines.
No, they aren't safe and reliable machines.
1
The most important point raised is that we have outsourced not just manufacturing, but the development that goes with it, and the economic wealth that comes with it. Done by both parties at the behest of corporations, over decades, they have hollowed our our country, and the bill is coming due.
And nobody seems to understand what was done, why, and what it will do to us.
You can't trade dog grooming for an iPhone, take away money and that's our problem. We have to produce tangible things to trade. The containers can't go back empty. Not forever.
And nobody seems to understand what was done, why, and what it will do to us.
You can't trade dog grooming for an iPhone, take away money and that's our problem. We have to produce tangible things to trade. The containers can't go back empty. Not forever.
23
It is a better plan to do what can be done now while work is being done on better and better batteries for the different places where batteries can be used for motive power, short term storage and long term storage. The batteries for each of these needs will be different in character.
To be efficiently used wind and solar need long term storage and also batteries to deal with their inherent fluctuations. Motive power requires storage batteries for all electric use and batteries that can handle high rates of charging and discharging in hybrid and regenerative applications. Right now many of the latter are doable and will reduce carbon emissions in meaningful amounts. This is what needs to be done while we are working on finding the holly grail of batteries, and there will be more than one grail because the perfect battery for storage will not be the same as the best for intermittent use.
Norfolk Southern has a yard engine that can run on battery power in yarding operations that has batteries that can accept the huge charge loads that come from braking a monster like that. The batteries are self equalizing so that no expensive battery management system is necessary as is the case with lithium ion batteries. The batteries are also completely recyclable using existing technology.
The same batteries are used in frequency regulation for utility grids and in mileage improving hybrid applications for long distance trucks.
http://www.axionpower.com/PbC_Battery_Overview
To be efficiently used wind and solar need long term storage and also batteries to deal with their inherent fluctuations. Motive power requires storage batteries for all electric use and batteries that can handle high rates of charging and discharging in hybrid and regenerative applications. Right now many of the latter are doable and will reduce carbon emissions in meaningful amounts. This is what needs to be done while we are working on finding the holly grail of batteries, and there will be more than one grail because the perfect battery for storage will not be the same as the best for intermittent use.
Norfolk Southern has a yard engine that can run on battery power in yarding operations that has batteries that can accept the huge charge loads that come from braking a monster like that. The batteries are self equalizing so that no expensive battery management system is necessary as is the case with lithium ion batteries. The batteries are also completely recyclable using existing technology.
The same batteries are used in frequency regulation for utility grids and in mileage improving hybrid applications for long distance trucks.
http://www.axionpower.com/PbC_Battery_Overview
4
Battery technology means that chemistry, There goes Nobel prize. It isn't easy, Not at all.
Consider that until 1990's we didn't have a decent alkaline battery.
Cell phone's in 20 year , they started as a dummy hand set towards to smart phones.
Battery is another realm. steps are excruciatingly painful, at least a decade or so we are not going to see a leap forward, all developments are just inching.
Consider that until 1990's we didn't have a decent alkaline battery.
Cell phone's in 20 year , they started as a dummy hand set towards to smart phones.
Battery is another realm. steps are excruciatingly painful, at least a decade or so we are not going to see a leap forward, all developments are just inching.
2
I wonder sometimes if GM decided to kill the Volt by its crazy marketing approach. I'm sure people like Nocera are happy to take advantage of it at any rate.
The Volt is a plug-in hybrid, *not* an "electric car". The 40 mile electric range *choice* was based on research that said 80% of driving would be covered-- the most obvious example would involve charging overnight, driving to work, and charging at work for the ride home.
From what I've read, this actually works, because people buy the car based on their existing commute. (Duh.) And, they avoid using gas to the extent that the automated gas-engine-cycling system has to kick in. (Just like standby generators, the system was designed to test itself and clean out any gunk or stale gas on a regular basis.)
Another terminology point: Hydrogen fuel cell-cars *are* electric cars, they are not 'hydrogen cars'. (Were it not for the Prius and Tesla and so on demonstrating and refining the electric drive-train, fuel cells would not even be under consideration.)
The point is, you still require a substantial battery to achieve similar efficiency, because regenerative braking is the great advantage of EDT.
[Man, this is as hard as teaching Larry Lundgren the correct terminology for ground-source heat pumps. Hi Larry ;-), keep up the good work.]
The Volt is a plug-in hybrid, *not* an "electric car". The 40 mile electric range *choice* was based on research that said 80% of driving would be covered-- the most obvious example would involve charging overnight, driving to work, and charging at work for the ride home.
From what I've read, this actually works, because people buy the car based on their existing commute. (Duh.) And, they avoid using gas to the extent that the automated gas-engine-cycling system has to kick in. (Just like standby generators, the system was designed to test itself and clean out any gunk or stale gas on a regular basis.)
Another terminology point: Hydrogen fuel cell-cars *are* electric cars, they are not 'hydrogen cars'. (Were it not for the Prius and Tesla and so on demonstrating and refining the electric drive-train, fuel cells would not even be under consideration.)
The point is, you still require a substantial battery to achieve similar efficiency, because regenerative braking is the great advantage of EDT.
[Man, this is as hard as teaching Larry Lundgren the correct terminology for ground-source heat pumps. Hi Larry ;-), keep up the good work.]
5
This opinion piece is so inaccurate it borders on the fictional. Two examples:
First, Tesla already produces electric cars with more than 200 mile range. Second, all electric or plug-in cars use Li-ion chemistry. The 'NMC' (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide) is just one variation of this material and it's an incremental advance instead of the revolution that it's implied to be. Batteries may truly be a hard problem, but opinion should also be informed by knowledge...
First, Tesla already produces electric cars with more than 200 mile range. Second, all electric or plug-in cars use Li-ion chemistry. The 'NMC' (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide) is just one variation of this material and it's an incremental advance instead of the revolution that it's implied to be. Batteries may truly be a hard problem, but opinion should also be informed by knowledge...
38
I think the key to this story as it relates to Levine's original view that the US suffers from a loss of "invention confidence" is to be found in the involvement of Envia. If Argonne had in fact pushed battery technology to its goal, any company seeking to license same should be required to pay a sum sufficient to at least offset the R&D costs. Was that requirement met? Secondly, GM should have performed diligence to ensure that Envia had obtained license and could perform under the contract. Clearly, this was not done either. So, here you have the problem - either political connections enabled Envia to secure licenses prematurely and for a sum far less than their value, or GM, itself the beneficiary of a government bailout, failed in its diligence, or both. When we lose site of the fundamental objective, or, more accurately, replace worthwhile objectives with a religious fervor to get rich quick, we don't accomplish much. At least, nothing of lasting value. Had we taken this approach we would never have reached the moon.
2
Off-setting R&D costs is a false goal. The true goal is 'commercialization'.
Having worked in both government and industrial labs, the hardest thing is commercialization. Criteria for commercialization of technology is a hard issue in both places. It is hard to evaluate the potential and it hard to evaluate the companies involved.
Most private and public companies are more than timid with developing, much less commercializing, new technology, government industrial policy and financing is needed.
