An Electric Very Light Car?
Saturday, August 7, 2010 at 10:59AMEdison2’s Very Light Car Scoffs at Electric Avenue said AutoBlog Green in January, highlighting the irony of our internal combustion engine powered car sitting in the midst of all the electrics at the Detroit Auto Show.
But electric vehicles are here to stay and an electric VLC makes sense. Our breakthroughs in platform efficiency make all vehicles way more efficient, regardless of power source, and in an electric help solve issues of cost and range.
Billions are being invested in electric vehicle technology for a number of reasons. EV’s provide a path to energy independence and with American jobs, whether in the creation of green energy sources or in the mining and processing of coal. As a new industry, electric cars have the potential to revitalize important sectors of our economy. Electric vehicles are particularly efficient in short-cycle applications, such as Postal Service vans or some predictable commuters, and the relocation of emissions to a distance can be an advantage. Night-time charging will utilize excess generating capacity, and as the electric grid becomes green so can the future of transportation.
Currently, however, electrics cars have real issues. Batteries are heavy, big and costly. With electric drives cars get heavier, performance suffers and costs go up. Range is especially an issue, as witnessed by the numerous EVs in the 100-mile range X Prize alternative classes that made it to the knockout stage, versus only one EV in the 200-mile range mainstream class.
The hope and plan for electric cars is that the tremendous investment in battery technology will cause the weight and expense of batteries to go down, increasing range and decreasing costs of electric cars. But another way to increase the range of electric vehicles is with VLC innovations: a car that simply takes less energy to move can go farther and faster with a smaller, lighter and less expensive battery pack.
Coming soon, perhaps: an electric Very Light Car.
Reader Comments (95)
These light cars are a definite advantage. It will be interesting to see if one can make it to market given the investment needed and government mandated crash requirements.
Well I'm glad Edison 2 is sticking to their guns. I wish batteries were light and in-expensive, but never in my life so far, have I even seen heavy rechargeable batteries that were in-expensive. I hope one day it happens that every hourly paid American can actually afford a light weight BEV, however, being that no life form in billions of years of evolution chose to store energy in a battery form, (life stores energy in the form of fuels(carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids)) I won't hold my breath for that day.
To give you a real world example, the Lotus Elise, costs more than $40,000, it has a prestigious brand name, and it's made off of the continent. The Tesla roadster still has the same chassis as the Elise cost more than twice that of an Elise ($100,000), they have no prestigious brand name, no reliability record, and they are made here in the U.S. The big heavy reason of why it costs so much are the 6,000+ batteries which can never be fully emptied, frozen, baked in the sun, or else it's another however many ten thousands of dollars to replace the battery. And let's not forget shall we that the 20 or 30 thousand dollar battery has to be replaced at least every ten years.
There is also a real problem by making a bunch of expensive BEV's that only rich people can afford. The problem is that it would further segregate the rich from the poor, because the poor then become the only ones having to be at the mercy of gas prices to get to work, and only the rich become immune to the price of oil. Just like how common hourly waged people are subject to rent, from which they will never be able to get off of the monthly rent bill, but the rich can. Sure a poor person can still afford a house, but by the time (30 + years) that they no longer make mortgage payments, they are ready to retire from being on their feet and back for 30 years, or they are already dead, and so they would never see the benefits from it.
Anyway, I'm very glad Edison 2 is planning to make a very efficient car that hourly waged people like me can actually afford. That would really help out the lower class, because then both poor or rich people can do the right thing, and the lower class can reward themselves by having stronger independence.
I am enthused to learn that we may see a BEVLC in the near future. The VLC will be ideal as a battery electric car. It will be much quieter and cooler to drive than the ICE version, and high torque electric motors should eliminate the need for gear shifting.
An all electric VLC might cost less than half as much as the Chevy Volt, and would be much sportier to drive. Everyone complains that the Volt is too heavy and ponderous.
I am not why Biologist 111 thinks that batteries are expensive now and will always be so. I would suggest a different cost model comparison. Think about cell phones and computers. Sure they were expensive but now even poor people have them. While battery technology might not improve as quickly as cell phones, there is good reason to think the cost will come down. Part of costs coming down is to have rich people buy EVs for the first few years.
