– 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 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | … 1 | Next
The fist paragaph is full of errors.
It has been shown that a plug in hybrid car would have a lower carbon footprint than a gasoline powered car even if the source of electricity for charging is coal powered. Since the grid overall is cleaner than that, there would be a big savings in emissions. Couple that with getting 100 mpg overall and the emissions reduction are more substantial.
With a clean grid, electric cars and plug in hybrids will be much cleaner. Sure the batteries have a carbon footprint but so does everything we make.
As coal is phased out and clean energy is phased in the environmental benifits will rise as the cost of the clean energy falls.
And plug in hybrids do NOT have a short range. They will have unlimited range for as far as fuel is available. They cost more because there is no economy of scale yet. I learned that in high school economics.
Even so the premium paid now for a PHEV will mean that the cost of the car will be equal to that of a gasoline car over the life of the car at $1.75 a gallon of gasoline.
At $3 gallon you would save big. What do you expect the price of gasoline to be over the next 10-15 years?
Costs of the cars will come down like anything else.
Electric cars already have a market in urban city uses such as delivery, taxis, etc. and as light job trucks for farms ranches, mining and industrial sites etc.
None of these require long range. And many two car families might buy a small electric for everyday city use.
You are also wrong about the power plants needed.
California’s grid can handle 2 million PHEVs plugged in at night right now. The DOE says the national grid could handle charging PHEVs if they were 80% of cars on the road. Only then would we need more base load power.
Solar thermal power plants with molten salt heat storage sited in the southwest deserts can replace every coal plant in America. And they can do it using less land than now used for coal plants and coal mining. Using 1% of these lands would power the whole country day and night. Yes day and night, you read that right.
They can be built much quicker than nuclear plants, and provide cheaper electricity. They can even desalinize water at the same time. They can also be air cooled.
And they wont need any fuel ever. No fuel ever to prospect for, mine, refine, transport, store, burn or use in fission, clean up the mess from, fight wars over.
And no wild fuel price fluctuations
Nuclear is a partial solution at best and is not nearly as green as you make it out to be. In a world where we are currently in angst over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, do we realy want to encourage building nuclear power plants all over the world? How many countrie at the same time will we be fretting about nuclear ambitions and the possible follow through to nuclear weapons? Fissionable material will be everywere. And that makes it easier for terrorists to get it. Even the waste can be used in dirty bombs. Nuclear plants are also potential terrorist targets. Think the twin towers was bad?
There are better solutions with current technology.
Solar PV will be cheaper than nuclear before a single nuclear plant is completed. Energy prices from new nuclear plants will be 12-17 cents kWh and will rise as nuclear fuel becomes harder to mine when the low hanging fruit of rich ore is depleted, which will be soon.
Solar thermal can already match 12-17 cents kWh and will fall to under 10 cents kWh in less than 5 years and to 5-8 cents kWh shortly thereafter.
It is cheaper and faster to build wind and solar which are clean and safe and need no fuel ever.
articles on solar thermal.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0 4/14/solar_electric_thermal/index.html
http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/14/co ncentrated-solar-thermal-power-a-core-cl imate-solution/
http://www.solarserver.de/solarmagazin/s olar-report_0207_e.html
http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/ downloads.html#Nuclear
Read this before you make up your mind on nuclear.
Thanks to all who pointed out flaws in the original…
here’s a more radical solution, which is also THE solution to any number of environmental/social _secondary_ problems. Recognize that the _primary_ problem is a huge excess of human beings on the planet. The direct solution is to radically reduce the population. My guess: about 1/1000. Five million instead of 5 billion. I think that most people would agree with that, _if_ there were some magical way to achieve it humanely, painlessly… before we all assume that is impossible, we should at least be brave/honest enough to acknowledge the reality of the primary problem.