Having worked in both government and industrial labs, the hardest thing is commercialization. Criteria for commercialization of technology is a hard issue in both places. It is hard to evaluate the potential and it hard to evaluate the companies involved.
Most private and public companies are more than timid with developing, much less commercializing, new technology, government industrial policy and financing is needed.
4
The Volt gets 40 miles on a charge but that is sufficient for the daily driving of a very high percentage of drivers, after which a very efficient gasoline engine kicks in extending range to 300-400 miles with the ability to fill-up at the existing gas stations. Since we are clearly nowhere near a battery that will give a car a 300 mile range and an easy and fast re-charge it would seem plug-in hybrids like the Volt are a practical and workable solution that would reduce gas consumption dramatically and need no major infrastructure overhaul.
It's ironic that the US has developed the ideal solution, yet for some reason we won't embrace it. We're still buying SUV's and Tesla's (the latter a rich persons toy that even at a lower price would not suit a typical person).
It's ironic that the US has developed the ideal solution, yet for some reason we won't embrace it. We're still buying SUV's and Tesla's (the latter a rich persons toy that even at a lower price would not suit a typical person).
12
I do think the Volt is an ideal solution given today's battery technology. The 2016 Volt will have a bigger battery only range (around 50 miles), with a smaller and lighter battery. Maybe this sort of incremental gain is what we should expect rather than a major break through.
There seems to be some electric car purists who scoff at the idea of the Volt because is still uses some gasoline. But if it reduces the typical consumers use of gasoline by 90%, and is affordable, then it truly is a transformational technology.
There seems to be some electric car purists who scoff at the idea of the Volt because is still uses some gasoline. But if it reduces the typical consumers use of gasoline by 90%, and is affordable, then it truly is a transformational technology.
2
Ever hear of the Tesla Roadster or Tesla Model S?
I have that 'nowhere near' 250 mile range technology sitting in my garage, recharged from 100% renewable sources.
I have that 'nowhere near' 250 mile range technology sitting in my garage, recharged from 100% renewable sources.
Because we'd rather play at propaganda and ticky tacky politics, than find solutions to our problems.
1
The U.S. government has since the Manhattan Project literally been our "engine of ingenuity." I was hoping to hear something about Tesla which has been selling the highest rated car in the history of Consumer Reports testing program that already has a battery that goes 200 miles per charge. Tesla is also in the process of building a huge battery plant in Nevada that could supply the next generation of electric cars. The picture painted by Mr. Nocera seems overly pessimistic and frankly one-sided. The U.S. has not only excellent scientists, despite the anti-science, political "no nothings" called Republicans, but it also has brilliant entrepreneurs like Elon Musk.
243
Unfortunately Tesla is not profitable and not affordable, and by their own admission, profitability is years off. That may change, but at present it is not a solution.
So, you plug in your new electric or hybrid vehicle when you get home at night. Where does that power come from ? Yes, chances are you are getting your charge for your little road rat from a coal fired power plant, thus you are adding more to your carbon footprint to your global warming theory. You are adding hundreds of dollars a month in car payments, and hundreds of dollars a month to your electric bill. All this for a technology based on a product (the battery), that is light years away from being viable. If battery technology was a profitable venture private companies and Wall street would be lined up throwing money at it. The fact that they are not should tell you all you need to know !
3
Yes, and no. On the one hand, I've long been baffled by the electric-car advocates who seem to think the juice for their vehicles is magically produced by the Electricity Fairies, with no connexion at all to the coal-fired plants that have lopped off mountaintops in West Virginia and pumped tonnes of pollution into the air. There is no free lunch, friends, and no such thing as a zero carbon footprint.
On the other, we can do better, and if we don't do the research into alternatives we'll never find them. Of course there will be failures, dead ends, wasted money, wild goose chases. That's the nature of science. So many of us are scientifically subliterate (e.g, your apparent misunderstanding of the word 'theory' in a scientific context) and tend to think that logic = maximum efficiency: We decide to invent something, and just, well, invent it. But like evolution itself, it's trial-and-error, and this is why scientific endeavour is uniquely UN-suited to venture capitalism, which demands straightforward efficiency and immediate ROI. (For that matter, serious artistic and philosophical endeavour is also unsuited to venture capitalism; the only art that makes lots of money is stuff like Hollywood blockbusters. The only activities that venture capitalism is really good at are things like stock manipulation, environmental exploitation, and that perennial favourite, war.)
On the other, we can do better, and if we don't do the research into alternatives we'll never find them. Of course there will be failures, dead ends, wasted money, wild goose chases. That's the nature of science. So many of us are scientifically subliterate (e.g, your apparent misunderstanding of the word 'theory' in a scientific context) and tend to think that logic = maximum efficiency: We decide to invent something, and just, well, invent it. But like evolution itself, it's trial-and-error, and this is why scientific endeavour is uniquely UN-suited to venture capitalism, which demands straightforward efficiency and immediate ROI. (For that matter, serious artistic and philosophical endeavour is also unsuited to venture capitalism; the only art that makes lots of money is stuff like Hollywood blockbusters. The only activities that venture capitalism is really good at are things like stock manipulation, environmental exploitation, and that perennial favourite, war.)
8
Well this comment is crazy talk.
Carbon foot print is reduced using (worst case) coal generated electricity. The reason....the Internal combustion engine is not very efficient. Batteries are very efficient. There is also the effect of harvesting breaking power to re-charge the battery on the go. This makes the car very efficient for urban use and commuters. The same technology is being used for hybrid electric locomotives.
As for cost ...operation of electric cars is a fraction of that of gas powered cars. Challenges remain ...including over the subsidies and power of the oil companies.
Carbon foot print is reduced using (worst case) coal generated electricity. The reason....the Internal combustion engine is not very efficient. Batteries are very efficient. There is also the effect of harvesting breaking power to re-charge the battery on the go. This makes the car very efficient for urban use and commuters. The same technology is being used for hybrid electric locomotives.
As for cost ...operation of electric cars is a fraction of that of gas powered cars. Challenges remain ...including over the subsidies and power of the oil companies.
9
Because we have thousands of utilities and old school methodologies carried out by crony legislators. It has nothing to do with free market, I can assure you.
1
Imagine if our government had the vision to invest the trillions we have spent fighting wars in the ME to development of better batteries where we might be?
21
It is not just the government, it is the people that scream for vengence and over spending on the military.
The people need to demand better spending our government.
The people need to demand better spending our government.
2
And while the government is at it, utilizing those brilliant minds, can we also turn our gaze toward a more comprehensive attempt to remedy our fossil fuels addiction?
Do you know how many solar installations could be completed for the price of an aircraft carrier? Think one $10,000 installation on each of one million buildings... creating lots of jobs, too, and subsidizing renewables rather than arms manufacturers...
Let's, at long last, reprioritize!!
Do you know how many solar installations could be completed for the price of an aircraft carrier? Think one $10,000 installation on each of one million buildings... creating lots of jobs, too, and subsidizing renewables rather than arms manufacturers...
Let's, at long last, reprioritize!!
50
Yes this is what I always say. How much would it really cost to put solar on every US roof that is feasible for solar? It would be a bargain.