John, the reason that that is a relatively un-fair comparison is because cell phones, and laptops have always been powered by rechargeable batteries. That's not the case with cars. Have you ever been to Europe? You will see that they are efficiency green nerds to the bone. They have many wind farms, they use radiant heating in their homes, and these homes are lived in for multiple generations, there cars from the 80's look like new. The new cars on their lot can get 74mpg! and that's today mpg! They do this not with batteries, but with diesel, and new engine designs like CRD or common rail diesel injection. This technology is ready today, not tomorrow some time in the future, but today. If Europe is choosing against EVs, and after having seen much of how the continent runs, I don't think it's because they haven't already tried it, but rather that they realized how in-efficient it is for transport in un-metropolitan places. Maybe in another ten or twenty years batteries will be a fourth of the weight, maybe even tomorrow, but not today. That's the point, for the bulk of Americans, we're not in this slump of economy so that we can "one day" recover. We need it now more than ever. Looking to batteries in the future is good, but for right now, it's not an efficient choice.
It is going overboard to argue that mining and processing of coal will generate many jobs. Oversimplifying but generally correct, it takes one guy to run the drag line, one guy to load the giant truck, one guy to drive that giant truck, and one guy to drive the six engine locomotive. Not much is needed to empty the coal cars into the power plant hoppers. Coal mining used to be a primitive, labor intensive thing, but not anymore.
I am surprised that you are skipping over the hybrid which would use a small battery and light weight motors. This would enable regenerative braking and provide power for acceleration and hills. A smaller and lighter engine would then handle steady speed driving plus a little more steady power to bank the reserve needed for the peak loads. The smaller engine might result in a net weight of about the same as with the present ICE. An ideal power system operates at steady speed, and the average vehicle propulsion load is all that has to be provided to such a hybrid system.
@biologist111
Firstly, you are changing arguments here rather than defending your original point.
My point about cell phones and computer had nothing to do with the fact that they are battery powered and more to do with technology development curves and decreasing cost over time. 20 years ago, very few people had cell phone and they were expensive. Now cheap cell phones are available because rich people purchase the first ones and drove the technology down the cost curve to make them affordable. To some extent, this will happen with EVs as well.
As for the situation in Europe, I think you will find this has much more to do with tax policy than wanting to be green. In expensive gasoline in the US has created the system we currently have, like it or hate it.
As for diesels, there is certainly something to like there. But cheapness isn't one of them. The modern diesel engines are very expensive and, in the US at least, so is the fuel. This does very little to help with affordability. Also, diesel, like gasoline cars, are terribly inefficient when driving in and around the city.
So for today, the Toyota Prius is the answer. It is 50 MPG in the city, no other vehicle even comes close. No other hybrid can do 50 MPG in the city, no SMART, no DIESEL, nothing. Today. But it still uses gasoline with all the associated problems.
So going forward, EVs look pretty good. It is only $0.02/mile to operate versus $0.08/mile for my Prius. Better still, it can be charged using the solar panels on my roof. Completely clean, US made electrons. This will never happen with liquid fuels.
Battery cost is still a big challenge, I admit. But there are answers for this. Perhaps the best one is the E-REV concept in the Chevy Volt. The first 40 miles are electric and after that, a fuel efficiency gasoline engine takes over. Brilliant. The small battery is cheaper, because it is small, and the gasoline engine takes over so you can drive coast to coast if needed.
The VLC concept adds to all these ideas.
BTW, your use of the word "efficient" is particularly poor. Electric vehicles are the most efficient of any of these ideas. Gasoline and diesel engines only convert 15% to 25% of their energy to torque to drive the wheels. In electric vehicles, this is 80-90% of the electrons going in being converted to torque. So no matter what other complaints you have about EVs, they are remarkably efficient.
