OK, yes. All you folks who believe that we must free the country from its dependence on foreign oil and stop the planet from over-heating need an electric vehicle (EV). Well, you want one. I mean, it’s not like you’re walking at the moment is it? And if you are, chances are you can’t afford or don’t want a car, whether it sucks oil from the desert or burns coal through a cord. The problem—for me—is the link between “we” and “need.” Whenever people start telling me what I need, I get the sneaking suspicion that I’m about to lose something I’d like to keep. I reckon most people who drive gas-powered cars are just as skeptical of EVs as I am of demagoguery. Question: does that matter?
The chattering classes couldn’t care less. Never mind the environmental effects of amping-up power plants to cater to plug-in nation. EV boosters talk of gas-powered cars and “oil addiction” as if driving a “normal” car makes their drivers sociopaths. At best, they consider Americans who view EVs as glorified golf carts—which, in the main, at the moment, they are—as morally blind. But really, anyone who resists the call of the plug is lazy, selfish and greedy.
Of course, it’s not their fault. They’re hapless victims of a vast conspiracy between the oil companies and Detroit. Big Oil and Big Wheel lured them into gas-guzzling cars and OMG SUVs to satisfy the mega-corporations’ selfish, planet killing greed. (Yup, there’s them words again.) Well guess what? We’re from the federal government and we’re here to help you trade in that gas guzzler for a cheap, clean-running electric vehicle. Whether you like it or not.
Yes you—and by “you” I mean the government—can force drivers to switch from gas to electric propulsion. All the feds have to do: make it financially onerous (i.e., painful) for motorists to drive a “normal” car.
At one end of the spectrum, Uncle Sam could simply outlaw gas-powered automobiles. Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations already dictate the type of vehicles that automakers must/can build. Tweak the rules here and there, allow for a “transition” period, and we can kiss that pesky gas pump goodbye.
Alternatively, the feds could simply tax the living NSFW out of gas-powered cars. Gas tax hikes, registration fee increases, carbon penalties, road pricing, etc. could create the exodus that simple political correctness will not. Given the U.K.’s experience with cigarette tax (nearly seven bucks a pack), any such “incentive” to leave gas behind would have to be a truly ridiculous tariff. But it would work.
In fact, it is working. Slowly. Which is the only way it can work, politically. If politicians tried to jump from point A to point e in one go, the public would hand them their hats. Instead, we get CAFE’s point B. What’s the bet that EVs and plug-in electric vehicles are given sky-high CAFE-complying mpg ratings? Raise the CAFE standards high enough, and EVs are a dead cert. Lest we forget who created the electric car [hint: the California legislature].
The “cash for clunkers” legislation is point B: XXXL vouchers for plug-in or fully electric hybrid vehicles. If enacted, the bill’s incentives would represent the “pull” side of pulled pork. Anyone remember the Department of Energy’s $25b re-tooling “loans” for American automakers gearing-up fuel efficient vehicles? Same sandwich.
Point Q: the California Clean Air Resource Board’s flirtation with the idea of outlawing black paint, to reduce the energy needed to keep them cool. Still, it’s a question of slope angle, not slipperiness.
OK, so I’m wearing a tin foil hat and yes, I’m anti-EV. Sorry. It’s not because I have a Scott Burgess-like love of a rumbling V8 in the morning. Although God knows I do. Nor is it insensitivity to the planet’s plight. Although I think about the planet in terms of millions of years rather than last week. And I’m not a Bedard-like reactionary who sees changing a toilet paper roll as an affront to common sense. It’s simply this: EVs are a cynical attempt to avoid reality.
EVs defenders tout plug-in automobiles as a bridge to an oil-free future. (To wit: Chevy’s tagline from gas-efficient to gas free.) I call bullshit. EVs are the rolling equivalent of Chrysler and GM’s “viability plan.” It’s a bridge to a place that I don’t believe exists. In the EVs case, we’re talking about a world where America trades-in over 100 years of gasoline-fired prosperity for what? Nuclear power powered vehicles?
Hang on; that works for me. Tell you what. Once the feds build a bunch of nuclear power plants, once they prove that switching to battery power can reduce pollution and oil imports, then I’ll buy an EV. Only how come I don’t feel like I won’t get a say in this?