Then spend some effort to think about it– maybe there is a humane solution, even if it takes a few generations.. rather than the possibly-futile attempt to deal with all the massive secondary-problems in isolation. We must also consider the Gaia Hypothetical notion, that if we fail to address the primary problem directly, ‘Nature’ may finally and non-humanely do it for us. I vote for the attempt to find a humane, intelligent way to achieve a sustainable human population– in both quantity and quality. That includes accepting that humans are animals (maybe not ‘just’ animals, but ‘at least’ animals) and so, quality is to some degree predictable and manageable by genetic science (or in the old paradigm, ‘animal husbandry’).
OK, i reckon this post is inflamatory enough. Cheers!
So am I right in thinking that the lady is trying to say that in strctly gross polution terms energy generated at 55-65% efficiency (less transmition and conversion losses) will not be less polluting than ic engines running at maybe 25% efficiency (downhill with a following wind). There is no argument here. Why do dumb people never bother to look at the fundamentals.
For a short and sweet comment: this discussion focuses on converting products or by-products into fuel, and from what I’ve seen lately it simply boils down to growing our own fuel. To explain, growing algae or corn to convert into vegetable oil, which can both RUN a car (www.geocities.com/vegoilcar/).
Hydrogen fuel cells are great, but don’t forget that hydrogen has to be created with an energy source. this means electricity and distilled water(wich takes energy to distill), or the byproduct of making fossil fuels. Fuel cell powered cars are not going to save the world either. Remember there are only a few truly renewable energies, solar and wind power top the list.
QUOTE reported by Reuters Dec.8, 2008: Honda Executive Vice President Koichi Kondo says “the game is still open” as car-making enters a new phase in which alternative energy sources and power systems will become mainstream, re-writing the rules of a century-old business.
“So far, the majority of cars still run on internal combustion engines,” Kondo told Reuters in a recent interview.
“Sure, there’s all kinds of HYPE about electric vehicles and hybrids and fuel-cell cars, but no one has the breakthrough technology to bring them into the mainstream.”
HYPE is a long way from mass production folks. Fuel cells belong back at NASA. Electric cars and electric hybrids are a joke. Google “VW Rabbit electric” and you too can see this was all done back in the early 1980s, except that now the batteries are an environmental disaster. Until that BREAKTHROUGH TECHNOLOGY arrives, get out of your gas-hog SUV and by a VW diesel.
About one-third of the people in the US live in a area bounded by Boston, Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburg, DC, and east to the Atlantic from DC. We need a genius to come up with a renewable energy situation that works there. In the 5 months of COLD weather, it is icy and snowy and overcast…not good for turbines or solar cells. In the summer it is hot, sometimes overcast, and very often the air is stagnent. Perhaps ok (not great) for solar, but pretty sorry for wind. These folks are sitting on some of the oldest rock in the continent, so its a long way down to find geothermal. And just about every stream that can have a dam installed, does - and there are efforts to tear those down.
So I’m waiting for a solution to the northeast. A real one, not one that says well just use hydrogen (or whatever) without telling me how it will be made. If you are good enough to come up with a real solution with real costs and tradeoffs that works in the northeast, then you’re worth listening to. By those standards I guess I’m not worth listening to and will end this.
It’s laughable that you somehow think you are in an intellectual position to speak about energy solutions of scale and for you to even mention coal, or maybe even nuclear plants being built to satisfy any new energy demand these new cars may need is rediculous. it’s like you you belong to some corporatley funded think tank that does not want the real energy change solutions needed to faciltate the kind of change necessary to ensure the future is green. what about wind? what about solar? I think before you speak on the subject again you should research Dr. Chu’s work at Berkely. he is the new secretary of energy for a reason. a fully comprehesive plan is what the man has…not outdated neocon thought. i look forward to your next article and hope you do the homework next time.
It is a step in the right direction. As we move away from burning coal and move to wind energy, then we are doing a great thing environmentally. Do you work for Exxon?
Ever heard of Hydro-electricity ? Wind and water ? Did you know that the Swedes are making electricity by burning garbage and using filters to prevent pollution ? And what about that new battery technology being developed in Texas that will allow highway speeds, 400 kilometers per charge and 5 minutes to fully charge the battery ?
Do you do ANY homework before writing this ?