No, I didn't use the word efficient in-correctly at all John. Listen as close as you possibly can, very close. Ok, right now, batteries are required to drive EVs, correct? So, in the South most people drive SUVs or pick-up trucks, and most of the rest drive sedans. Now, in order to make an SUV of today be a Battery Electric Vehicle how many pounds of batteries would it take? Well since an SUV weighs in at a hefty 3 tons!, to make it a BEV you would need so many batteries, and more batteries just to carry the extra batteries. So let's be really optimistic and say that since the Tango electric's batteries are 2,000 pounds that you would then need at least twice that. Ok, so this where EV is going to suck terribly at efficiency here. A car that has to weigh 5 tons just to transport 5 people, usually only one (150 lbs) is not energy efficient no matter how you cut the dice, or how many percentages you can throw. Oh, sure an electric motor is extremely efficient sure, but just what were you planning on running it with, hopes and dreams?
Ok, hybrid will never, be the best solution for anyone who lives a sub-urban life-style which is most of us. Why? because it makes no sense whatsoever to have two power-plants in the same vehicle, both of which are sucking juice from the same place. That's a lot of extra weight, many more parts that can go wrong, many more materials, and only in a very narrow set of circumstances like in stop, and go, bumper to bumper traffic could a hybrid be more efficient than a light car with one power plant.
The reason they use hybrids now is because electrics just can't cut it. They're not cheap enough to make cost effective sense, and even a used one would still need a ten thousand dollar battery replacement, that barely makes up for the fuel cost savings. Their range is less than 100 miles, and it takes a long time to charge them up, and if exposed to any elements like hot or cold the battery is dead, and it's longevity has permanently been shortened, at least that's true with the lightest of batteries Lithium-ion. The same kind that radio-controlled car manuals tell about staying away from any RC vehicle with a Li-ion battery after a crash, because it might explode!
Ok, diesel. Why diesel? It has about a third again as many calories as gasoline per gallon, in other words more energy is stored in it. It behaves as an oil, and so much higher compression can be used, which makes it much more efficient than gasoline. New designs like common rail direct injection have made it quiet, more durable, more powerful, and more efficient. The engines are pricier, but consider this, a diesel engine last typically 3-5 times longer in the same application, and that was before CRDi. Also, it's here today, not in tomorrow "one day", but today, except the CRDi design is on another continent because of people like you that refuse to listen. The Volkswagen diesel polo gets an official 74 mpg, however some people have gotten it up to almost 90 mpg for the whole tank including people that live in the city! Did you listen?
@biologist111
Firstly, you did nothing to correct your misuse of the word "efficiency". Efficiency is the ratio between the work output from an engine to the energy put into the engine. On that score, EV's are 3 to 4 times as efficient as diesel and gasoline engines. You didn't even both to try to correct this fact, so I will assume you agree with me on that issue.
Secondly, agreed battery weight is a challenge, but let's not make up numbers just to make it look worse than it is. The weight of the Chevy Volt battery is about 400 pounds. The vehicle carries 4 people and is really quite practical. It is only slightly heavier than comparable vehicles. FYI, the Tango uses Lead Acid batteries, so this is really a ridiculous benchmark.
Thirdly, electric motors run on electricity, not hopes and dreams. If you have difficulty remembering, think about "electric" and "electricity" they sound similar so they will be easy for you to remember.
Fourthly, yes a light car with one power plant might be better than a Prius in terms of fuel efficiency and cost. I guess we will know more if and when someone makes them. So far, these are just prototypes. It is a little premature to make the comparison. BTW, the Prius is surprisingly the most reliable car on the market according to an award last year.
Fifthly, EVs coming forward this year have an 8 year/100,000 mile warranty on the battery and electric drive train. So I won't be too worried about that. Also, 10 years of Prius experience and RAV4_EV has shown the batteries to last 10 years or more. And the Prius battery has a 10 year/150,000 mile warranty.
Next, battery safety. I am guessing that right now, you have one or more lithium ion batteries in your pocket. A cell phone, perhaps an MP3 player. You are probably typing this on a laptop with a lithium ion battery. So seriously, how dangerous do you really think Lithium Ion batteries are? And are you seriously suggestion gasoline is safer? BTW, these Lithium Ion batteries are a new generation that have greater life and are more resistant to fire issues. But time will tell.