Funny that this comes up after the Tesla Model S is revealed today. As I said over at the Huffington Post article, I’d be shocked- pun intended- if I ever see one on the road. The claim that it seats seven people alone is enough for me to believe that Tesla is BS’ing.
And people razz on GM over the Volt allegedly being vaporware…
nicely written, valid points all around, only you don’t have a fitting conclusion other than individual [selfish] free will
you write:
It’s simply this: EVs are a cynical attempt to avoid reality.
There needs to be a follow-up.
Given reality – we are approaching the end of ‘cheap energy’ if not having reached it already…
This will be especially true if / when the ‘true dollar cost to society’ of pollutants is factored into energy pricing (hopefully coming soon).
What alternatives to the ‘normal’ (read – conventional) – in a 15-30+ year time frame – do you suggest? – bicycles, mopeds and public transportation?
Works for me…
Once the feds build a bunch of nuclear power plants, once they prove that switching to battery power can reduce pollution and oil imports, then I’ll buy an EV.
That’s a perfectly reasonable view. I don’t think pure EV is feasible today, but a hybrid is. No, to be perfectly honest, I couldn’t give a rat’s *** about global warming. I like warm, and the last several years have been way too cold for me. No, I just don’t want to feed Al Qaida’s collection box, that’s all. So, in spite of driving a 28mpg combined vehicle today, I will be looking for something considerably higher. And since I am already paying for the government’s insanity, if they decide to subsidize my purchases (from my own tax money), yes, I will take some of them back.
Thank you, thank you. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. EVs are the Orphan Annies of the automotive world. Always singing “Tomorrow, Tomorrow.” And tomorrow is just a battery away. Americans are not “against” electric cars. They are against cars that don’t work — that don’t deliver the same range, reliablity, comfort and utility of real cars.
The chattering classes couldn’t care less. Never mind the environmental effects of amping-up power plants to cater to plug-in nation.
Even if you plug your EV into a socket powered by the dirtiest coal possible, it will still be cleaner than a traditional car. Power plant electricity is more efficient than the ICE due to scale.
“Alternatively, the feds could simply tax the living NSFW out of gas-powered cars. Gas tax hikes, registration fee increases, carbon penalties, road pricing, etc. could create the exodus that simple political correctness will not.”
This is where we are headed, eventually. Combined with subsidies for alternative fueled vehicles until they can stand on their own.
Hang on; that works for me. Tell you what. Once the feds build a bunch of nuclear power plants,
This is where you and I agree. The NIMBY greens are being completely irrational about nuclear power. The cost/benefit equation for nukes is considerably better than than their fossil fuel cousins. Nuclear plants are the perfect bridge between oil/coal/gas and our renewable/hydrogen/(fusion?) energy future. Nuclear power is going to get us through the first half of the next century, at least.
and nuclear energy does not pollute?
just stick with oil Farago.
and nuclear energy does not pollute?
Not nearly as much as fossil fuels. Or with such immediate consequences. Nuclear power will be the energy source that can save us from global warming in the short term.
OK, but it’s still a free country. So does the EV go away if GM (and Chrysler) goes away? Tesla does not have the political clout, and among the living car companies Toyota is moving slowly towards PHEV.
Of course, if GM disappears by year’s end, still excreting promises of imminent EV, well, you can just about here the hysterical conspiracy theories: They killed a 100-year-old company! They are going to get us! Soon…
Electric cars are fine. The problem is with batteries. They’re a terrible storage medium for powering cars, due to the size, weight and recharge times.
EV’s could work if we could find a lighter alternative to batteries with sufficient storage capacity and quick recharge times. Until then, electrics are — gotta be punny here — a non-starter.
What alternatives to the ‘normal’ (read – conventional) – in a 15-30+ year time frame – do you suggest? – bicycles, mopeds and public transportation?
Works for me…
Only you.
i would buy an EV in a new york minute IF it was affordable. No more engine, oil, gasoline. No shifter. Very little maintenance. I like that. As far as fun factor – all torque all the time. Whats not to like? Lemme see. No soot, no mess, no gas, no antifreeze, no oil changes, no transmision, no transmission fluid, no heater core, no engine fan, no spark plugs, no intake manifold, no exhaust, no exhaust pipe, no muffler, no cats or cat backs. ANd on and on.
