Plug-In Hybids More Likely Than EVs To Succeed in Near Future, Says Economist; but Both Are Closer To Becoming Mainstream as Battery Technology Improves
By
Rick Popely, Contributor
The flood of electric vehicle announcements from major automakers lately might make it seem as though battery-powered EVs are just around the corner.
But plug-in electric hybrids that lean heavily on an internal combustion engine still have much greater market potential than EVs says Dan Santini, senior economist at Argonne National Laboratory.
Lithium-ion batteries being tested at Argonne National Laboratory.
----------
"I'm looking for technologies that a lot of people would buy and that could save a lot of fuel," said Santini, whose job it is to sort through emerging technologies to find ones with the greatest market potential.
On those counts EVs trail plug-ins by a wide margin as a potential game changer, he said in remarks during an Argonne-sponsored international conference on lithium-ion automotive batteries that ends today.
As automakers and battery manufacturers at the three-day battery technology confab touted their latest secret sauces for batteries that bring EVs closer to prime time, Santini downplayed the potential for electric cars to become mainstream in the U.S.
The Big Obstacle
While advanced lithium-ion batteries could extend the range of four-passenger EVs from scores of miles to hundreds, the cost of the batteries and the fast-charge systems that will make them applicable to everyday automotive use is likely to be more than most consumers can afford or would be willing to pay, he said.
EVs are most attractive as small city cars driven for short distances, but the appeal and impact of those cars would be limited, he said, because the people who would buy them don't burn much gas now.
And without a national system
of rapid-recharge stations, full-size EVs are not likely to replace
hybrids and conventional vehicles in most garages.
That's
because even car buyers who rarely do so want to feel that they can
jump in their vehicles for a cross-country drive without having to
worry about lengthy layovers for refueling.
A recent University
of California-Davis study estimated that EVs capable of 60 mph. could
account for 2 to 4 percent of the new vehicle market if priced between
$10,000 and $20,000.
As prices climbed over $20,000, sales would drop, especially if the cars were two-seaters with limited cargo space.
Full-Size Means Headaches
"Two-seaters
don't have mass market potential. It has to be a four-seater," said
Santini, noting that as passenger capacity increases, a vehicle
typically gets heavier, which increases the size and cost of the
battery pack it would need.
Even the economies of scale gained by mass producing lithium-ion batteries isn't a guarantee of lower cost, he said.
The
rising price of the materials used in batteries - such as copper,
steel, magnesium and aluminum - could offset savings achieved by
improved production techniques.
And because they need more batteries than plug-ins or conventional hybrids, EVs would remain at a cost disadvantage.
The
need for a charging infrastructure remains an obstacle. If an EV runs
out of juice on the road, the driver will want a fast charge of 15
minutes or less, which requires expensive charging equipment on the
vehicle and at a charging station.
"With a plug-in, you don't
need a fast charge. You just use the gas engine" after the initial
battery charge from the power grid is depleted, Santini said.
"I see a plug-in as a vehicle that I can do anything with, and I can save some petrol and CO2 emissions."
So
far, the only two plug-in hybrids heading to market are the Chevrolet
Volt and a Toyota model, probably a plug-in version of the Prius.
PHEVs By 2010
General
Motors showed the production version of the Volt on Tuesday and
repeated its goal of having the car, which it calls an extended-range
EV, ready for retail sales by November, 2010.
Whatever name
you chose to call it, the Volt fits the description of a series hybrid,
using an on-board generator to make electricity to power and electric
drive motor - the two powerplants working "in series."
In the
Volt's case, the car will use grid-rechargeable lithium-ion batteries
that can provide up to 40 miles of travel before an on-board internal
combustion engine will kick on to generate enough juice to power the
electric motor and recharge the batteries.
People who rarely drive more than 40 miles in a day --
that's more than half of all U.S. commuters - will rarely use the gas
engine, while those with longer trips could make a tank of gas last for
weeks or even months.
The car also could be used for
long-distance trips because the gasoline generator would keep producing
electricity for the drive motor as long as the fuel tank was kept
filled.
Toyota Motor Co. also plans a plug-in hybrid, for fleet use, by late 2009.
The company hasn't said, though, when - of even if - it will make the car available in the retail market.
Change of Tune
Toyota
had been unenthusiastic about EVs and plug-ins because it is heavily
invested in conventional hybrids, in which the batteries are kept
charged with energy from regenerative braking and cannot be recharged
from the commercial power grid.
But at the Argonne conference
this week, Noboru Kikuchi, vice president of Toyota's North American
research center, said plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, could
reduce carbon dioxide emissions and fuel costs below those of
conventional hybrids such as the Prius.