Next diesel fuel? OK so gasoline has 114,000 BTU/gal and diesel has 129,500 BTU/gal or 14% more energy (not 33% more again with making things up). Interestingly, if gasoline and diesel were sold by weight rather than by volume, the energy content would be about the same.
So why is Diesel better than gasoline, it is more efficient (You used the term correctly, in this regard, well done sir). A higher percentage of the energy in the fuel is converted to usable work at the motor shaft.
Why is the CRD not available in this country, because historically it was more polluting and caused many deaths and cancers. Understandably this has made them less desirable in the US market. Now the Diesel Fuel has been cleaned up (low sulfur, yeah) and the cars have been cleaned up (yeah). But the American market is not ready for them. Why? The fuel is more expensive and the cars are more expensive.
As for the VW polo, there are no EPA numbers so it is a bit difficult to compare. However, we can get a glimpse of the performance possible with the 2010 VW Jetta Diesel. This gets 30 city and 42 highway. The 2010 Prius on the other hand gets 51 city and 48 highway. So that makes the Prius 70% more efficient in the city. Ok and gasoline is cheaper than Diesel, so Prius wins by a landslide.
Oh and you were commenting on your beloved Polo, here is the reason that VW says it will not bring it to the USA.
“If it did, this model would be a bit pricy for this vehicle class…”
So even VW thinks it is too expensive.
Well you are right about the electric motor efficiency being more efficient, but even there, there are thermal losses for the battery and the motor gets hot, and the thermal conversion of energy was already done for you at the coal fired power plant, so your numbers are reduced by half. That energy didn't come from no-where, but it's the battery's weight that's killing it for EV's in total energy efficiency. I.E. the reason an electric car is more efficient is yes, the electric motor, but also because of low weight before batteries were added, and an aerodynamic body design. In other words, an ICE would also benefit from these advantages.
Yes, even Volkswagen will say their car is too expensive to sell here, I believe you about that. However, I'm going to disagree with Volkswagen that they will sell here, if not for one reason. You and me, and others out there that are looking for something else besides a 5,800 lbs. Toyota Sequoia. The reason I think they could sell here is because there are listening ears out there, and there is an absent market where there used to be diesel cars for sale, but no car manufacturer makes them for the US anymore. Even our resident Ford won't sell their diesel Fiesta that gets better miles per gallon than your beloved Prius. Well, on the highway anyway, which is most of my driving, which also might explain to you why I'm not really into shutting off the engine etc (advantages of hybrid technology). For me, going to work almost never requires a single stop. So, and I know everyone is different, but for my needs, diesel makes the most sense because of the highway mileage. That and I'm German.
Although, I have to admit, you've presented me with a lot of new information that is great news for EVs and hybrids. I'm honored in doing mental battles with you sir, you're quite the worthy adversary and I must pay my respects to you.
@biologist111
You are too kind sir.
Regarding EVs and highway driving, they are not the best match at the moment.
Actually I own two cars (well my wife and I). One is a Prius and the other is an inexpensive Toyota Corolla. I got to see the benefits and limitations of each of these vehicles.
Starting with the Corolla, I purchased the stripped down version (crack windows) for $13,000 new. The Prius was twice the price at $26,000. Clearly the gasoline savings on the Prius will never overcome the initial price difference on the vehicles. On the other hand, the Prius is very well equipped and a nicer car to drive. So I appreciate the arguments about building cost effective vehicles.
So I had a job that required me to drive long distances each day on the highway and the Corolla was providing 45 MPG (I admit to hypermiling). Lost my job and because to commute into the city. The Corolla MPG dropped like a stone to 22 MPG. By comparison, the Prius provides 52 MPG (in the summer) whether I drive it on the highway or in the city. So this city driving is really where the Prius blows away the competition. You might still argue that the vehicle is too expensive. However, there are a lot of people purchasing vehicles in the mid $20,000 price range, so I am not sure if the expense is such an issue.