Downside – currently you can only go about 40 miles or so on a charge. I’m trying to remember when the last time was that i drove more than 40 miles. I can’t. But if it pains you that at any given moment you cannot go on a Thelma and Louise, then i suppose it would hurt. Most folks commute, shop on saturday, church on sunday. Perfect. I want one cause i like goin fast. And I hate maintenance. I liek to drive, not mess with spark plugs.
I prefer electric mowers too. No nothing. Flick a swich, mow the lawn. Plug it in when you are done. Perfect.
Like I said, in a New York minute.
Can’t really respond to this without the flaming policy turned off. Oh well!
It takes a lot of energy to move even an aerodynamic car down the road at 60 mph for a 100 miles or so. People forget how much is in a drop of gasoline, and 2/3 of that is wasted as heat when it is burned.
While everyone likes the idea of an oil free drive the only plan viable is nuclear power for hydrogen from water. For this to work we need to stop with the windmill and ethanol shit and get to work building plants near the coast where we can convert water into hydrogen. The gas could be sent through a distribution system similar to what we have for propane or natural gas. But we have to start.
Unfortunately there is the NIMBY crowd, the no nukes bunch, the entrenched oil crew, and a whole cast of other characters who stand in the way.
Failing all this, drilling for more domestically solves the foreign oil purchase problem. But that is not going to happen as long as Wonder Messiah is president.
I favor EV cars because I think 10 years from now, for most consumers, for most applications, most of the time, they will simply be better vehicles, period, without even taking the environment or geopolitics into consideration. Better as in faster, better handling, more powerful, more efficient, more reliable, cheaper to buy, and cheaper to operate. Better so that in the end, people like Mr. Farago will want one for exactly those reasons.
Of course, that’s assuming the price point of batteries comes way down while their energy density continues to climb. But why shouldn’t they? Right now, energy density is increasing at about 8% per year. If we go by that figure as a good mid-range estimate for the future, extrapolation gives about a doubling of capacity in 10 years. That means a car like the Model S could do 600(!) miles instead of 300. At that point, who cares about recharging stations? Just top it off in your garage every time you park there, and you’re always good for about 99% of your car trips.
Ultimately, the free-market will decide, and I think it will decide in favor of EVs.
Oh yeah…and as an afterthought, they’re still better for the environment (yes, even when powered by burning coal), and they still don’t give our money to hostile nations and terrorists.
Commerical traffic makes up a huge percentage of the non-commute traffic. Your city functions because all this traffic is able to buy and operate vehicles that meet their application demands.
Little electric toy cars are not a viable alternative for most of them.
Hey, there are plenty of things I could like about an electric. Even if it only has a good 50 mile range. But simply is economics unless the gov’t gets involved. At $4/gallon gas they were nearing being competitive. At $6/gallon they will make plenty of sense. At $2/gallon they are a non-starter. It is simple as that. They cost too much and/or do too little.
I do believe the era of cheap energy is over. And that peak oil is about now. But regular market forces will clear all this up in time without any help. Until then the electrics don’t cut it. And my entire life they have had about a 50 mile range. That can be enlarged with some of the lithium batteries, but at a cost that would leave me needing Ferrari money for a daily driver. Sorry, but no thanks.
healthyskeptic: Of course, that’s assuming the price point of batteries comes way down while their energy density continues to climb. But why shouldn’t they? Right now, energy density is increasing at about 8% per year.
Can you document this? Even if you can, I’m not sure I’d expect it to last more than a few years. But from the point of view of geopolitics, it would be great.
I want an EV. Not because of global warming, oil money to the arabs or any other noble cause. I want an EV because it makes more sense to commute in one. When it comes to being stuck in traffic, commuting the same boring roads 5 days a week, I’d rather be doing it in a simple, efficient vehicle. It would be great to whisper in to work, plug my car in, then glide on back home and plug in there. At our dealership, we just covered the roof with solar panels about 2 months ago. Now we are completely off the grid and the whole install will pay for itself in about 3 years. I’d like to do that at home too. All free and clean power.
Lets be honest, ICE vehicles are complicated and inefficient. As much as I love cars and driving, you have to admit when something you love has flaws. Like jerseydevil said “No soot, no mess, no gas, no antifreeze, no oil changes, no transmision, no transmission fluid, no heater core, no engine fan, no spark plugs, no intake manifold, no exhaust, no exhaust pipe, no muffler, no cats or cat backs.” I’ll add to that: waay less moving parts, less friction, less stuff to break, instant power, no noise, very little heat. Ever roll down your window while stuck in stop and go traffic?