This kind of doom & gloom propaganda lets us know who’s side YOU’RE on !
Besides, this is about stopping terrorism and gettin’ back our enemies who rely on our buying their oil, Capisce ?
Don’t get sucked into the “global warming-we ain’t got no solutions” argument. The problems are easily resolved. However, it would mean loss of control by elite. Which is better, pollution free energy or making the public pay ransom for an inefficient polluting fuel? It depends on which side of the divide you stand on. See: “Who killed the electric car?” for more info.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid= 5871495968130273402&ei=QaBYSarCDoXQwgP7- tiODw&q=%22Who+killed+the+elctric+car%3F %22
Highlights include: GM takes over the battery company and sells the patent battery technology that Toyota and Panasonic were improving to Texaco Oil. GM refuses to sell the electric cars after the completion of lease period for $20,000/car and decides to pay $600/car to have them junked in a secret desert location. Hydrogen technology, which is 10 – 15 years away, is offered as a possible solution when Ford, GM and Toyota had supplied electric vehicles from the early 1990s to the early 2000s. We already have the solutions, but cooperative efforts by government and industrial and media corporations will ensure that these solutions never see the light of day.
For stats on electric cars see:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automoti ve/new_cars/4215681.html?series=19
http://ecoworld.com/blog/2006/08/04/elec tric-car-cost-per-mile/
http://www.teslamotors.com/efficiency/ch arging_and_batteries.php
http://avt.inel.gov/pdf/fsev/costs.pdf
Ms. Furchtgott-Roth’s job is to convince us that the debate still rages. The facts speak for themselves as evidenced by the lack of statistics in her commentary. If she moved your thinking toward her side of the debate, she is worth the money the oil companies and their friends are paying to her institute.
Demand electric cars and plug in for a better world and a cheaper transportation.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit le=Hudson_Institute
From sourcewatch.org:
While describing itself as “non-partisan” and preferring to portray itself as independently “contrarian” rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement.
I’d say Mrs. Furchtgott-Roth could be a little slanted toward the status quo.
The initial article by Diana was so full of errors, misconceptions and errors or lies of ommission that the piece is at best propaganda and at worst political black propaganda.
The people replying to the article run the gamut of the knowledgible to ignorant.
I have done about a dozen google searches on this and have found more reliable information on the subject than the whole length of the article. I suggest everyone who reads this do the same and at least learn as much as Obama knows.
Dave,
Sorry to dissapoint you mate, but in the real world an increase in supply doesn’t always mean prices will come down if no-one wants your product or you can’t sell it. Massive demand will lead to an increase in supply, and then a flood of product. This is when prices will start to rapidly fall away.
It’s no good supplying me with an excess of SUVs when no-one is buying. I’m sure the big 3(car makers) have a massive supply of gas guzzling vehicles, but nobody wants them. The middle east has plenty of sand, but I don’t need that much sand.
See, the problem with economics and economics educators is that they fail to teach real life concepts, and the variables of emotion and reality. This is what has got the big hedge funds and stupid US politicians into so much debt and problems. In their economic modelling they forget about people as a dynamic and feed long-term average data into their computers. “Garbage in, Garbage out”. This is where someone like “Warren Buffet” excels above the pack because he never forgets the human factor and as we have seen with sharemarkets lately this is rather important don’t you think?
So dave I think I’ll be OK. You keep studying buddy.
The only power generation systems useable to make Hydrogen possible without polluting the world have problems themselves. The generation of hydrogen requires either chemical or electrical processes that in turn introduces inefficiencies of their own. Mark’s comment about hydrogen and “petrol” leads me to believe he’s not from California or the U.S. and may not have the same view on matters at hand.
That said, we both seek the same end - a pollution free world!
Problems with chemical generation of hydrogen are simple.
1. mining of required chemicals would surpass the mining of coal in volume to support our consumption rate. “Think strip mining whole states”.
2. Waste products of such processes would make disposal of trash seem simple.
Problems with electrical generation of hydrogen are myriad because of diverse methods of electrical generation.