People should not be as afraid of Diesels as they are in the US. The problems seem to have been addressed at this point. It will take time to get the word out to Americans. I also think that Diesel really have a gets performance on the highway. However, if people like me are commuting into the city with them, they would be much better off with a Prius. Even the SMART car is not that good in the city.
Regarding electric power for EVs, the source of this has not been lost on EV advocates. The current supply of dirty electric power and excessive use needs to be addressed. Personally, I have reduced my electricity consumption at my home by 75%. That is right I only use 25% of the electricity that I used in 2006. On top of that, I have installed 16 solar panels and frequently have negative electric bills. Yes the power company owes me money. So efficient use of electricity and renewable energy (in that order) can lead use to a better future. Also, the Germans are leading the way in this area.
I don't expect long-haul trucking or air travel to give up on fossil fuels any time soon, but there are areas of personal transportation that can either give them up, or use them more wisely.
Absolutely, the Prius is a great vehicle for the current age. Especially in the sense of getting 50 mpg in the city or highway. If you think about the weight that the car is pulling that's actually pretty good. No bicyclist could get 50 mpge on milk alone. I know. My dad also has a Prius, and it turns out he spends more money on the extra groceries he burns up bicycling than spending it on gasoline for the Prius! Of course, that's not really the reason he bicycles to work. He's almost 60 and going 25 miles by bicycle to work and then back again after work is pretty awesome fitness.
Yeah, no contest there, the smart car doesn't seem very good at anything relative to other vehicles other than parking.
It has only two seats but they are up too high. One of the reasons sports cars are so fun to drive, and I used to have a 93 Mazda RX-7, is not really because of the quick speed, but because they are low to the ground. So for instance, while driving a go-kart you're only going 35 mph, but it feels very fast, whereas an airplane may be breaking the sound barrier, but from 30,000 feet up, it doesn't look fast at all.
So, I have no problem with having only 2 seats for daily driving, but I know that it be fun in feeling fast without actually having to be fast.
A mazda miata takes longer to get to 60 mph than a buick road master, but which one might be perceived in the car as the fastest? I'm thinking the little low to the ground miata.
That's really impressive about your house energy reduction, wow! How, other than solar cells did you get that kind of efficiency.
I've been reading a book on earth sheltered houses, and it's amazing reading about the obvious efficiency gains just from having a house that uses an earth berm and earth roof. After reading it, you're like. So, 10,000 years ago cave men lived at a time when other animals died. Why? because they lived in a cave and the cave stayed warm enough, and after all this time we advanced humans still haven't taken the hint of passive solar, and earth sheltering our homes. That alone should provide those kind of efficiency gains you're talking about.
Yes, definitely, there is much more efficient options for transportation than we are currently using.
I think you are both a little off the track.
An electric motor is not an engine and it is also not a power plant. It is simply an energy conversion device, where energy converted is from electrical to mechanical These are both high order forms of energy and it is possible to convert back and forth with high efficiency. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. That is a big deal advantage, but it really does not mean that the electric motor provides the engine function that has to happen somewhere. Mostly because of that Law, the use of the word 'efficiciency' for motors does not carry over to use of the word 'efficiency' in context of heat engines.
In all cases there is some sort of heat engine involved in production of mechanical energy or electrical energy. Sometimes it is built and operated by Mother Nature. We do not worry too much about efficiency where that is the case. However, since the industrial revolution, the world has developed with the use of heat engines that burn fuels to make heat, since Mother Nature was not keeping up with things very well. For the man-made engines, and I mean !heat engines! it is meaningful to compare efficiencies, since these are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There are other problems which include metallurgical issues and formation of oxides of nitrogen when you try to get things too hot. It is also more of a deal to work with expanding gases in order to capture energy from heat. If nobody cares much about scarcity of fuel the efficiencies of such heat engines can be around 10%. With some effort, as with conventional automobile engines, it can get up to 20% or 25%. Diesel engines have long achieved 30% to 35% or so. Curiously, the Prius engine achieves 36% to 38% according to obscure documentation of measurements by Argonne Nat. Lab.
