The buzz around electric cars reached a Norelco pitch last week after Nissan started showing off its new Leaf and Carlos Ghosn claimed 10 percent of global automotive sales will be electric by 2020.
That's 10 years from now, and when one considers the technological potential of the next decade it doesn't sound so far fetched, right?
Wrong! I think this prediction (like most automotive predictions involving more than 5 years) is more sound-bite than sound reasoning. And if you don't believe me, ask Bob Lutz. I did last week on the same day the Leaf made it's splash-down in Los Angeles.
Lutz was in Los Angeles as part of the 2011 Buick Regal reveal at the Hollywood Palladium, but several senior Edmunds.com folks spent some quality time with him at the Roosevelt Hotel. We discussed multiple topics, including the future of the electric car.
Of course GM is introducing their own version of electric motorvation in 2011, the Chevrolet Volt. As you might assume, Bob Lutz thinks GM's approach of selling an electric vehicle with a range extender (the Volt's on-board engine that can power its motor) is smarter than trying to go the Leaf's all-electric route.
In this case I have to agree with Mr. Lutz. The potential for an all-electric car remains limited by range, cost and functionality concerns, but I think the first issue is what will ultimately confine electric cars to niche buyers with niche needs. The term range anxiety (originally coined by Bob Lutz, I believe) accurately describes every mile I've traveled in an electric vehicle, including our own Long-Term Mini E. There's just no getting away from it when you're driving a vehicle you can't quickly and easily refuel.
"But Karl, what about when there's a recharging station on every city corner?"
First, I don't see that happening for decades, if ever. It's expensive. No, actually it's monumentally expensive. Who's going to pay for it? The federal goverment? The state government? The automakers? The car buyers? I don't know if you've noticed, but none of those folks are exactly swimming in extra cash right now.
But even if vehicle recharging stations were as common as gas stations there's still the timing issue. I keep hearing it will "only" takes 20 minutes to recharge an electric car battery pack to 80% of its capacity, but that's still a much longer process than the five minutes it currently takes to refuel an internal combustion engine. Imagine adding an extra 20 minutes to your daily schedule just to keep your car running. Yes, I said "daily" because at only 80 percent capacity the limited range these vehicles offer will be further limited, increasing the likelihood you'll have to carve out a 20-minute hole in your day's busy schedule.
Bob Lutz brought up all of these points, and further pointed out that, currently, the market for hybrid cars in the U.S. is 2.5%. It might go as high as 3% in the next 1-2 years. Hybrids don't create range anxiety in their drivers. Hybrids are powered by the same fuel as other cars, meaning there's no infrastructure issue to solve. And while more expensive than pure internal combustion engines, hybrid drivetrains cost less than pure electric drivetrains.
And hybrids makes up less than 3% of the U.S. market 10 years after their introduction.
Don't get me wrong. There's a place for cars driven by pure electricity.
But it's not in 10 percent of the world's garages. Not even in 2020.
By pat1usmc
on November 17, 2009
06:17 AM
Almost 2010 and we have zero electric cars in production and only 2.5% hybrids. We should have had flying cars by now, hoverboards, engines that run on water! We put a man on the moon over 40 years ago! A 1GB hard drive 10 years ago took up an entire wall unit, now I have a 4GB thumb drive in my pocket. If only the automotive industry developed as fast as computers and other technology...
By tonupboi
on November 17, 2009
07:00 AM
The bottom line is that 'range anxiety' factor. I'm in a situation where an electric car with a 60 mile range would work for me. 21 miles each way to work, plus a cushion for winter when you know you're not going to get anything like the range the reports are complaining. However, if the wife calls me on the way home from work asking me to stop and pick up something not on my route, I've got to say, "now way". Can't take the risk.
Who's going to be profiting the most off the first 5-8 years of electric car use? Towing services.
Now, I've thought of a simple, very non-technical solution that I'm surprised no manufacturer has considered. I can only assume it's too simple. My idea is an electrical version of a motorcycle reserve fuel petcock.
Have one extra battery somewhere in the car (the trunk?), connected into the system for recharging but isolated during drive. Have a manual switch on the dash (not mechanical, it resets to the 'off' position when the ignition is turned off) that will put the reserve battery in play should you run out of power. Enough battery to get you 5-10 miles.
By carlisimo
on November 17, 2009
09:45 AM
I would design electric cars so that one or two battery banks were removable. The rest would have to be charged normally, but you could stop at a gas station and swap out a battery or two for an extra 10-20 miles. Gas stations could remain gas stations, with the addition of a giant battery charger that would look like a server stack.
I don’t think range is so much an issue as cost, which will eventually go down. Electric cars don’t need to be primary cars; households now tend to have several cars in them, including cars purchased for nothing but the commute. And parents might like giving their kids a car that can’t go very far. I do agree 10% is unrealistic (especially in global terms) but I can see 5% happening in Japan and 2-3% here.
By the_big_al
on November 17, 2009
01:14 PM
The ONLY way the electric car can become viable is to a have an entire electric infrastructure set up. Not to say that this isn't possible, I mean look at what happen with the gasoline powered car? An infrastructure had to be set up and it took years and millions of dollars to do it.
But to do the electric car, you would have to do more than just have an electric filling station. You would have to have charging ports at various locations like business offices where people work and shopping malls where people shop so that they can plug in while the vehicle is sitting. That raises the question though; who pays for that? Not only to install and retrofit, but for the use? Do you have some sort of metering system that you pay for?
As far as electric filling stations, it would make more sense to have replacement battery packs available that would be easily swapped out. That however would require electric cars to be standardized across the board so that you don't have to have multiple sets and styles and types of batteries for each car lying around. It could be set up similar to a propane tank exchange system. As long as the battery you bring in is good and capable of taking a charge, you can exchange for a new pack. If designed right it could take less the same time required to do a traditional gasoline fill.