2
It isn't a question of cost and never has been. When the costs of pollution and warming and Middle Eastern wars and dealing with oil-funded extremists, clean energy is insanely cheap. The problem is that these costs aren't charged to the customer, making it seem that fossil fuels are cheaper than the alternative.
3
"If the government won’t try to solve that problem, who will?" Yes, after all, who gave us the personal computer, the CD, the DVD, the smart phone, etc., etc.?* Anyone who invents a "better battery" will reap a vast fortune. What Obama was, and is, doing, is subsidizing alternative forms of energy, disguising the fact that they simply aren't competitive with fossil fuels. Oh, and I live in DC (aka "Hicksville") and don't own a car.
*The "government" did give us the internet, more or less, and Al Gore deserves credit rather than ridicule, but it was private enterprise that made the Internet usable by the uninitiated.
*The "government" did give us the internet, more or less, and Al Gore deserves credit rather than ridicule, but it was private enterprise that made the Internet usable by the uninitiated.
How can you be so out of touch with the latest developments? Our Tesla - made in USA goes 270 miles without charging. And in addition - Tesla and Panasonic are building a huge factory in Nevada to produce them in volume to take the price down so more people can afford them.
56
I am a proud owner of a Tesla . Mr. Elan Musk offered the technology to all auto
manufacturers free of charge . Can someone tell us why GM , Ford & Chrysler are not taking advantage of this offer ? With the building of the battery factory in Nevada the price of these cars will become affordable .
manufacturers free of charge . Can someone tell us why GM , Ford & Chrysler are not taking advantage of this offer ? With the building of the battery factory in Nevada the price of these cars will become affordable .
If everyone would do what they can because it is good for the environment...also known as our children's future...I kow not everyone can afford a Tesla but they might afford a Civic Hybrid. Not everyone can afford Geothermal but they can afford a tankless hot water heater. Not everyone can afford solar panels (well actually they can get it installed for free in some states and still get tax credits) but they can reduce their consumption. Solar, hybrids, etc shouldn't be sold as cost saving. They are a responsible choice. If you can you should. I am disgusted but not surprised by the bandwagon of SUV buyers because gas fell 2$. I cringe everytime I see a SUV with mom driving one little kid to soccer practice.
18
I can't afford to replace anything. My small car gets good mileage but if she were human she'd be old enough to drink legally, and if anything happens to her, I'm up the creek, as 'insurance' won't even begin to pay for even the thriftiest replacement.
I used to be far more liberal and idealistic than I am, but I got very tired of affluent do-gooders telling me to spend money I don't have to help everyone except me.
I used to be far more liberal and idealistic than I am, but I got very tired of affluent do-gooders telling me to spend money I don't have to help everyone except me.
39
Who will invent the big battery? A country that believes in science - not deniers, that teaches creativity - not test answers, a country with intelligence to know that continually dumping exhaust into the air eventually chocks the planet to death, a country with the guts to stop burning fossils and use the power of sun, wind, and water.
110
Too little too late? In January 2007, gas prices eased. I had been toying with buying a Prius, but they were hard to come buy. With the gas prices easing I was able to purchase one, figuring the prices of gas would just increase again, not to mention the debate that was beginning on "our addiction to foreign oil" W and Dick were lip syncing. 150,000 miles later still getting 49 miles per gallon, am chauffeuring a third kid to college, the Prius lives on. I'm in the market again….yup the gas prices are down, the big cars are selling again and everyone's going for that quick high of an oversized, useless SUV or the like. I should get a pretty good deal on the newer Prius wagon for when the grandchildren arrive. We're so far down the road in this country into a cultural void that every opportunity in front of us is wasted in over indulgence. Here we go again.
191
Yes, if your population is ignorant, then there's not much you can do. I've always been baffled by the knee-jerk reaction purchases of gas guzzling vehicles when the price per gallon of gas drops. Such shortsightedness and arrogance not to consider the near future. But that's your average American these days, I guess. Everyone thinks that as long as there is some oil left we can burn it... completely overlooking the fact that many hard products are petroleum based and their costs will skyrocket. We need to STOP using fossil fuels and CONSERVE what remains for other uses.
Sorry, Joe, but this column is completely off base. I own an all-electric car today that gets 250-300 miles per charge: the Tesla Model S. It is a spectacular car that received the highest rating ever awarded any automobile by Consumer Reports, as well as raves from all the specialty car magazines. And yes, the Government made a failed investment in Solyndra, but it also made a highly successful $400M investment in Tesla. If you know of any investors with a 100% success record, please let me know who they are.
Today Tesla employs thousands of people in its Fremont, CA manufacturing plant and its sales and service facilities around the world, and has a market cap of $28B. How could you possibly write a column about electric cars without mentioning any of this?
Today Tesla employs thousands of people in its Fremont, CA manufacturing plant and its sales and service facilities around the world, and has a market cap of $28B. How could you possibly write a column about electric cars without mentioning any of this?
442
Once again, Nocera misses the mark when writing about energy and environmental issues. At this time, Tesla models are well beyond the means of most drivers. I hope the day is not far off when Tesla offers an "economy" model that millions of Americans can afford.
7
And Tesla paid off that $400M loan early. In full. With interest.
Telsa is already at work to manufacture cheaper better batteries for its moderately priced model. The battery problem is well on its way to being solved. The real problem is that the Kochs and the Saudis and the other oil billionaires don't want it solved. The auto dealers don't want it solved either. An electric motor is good for one million miles, no maintenance required.
Telsa is already at work to manufacture cheaper better batteries for its moderately priced model. The battery problem is well on its way to being solved. The real problem is that the Kochs and the Saudis and the other oil billionaires don't want it solved. The auto dealers don't want it solved either. An electric motor is good for one million miles, no maintenance required.
23
I think everyone knows about Tesla. What Joe should have said is that the quest is for an *economical* electric car, one that would make all-electric vehicles affordable for the many. That requires high-capacity batteries.
5
This article, although laudable glosses over one issue and misses the other entirely. "industry now relies heavily on the federal government’s national labs for basic scientific research. " and yet much basic science research is under assault by the anti science smaller government Republicans. Continuing cuts to agency budgets combined with government travel restrictions to scientific conferences have become so onerous that the usual collaboration between federal scientists and the rest of the scientific community has broken down. Second, it is more basic than batteries. We have sources of intermittent energy production (wind, solar) but it is storage of that energy that is the choke point. Whether batteries or some other form, the individual who invents a better way to store energy is the winner. For us, it is simpler. A short distance to town on the gravel road, a small electric powered vehicle larger than a golf cart but not a car, recharged by solar panels placed on the garage roof. Operating cost? 0.
18
Open-ended, speculative basic research that could yield monumental breakthroughs is half the reason we stood-up an Energy Dept. The other half is to develop energy policy that manageably transitions us from a world that relies excessively on carbon-based products to one that uses energy sources that don't pollute our biosphere.
