I'm in Detroit right now, surrounded by show cars promising everything from 18 mpg to 230 mpg to infinite MPG, though the latter numbers require one to believe batteries and pure electric cars require ZERO energy. If you believe the hype you might think the electric car is just around the "Electric Avenue" corner, waiting to save us from all those nasty gasoline fumes and all that evil foreign oil.
Of course we all know electric cars still need energy from somewhere, but we've told ourselves electric power is far cheaper and cleaner than refined oil because electric cars don't have exhaust pipes. I think if one were to closely research the assembly and "motor-vation" of electric cars one might be a tad disappointed at their supposed cleanliness, but that's a topic for another column. Instead I'm going to temporarily give the electric car brigade their way and blithely agree that cars powered by motors are somehow "better" for the planet than cars powered by engines.
That said, what will it take to get a meaninful number of U.S. drivers into these electric cars? I think we'd all agree electric cars represent nothing more than headline-grabbing novelties until people start opting for them in lieu of gasoline power.
Not that manufacturers would ever stoop to meaningless technology exercises just to garner a positive headline or three...
For clarity I'm going to define "meaningful number of U.S. drivers" as the same number of people already buying diesel or hybrid vehicles -- that's less than 3 percent of the new car market for either. If 3 percent doesn't sound particularly meaningful to you, well, I agree. However, if electric cars could ever match even that low bar I'd still be impressed.
So, what's killing the electric car?
There are currently three distinct issues the electric car must solve if it wants to become a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine. I could use any number of electric vehicles as a basis for this discussion but I'm going to stick primarily with the Mini E because it's a car I'm quite familiar with (we've got one in our long-term fleet) and because it perfectly represents the challenges facing every electric car.
1. Range: The Mini E's range was stated to be 160 miles under "optimal" conditions, but our long-term Mini E pretty much hits a wall at 100 miles if driven at slow, stop-and-go speeds. The number drops further if we take it for an extended highway run. Recent reports from cold-weather Mini E drivers indicate the range drops an additional 30-50 percent when the temperature drops. The guys at Top Gear had a similar experience with a Tesla Roadster, with the car running out of juice about halfway through its claimed 240-mile range.
What's Killing the Electric Car: People were never thrilled with the pre-2008 EPA mileage numbers that promised more than they could deliver in terms of miles-per-gallon. But while those numbers were consistently optimistic they usually weren't TWICE the claim of real-world fuel mileage. Electric car ranges have to go up, and they have to stay up, even when you travel on a freeway or drive during a cold snap.
In my opinion, an electric car must be able to travel at least 100 miles under worst-case conditions before any substantial number of American car buyers will give them serious consideration. That might mean an "optimal conditions" range rating of 250 miles. Whatever, the real-world range has to be in triple digits or people will be too nervous to leave the garage.
2 Charge Time: If you've been reading our long-term reports on the Mini E you know it can take up to 30 hours to charge the car, though with the wall-mounted charger unit in our parking garage the process takes "only" 3-4 hours, or approximately 200 minutes. Not bad...but still a lot longer than the 5 minutes it takes to refuel a gasoline car.
Take the range issue above, combine it with the charge time issue and you've got a real problem. A 3-4 hour break every 100 miles (assuming you have access to a high-amp charge device) makes the current crop of electric cars pointless for any sort of long-distance driving. This is usually when an electric car advocate will say something like, "Well of course you can't drive from L.A. to San Francisco in an electric car. That's what your second car, the one that uses gasoline, is for." So, now we're advocating that everyone must own TWO cars, and one of them still uses gasoline? Meaning factories must crank up and build two cars and ships must transport two cars and owners must insure and store two cars to accomplish the same tasks formerly handled by one? Gee, that sounds super efficient on several levels...
What's Killing the Electric Car: Even with a 100-plus-mile guaranteed range the average American will still suffer range anxiety if he knows he has to spend 3-4 hours recharging an electric car. If the concept of swapping batteries at gas-station-like facilities ever comes to pass it might solve this problem. Until then, the charge time (particularly when combined with the limited range) will be an issue for almost every American.