And then finally, all residences would have to be outfitted with a charging system that would charge the vehicle while at home.
So while possible, the cost factor involved in setting up such an infrastructure would be astronomical. It would also require all automakers to collaborate so as to make sure all battery types were compatible. That is a challenging task all by itself in that batteries can take many forms and shapes depending on the type of application and space constrictions in a particular vehicle....
Then there is still the issue of range. Having charging ports at shopping malls and business offices would solve the short term range issues and allow you to do all your running around through out the day in an electric car since you can keep it charged. But what about road trips? The average gasoline powered car can go 400 miles or so on a tank of gas, take a 5 minute break and keep going. An electric car? Even with the ability to swap out batteries which given the complexity of designing a battery to fit each individual application, it would be near impossible that a complete and total battery swap would be feasible so that it is comparable to your typical "fill-up". Again the range. How far can we get these things to go? 100 miles? 200 miles? unless you can design me a car that can get at least 300 miles and that's bare minimum on a single charge, I wouldn't want to be taking it on any road trips.
Is the electric car viable? Maybe, but not without a huge cost and we as a people would have to change our lifestyles a bit to accommodate the electric car.
By jederino
on November 17, 2009
04:52 PM
^^Pat, infrastructure is different than apps on the iPhone. The investment is huge in our gasoline network, and has been planned and invested in for decades - think mortgage timelines, at least. Everything about our electrical network must be modified for an appreciable transition to all-electric transporatation.
In addition, lawmakers know society has not come to terms with the tradeoffs this will entail, including more nuclear waste. I agree with this article that the timelines will be stretched on and on.
By savetheland
on November 17, 2009
05:52 PM
In case you do not know Nissan is using battery replacement design developed by Better Place - Palo Alto, CA company established by Israeli. It had already deployed network of stations in Israel since it is small country and founder is from Israel, for test purposes. They are also going to deploy stations in Hawaii, Denmark and some other small countries, may be even in CA. Nissan is the first company to use Better place specs as internal standard for batteries used in electric cars. Other companies may eventially follow experiment if it is successfull. Eventially if it makes profits it may over time be in every corner, of course of Obama policies of dismantling capitalism does not eventially push Agassi to run away from US to greener pastures (like Israel). If he does it - then American will drive American equivalent of coal powered Trabant.
By mcmanus
on November 18, 2009
06:44 AM
So far, I'd even take a Smart car (the worst car for sale in the U.S. IMO) long before any of the prospective electrics. The electrics are expensive up front, limited driving range, long refueling times, have a horrible environmental impact for producing/deposing of batteries, the batteries are bulky and very heavy, and the batteries have a limited lifetime.
The overall environmental footprint of a decent fossil fuel powered car is far less, with none of the above shortcomings.
Bottom line, electrics take us in the wrong direction both short and long term. Short term, lighter cars and clean diesel power are obtainable and provide more benefits than electric. Long term fuel cells is the future. Lets stop getting distracted with electric and focus on fuel cells.
By cruiserhead1
on November 18, 2009
07:11 AM
The biggest concern I have with electric cars is, as mcmanus said, the environmental impact of all those batteries. One electric car must have the poisionous impact of dozens of petrol cars. Even if electric cars hit 3% of the market, that's a huge growth in environmental poisioning.
Also, what is the long-term value of the electric car? It is essentially a disposable product right?
Once the batteries go, it's worthless.
A petrol car can and does change hands many times. The petrol car can be recycled, sold for many parts, rebuilt, and driven or live on as spare parts.
It can also be easily recycled. Barring one battery, it's almost totally recyclable.
By tonupboi
on November 18, 2009
11:40 AM
All this talk of massive infastructure seems to be predicated on the belief that all this stuff has to be in place before, or at least right along side, the first electric car sales. I don't think so.
For the sake of argument, let's drop back to when the ICE powered automobile was at the same point of social development as the EV powered car is now. Say, about 1905-1910.
I don't remember reading in my histories of anyone lobbying Teddy Roosevelt for a massive buildup of gas stations. You went to the hardware or druggist to buy a couple of gallons of gasoline. Meanwhile, someone got the bright idea that specific stores for the storage and sale of gasoline could be awful profitable.
That's how the EV is going to develop. The current, upcoming generation are going to be of interest to suburban commuters with garages or at least off-street parking on their property with an outside power outlet. Expansion beyond that? It'll happen, in whatever is the most effective and practical manner. Which, of course, politicians don't have a clue about, engineers are usually too fancy in their ideas, and consultants are wasting your and my money if their being paid to make pronouncements.
And that EV development is going to proceed at the pace that is necessary and effective. And most of it can probably be done without taxpayer dollars, because it'll be necessary.
By evsnow
on November 25, 2009
07:48 AM
I can understand concerns about the environmental impact of "all those batteries." Lithium-ion batteries seem to be the latest craze and not only should we concerned about the environmental impact but the supply. Bolivia holds 50% of the lithium supplies in the world and according to Nissan, we will outstrip supply in less than 10 years and the lithium will become cost prohibative. The answer, was and is, nickel metal hydride batteries used in the Saturn Ev-1s and the Toyota RAV4-EVs, both 100% electric vehicles that averaged over 100 miles per charge. Chervon (AN OIL COMPANY) holds the patent rights to these NiMH batteries and they aren't letting go. Nickel is cheap, easily recycled and abundant. If we could get the NiMH back, there would be EVs all over the place in no time. Cefo, author of Two Cents Per Mile, has an idea on how we can do it with the help of President Obama. Check out twocentspermile.com for more info.