What's keeping the first half from being fully realized are the demands placed on funding basic research when as a society we've resolved to feed our people and provide them their healthcare, things we once -- not that long ago -- regarded as primarily individual responsibilities. What's keeping us from realizing the second half is the insistence on accomplishing today what rationally will take at least 1-2 generations to accomplish practicably -- so, we vitiate human energy, attention and other resources in fighting about timing and intensity of efforts instead of focusing on achievable schedules and incremental steps to securing our objectives.
But so long as Energy funds these labs, and so long as incentives exist at the personal and corporate levels to achieve breakthroughs, sooner or later we'll get NMC 2.0. Just look at what we've done with the microchip in thirty-plus years.
What's keeping the first half from being fully realized are the demands placed on funding basic research when as a society we've resolved to feed our people and provide them their healthcare, things we once -- not that long ago -- regarded as primarily individual responsibilities. What's keeping us from realizing the second half is the insistence on accomplishing today what rationally will take at least 1-2 generations to accomplish practicably -- so, we vitiate human energy, attention and other resources in fighting about timing and intensity of efforts instead of focusing on achievable schedules and incremental steps to securing our objectives.
But so long as Energy funds these labs, and so long as incentives exist at the personal and corporate levels to achieve breakthroughs, sooner or later we'll get NMC 2.0. Just look at what we've done with the microchip in thirty-plus years.
1
"What's keeping the first half from being fully realized are the demands placed on funding basic research when as a society we've resolved to feed our people and provide them their healthcare, things we once -- not that long ago -- regarded as primarily individual responsibilities."
You forgot the part about the immoral and unfunded wars, the Bush tax cut that vitiated a national surplus and the 15% carried interest tax rate for hedge fund managers.
You forgot the part about the immoral and unfunded wars, the Bush tax cut that vitiated a national surplus and the 15% carried interest tax rate for hedge fund managers.
56
The electricity used to charge the batteries usually comes from a generator that burns fossil fuels. When most electricity comes from renewable sources, then and only then will electric cars be better for the environment.
6
Per unit power delivered to a car's wheels, the electricity from a fossil fuel powered generating station still pollutes the environment less than an equivalent unit of power to the wheels of a car from internal combustion engine. So electric cars are better for the environment, if they directly replace a fossil fuel powered car, no matter what the source of electricity.
20
Yes, but there is one big advantage about using fossil fuel to create electricity at few nodes (powerplants) instead using it at millions of dispersed nodes (cars): pollution is easier to control at powerplants than at cars' exhaust pipes.
10
Battery? Not a battery....we need a Hydrogen economy. Batteries, all batteries wear out, they pollute and they require a brand new infrastructure. Hydrogen turns into distilled water if burned or catalyzed, it does not pollute, and it is a far better economy. In a hydrogen economy hydrocarbons would be replaced by hydrogen and fuel cell cars would replace internal combustion engines. All excess power generated by hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear generation during off peak consumption would be stored for peak use in power plants or shipped over existing natural gas lines to "gas stations". Germany and Japan are manufacturing fuel cell cars now.
To be brief, Hydrogen is the most abundant element and is the primary ingredient in water. At this time, electrolysis extracts Hydrogen from water losing approximately 30% of the electrical power used to produce hydrogen. Similarly, 25-30% of renewable and nuclear capacity is lost under current methods of storing excess production. It is economically profitable today to store excess electrical capacity from off peak generation as hydrogen as they are doing in Mainz Germany and Canada (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530331/germany-and-canada-are-build....
Batteries are not the future. Hydrogen is our future energy. Hopefully America will not be handicapped by the oil industry while our industrialized rivals develop Hydrogen.
To be brief, Hydrogen is the most abundant element and is the primary ingredient in water. At this time, electrolysis extracts Hydrogen from water losing approximately 30% of the electrical power used to produce hydrogen. Similarly, 25-30% of renewable and nuclear capacity is lost under current methods of storing excess production. It is economically profitable today to store excess electrical capacity from off peak generation as hydrogen as they are doing in Mainz Germany and Canada (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530331/germany-and-canada-are-build....
Batteries are not the future. Hydrogen is our future energy. Hopefully America will not be handicapped by the oil industry while our industrialized rivals develop Hydrogen.
25
Hydrogen:
1. Not an energy source; it's a carrier; lots of energy needed to produce it.
2. Low energy density (energy stored per unit volume) even at high pressure.
3. High pressure storage and high flammability present safety challenges.
4. Hydrogen is a tiny molecule which embrittles polymer gaskets and many metals, so it's very hard to store without significant leaks.
5. The high pressure needed for storage means a great deal of steel must be used for pressure vessels and piping, which adds to cost and total energy usage.
All of which is whitewashed or ignored in the Technology Review article cited.
1. Not an energy source; it's a carrier; lots of energy needed to produce it.
2. Low energy density (energy stored per unit volume) even at high pressure.
3. High pressure storage and high flammability present safety challenges.
4. Hydrogen is a tiny molecule which embrittles polymer gaskets and many metals, so it's very hard to store without significant leaks.
5. The high pressure needed for storage means a great deal of steel must be used for pressure vessels and piping, which adds to cost and total energy usage.
All of which is whitewashed or ignored in the Technology Review article cited.
2
We are working on hydrogen fuel cells, too, indeed, it looks like the car companies will be releasing economical fuel-cell vehicles before they release economical long-range battery-powered vehicles. Essentially, though, the problems are the same for both: making the product economical.
1
And yet, despite your points, we currently have hydrogen powered buses operating quite safely at this point.
1
Research into superconductivity back in the '90's was supposed to solve virtually all of our energy problems. A substance that would conduct electrical current without 90% (something like that %!) loss through heat at ambient temperatures has not been found...........until very recently. It is a one atom thick layer of graphite! Unfortunately, the cost of producing it is huge right now. But if it can be produced at or below the price of copper, it may really help solve our energy problems and do away entirely with coal and oil as fuel.
Or will our energy demands and near exponential population growth make it all meaningless? One cynic (me) asks whether the fuel of the future is wood?
Or will our energy demands and near exponential population growth make it all meaningless? One cynic (me) asks whether the fuel of the future is wood?
1
John Michel claims that "Research into superconductivity back in the '90's was supposed to solve virtually all of our energy problems."
Well, I was involved in that research and I never heard anyone say that superconductivity was "supposed to solve virtually all our energy problems." For one thing, only 6% of our energy is lost due to transmission resistance, not the 90% (or "something like that") that John Michel recalls.
See
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.LOSS.ZS
Well, I was involved in that research and I never heard anyone say that superconductivity was "supposed to solve virtually all our energy problems." For one thing, only 6% of our energy is lost due to transmission resistance, not the 90% (or "something like that") that John Michel recalls.
See
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.LOSS.ZS
12
A monolayer of carbon is a superconductor in the sense that there is no voltage drop, but how do you build a practical conductor capable of carrying a large volume of electricity (i.e. lots of amps) from carbon monolayers? This technology is far from mature.
The battery already exists and is used in the Tesla cars. Various versions give your 200-300 miles per full charge in the mid-sized Model S. Using the Chevy Volt's advanced but low mileage battery is a bit of a straw-man argument. I'm very surprised Mr. Nocera did not mention the Tesla battery, as the Tesla Model S is well-known.