"We can see a bright
future for them in that respect," he said, but added - despite GM's
claim of a 40-mile range for the Volt - that Toyota believes present
battery technology limits the electric-only range of a plug-in hybrid
to less than 15 miles.
While the two companies' PHEVs have
captured a lot of attention, interest in pure EVs has increased
recently as well with the launch of the Tesla Roadster and
announcements by Toyota and Nissan that they will offer small electric
cars in small numbers in the U.S. starting in 2010 - although with
initial sales mainly to fleet customers.
Mitsubishi and Subaru also have said they will offer small, city-car type EVs.
Trickle, Not Flood
All
the promises might make it sound as if we can expect a tidal wave of
plug-ins and EVs in the future, but will be more like a trickle over
the next five years, Global Insight analyst Phil Gott told Green Car Advisor.
Gott forecasts sales of 100,000 PHEVs annually by 2013, with the Volt accounting for as much as 95 percent of the market.
In
a 16-million vehicle year for new car and truck sales, that's a total
share for plug-ins of only 0.6 percent, but Gott expects it to grow
pretty consistently after 2013.
Pure EVs' share of the overall market, however, will be considerably smaller.
"By 2013-2015 we'll just begin to see some electric passenger cars that are competitive with conventional vehicles," Gott said.
Most
will be fleet vehicles used by government agencies and businesses for
"fixed missions" - short distances that will keep them close to
charging stations.
And manufacturers that build them will do so
mainly to satisfy mandates for zero-emissions vehicles in California
and states that have adopted California's emissions rules, he said.
Future Is Electric
"Despite
all the enthusiasm for electric vehicles, they're limited by the
batteries in terms of the mainstream market," Gott said, echoing
Argonne economist Santini.
But Gott isn't as pessimistic as
Santini. The future belongs to battery-electric because "electricity
can be manufactured from solar, wind, coal, practically anything," he
said.
Battery limitations eventually will be overcome, he said,
predicting that both PHEVS and pure battery-electric vehicles will be
in the mainstream by 2020.
"That sounds like a long way off, but
the industry has been working on batteries for 100 years, so now the
future is just around the corner."
Contributor Rick Popely is a longtime auto writer and most recently covered the auto industry for the Chicago Tribune.
- Posted by
- John O'Dell September 17, 2008, 5:45 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Batteries
- Technorati Tags:
- Argonne National Laboratories Battery Conference, Electric Vehicles, Lithium-Ion
What a crock! Electric vehicles are not the answer period. I don't care if they are pure EVs or plug-ins they require generated electricity that America already imports around 20% of the fuel (natural gas) to generate and then you lose nearly 12% just sending it down the grid. Limited range, reliability problems, high cost to produce and maintain, not eco-friendly from a manufacturing or disposal view. What a stupid national policy almost as bad as ethanol. Just anothe means to stretch oil and keep us suckling at the oil teat for decadeds. Might offer a solution for those in high density urban areas to commute a few blocks but don't try to take it to Grandmas for the holidays.
The only energy source that has the potential to replace 100% or oil based fuel, can be domestically produced, is totally polution free, can run either internal combustion or fuel cell vehicles, is the most abundant element in the universe, and with recent research at several universities promises to be extremely casst effective is hydrogen.
The pursuit of all the other idiot notions from bio diesel to EVs is counter productive to a real solution.
Marketable fuel cells are much further off technologically, key term being "marketable", in this case meaning available at a cost the market will bear.
Let alone, fuel cell vehicles are EVs, where a fuel cell provides the electricity. Much of what is learned and tested during the phase in of EVS will aid the next gen hydrogen cars twenty years from now when they become viable, its a step down the road, not a dead end.
bfarrell,
I feel the need to start by reposting part of an earlier reponse to one of your pro-hydrogen entries on another thread.
- - -
Part of the allure of electric cars, whether they are pure electric or plug-in hybrids (such as the forthcoming Volt) is that the electricity can come from a variety of sources. The sources can be cleaner (solar, wind, geothermal) or more tailored to the local market (natural gas vs. coal vs. hydro) in terms of pricing and availability. Furthermore, the infrastructure is largely in place for electric cars, and to a lesser extent, natural gas.
- - -
I'll add that while hydrogen itself is totally pollution free, it doesn't just exist in a usable natural state. It takes energy to extract it from other materials (such as water or natural gas), energy to compress and cool it into liquid form which can be used as a vehicle fuel (either via fuel cell or via direct combustion a la BMW), and energy to transport it. Furthermore, even with the best storage containers, it evaporates and is lost at the rate of 1% per day.
