– Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own. —
The world is falling in love with plug-in hybrids and all-electric cars. President-elect Obama wants to put 1 million on the road by 2015. GM features them, particularly the Chevy Volt, in its new business plan for a debut in 2010. The EU wants them to shrink greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 by 20% from 1990 levels. This week the Chinese auto company BYD began selling the world’s first commercially-available plug-in hybrid sedan.
No matter that these cars are not widely available; that they are priced far above traditional models; that many have a short range, making them useful only for local trips; that batteries may be prone to catching fire; and that many motorists park on the street, where charging is impractical.
For some, these issues pale in importance to saving the planet from harmful emissions of carbon, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide—all of which are released from internal combustion engine vehicles. If battery powered cars reduce emissions, environmentalists argue, they should be produced and consumers should be enticed to buy them.
But whereas electric cars don’t pollute when they’re running on batteries, they’re not pollution-free. Making the lithium-ion batteries is pollution-intensive and recharging the batteries uses electricity. And most electricity generation, from coal- and gas-fired power plants, still causes pollution.
Which means that pollution from the extra electricity for car batteries has to be weighed against savings from burning less gasoline. Whether battery power can trump the internal combustion engine, which is continually getting more efficient, depends on when drivers decide to charge their future cars, as well as how the electricity is made.
A 2008 study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory projected U.S. power needs in 2030 if 25% of the car fleet used some form of battery power.
If drivers charged vehicles after 10:00 p.m., when household power consumption is at its lowest, then at most eight extra power plants would be needed for electric cars. In contrast, if drivers charged cars in early evening when household use is peaking, 160 new power plants would have to be built.
At issue here is the way that America will generate its electricity when Obama’s 1 million plug-in hybrids hit the road in 2015. Nuclear power plants do not generate harmful emissions, and are a far cleaner source of electricity than oil, natural gas, or coal. Yet America has refused to build them for fear of accidents and because of controversy about where to dispose of spent fuel. A third problem is long delays in winning government licenses for new plants.
Private companies don’t want to face litigious American consumers, trial lawyers at the ready, and so do not dare embark on nuclear power plants. Until Congress makes serious efforts to shield companies from liability, nuclear power won’t be viable. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not licensed a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years.
France, on the other hand, does have nuclear power; it generates 78% of its supply from splitting the atom, far more than America’s 19% share. Electric cars in France, therefore, if they can overcome problems of range, safety, and price, would be more environmentally friendly than their American counterparts.
Until America can resume construction of nuclear power plants, it might be that the way to energy efficiency on the road is not through the electric car but by making improvements in the way cars burn gasoline. That would be a good use of the $25 billion that Congress gave to the auto industry last year to improve efficiency.
Call it a dual-highway route to saving energy on the road.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth can be reached at dfr@hudson.org. For previous columns, click here.
The solution is already here. I suggest you travel to California and test drive a Honda Clarity.
It uses a hydrogen fuel cell to generate electricty; the waste product is water.
The range of the car on a single tank of liquid hydrogen is approximately 280 miles.
It is expected once the car is in large scale production it will cost the same as a conventional 4 door saloon. A tank of hydrogen will cost roughly the same as your petrol.
I agree battery powered cars are a lame ducks but then so is the US auto industry (if not dead ducks).
Trackback
150 comments so far
Previous | 8 … | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
I drive a hybrid, but I admit they are not the solution. The most abundant element in the universe is hydrogen, and the automakers should be making the jump to hydrogen powered fuel cell technology. BMW, Chevrolet, and Honda are currently test marketing their vehicles in southern California, so the jump is not a large one.
I believe that with the proper incentive, they — the automakers — could all have hydrogen power fuel cell vehicles in production and in the dealer showrooms by 2012.
If only the USA would improve the Mass Transit Systems that travel from city to city by a TVG Train or Bullet Train that would travel at speeds of 186 mph or more and use the power from the grid well near a city and the same amount of diesel of 3 city buses were there is no power, well pulling 500 of more people. More trains would take more cars and buses off the roads and offer fast safe and with a highly subsidized government Transit System offer very low cost tickets
Not much has been said about the infrastucture to support a large fleet of electric vehicles. It doesn’t take much imagination though to figure out what would happen to the electrical grid when 20,000,000 commuters get home at 5:00 P.M. and plug in their electric cars for a quick recharge. The power generation and distribution are not adaquate for the concept. Many residential electrical services are not adaquate. Waste disposal and recycling of massive quantities of batteries will have to be addressed as well. The mega billions necessary for these infrastructure upgrades may be better spent to develop a 100 mpg engine.