The key to widespread acceptance of battery powered cars, aside from the issue of costs, is the ability to swap batteries in cars, in order to match the speed with which a gas tank can be filled. Currently, recharging non-removable batteries is a tediously slow business that takes hours.
But here too, both Tesla and a now defunct Israeli company have demonstrated very convincing prototypes of swappable rechargeable batteries-batteries that can be removed and replaced in less time than it takes to fill a gas tank.
If such batteries were available everywhere, say at gas stations themselves, current state-of-the art 21st century electric cars could be serious competition to gasoline powered cars.
But it will be unrealistic to expect the existing infrastructure of gas stations, all owned or franchised by the major oil companies, to start offering a battery swap station alongside their existing gasoline pumps. It would be the best solution, but it is wishful thinking.
The problem is not technological. It is a knotty economic and business entry strategy problem.
The key to widespread acceptance of battery powered cars, aside from the issue of costs, is the ability to swap batteries in cars, in order to match the speed with which a gas tank can be filled. Currently, recharging non-removable batteries is a tediously slow business that takes hours.
But here too, both Tesla and a now defunct Israeli company have demonstrated very convincing prototypes of swappable rechargeable batteries-batteries that can be removed and replaced in less time than it takes to fill a gas tank.
If such batteries were available everywhere, say at gas stations themselves, current state-of-the art 21st century electric cars could be serious competition to gasoline powered cars.
But it will be unrealistic to expect the existing infrastructure of gas stations, all owned or franchised by the major oil companies, to start offering a battery swap station alongside their existing gasoline pumps. It would be the best solution, but it is wishful thinking.
The problem is not technological. It is a knotty economic and business entry strategy problem.
30
This new battery does seem quixotic, doesn't it. Even if one day brought to market, batteries still have to be charged don't they.
And we still have the looming environmental question of where does our electical power largely come from.
This is a riddle which has no good solution. But less bad works for me.
And we still have the looming environmental question of where does our electical power largely come from.
This is a riddle which has no good solution. But less bad works for me.
3
Batteries can be charged with excess wind and solar power. Currently there is no cost effective way of storing this excess power.
13
And neither wind nor solar are without their problems, either. Perfect solutions do not exist.
1
Scientific breakthroughs usually come in fits and starts. While we wait for the next commercially scaleable breakthrough, we should all be driving hybrids. This is a national security issue, a world stability issue, an environmental issue. Hybrids are a very effective bridge technology. My hybrid (camry) is 8 years old and gets 33% better fuel economy than a standard gas driven model. The price to achieve this was about $5,000 more than the conventional version, which has already been paid back in fuel savings. And the battery still performs well, with no maintenance issues or capacity issues. So if everyone drove hybrids now, we would reduce national gas consumption by 33%, at no cost over the life of the vehicles. what could be more effective than that?
20
Well, there is one conundrum......cheaper driving = more driving. There are appetites that need to be considered. Maybe....an energy 'diet'?
Bart, I'm looking forward to cheaper driving when I buy my new hybrid this year. I don't intend to drive more. I'd rather spend my time doing other things than sitting behind the wheel.
2
While it's aggravating to see government investments in companies like Solyndra (especially with the questionable potential kickback arrangement that seems to have occurred) federal and state efforts to foster a new industry with the promise of such tremendous economic and ecological benefits are well worth it.
5
Government's proper role is to fund technological innovation too risky for the private sector to fund. Think Manhattan Project.
If you don't have some failures, you probably aren't really funding innovation, are you?
If you don't have some failures, you probably aren't really funding innovation, are you?
1
Great column Joe. There seems to be tons of venture capital for the latest app start-ups. A few of them will make money. Still fewer will do anything more that distract and entertain us for a while. I am sure that lot of venture capital has been thrown at battery technology. But it would be great to seem some future columns that expand on the amount of private investment on battery technology compared to other things like smart phone aps.
It does seem that the time horizon and complexity on battery technology would mean that private investment alone will not be enough.
It does seem that the time horizon and complexity on battery technology would mean that private investment alone will not be enough.
4
"if the government won't try to solve that problem, who will"?
How about the consumer? is the demand for all electric cars sufficient to cause advanced research into battery life and will this research be done by someone other than charlatans and liars?
With pick ups and SUV's now selling like crazy because gas is, temporarily, kind of cheap, I think I know the answer. The American public is merrily motoring along on a commodity that can, almost whimsically, go down or up at a moment's notice. They don't really care about "price" but "availability". Sure, people drove somewhat less when gas approached all time highs but those days seem to be quickly forgotten as the price per barrel plummets (Ooops! Going UP lately!).
Electric cars will become the "future" of driving when the last drop of off shore oil, tar sands oil, fracked oil, etc. is finally pumped from the ground.
Then, the consumer might actually notice.
How about the consumer? is the demand for all electric cars sufficient to cause advanced research into battery life and will this research be done by someone other than charlatans and liars?
With pick ups and SUV's now selling like crazy because gas is, temporarily, kind of cheap, I think I know the answer. The American public is merrily motoring along on a commodity that can, almost whimsically, go down or up at a moment's notice. They don't really care about "price" but "availability". Sure, people drove somewhat less when gas approached all time highs but those days seem to be quickly forgotten as the price per barrel plummets (Ooops! Going UP lately!).
Electric cars will become the "future" of driving when the last drop of off shore oil, tar sands oil, fracked oil, etc. is finally pumped from the ground.
Then, the consumer might actually notice.
4
Great advertisement for more government control, which is the future if there is to be one.
batteries propably won't make it,
maybe fuel cell electric vehicles like the Toyota Mirai are the future.
Fuel cells already have a range of 250 miles, and can be refilled within 5 minutes.
But with fuel cells we also need a technological major leap, to make them less expensive.
maybe fuel cell electric vehicles like the Toyota Mirai are the future.
Fuel cells already have a range of 250 miles, and can be refilled within 5 minutes.
But with fuel cells we also need a technological major leap, to make them less expensive.
6
Not long after 9/11 I saw a car on our local Honda lot that was something they called a hybrid. It used a large battery, located behind the back seat, that constantly recharged as I drove and, when I needed it, gave back electrical power sufficient to give me all the power I needed.
It's best feature was that I'd get an estimated 50 miles per gallon, and that had such enormous appeal to me that I bought this peppy little hybrid in spring of 2002.
As a native New Yorker, I wasn't looking only at saving money at the pump (and over the years since I've saved plenty, believe me). Rather, after what Saudi lunatics had done to my city, my New York, I felt like sticking my finger in their eye and giving Saudi Arabia as little of my money as possible.
I had that sense of empowerment every time I took my foot off the brake and the engine came to life, then powered away. Or when I made my monthly trip to gas up at a local station.
Over the years, that roomy little Honda Civic Hybrid (I'm well over average height and yet have plenty of room and visibility) turned out to have other benefits as well. I didn't have to plug it in every night and run up my electric bill with power from dirty coal-driven power plants. I could drive 650 miles on a single tank of gas (yes, I once did that and what a great feeling it was). And over the years I wondered why everyone else didn't have a clean, peppy, car like mine.