You talk about the environmental consequences of battery production, but ignore the environmental consequences of producing millions of state of the art cryogenic storage tanks for an extremely volatile fuel with a low energy density (one quarter that of gasoline for an equivalent volume). Hydrogen may be a solution down the road, but plug-in electric hyrbrids can be used now, largely with existing infrastructure. With smart meters that know when to draw power from the grid, they'll also make use of nighttime baseline electricity production that would otherwise be wasted.
From the Wikipedia entry on hydrogen vehicles:
The Economist magazine in September 2008, quoted Robert Zubrin, the author of Energy Victory, as saying: "Hydrogen is 'just about the worst possible vehicle fuel'".[38] The magazine noted the retirement of Ballard from the industry and the withdrawal of California from earlier goals: "In March [2008] the California Air Resources Board, an agency of California's state government and a bellwether for state governments across America, changed its requirement for the number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to be built and sold in California between 2012 and 2014. The revised mandate allows manufacturers to comply with the rules by building more battery-electric cars instead of fuel-cell vehicles."[38] The magazine also noted that most hydrogen is produced through steam reformation, which creates at least as much emission of carbon per mile as some of today's gasoline cars. On the other hand, if the hydrogen could be produced using renewable energy, "it would surely be easier simply to use this energy to charge the batteries of all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles."[38]
Just a quick rebuttal:
Cryogenic Hydrogen is not necessary. If you can run a vehicle (internal combustion not fuel cell) on compressed Nat Gas you can, with the same modifications run it on compressed hydrogen. The advantage to making the infrastructure change hydrogen based is not having to do it twice to adapt to fuel cells that will not run on nat gas. The Honda Clarity fuel cell and the Ford Focus fuel cell test vehicles now on the road for over three years use compressed H. The Clarity has nearly a 300 mile range on 4 liters of compressed H and comparable 74mpg in a car you can simply start up and drive anywhere without looking for a place to recharge it. The refueling process is similar to liquid fuel with some safety and capacity differences. In an era of economic stagnation (malaise) the building of a hydrogen infrastructure is just the type of stimulation this nation needs to put people to work and regain a reputation of inovation and tech leadership internationally.
I will repeat my disdain for plug-ins as not only is a plug-in wasteful with nearly 12% of the energy lost in an already over taxed and antiquated grid but the fuel to produce that electricity is already nearly 25% imported nat gas. Like the ethanol debacle raising food prices wait till you see what nat gas to heat your home will cost. Not moving towards energy independence with this notion. Might be a fine vehicle for a quick trip to the nearby store but limited range, expensive, heavy, eco-unfriendly batteries are not the answer. As to true EVs the biggest problem is range and it will be decades before that problem is solved while in the mean time those driving a "dolt" will have to push the vehicle to merge on the freeway (its heavy and a dinky 4cyl) once they get over 40 miles. The "dolt" is a joke and a P.R. campaign for G.M. more than a viable solution.
Lets deal with the real concern regarding hydrogen. We all know it takes a certain amount of energy to break the bond of hydrogen and oxygen in water to release the hydrogen. In the past this has been done with electricity. That is the past. Current research into cogenerated steam reformation from coal is years away from viability. Now join the future as in this month. Check out the research from M.I.T. They have announced both a room temp catalyst and the use of nitrogen fixing bacteria as highly efficient easily attainable cost effective methods of hydrogen production from water. The commercialization simply awaits enlightened leadership.
Your take on EVs and nat gas offer no solution to the true goal of eliminating oil based fuels for trasportation. They only offer a means to stretch exiting supplies and take up the slack from increased demand and will leave us suckling on the oil teat for decades.
No thank you.
P.S. Even nuts Lutz, the snake oil salesman for the "dolt" has stated the only reason G.M. is putting its eggs in the EV basket is because America won't get serious about building a hydrogen infrastructure.
Hydrogen is the only viable 100% replacement fuel for oil it simply is not the latest in a series of pandering fad fixes that currently finds EV's being sold as an answer when they are not.
gwmort:
The "dolt" EV will go 40 miles without using oil (gasoline) and will cost 30-40k
The Fx Clarity fuel cell will go nearly 300 miles and use no oil (gasoline) and will cost (once mass produced) 30-40k
You pick!
Hydrogen is cleaner and can replace 100% of oil demand for transportation. Recent research has shown that hydrogen from water will be more than competitive price wise and there are three oceans of it abutting America.
What are we waiting for?????