True, the energy density of gas gives every vehicle a several hundred mile range, but I don’t need that to commute. EV’s for commuting can be battery-specd to individual needs. I have a 20 mile commute. Assuming I could plug in at work, I’d battery my car for about 60 miles.
I love gas powered cars; I will never give them up. That’s why I will keep one for the weekend and track days. But not for commuting. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
I love EVs and I love Tesla, why? I am a Power Systems Engineer and more EVs means more electric power and more $$ for people like me. How’s that for a selfish free market reason? I don’t think that the government should get involved. When the price of oil gets too high, EVs will be competitive. I will buy an EV as soon as I get the money. I don’t hardly drive but 1000 mi a year and 95% of that is leaving Seattle to go to eastern WA to visit my parents. A Tesla Roadster has the necessary range.
I think it would have been a good idea for the Founding Fathers to write a Constitution that prevented the government from robbing the people and handing the money to their buddies.
Tax policy would take a long time to shift people to EV, I believe. Higher taxes would shift some people towards, say, wagons and away from SUVs, if Europe is any measure. Europeans don’t, by and large, drive wagons and smaller cars out of personal virtue. They drive them because gas taxes are much higher and change the equation. Just as Japanese performance vehicles are small turbo engines not because all Japanese want to be ricers, but because Japan taxes gas heavily and taxes based on engine displacement, giving small forced induction engines tax benefits.
Good Job R.F. EV’s scare the crap out of me for several reasons. First, does anybody know if these things actually work? I’ve never had a li-ion laptop battery thats lasted more than two years. Second, what about the cold? These people do know how batteries perform below freezing right? Nancy Pelosi has probably never tried to get a die-hard to crank an engine over at 10 below, but I have, and it ain’t pretty. Then there’s the point about the power supply, switching over the whole nation’s transportation system to electricity without building any new power-plants reminds me of a decree a certain Pharaoh made about making bricks without straw. Shows how little government has really changed in the last few thousand years.
Mr. Farago,
I agree that in this circumstances that we are given, EVs aren’t a very efficient alternative to our conventional powertrains. But I really couldn’t see why you didn’t mention the minor automakers (Tesla, AC Propulsion) or heck, even the Japanese automakers who used to produce EVs (Toyota with their RAV4 EV, Honda with their EV Plus..) and instead you only had to mention GM (Volt) and ChryCo (ENVI) as the main culprits.
What is the better idea, just assume that there will always be plenty of crude oil to go around, no matter how rapidly the developing world joins the automotive party? The biggest advantage of electrical power is that there are so many options for how to generate it.
Like it or not, governmental policy sets the playing field in which everything else transpires. Take so called intellectual property rights. These are a completely made up idea which exists only to the degree that governments pass laws and enforce them in a way which limits the activities of individuals.
Another example: Corporations with the legal standing of “persons”, even though clearly they are not persons. Corporations are a way to enable private profits without private accountability.
How about medicare? Do you think we would be better off throwing those 65 and over to the mercies of “the markets” in pursuit of medical care?
I’m fine with arguments over the merits and demerits of any particular law or policy, but I have little patience for slippery slope arguments or polemics.
joe_thousandaire :
…does anybody know if these things actually work? I’ve never had a li-ion laptop battery thats lasted more than two years.
The hardest things on any battery, Lithium Ion or other, are (in order from most evil to least evil) are:
* Deep discharge. Don’t let them go below 40% state of charge, and any battery will last for a long time.
* Topping them off after they’ve been fully charged. A lot of modern charging systems prevent this anyway.
* Extreme operating temperatures. If memory serves, heat is the greater evil. That’s why my Prius has a vent!
The reason that cell phone batteries only last a couple years is because people won’t hang up the phone when it gets below 50%. We are a nation of Chatty Cathy’s, constantly running our phone batteries all the way down to zero. How many times to you get the “my cell phone battery is about to die” from a friend or family member?That’s rough on a battery.
The reason that laptop computer batteries also only last a couple years (or less) is that they too are often run down to almost nothing, or the opposite end of the spectrum: They remain plugged in and they never get run down at all! Batteries, like people, need exercise once in awhile.