Oh yes, we're in 2015 and it still runs great. What more could I ask for?
It's best feature was that I'd get an estimated 50 miles per gallon, and that had such enormous appeal to me that I bought this peppy little hybrid in spring of 2002.
As a native New Yorker, I wasn't looking only at saving money at the pump (and over the years since I've saved plenty, believe me). Rather, after what Saudi lunatics had done to my city, my New York, I felt like sticking my finger in their eye and giving Saudi Arabia as little of my money as possible.
I had that sense of empowerment every time I took my foot off the brake and the engine came to life, then powered away. Or when I made my monthly trip to gas up at a local station.
Over the years, that roomy little Honda Civic Hybrid (I'm well over average height and yet have plenty of room and visibility) turned out to have other benefits as well. I didn't have to plug it in every night and run up my electric bill with power from dirty coal-driven power plants. I could drive 650 miles on a single tank of gas (yes, I once did that and what a great feeling it was). And over the years I wondered why everyone else didn't have a clean, peppy, car like mine.
Oh yes, we're in 2015 and it still runs great. What more could I ask for?
182
I also wonder why more people don't drive hybrids. I bought mine in 2012, the Camry Hybrid. My initial reluctance was based on the fact I liked power when I stepped on the gas and felt I might loose some of the power and zip my V6 was providing. I was wrong on all counts. My car takes off when I step on the gas. Here is the kicker, I still get 42 MPG and still enjoy driving. My daughter drives a Ford Fusion and loves it so much that when she upgrades, I'm advocating the Fusion hybrid for her. Great gas milage.
2
Second the motion - we love our Honda Civic hybrid, still going strong at 50 mpg.
The battery solution is not just for cars. An ability to efficiently store energy can solve many problems we now deal with in the distribution of energy.
More importantly, let is not forget the many solutions that were discovered trying to solve problems not related to the solutions eventual application. It may well be that a chemist working on solutions for microchips identifies the properties necessary for a viable automotive battery.
More importantly, let is not forget the many solutions that were discovered trying to solve problems not related to the solutions eventual application. It may well be that a chemist working on solutions for microchips identifies the properties necessary for a viable automotive battery.
10
I drive a plug-in hybrid. I love it, but we have to be careful here. Electric cars are great for urban air pollution, but unless the electricity used to charge them comes from non-carbon sources, they don't do anything for global warming. (Here in Ohio, most of our power is generated by burning coal, but the local power company lets us buy electricity generated from renewables, which is what I do.)
39
Even when the electricity is from the usual filthy sources, plug-in hybrids reduce net carbon emissions. So don't stop using them!
Of course the shame is that we are still burning coal, rather than using fission plants and (to the extent intermittency permits) wind and solar.
Of course the shame is that we are still burning coal, rather than using fission plants and (to the extent intermittency permits) wind and solar.
3
I put solar panels on my house last year. I am now generating more clean electricity than I use, so I am contributing it back into the grid. I'll be using more of my solar-generated electricity when I buy a plug-in hybrid car later this year. Since I rarely drive more than 50 miles a day, I figure a 2016 Chevy Volt will keep me away from the gas station for months on end.
1
What am I missing. Tesla has a battery with a 300 mile range. And I believe Tesla has allowed competitors access to its technogy.
133
Good point. However range, or amp/hours, is but one factor in calculating battery efficiency. What is the charging time, how many charge/discharge cycles can the batteries take before they have to be replaced, and what do the batteries weigh?
Hat's off to Tesla Motors, but we're not there yet.
Hat's off to Tesla Motors, but we're not there yet.
2
As far as I can tell you're not missing anything. This article appears to be just plain bad journalism. The 2001 Honda Insight I drive has a lifetime mpg avg. of 59.2. I think every commuter in America should own one. When it finally dies I'd love to get a Tessla, but won't be able to afford one. Yet.
1
Sorry Joe, I must ask once again why your extreme tunnel vision as concerns energy leads you to see Solyndra as the entire story of solar energy in America. You, one of several Times representatives of the fracking industry just can never resist hitting on solar or wind while never ever mentioning 24/7 renewable.
Yes, I know this column is about electric cars and batteries. Electric cars in the form of upgraded golf carts have just about taken over the Swedish island, Styrsö, where I will spend the weekend, på gott och ont as the Swedes say. These provide excellent service for anyone who can no longer manage long walks to the ferry landing but they are also a silent threat to the walker.
So instead of finding fault with batteries why don't you write an article about any one of my three favorite renewable systems, Ground Source Geothermal (Heat Pump), Silent air-air and air-water heat pumps, and most important Swedish and European "fjärrvärme" (called District Heating in English but rather misleading since in Sweden each "district" being heated is an entire city).
I know you have never heard of these three but you can sample them at my blog - the one nobody visits except an occasional and most welcome NYT commenter.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.co
Yes, I know this column is about electric cars and batteries. Electric cars in the form of upgraded golf carts have just about taken over the Swedish island, Styrsö, where I will spend the weekend, på gott och ont as the Swedes say. These provide excellent service for anyone who can no longer manage long walks to the ferry landing but they are also a silent threat to the walker.
So instead of finding fault with batteries why don't you write an article about any one of my three favorite renewable systems, Ground Source Geothermal (Heat Pump), Silent air-air and air-water heat pumps, and most important Swedish and European "fjärrvärme" (called District Heating in English but rather misleading since in Sweden each "district" being heated is an entire city).
I know you have never heard of these three but you can sample them at my blog - the one nobody visits except an occasional and most welcome NYT commenter.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.co
83
I love your comments and your blog. You're on the mark about this (and many other things). But don't you know? Too many Americans have tunnel vision and think no other country has it better.
20
Larry, your favorite renewable energy systems might work well for the size and density of population centers in Sweden, but I doubt they easily scale up to meet the needs of a metro-center like greater NYC.
And by the way, larger geothermal system wells often include fracking, either hydraulic or thermal, in order to increase flow rates, just like oil and gas wells.
And by the way, larger geothermal system wells often include fracking, either hydraulic or thermal, in order to increase flow rates, just like oil and gas wells.
3
Hi Metro, thanks, somehow I will have to find time to keep the blog more nearly up to date. But there is much in the way (see PS). As an American in Sweden I can assure you that there are plenty of ethnic Swedes who suffer from a bit of tunnel vision. But for an interesting look visit this at the New Yorker 2/15 number: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/16/northern-lights-4
I am, however, endlessly fascinated by the absolute reluctance of Times columnists and writers to write about renewable energy. Just imagine if Joe Nocera decides to take me up and write about, for example GSG.
Larry
No time: Red Cross now (every week a great gang of refugees just talking in Swedish and quite a few other tongues, then AM Blås wind orchestra. And the Times which now favors us who live in a European Time zone. Have not quite adapted yet.
I am, however, endlessly fascinated by the absolute reluctance of Times columnists and writers to write about renewable energy. Just imagine if Joe Nocera decides to take me up and write about, for example GSG.
Larry
No time: Red Cross now (every week a great gang of refugees just talking in Swedish and quite a few other tongues, then AM Blås wind orchestra. And the Times which now favors us who live in a European Time zone. Have not quite adapted yet.