The research announcements regarding fuel cell construction improvements and cost reductions are coming almost daily.
bfarrell,
Thanks for the clarification on compressed hydrogen vs. liquid hydrogen. I think we're both on the same page, but looking at the problem from different angles and through different lenses. I think we both agree that the ultimate goal is the elimination of oil-based fuels for transportation. It appears to me that you want to make a monstrous technological leap, and I probably seem like a plodding stick-in-the-mud who doesn't want to go far enough, fast enough.
I guess I view plug-in hybrids as a viable intermediate step on the road away from oil-based fuels. The lessons learned from producing plug-in hybrids should help the eventual development of hydrogen-powered cars. From a systems standpoint, I don't see any problem with converting a plug-in hybrid's power architecture to a fuel cell vehicle - you remove the gasoline-powered generator, and install what is essentially a hydrogen-powered generator, possibly with a bypass switch that allows you to run the system directly off the energy produced by the fuel cell.
I do have to disagree with your assertion that hydrogen can replace 100% of transportation fuel use. While I do agree that it will be able to eventually replace 95% of private ground-based transportation, I have significant reservations about the practicality of hydrogen for air travel. I remember reading a book about the legendary Lockheed Skunk Works (builders of the U-2, SR-71, and F-117), which had a chapter called "Blowing Up Burbank" that chronicled the firm's attempts to build a hydrogen-powered plane. In the end, it was deemed infeasible to build a pressure vessel strong and light enough to enable the use of hydrogen as a jet fuel - I think it worked out that such a jet would have to refuel every 200 miles or so. Even assuming improvements in modern materials technology, I think we're still a long-way off from powering a cross-Atlantic flight with hydrogen.
Yes we are on the same page here. If this great nation is to thrive in the 21st century it is necessary to get off the oil teat soonest. The economic future and any prospects for peace demand it.
I am simply of the opinion that given the challenge by enlightened leadership, much like Kennedy's challenge of going to the moon by the end of the decade, the American spirit of "can do" MIA since 9/11 can build a hydrogen economy.
All of the half way measures i.e. ethanol, hybrids, EV's, clean diesel, plug-ins, etc. do not accomplish the goal. The effort to convert to these stop gap notions is better spent on the long term solution. It has taken us nearly 35 years of inaction and denial to get to this point and there is no true quick fix. Makes no sense to me top simply try to stretch current oil supplies when a 100% solution is possible.
Yes, the commercialization of inexpensive methods of hydrogen production presents a challenge but recent research makes it entirley feasable.
The nation thatdeveloped, tested, and deployed the atom bomb in under three years can certainly convert it's transportation fleet to hydrogen in ten. We simply need to start treating this issue with the importance and immediacy it demands.
Don't claim to be a aviation engineer and yes that industry uses vast amounts of oil based fuel but I do know the engines of a commercial airliner will run on hydrogen and the on board storage issue can be overcome.
More importantly hydrogen solves the problem of retrofitting the current vehicle fleet and the fuel cell future (closer than most think) and does not require additional nat gas imports.Conveniently it also solves the emmissions problem.
EVs require energy to be generated by imported energy for the foreseeable future and uses a very inefficient delivery system (grid) in the case of plug-ins. True EVs require batteries that do not exist to truly be a viable alternative.
Can't see any other technology that offers the total solution needed.
What is really ludicrous is the decisions regarding the PARAMOUNT issue are being taken in an obfuscated, purposely misinformed, panicked atmosphere eerily similar to the run up to the Iraq War. The news media we rely upon to discover truth was missing then and now.
bfarrel:
Your comment "the Fx Clarity fuel cell will go nearly 300 miles and use no oil (gasoline) and will cost (once mass produced) 30-40k" is without foundation. Either that or your "once mass produced" is referring to 10-20 years from now.
Estimates are the models in the test program cost nearly $500,000 each to build. Fuel cells are not yet economically viable purely on cost. Someday they will be, but I don't want to go thru 3-4 diesel vehicles waiting for someday.
And really your arguments against EV's in terms of energy independence just fail. If you took the energy needed to produce, ship, and store hydrogen and put it in a battery and just used it in your car you would be saving not wasting. Pure electrics have the benefit of cutting out the middle men.
Example: some time in the future City has a totally green solar power system producing x Mw a day. City can use some of those Mw to produce Hydrogen, pressurize it, and ship it, so that it can be put in cars are turned by fuel cells back into electricity to drive electric motors, or City can transmit thru the grid to charging stations to put the electricity directly into cars to run their electic motors. Which model seems more sensible long term?