There is a lot of misinformation floating around about how electricity gets made. In nearly every practical and near term case of consequence, the real answer for where the electricity will come from is coal. I realize that is upsetting to a lot of people as it causes a lot of grand schemes to fly out the window. And though there is a lot of stampeding for electric cars right now, it is only a matter of time when the reality of the coal sinks in.
@Jim
With due respect, it is you that is off track and out of sync really.
Heat engines are the technology of the past. The future is wind and solar and maybe wave power. None of these are heat engines in the typical Carnot cycle sense.
As for the source of power for my EV, it will come from the solar panels on the roof of my house and not coal.
So if you want to talk about my EV efficiency it will have to be the combination of the 20% efficiency of the solar panels and the 80% efficiency of the electric motor and batteries in the car. Fossil fuels will not be the starting point for this calculation.
Later
John C. Briggs
John C. Briggs,
You might make the case that your solar panels will feed your electric car, but that is not the impact. And it is the impact that is important.
Think of it this way: Pretend you put solar panels on your roof, but hold off on buying the EV. You can sell your power to your local utility and they can use this to reduce power drawn from coal fired generators. So far, so good, you have reduced CO2 that would otherwise have gone into the air.
Now try to get a grip. DO NOT BUY the electric car. All the good you have done will stay done. But if you want a car, get a good hybrid, like the Prius. Now, you will be using oil and putting some CO2 into the air.
Ok, believe the hype and BUY the EV. The power company will not have your solar power to work with, so they will have to fire up some more coal fired generation to meet their needs which you were helping with before. And yes, they have plenty of that sitting around ready. In fact, when you started to sell them power, they took some off line and left it sitting there unused, so now that you are no longer delivering to them, back on it goes. The important comparison is the CO2 emitted from the Prius and the CO2 emitted from the power plant, which you have now forced them to do. The fact is that the coal fired power plant that actually will be there will emit more due to your EV than the Prius would have emitted. How green is that? What color is negative green?
As far as use of oil, the EV and coal will beat the Prius on gasoline. That is not a bad thing at all, but just try not to get conned into thinking it is saving the environment to chose the EV over the Prius.
Is the EV here to stay as edison2 states? Maybe, since it will work very well as far as shifting from oil to coal. But hold on a minute; have you seen the EPA plan to capture 'carbon'? (They think CO2 is carbon.) When you realize that you get 44/12 as much CO2 by weight in tons as the carbon that goes into it, you can figure out that EPA is setting up to force CO2 capture and storage that will effectively increase the price of coal from the Powder River Basin from about $12 plus transportation cost to about $186 plus transportation cost. Roughly this will increase the cost of fuel for our coal fired systems by a factor of about 15. Oops, the EV might cost a lot more to operate than many are planning on.
Of course, you should get a lot more from the utility for your solar generated power. Maybe you will not be so quick to give up that cash flow to you, in order to get a warm green feeling, which will turn out to be the color of 'negative green'.
@Jim,
Well done sir. Very well explained.
The only nit that I might pick with your argument is about the future supply of electrical power. I fully expect, and if possible will demand, that the electric companies switch to renewables. This is the law in Massachusetts and in other states as well. As the electricity on the grid gets greener, your argument becomes weaker. If the grid can reach 100% green (probably unachievable) the argument falls apart completely.
In the mean time, I intend to lead by example. I have reduced my power consumption by 75%, got solar panels, and now have excess electricity. The excess electricity is purchased by the power company at some ridiculously low rate, so if I can use it in a car it makes good economic sense. If I could power my home and two cars using the solar panels, I would say this is a good thing both environmentally and economically.
As a vision for the future, there is a gentleman named James Warden that is really leading by example. He does not use fossil fuels directly at all. He has an enornous solar panel array (he is in the business). This does three things for him. 1) supplies household electricity, 2) charges two electric vehicles, and 3) runs the geothermal heating system for his home. Think about it. No fossil fuels and no bills. Pretty cool.
So while I hear what you are saying about the relative greenest of the Prius versus an EV, my desire to lead by example compels me to reach for a state of no fossil fuel usage.