There is a wealth on information that the journalist has not included in this article. One: when weighed against the pollution produced in a gas powered car, an electric car, even when the electricity comes from a coal-based plant, produces far less pollution. The reason is because an electric plant is far more efficient than a single car.
Two: When you factor in the chemicals produced by lithium ion batteries, it pales in comparison to the constant exhaust produced by cars.
Three: Cars can charge at work during the day, or at night, the peak-period payload is will be a small difference since the cars will probably need most of the night to charge. Charging a battery requires no moving parts, so the instant load is far less than say, a hair dryer or box fan.
Depending on the quality of batteries that you get, a reasonably weighted car can get hundreds of miles to the charge. Furthermore, there is a capacitor driven energy storage system that can charge that amount of energy in seconds. That technology, I concede, would require more electricity plants.
On the bright side, I am thankful that your article has inspired so many comments about the actual numbers of this technology. A close look is what this problem needs, and you have provided that.
The author of this article is the first intelligent voice to be heard in the chorus of hype on electric. First, google “ELV europe cars” and learn why the TOTAL environmental impact of the electric, and hybrids, are a disaster because of the batteries. For us to measure only tailpipe emissions is as foolish as making biofuel from foodstocks. Second, only a power-train which can match the performance of gasoline will actually change the transportation paradigm. Try your 40 mile electric car commute in the next snow storm, with an electric heater (didn’t think of that energy hog, did you?), windshield wipers going, rear window defroster, radio on, 500 pounds of passengers and a couple of hills thrown in for good luck — because thats what you will need after the first 5 miles of driving. You really want an electric? Google “VW rabbit electric” and you can buy one today, just like we had 40 years ago. NOTHING has changed - they still belong on a golf course.
Your points are valid when discussion the lithium-ion battery. Which is why our focus should be on hydron cell batteries instead. And the point is not just to reduce carbon emissions, but to also reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Batteries can be made right here in America.
What happens during power failures (no driving or limited) or attempting to charge at peak hours…more expense, higher cost, DIMMING LIGHTS, etc. Folks, a little common sense is called for here. The internal combustion engine continues to get more efficient, delivers more and greater benefit. Oil is plentiful (Good God the ChiComms are drilling off the coast of Cuba!), coal is plentiful. The US needs to tap these sources domestically, at critical speed, sending a message to the world, we will increase and develop new energy sources in the US. Solar, wind may eventually play a role, but don’t you think with all the VC money that was available in the last 20 year boom cycle we would have come up with an economically feasible method to capitalize on these energy sources?
Ford’s Model T got around 21 MPG. That was the birth of cars. How much better are our car engines? They’re stronger, but not that much more fuel efficient.
Internal combustion engines are very inefficient by design while electric motors are around 90% efficient.
If it works, lets use it. It doesn’t eliminate green house gases, but it sure as hell will reduce it.
Making ANY car pollutes in the factory. Why argue against the only technology that has a chance? KEEP BEING A TOOL FOR YOUR CORPORATE SPONSORS.
The author misses the point that electric cars are viable through the replacement of coal and oil as a fuel source generation and transportation. Large scale developments in SOLAR thermal generation are indicating that this can be done. Looking back to generate fundamental changes usually fails, looking foward is needed to INVENT the future.
check the : Solar Thermal Electricity as the Primary Replacement for Coal and Oil in U.S. Generation and Transportation at
http://www.ausra.com/technology/reports. html
I read this article with some trepidation by the title but when I got through it Im in agreement. Basically we need to look at timelines. If you believe the planet is in peril then electric vehicles are possible within ten years. The other no emission play is nuclear power. They can come online in masse in 10-15 years - but only with political power.
Cars designed on electric motors create a new platform that will become more efficient over the years. (Were the auto’s of 1910 clean compared to those of the 2008?). They will also be the logical store for micro generation such as home thermal, solary or wind units.
Nuclear power is very polluting in a different way - but a robust nuclear phase of 75-100 years should bridge us to the next viable power technology - several of which are in play.
Its just outlook - obviously anyone can agree that one day oil would run out and it is a bridging technology to the future - global warming has just moved up the date.
More of the same. First off, there are many new innovations in the works right now with regards to battery technology, Li-ion is only one of them. One advancement you may want to look at is from Zoomilife.com, and read the article about battery advances made by a South Korean team on improving li-ion battery charge capacity. They\’re stating a 10x fold improvement in battery capacity. Read about it.