The simplest statement is “You have to generate electricity first and then accept the inefficiency of hydrogen generation and electrical generation as a environmental loss second”.
Critics are already mumbling solar, wind, geothermal and god forbid nuclear.
You are right to a point.
Solar is clean when the manufacturing process is ignored. A great expense is factored when you have to build the solar cells, panels, control circuitry, batteries (think lead, cadmium, zinc, magnesium, all sorts of evil heavy metals) for storage of electricity. The efficiencies of solar cells currently are under 25% (sunlight energy to electricity) and consumer solar products under 15% average.
Wind is great when it blows and needs controls to level out the surge of power from varying winds. Huge tracts of lands are now falling into fights by NIMBY’s ( Not In My Backyard’s) who consider obstruction of their view more important than power. And many consider a small Radio Amateurs antenna a blight on the community, What will they think when huge towers that create sonic whoop-whoop sounds and blades that kill birds by the thousands nationwide appear? Will you ban them to only non-populated areas?
Geothermal is great if you are Iceland and you are blessed with lots of volcanic heat and water readily available. Here in the US we will have to drill (no problem, lots of jobs) and use lots of water to generate steam (huge problem in todays droughts). We can recycle the water if we are willing to have large numbers of cooling towers to condense the steam, but remember we are releasing a huge amount of heat into the atmosphere. Have you forgotten “Global Warming”?
All this makes complex choices and nuclear technology isn’t even a public choice, though it may make more sense to disassemble the bombs and make energy from effort already spent. Spears to Plowshares and make peace with this choice.
Our best efforts are to build communities that need and use mass or foot transit. Lowered climate control costs (heating/cooling) and recycling of water usage. Direct generation of electricity (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) at the point of use to minimize large transmission networks and outages.
Consumption reduction is not optional - IT IS OPTIMAL! We are not individualy or collectively Millionaires, “We are caretakers of this Earth!” Let us begin as individuals and act responsibly. Collectively build short term solutions that are practical now and long term solutions as possible.
Nuclear power involves more than the fear of accidents or our ongoing inability to find a way to dispose of nuclear waste. To sign on for increased use of nuclear power in this country is to sign on to increased use of nuclear power throughout the world, and teh spread of nuclear technology - and nuclear weapons capability - to every nation - and every potential splinter group in the world. The thought of a pirate state with nuclear power is terrifying. The thought of every nation in the world with nuclear weapons is no less so.
Rather than move to nuclear, the potential for wind and solar to supply 100& of our needs is a current reality. My understanding is that 15% of Nevada allocated to solar power would be sufficient to power our entire national grid. Obviously there would be a need to spread capability, and build diversified wind and geo-thermal capacity so that all “alternative” energy sources could supplement each other.
Not only is nuclear not necessary, it is necessary that it not be.
Coal- and gas-fired power plants produce their energy from the heat that is released from burning and cars get their energy from fuel exploding. The heat generated in the car engine has no other function than to make cars warm inside, everything else is wasted.
Becose of this, if all the electric cars used electricity made by burning coal, the net pollution would go down becose fossilfuel-powerplants are WAY more energyefficient than any presentday or future oil based car.
You’re both right. Most simply, Dave is right; demand up or supply down means price up. However, when quantity is high, with a technological product, we’ve often seen prices come down. A cell phone used to be the size of a dictionary and cost $1,500.00. Now they give them away.
Re Tesla and J P Morgan, it was Tesla’s system of wireless TRANSMISSION of power, generated in an ordinary power plant, that he dealt with Morgan about, not generation of power from empty space. If he ever did the latter (which I doubt), the facts have been so burried under unscalable mountains of garbage by ignorant cranks that they’ll never be rediscovered.
Brad said, “Supply and demand is an amazing thing. Demand goes up , price comes down.”
Oh Brad. I think you need to go back to economics class. When demand goes up, prices do NOT come down. Prices come down when SUPPLY goes up, thus covering the needs of demand. Keep trying though Brad. You’ll get it right one day.