2
The Tesla model S already has more than 200 miles of range. So the battery and the car already exist. The challenge is to make it lighter and cheaper.
97
The Great Battery Search is symptomatic of an illness in our society: the insistence that human activity be organized around driving.
But changing the fuel source of automobiles does absolutely nothing to reduce the sprawl which consumes countryside and farmland around our cities. Or the tens of thousands of people who are maimed or killed each year in accidents. Or the traffic jams. Or the road rage. Or the city blocks made barren by parking decks. Or the fact that suburbs organized on a scale suited for driving, with shopping and offices on arterial roads and a large separate parking lot around each building or shopping center, are inherently hostile to people on foot or bicycle and to the retroactive development of transit.
Transit-focused development is centripetal and encourages urbanity and neighborhoods. Car-focused development is centrifugal--and is also hell on the very young, the very old, and anyone else who doesn’t, or can’t, drive, and on those who are turned into family chauffeurs for non-drivers.
Transit encourages mingling with other human beings who may be of a different ethnicity or class--which, as many big-city dwellers know, is not to say that transit is always 100% pleasant. But the single-user automobile encourages ego and antisocial detachment—which have their own decidedly unpleasant side effects.
We’ll have a healthier society, and healthier towns, and healthier countryside, when we give up the fantasy—and the curse--of Driving Forever.
But changing the fuel source of automobiles does absolutely nothing to reduce the sprawl which consumes countryside and farmland around our cities. Or the tens of thousands of people who are maimed or killed each year in accidents. Or the traffic jams. Or the road rage. Or the city blocks made barren by parking decks. Or the fact that suburbs organized on a scale suited for driving, with shopping and offices on arterial roads and a large separate parking lot around each building or shopping center, are inherently hostile to people on foot or bicycle and to the retroactive development of transit.
Transit-focused development is centripetal and encourages urbanity and neighborhoods. Car-focused development is centrifugal--and is also hell on the very young, the very old, and anyone else who doesn’t, or can’t, drive, and on those who are turned into family chauffeurs for non-drivers.
Transit encourages mingling with other human beings who may be of a different ethnicity or class--which, as many big-city dwellers know, is not to say that transit is always 100% pleasant. But the single-user automobile encourages ego and antisocial detachment—which have their own decidedly unpleasant side effects.
We’ll have a healthier society, and healthier towns, and healthier countryside, when we give up the fantasy—and the curse--of Driving Forever.
64
Cars will drive themselves soon enough. And you're welcome to mingle all you want! That mingling, with an almost complete lack of enforcement of behavioral standards, is one of the things that turns people off of mass transit, another being that because it's usually run by government conditions and service are terrible.
2
All well and good in the abstract, but many places do not lend themselves to mass transit, and the systems we have built tend to run over budget as a matter of course and fail to address the shortcomings of fixed nodes of access.
Isn't it better policy to push transit where it's appropriate while continuing to make personal mechanized transportation more energy-efficient, affordable, safe, and non-polluting?
We could get around most of our daily excursions in this small city of 100,000 on flat farmland in a glorified golf cart, but no one's making such vehicles affordable and practical as far as I can see.
One of the best hybrid ideas I've seen would use a small internal-combustion engine running very lean at a fixed RPM to generate hot water and a way to drive belt-driven accessories as well as recharging the batteries, and that might be the most feasible of all the alternatives, but we're far from there now.
Transit doesn't work well everywhere, and we should improve automotive transportation as we work to improve various forms of rail.
Isn't it better policy to push transit where it's appropriate while continuing to make personal mechanized transportation more energy-efficient, affordable, safe, and non-polluting?
We could get around most of our daily excursions in this small city of 100,000 on flat farmland in a glorified golf cart, but no one's making such vehicles affordable and practical as far as I can see.
One of the best hybrid ideas I've seen would use a small internal-combustion engine running very lean at a fixed RPM to generate hot water and a way to drive belt-driven accessories as well as recharging the batteries, and that might be the most feasible of all the alternatives, but we're far from there now.
Transit doesn't work well everywhere, and we should improve automotive transportation as we work to improve various forms of rail.
That the President is aware of and willing to take a chance on batteries or solar is far and away a better response than compounding the 62 year record of butchery, sometimes torture and failure in the wars for Middle East oil.
209
to say nothing of treasure. the GOP loves to bash the Solyndra failure, which is literally a pinprick on the back of an elephant when compared to the spectacular waste of our money in iraq and afgh, just to name two failures-- all in the name of oil.
1
There's an unintended consequence in the electric cars, regardless of the power of the batteries. There are "free" public charging stations (along the Merritt Parkway and at Stamford's government center), which means that those of us who cannot afford to replace a traditional car with any car, are actually subsidizing the electric car owners.
3
Right now those electric charging stations are very few, and are there to encourage more use of electric cars. I am sure that should electric cars become more the standard that a way would be found to charge at those stations for the electricity used. While we may be currently subsidizing electric car owners, from my understanding it doesn't take a lot of electricity to recharge these cars and if it does encourage people to buy more electric cars it is a good use of public funds.
10
We're subsidizing fossil-fuel consumption too:
"In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually."
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
In 2013, the U.S. federal and state governments gave away $21.6 billion in subsidies for oil, gas, and coal exploration and production.
"In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually."
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
In 2013, the U.S. federal and state governments gave away $21.6 billion in subsidies for oil, gas, and coal exploration and production.
20
CMS, I agree that once electric cars become more common than novelties, electric stations will have to charge a fee.
But I want to question your statement that "it doesn't take a lot of electricity to recharge these cars". If you mean in total, because few electric cars are on the road, OK. If you mean per vehicle, then no. Energy is energy, and to power the motor, gas or electric, to drive the same size vehicle requires the same energy. The chemical energy in a tank of gas must be replaced by quite a bit of electrical energy (produced somehow--another topic), transmitted to the recharge station (with energy losses), and then transferred to the batteries (with more losses). Home charging stations often use high amp 220 volt feeds. The power required is not trivial.
But I want to question your statement that "it doesn't take a lot of electricity to recharge these cars". If you mean in total, because few electric cars are on the road, OK. If you mean per vehicle, then no. Energy is energy, and to power the motor, gas or electric, to drive the same size vehicle requires the same energy. The chemical energy in a tank of gas must be replaced by quite a bit of electrical energy (produced somehow--another topic), transmitted to the recharge station (with energy losses), and then transferred to the batteries (with more losses). Home charging stations often use high amp 220 volt feeds. The power required is not trivial.
1
The answer to your final question is, at the moment, Tesla. If you Google "Tesla range", you will find that the Tesla Model S has an official USEPA range of 265 miles, and Tesla has an upgrade that, it claims, will increase that to 400 miles. Granted, this is for a roadster that can cost $100 thousand, but Tesla is in the process of developing a mass-market model. Even the Ford model T did not start out being cheap.
Tesla is not alone. At least BMW is hot on Tesla's heels.