I’ve heard stories of the 6 or 7 year old Die Hard or other brand that would start a person’s car very reliably even though it was very old. Then one day, the driver leaves the headlights on overnight and the car needs a jump in the morning. The car starts fine, but from that moment on, the owner starts having constant ongoing problems with that battery. Won’t take a charge. Takes a charge but dies really soon, etc. In this case, time, age, and the elements likely have taken their toll on the battery, but the the deep discharge was the killing stroke.
Most hybrids have computers that try to keep the battery around 50%. Not going much below that, not going much above that. That’s a much easier life on a battery, and that’s why my Prius’ batteries are still fine even though the car is five years old.
However, I would expect that EVs batteries will get run down on occasion. People trying to stretch their miles, pushing the limit, etc.
The limited range is something of a red herring. Most households have two (or more) vehicles.
When I worked in Sacramento I knew a coworker who commuted 120mi round trip each day from Grass Valley with a NiMH Ranger. No you won’t be able to drive it across Wyoming in the middle of a blizzard. But for most folks most of the time an honest climate controlled 60-80mi is enough.
At $25k I would happily purchase an EV from Toyondissan.
At some point in the next 10-15 years the technology will improve enough that the EV becomes the superior transportation appliance with a lower total cost of ownership than a ICE vehicle. Exactly when is a function of how fast the battery tech matures and the price of oil.
In the EVs case, we’re talking about a world where America trades-in over 100 years of gasoline-fired prosperity for what? Nuclear power powered vehicles?
According to some reports, we currently generate enough excess electricity at night to power most of our transportation needs. Sure, we should be building nukes all over the place, pebble bed reactors and be funding polywell fusion, but even in the meantime, the grid may be able to supply our transportation needs if the energy is managed efficiently. While we’re at it, nothing wrong with investing money in solar electric and solar thermal more efficient, and even wind power makes sense in a few places (like on Michigan’s Lake Michigan and Lake Superior coasts, which have some of North America’s highest average windspeeds). But like I said, we may already have enough generating capacity to run our cars.
I love all kinds of technology and machines. The Henry Ford museum is one of my favorite places in the world. I think double overhead cams, direct injection and dry sump oiling are the shit, but if someone can sell a practical EV, I can get behind maximum torque at stall. Think of the implications of using wheelmotors in terms of AWD, stability control, and even parking mode that would let the vehicle spin on it’s axis.
So I’m hardly anti-EV. I’m pro car.
Even without nukes, the grid uses coal, not imported oil. The money spent on battery development will have benefits beyond the auto industry. Really good batteries (in both performance and price) can make all sorts of alternative energy sources more practical. One of the biggest drawbacks to wind and solar power is that it is not steady state, it’s periodic, so you want to store energy when the system is generating. The electrical utilities already do this with water storage, pumping water into towers during periods of low demand, then running that water through turbines during peak demand. Better batteries makes stuff like that more practical.
Take so called intellectual property rights. These are a completely made up idea which exists only to the degree that governments pass laws and enforce them in a way which limits the activities of individuals.
Actually, the founding fathers were big on natural rights and they included patents and trademarks in the constitution. Franklin was a publisher and many of the founders were published writers. They felt that a man had a right to profit from his own ideas. Jewish law protected intellectual property among Jews for centuries without having the power of government.
You have no right to steal my idea.
Also, the purpose of patents is to promote technological advancements. In exchange for the state protecting your rights to your own ideas for a limited period of time, those ideas must indeed be novel and more important, must be disclosed so that other researchers and inventors can learn from the invention. Since they too must create something novel, they must figure out a different way to achieve the same ends should they want to compete.
It’s a good system at its heart. Yes, it’s been abused in terms of perpetual copyrights, software and some process patents, but you have no right to profit from my creative work.
Whenever I hear someone go off on a tirade against EVs I figure they are reactionaries wearing a tin foil hats.
When said reactionary starts putting all EV supporters in the “crunchy granoloa” catagory, I always wonder why the stereotyping?
Who needs an EV? I do. Or at least I could make good use of one. My daily commute is short – well within the range of current EVs. I don’t regard plugging in a cord as an excessive amount of trouble. Overnight recharge is ok with me – I’m not going anywhere.
It seems to me that EVs simply scare the bejeezes out of some people. I don’t know why. Just because they are different? I might like differnt music than you, I might like different movies, and believe it or not, I might prefer different transportation solutions.