I don't know why you accept electricity from coal as the starting point for your arguments. I reject this completely. If angry citizens can stop nuclear in the 1970's then angry citizens can stop coal in 2010. If you accept coal, you have already surrendered to an unacceptable solution.
A few years ago, California was told that it would need to build something like 100 new coal fired power plants to meet demand (they were having brown outs). But they did not agree, they did not build a single power plant and they fixed the problem. How did they do it, well perhaps that is a discussion for another time.
As of for the cost of green, well I have eliminate $2000/year in electricity expenses and another $600/year in water expenses. So being green can make financial sense if you do it right. However, that is not always the primary motivator. Issues of pollution, economics, global warming, all play their part.
Anyway, you clearly know a lot about the subject, but I would just want to challenge your static assumptions of where electricity comes from in the future. The answer is "anything but coal.and gasoline"
With CO2 at 390ppm and climbing, we simply must stop burning anything for energy. Fortunately solar power is reaching parity with fossil fuels in cost, and solar is less expensive than new nuclear power plants. Oil is actually much more expensive than solar power, if the cost of air pollution, spills, military protection of oil lanes, and oil wars is properly included in the price of oil.
An electric VLC would require half the power, half the solar panels, to go the same distance as a heavier electric car like the Leaf or Volt. The energy needed to power a heavy EV might be enough to power both your electric VLC and and your house. A VLC electric should also be much more affordable to buy, since it needs only half the battery and materials compared to a heavy EV. The sooner we go to solar/wind power, the better it will be for everyone. Electric VLC's make the move to solar/wind power much easier.
John C. Briggs,
Lots of great conversation here.
My counters:
I accept coal as the starting point because that is where we started with the industrial world, and we are still at that point. I think that angry citizens would not have been able to stop nuclear if we had not had coal to fall back on. The persons that do the laundry might rise up in real outrage when they find that washing machines can not be affordably operated and getting clothes clean meant pounding them out on rocks in a river, like they still do in India. We in California are just now realizing that the only times we can affordably use our air conditioners is going to be on cold days when we do not need them.
Yesterday I read that the CEO of PGandE was trying to tell people about 'smart' meters, and went on to say that he thought people just were not aware of the 'tier' system of rates for electric power. "There are five tiers, the first two are about $.10, the third, fourth, and fifth are around $.30, $.40, and $.50." But my reaction is that we have not until this speech heard the word 'tiers'. It does not show on our bills, which instead say, 'Baseline Usage -- @ $0.11877, 101 - 130% of Baseline -- @0.13502, and 131 - 200% @$0.29062. I should point out that about a year ago the highest rate was around $0.20, and most people are upset due to this change, but they think it is a problem with 'Smart' meters which they have just noticed.
You see, we are not too good with numbers here in California. So we mostly rely on our leaders when they tell us that switching off coal will not cost much. At our house we usually do not stray into the higher of the rates, and never have I seen the 'tier 4' or 'tier 5' rates. Of course, we rarely need and do not have air conditioning at all. That is not the case for the rest of Californians a few miles inland, who I imagine are sharpening up their pitchforks. This is how things stack up now with natural gas being around $4.50 per MMBTU on the national market. I am not sure how things work, but it seems like those of us who hardly need electricity are getting a piece of the really cheap power from hydro and nuclear. Those who need it are paying the kind of rates that would enable natural gas generation. So next year the pitch forks will start travelling.
Two things could happen that we should take notice of, these being the now being discussed move to force 'carbon' capture on the coal burning power plants, which will increase the cost of fuel for electricity generating by around a factor of ten. This will indeed make natural gas competitive, even though there is some burden on this fossil fuel type for 'carbon' capture.
So it looks like we could see the cost of electricity to step up to the rate where natural gas can be affordably used, and even coal will be cleaned, so to speak. I imagine that doubling or tripling the rate at which we use natural gas will have an impact on that price. You might remember a few years ago when traders were slightly diddling the supply numbers, the price shot up to over $13 per MMBTU. I think we should watch out here.