3 Cost: The Mini E costs $850 a month to lease for a year, though that price does include service and basic insurance coverage. One again -- $850 a month. Depending on whether you want to lease or buy that same $850 a month could get you a high-end luxury car along the lines of a BMW 5 Series or Jaguar XF.
This is the real killer of the electric car issue. Whether you want to talk $850 a month for the Mini E or $109,000 for the Tesla the numbers just don't add up. The average U.S. citizen likes to talk about environmental awareness, but the slow adoption rate of hybrids shows how many will put their money where their mouth is, and hybrids are a tiny, incremental cost increase compared to pure electric cars. They also don't suffer issues 1 or 2 above.
What's Killing the Electric Car: I could see a small number of people putting up with the limited range and slow refuel times, but the current cost would be a deal breaker for most of those folks. I also think it's the hardest of the three problems to solve.
If manufacturers can reduce the cost of electric cars to the point where they match comparable gasoline-powered vehicles there might be a substantial market for them, even if the other problems remain. Some people have suggested tax subsidies to make up the difference in pricing, but I sense a dwindling appetite from U.S. voters to keep solving private industry's problems with their money. "But breaking our oil addiction isn't just the industry's problem, it's everybody's problem," I think I just heard someone say.
Really? That must be why hybrids and diesels make up 3 percent of the market? Once again, plenty of folks would like to solve the problem, but few of us are actually doing anything about it. Or as I've been known to say, "Americans are extremely environmentally conscious people...as long as it doesn't cost them anything."
Surely none of these issues are new, and I know this column doesn't exactly shed fresh light on the challenges facing electric cars. But standing here, in the midst of all the electric hype on Detroit's show floor, I just felt I needed to point out the obvious. Again.
By rayainsw
on January 12, 2010
04:11 AM
Good summary.
- Ray
Not likely to contribute to your "3%" anytime soon......
By heffling
on January 12, 2010
06:31 AM
Not to mention the fact that if a bill passes such as "Cap and Trade" that energy prices, especially electricy, will skyrocket, leaving electric vehicles that much less appealing.
I would also add to your list Safety, as if the batteries rupture in an accident, you have a much more dangerous situation than a conventional engine block, which is just about indestructible.
While I haven't heard of a Prius's batteries failing in an accident, as automakers add more batteries to vehicles to get to the range required, it becomes more likely.
By brn
on January 12, 2010
06:31 AM
To abbreviate Karl's column. Batteries are killing the electric car. It's the same thing that killed electric cars before.
By dougtheeng
on January 12, 2010
07:58 AM
Batteries and charging requirements are killing the car.
Once we have wireless charging, it will be a non-issue.
Also, the public (in particular the American public) is unwilling to embrace any sort of change. A perfect example of this is diesel. Its a much better solution right now, but the Americans are way behind Europe in their adoption of it.
By rsholland
on January 12, 2010
09:04 AM
We need some sort of technology breakthrough in solar power. I've had the same solar-powered calculator for almost 20 years, and the thing has never needed new batteries, nor has it ever been plugged in.
If we can find some way to harness the sun energy for cars (and of course keep costs down), then I'm in.
By brn
on January 12, 2010
09:04 AM
"Batteries and charging requirements are killing the car. Once we have wireless charging, it will be a non-issue."
Plugging a cord in isn't much of a deterrent. The time to charge is the deterrent.
"Also, the public (in particular the American public) is unwilling to embrace any sort of change."
Ah yes, the 'idiot American' argument.
"A perfect example of this is diesel. Its a much better solution right now, but the Americans are way behind Europe in their adoption of it.
Diesel was embraced by idiot Americans a few decades ago. Americans aren't embracing it now because it cost more to buy and costs more to run. On top of that, it takes more oil to make it than gasoline. It also takes precious diesel from where it's needed (heavy equipment), driving up the cost of all products. Diesel being a "much better solution" is open to some pretty heavy debate.