I know they’re coal burners. I’m all in favor of building more nuke plants.
BTW, recharge times might be coming down –
http://tinyurl.com/dnlp3p
Don’t worry folks! As soon as Russia, China and the Gulf states start a new global currency and use all their trillions of $$$ reserves to buy into it, we won’t be able to afford to drive our ICE SUV’s 30 miles to work every day anyway! The US/UK will refuse to partake in a global currency on principal, but if we still want to buy oil, cheap plastic goods and whatever comes out of Russia, someone will have to exchange their nosediving $ & £ for some of the new Global currency units…Hmmmm anyone would think China wants to bankrupt the west….
The mostly likely EV project to “succeed” in the short to medium term IMO is Better Place. Awesome company. I have ordered a Fisker, but I am thinking of cancelling now as I now realize I don’t need it living in Switzerland. I haven’t filled up my 350Z since Feb 18th according to my CC statement as Public transport and my new Bionx Electric Mountain Bike are all I really seem to need!
P.S …If you don’t think going into debt on Crazy Arab Oil is a real worry, I now know why the US is in such dire trouble…
BHB: “and nuclear energy does not pollute?
Not nearly as much as fossil fuels. Or with such immediate consequences. Nuclear power will be the energy source that can save us from global warming in the short term.”
Of course. There are no problems with the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste. And there were no immediate consequences when Tchernobyl blew up. Devil may care.
I sometimes think that I would like an EV, but the sticking point is always price, not range. The problem is so far EVs only have old beater utility at a Lexus price. Tesla has the right idea in trying to make an expensive toy actually look expensive, but in the end EVs are a luxury good not ready to compete with high utility low price internal combustion engine cars.
The choice to continue with oil powered cars would be nice if it were possible long term. Short term it is with the recession/depression reducing oil demand but oil/gas/diesel prices are rising again.
There is no escaping Peak Oil and the forced choices and changes it implies. Those who want to continue living in the past may be able to put off the future for awhile until oil’s decline puts the brakes on the economy again like it did in July 2008.
Alternative power must be found or car lovers are in for some disappointments. Anti EV and anti ethanol types will be among the most disappointed
IMO.
“Burns coal through a cord”… I love it.
EVs are the landfills of personal transportation. They hide our garbage from sight but do not get rid of it. And just because the popular trend is currently moving in this direction does not make it right.
If you really want to save the planet, drive less. Move closer to work. Let your spoiled brats play on the front lawn instead of a soccer field 20 km away. Making celebrity appearances in your Prius or Volt does not impress Mother Nature.
As for the subject of climate change, I do not know the final word but I do know that it that stopped being a “science” the minute the U.N. got involved and stacked the research deck. It is now a “faith”. Scientists must serve the Koolaid or lose their funding, and the rest of us must drink it or face scorn and ridicule.
Thank you Robert, for a sane and thoughtful second opinion.
I’m glad to see you take this firm a position on this topic, many wouldn’t in these hyper-politically correct times. I’d put this in the “Look out below” category; you know, “You’re going to get it and you’re going to like it” mode of government inspired marketing segmentation.
The B&B on this website have very clearly indicated that they can think for themselves and don’t need Uncle Sam protecting us from ourselves.
Honestly, the rumblings that come out of D.C. these days scare me a bit; on this topic and many others for that matter.
Hate to disagree with you Robert, but I have to disagree. You are displaying the same shortsightedness that you accuse Detroit of.
We can dispute peak oil and reserves all we want, but I think we can all agree that there is a finite amount of oil in the world. We can continue to party like its 1999, fund both sides of the war on terror, and continue the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world.
Or we can get ahead of the curve, plan for the future for once, and be ready before the laws of supply and demand drive the price of oil through the roof.
thalter
Disagreeing is good. I do it all the time. As for getting ahead of the curve, EVs aren’t going to do it. It’s one of those mouse under the rug deals; you chase it, but it just keeps moving.
How about we use what we got more efficiently until we have a viable alternative? And develop an actual, honest-to-God alternative.
And that, Mr. Farago, is what exactly? Because without some magic bullet like EVs that can match ICE performance or some formula for an abundant production of biofuels, your “use what we got more efficiently and develop an actual alternative” boils down to
1) in the short-to-medium term, we will all drive Daihatsus.