And then, along come the electric cars, their owners thinking that electricity will be cheap. Not only will a much increased demand have a big effect on the price of electricity, the rate could well have already spiked to high levels for the reasons I previously mentioned.
I think I know how to make cars and trucks that use a lot less energy than the edison2 folks have managed, and a huge power crisis could be an enormous benefit to me. However, I would rather not have to market to folks wandering around in the desert scratching out insects to survive. Without a re-invigoration of our industrial system, our so called developed nation status might evaporate, and we might be reduced to a more common world standard of living.
China will continue to rely on their 80% coal fired electrical systems and the benefits of our improved living style will not be noticed in the CO2 concentration numbers.
@Jim Bullis
I really enjoy your writing style.
Let's talk about tiered rates for a moment. I think they are a great idea and particularly wonderful for EVs.
Firstly, tiered rates exist to try to help balance the load on the grid, not to penalize people for using electricity. Tiered rates have always existed for businesses and are a truer reflection of the cost of doing business. Right now, as I type this at on a cool night in Boston, probably less than one third of the generating capacity available is on line. Some of these power plants are being paid to stay off-line. That is right, they are being paid to do nothing. They have to be paid if we want them to be available for the 40 hours in July or August when it is very hot. If we don't continue to subsidizes them, they will close down and be unavailable when we need them.
So the cost of electricity from these "peaking plants" is higher for two reasons. 1) they have higher fuel costs. 2) they don't run that many hours so they have higher operating expenses compared to the amount of power they produced.
This is the reality of balancing the grid load. There needs to be a lot of generation capacity available compared to the average electricity demand. This is not very good use of capital and the rate payer must be charged accordingly.
So how can you change that situation. One thing that is being done in wonderful state of California is that they are installing "ice bears." These are large systems that make ice at night and then the next day the ice is melted to provide cool air for large buildings. This shifts the load from the day to the night and eliminates the need for new power plants.
So back to EVs. The cool thing about a tiered rate structure is the EV can be programmed to charge whenever the power company wants it to charge. This balances the grid and allows the EV to be charged at a low rate. Perhaps your $0.13/KWH which would be awesome.
But a revolt you say? about the cost of charging an EV? I hardly think so. If so people should be revolting about the cost of filling their gasoline tanks. Let's compare gasoline to EVs. If we charge at night at your $0.13/KWH and the EV uses 0.2KWH/mile that is $0.025/mile. If we fill up our 30 MPG car with $3/gallon gasoline, that is $0.10 per mile or 4X the cost of driving an EV. So if you want to revolt about something, it should be the price of gasoline, not the price of electricity.
If you live in California, not think about coal to much, it only supplies 1.1% of your electricity.
http://www.americaspower.org/The-Facts/
Later
John C. Briggs
Any discussion of the cost of electric vs gasoline powered cars must consider the true cost of oil. CBS published the following examination of the cost of oil, Aug 12, 2010 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/12/opinion/main6767046_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
By several accounts the actual price we pay for gasoline in the US is well over 10 dollars a gallon. A 1998 study put the actual cost at over 15 dollars per gallon, and that was before the three trillion dollar Iraq war and the Gulf oil disaster.
If we paid the true price of 10 to 15 dollars per gallon right at the pump, everyone would be driving solar powered battery electric cars right now. Few would be willing to pay the actual cost of $200 to fill their tank, especially when the total cost of solar powered electric cars would be a tiny fraction of that amount. But we actually do pay that 10 to 15 dollar price per gallon through taxes and other externalized costs.
Oil powered IC engines are inefficient, noisy, balky, high maintenance, CO2 spewing anachronisms. The Prius is an IC car, even though it has electric drive to help the gas motor operate more efficiently.
A VLC electric car would weigh less than half as much and be twice as affordable, compared to a heavier electric like a Volt or a Leaf. With the savings you could buy a bunch of solar panels that will give your electric VLC 25 years of pollution free fill ups directly from the sun. And the electric VLC might last 25 years too, with the only major maintenance being battery replacement every 8 years.
Of course batteries are advancing very quickly now, so in eight years new batteries will probably give the car a 500 mile range, and last longer than the electric car.