Also, despite the manufacturing pollution created when producing batteries, no blood was spilled in their production, unlike oil. Batteries and their current make-up are recyclable, oil is not [with the exception of lubricating engine oil].
Despite all the stated downsides to electric cars, I would still take one over a regular gasoline car. Even though the technology is still emerging, advancements are happening all the time, assuming the powers that reside over us will allow them to presented.
Msg to Frank:
I completely agree with you.
Electrons can do most of the work. Either in magnetized steel (a perfect form of battery) see…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8WZD11al b0
or solarized and stored in batteries.
Today, solar cars need to pull a solar panel trailer to take a trip. These could be rental units like U-haul.
We will still need fossil fuels to move goods. The Middle East would be too poor without some oil income.
Vehicle propulsion and energy production are two separate issues. Do not confuse them. Electric vehicle propulsion will be twice as efficient as the century old internal engine drive train. We will save on units of energy close to 50% and shut down dirty refineries.
The shift to electric propulsion will open a floodgate of energy saving innovation. I have no doubt the next decade will bring the same innovation to energy production.
I am heartened to find the commentators of this article have their eyes open and see the future. The pundits of business and governments are akin to the high priests of ancient religion. Their vision of the future is that which maintains institutions and the accompanying positions of privilege. First and foremost conservation, then wind, solar, hydrogen cell and super conductivity development. We must build a 21st century green energy infrastructure to take advantage of all the emerging technologies. There is no point in preserving capitalism above all else if the price is humanity descending into one last war over land food and water. I shudder to consider the outcome.
I expect errors when journalists attempt to cover technology stories, and this one has plenty. “Inflammable batteries” is an absurd concern - this demonstrates basic ignorance about the basic technology. Her stats concerning power requirements wit the advent of electric cars is also muddled and without any mention of assumptions, etc. I do know that the grid has enormous amounts of off peak capacity and that off peak hour recharging will be the norm (even if enforcement is required). Other studies have demonstrated that the current grid can support a very large percentage of electrified vehicles - in most areas , the entire fleet can go electric and its power needs met by current production capacity.
Saying that one needs an extra so many power plants is meaningless - power plants come in all shapes and sizes. Nor is the notion that nuclear plants will not be built until private investors are shielded. Nor is the notion that they need to be sgielded from liability laws - any loand guarantees will cover construction, not future liabilities, which are highly unlikely. We already operate over 100 nuclear plants and have for the past 50 years. Right now over 30 new plants have ben proposed for the US, so I can’t fathom why this author seems to believe that nuclear plants can’t be built.
is required). Saying that the current grid emissions will not be reduced much be electric vehicles is rather meaningless - we won’t even produce enough electrics in the next 10 years to put much of a load on the power network and by the time we do, the network will be
less carbon heavy than now. One typical 1700 MW nuclear reactor can supply the power to run 7 million electric cars. Obama’s dream of 1 million electrics is pure BS. We have 264 million vehicles in this country. These million electrics will reduce oil demand by an invisible amount - less than 1/5th of 1 percent.
This article proves the maxim that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
With a strategic investment in existing forms of electric energy storage to ramp up production and bring down costs, long-life, high power electric energy storage banks end up in household basements and garages which gets charged during the day by renewable energy and downloaded in minutes to the vehicle’s electron tank.
The author is obviously a shill for nuclear power and the existing energy establishment, which will go the way of the automakers soon, because of its dinosaur mentality and inability to understand that it is in the electron business.
Your right to a degree. However I envision a system where aftermarket inventors will sell me a solar array and a battery system that will collect and store energy during the day I’m out driving about, then when I come Home I will Plug the car into the Battery array and charge my car as much as possible ( possibly fully ) from my rooftop array, INSTEAD of assuming the grid will be my primary energy supplier for the car. yes it may cost alittle more in the begining but I feel the aftermarket for solar Chargers for cars will explode and most of us will get most of the charge from the solar array/ battery system I own.
Electric cars are the answer, but nuclear is not. There is too much cost involved, financially and environmentally. Electricity can be generated by using solar cells. The problem is keeping the electricity until we need it (storage). There is some promising work being done with ultra capacitors, but there is still work to be done. If we can make these ultra capacitors more efficient and affordable, then we will be on to something and you will see cars that can go 200-300 miles and charge in an hours time (while you eat lunch or dinner!)
Amazing how anyone still listens to economists/business people instead of scientists. I’m sorry but NEXT! This isn’t exactly rocket science but most of these people are the same morons who were telling us that global warming didn’t exist and left us with gas guzzlers.