Idiot Europeans (I don't think Europeans are idiots, but I'm having fun with the term) are embracing it because their government entices them to do so.
By dougtheeng
on January 12, 2010
09:41 AM
"Plugging a cord in isn't much of a deterrent. The time to charge is the deterrent."
Wireless charging will, in theory, allow you to charge all the time, even when driving. So yes, the cord is the issue.
"Diesel being a "much better solution" is open to some pretty heavy debate."
No doubt, but I believe its a better solution MPG-wise then hybrids or electric cars. Obviously, it still is dependent on fossil fuels but so are hybrids and a lot of electricity generation. The mpg gains from diesel engines can be significant, and a smaller car culture of diesel engines would be a huge step forward, imo. Europeans embrace diesel for a variety of reasons, including the torque, the 'fun to drive' factor and the mpg. I think you're being pretty narrow minded in your argument.
By the way, 'idiot' is your word, not mine. I just commented on the unwillingness to change - this is with respect to hybrids, electric and diesel.
By estreka
on January 12, 2010
09:59 AM
I'd love to decrease my energy usage, but it's cost prohibitive. Even if it wasn't, my car would be the last place I'd increase my efficiency. Cars are incredibly efficient and they pollute very little.
If I lived in any one place for an extended period of time (gotta love a job that makes you travel), then I'd have solar panels on my roof.
By firstwagon
on January 12, 2010
10:29 AM
Most of the arguements are valid as long as they contain the disclaimer "at this moment in time".
Right now electric cars are not ready for general consumption because of the current state of the art in battery technology. If it doesn't improve then they will never become popular.
However there is a lot of interesting research happening out there and if a new battery came out with half the cost and twice the range then the electric car could easily replace as least 1/3 of the gasoline cars on the road.
The "second car is wasteful" argument makes no sense. Most families already own more then one car. If you only need one car then choose electric or gas, which ever suits your needs best. No one has ever said you must own an electric car.
As for the occasional trip from San Fran to LA, how about a rental car?
By blackadder5639
on January 12, 2010
11:57 AM
Firstwagon has hit the nail on the head with "at this moment in time".
I think the issues of cost and range are temporary, and it's only a matter of time before those improve enough to make the electric car practical. As the technology improves, range will increase and costs will go down.
The only long term problem I see is the charge time. I don't see how charge time could be kept under 2 hours in the near future....
For now, hybrids are the more practical implementation of the electric car. Sure, hybrids haven't taken over yet, but I think the Ford Fusion hybrid now shows that it is possible to have an affordable hybrid that doesn't make too many compromises.
By firstwagon
on January 12, 2010
12:10 PM
Even charge time can be changed.
I was reading about tests using a bank of capacitors between the batteries and the charger. The capacitors can charge almost instantly which would allow the use of a high current commercial charging station. They would in turn transfer the power to the batteries at a rate that the batteries could take.
For the driver this would allow a seamless way to charge your car in no more time then filling a tank.
By editor_karl
on January 13, 2010
02:44 PM
I've heard about those capacitors too find the potential intriguing. That could certainly close the gap in electric car practicality, particularly if the price/range issue is also addressed.
By boloti_troy
on January 15, 2010
10:04 AM
I do not completely agree with the argument presented here.
Here is a couple of points:
Range: the argument that the people will have to buy two cars instead of one. This is very flawed in a way that in USA an average family already has more than 2 gasoline powered cars. If we could have 1 electric + 1 gasoline car in every family that would significantly reduce the emissions.
Cost:
850/month for a year = $10,200 first year ownership cost. Let's see... Edmunds depreciation rates for gasoline cars: Ford Fusion depreciation + maintainance = $4500 (+ $1800 in fuel costs). Cheaper, however not something electric cars can not achieve with time.
What would kill the gas car is the gas prices. I would say if in 5 years we double the gas prices and hopefully make the battery technology cheaper I would get an electric car.