I have worked for and as contractor to the US Department of Energy. It is fundamentally limited by a process that gives too much weight to political criteria. The likes of Tesla and BMW can and do succeed because they focus only on making a product that sells profitably. Tesla and BMW need not diffuse their resources among many states in order to please the Congress. Tesla and BMW need not award contracts to minority-owned or women-owned business unless there is an economic basis for doing so.
The federal research establishment has had significant successes, notably the Apollo program that put man on the Moon, and research that produced the Internet and the the Boeing 707, the world's first commercially-successful jetliner. In these cases the government succeeded because it had clear and narrow objectives. NASA and the US Air Force are now using a similar approach to develop improved vehicles for putting payloads in space.
Tesla is not alone. At least BMW is hot on Tesla's heels.
I have worked for and as contractor to the US Department of Energy. It is fundamentally limited by a process that gives too much weight to political criteria. The likes of Tesla and BMW can and do succeed because they focus only on making a product that sells profitably. Tesla and BMW need not diffuse their resources among many states in order to please the Congress. Tesla and BMW need not award contracts to minority-owned or women-owned business unless there is an economic basis for doing so.
The federal research establishment has had significant successes, notably the Apollo program that put man on the Moon, and research that produced the Internet and the the Boeing 707, the world's first commercially-successful jetliner. In these cases the government succeeded because it had clear and narrow objectives. NASA and the US Air Force are now using a similar approach to develop improved vehicles for putting payloads in space.
60
Tesla is an American company based in San Francisco. So yes they do.
1
A usable battery will affect a lot more than automobiles. Highly efficient energy collection and storage would have a huge impact across the spectrum of energy generation and use. Electricity from solar, wind, tidal, etc. would become vastly more economically viable. We should be doing all we can through university grants, tax incentives, and even, if Wall St. hasn't the vision to see beyond the next quarter's returns, direct investment in firms that might fail, to encourage the evolution of any number of ways of efficiently collecting, storing, and discharging electrical energy,
101
Ralph, the sad thing for me is the Silicon Valley-- more energy and money and brainpower is put into games, apps, social media, etc. from the investment and venture capital community than into the meaningful items you describe in your comment.
This is indeed a hard, complicated problem, but it is worth the investment required for ultimate success. And this is precisely the kind of thing the government should be doing. Hopefully Steve LeVine will have another book to write sooner than we think.
15
Developing a battery that gets 200 or 300 miles per charge would be next to useless if it would take several hours to recharge. The quick recharging or replacement (we're talking less than 5 minutes, the approximate time it takes to fill up an empty tank today) is equally critical for the widespread adoption of battery powered cars. Without a 5 minute recharge (or replacement) battery powered cars would be totally impractical.
4
I can't imagine that replacement will be a hard problem to solve. Probably faster to replace a standard battery than to fill a tank.
2
The way EVs are charged are not the same as a ICE vehicle, the latter being restricted to a commercial fueling station. Yes I know they are omnipresent in our western society, but I'm referring to the pattern of fueling an EV vs an ICE. The EV can be charged at home, at work, or during shopping for between 30 minutes to 8 hours depending upon the type of charger. And that process doesn't take time away from your daily activities. An ICE vehicle requires an interruption and time during your activities. Most importantly, an EV can be fueled using the sun and wind and is part of a solution to the climate change crisis our world is facing and will need to confront immediately if we intend to bequeath our children a world worth living in.
10
Mike, agreed that EV's and their recharge methods can easily fit into most life styles, especially in urban-suburban settings (though infrastructure costs will have to increase to put chargers at every office and mall parking spot).
But please don't gloss over the power gen implications. How many acres of PV and/or wind farms would drivers in MA need (and where in MA are you going to put them)?
But please don't gloss over the power gen implications. How many acres of PV and/or wind farms would drivers in MA need (and where in MA are you going to put them)?
Why can't we get it through our heads there is no magic technology that will save the world. Every technology has a consequence by the laws of physics is equal and opposite in the harm it does with the benefits it may seem to have.
Indeed, the greatest threat to the future of the world comes from and is the result of our technology. Nuclear weapons, climate change, rising populations, and environmental destruction of many kinds. These are all the result of our technology and their consequences.
Only when we understand the limits of what technology can do and learn to use it more wisely and judiciously can we find real and lasting solutions to our problems.
Indeed, the greatest threat to the future of the world comes from and is the result of our technology. Nuclear weapons, climate change, rising populations, and environmental destruction of many kinds. These are all the result of our technology and their consequences.
Only when we understand the limits of what technology can do and learn to use it more wisely and judiciously can we find real and lasting solutions to our problems.
12
Equal and opposite harms? Benefits it SEEMS to have? No, the laws of physics don't say this. Life at worst causes non-life, but you get life along with it. Non-life was there anyhow. So that's a net gain. Why shouldn't technology also achieve net gains? And indeed it has.
13
jeorffrey. I don't know where you are getting your "laws" from, perhaps some religious mythology, but the laws of the real world tell us their are cause and effects; actions and reactions.
Newton's Third Law of Physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton's Third Law of Physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
1
But that's unscientific nonsense. Sure, in practice, there are drawbacks to any technology, but it's easy enough to find technologies that are benign or produce net gains. The main problem is human greed and stupidity.
6
The government has to foot the bill for basic research related to battery technology because private companies are busy playing financial games with their profits rather than investing them. Financial games have a virtually guaranteed return (until they blow up and bring the economy down) and are therefore irresistible to businesses operating under the constraint of pleasing the market every quarter.
If government is going to choose or finance winners, candidates for winner will find out how winners are picked and create the appropriate appearances, and also pull the appropriate strings. The government should instead try to create a winner itself and compete with the private sector, as it does with Social Security and Medicare.
If government is going to choose or finance winners, candidates for winner will find out how winners are picked and create the appropriate appearances, and also pull the appropriate strings. The government should instead try to create a winner itself and compete with the private sector, as it does with Social Security and Medicare.
92
No, government should not compete with the private sector -- the only way to do that in manufacturing is with hidden subsidies, because government cannot do it nearly as efficiently or as well. (Medicare and Social Security are very different from manufacturing, much simpler to run, and in those cases, the government is more efficient than a private company can be because it does not take a profit.) Government should do precisely what it does -- fund large, risky ventures that a private company cannot because the risk is too great.
All nations should return to basic economic principles and realize/understand that privately held TAXABLE national wealth is only made, created, and/or acquired when the members of a family or the citizen businessmen of a nation, state, city, island, tribe, school district, hospital district, etc., perform one or more of the following tasks:
1. Plant, grow, and/or harvest something of commercial value from the earth;
2. Extract something of commercial value from the earth;
3. Manufacture something of commercial value that is consumable;
4. Construct a building that is permanently useful for rental income;
5. Tourism income from foreign tourists;
6. Provide professional State licensed services such as doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, land surveyors, and certified public accountants, etc.;
7. Provide other services such as plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, aircraft mechanics, HVAC mechanics, barbers, real estate agents, financial advisers and etc.;
8. Collect payment for patent and copyright use;
9. Buy things from foreigners in foreign nations, transport them to another foreign nation, and then sell those things to peopl3e in that other foreign nation at a profit;