2) in the long term, we will all ride the train.
hazard
Again, we’re starting from the assumption that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! If we start from that assumption, the simplest, fastest, cheapest and yes cleanest solution is simply to hoik the price of gas up to $4 a gallon or more. If you want everyone to rive EVs, keep on hiking it until, at some point, EVs become commercially viable. Done.
And for all you peak oilers, you should be wishing for the resources to decline. Then prices will go up and, well, see: above. Again, if people HAVE to replace gas, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. And is that really so bad? (ducks)
So much to comment on…
A global currency backed by China, Russia and the gulf states? And they accuse EV proponents of not being realistic. There is no way in hell that the world economy would shift to this. What happens to this currency the moment that the thugs in charge in Russia decide that the Chinese are screwing them? Or vice-versa. Once the global economy begins to stabilize, this talk will evaporate. It’s easy to forget that the US is far more trustworthy than any oligopoly.
I’m of the more liberal political persuasion. Having said that, the single dumbest thing we liberals did in the last 40 years was oppose nuclear power. Opposition to nuclear power is actually the single largest impediment to dealing with the waste. And I’m not talking about Yucca mountain, I’m speaking about reprocessing. We’re sitting on a gold-mine of potential energy that right now, because of opposition and Carter’s ban on reprocessing (for security reasons as it creates plutonium) is treated as waste. Sadly, there’s no shortage of knee-jerk reactionism across the political spectrum.
Patents? Copyrights? They exist to enhance the public domain. By rewarding creators and authors for a defined period of time, we get a steady flow of works into the public domain. We seem to have forgotten that.
Yes, batteries aren’t good enough to completely replace internal combustion. But sooner or later they will be. And then, as many have pointed out, we’ll wonder why we put up with the mechanically complicated ICE at all. Until then, the imcremental improvements will cause EVs to chip away at the edges until we reach the tipping point where we get wholesale adoption.
Finally, from the fringes there’s a truly crazy idea. Do a Google search on “backyard nukes”. I can see an awful lot of transporation-related applications of this technology.
RF, it’s not a question of “something must be done”, it’s a question of what is possible. $4 gas will spur people to drive less and consider alternatives to petro-car-based transportation, but it will not necessarily lead to the development of a breakthrough technology that will replace the petroleum-fed ICE.
A “honest-to-God alternative” is also a reorganization of society so that the automobile is not at its centre (people can live without cars – news at 11). $4/gallon gas is coming back at some point in the future anyway. As much as you dislike the EV, a viable EV might be the only thing which saves the automobile as we know it and preserves the car-centric culture. Otherwise, when ICE cars become too expensive, people will just start reorganizing their lives to adjust.
I can easily imagine a future where decent-range EVs (expensive) and biofuel-powered hybrids (with some fuel cells vehicles perhaps) are the tools of government and large organizations and a privilege of the rich, while everybody else rides on glorified electric scooters and high-speed electric trains, in a world where the American-style suburbs and strip malls have died and withered away.
Thing is, pro-EV people don’t hate cars – they like them. They’re pro-EV usually because they are pro-car.
Whats funny is EVs are already here whether you like it or not. At this point they will just get better and cheaper. The genie doesn’t go back into the bottle.
hazard: A “honest-to-God alternative” is also a reorganization of society so that the automobile is not at its centre (people can live without cars – news at 11).
They also lived without indoor plumbing, central heating and refrigeration.
But we don’t want to live without those things anymore – just like we still want to enjoy the benefits of cars.
It’s not a question of want. There are plenty of places on this planet where people went back to living without central heating and refrigeration, at least for a while (and in some places, still).
People forget sometimes that the free market is simply a mechanism for efficiently distributing limited resources, not a magic geenie or some wondrous force of progress. It can take you backwards as well as forward.
If I had depended on an EV when Katrina or Ivan came thru, I would have been without transportation for over a week.
The EV works best in Europe….short driving distances, sensible summers, mild winters.
AC/heating use kills a lot of EV advantages for much of the country for at least two seasons.
Whats funny is EVs are already here whether you like it or not. At this point they will just get better and cheaper. The genie doesn’t go back into the bottle.
Oh yes it does. People felt the same way about turbine engines, backyard nuclear fallout shelters, and polyester suits. Each time they said “things are different now”, and each time they were wrong.
Change happens much slower than we think. One mass hysteria about climate change, and a temporary bubble in oil prices, does not mean the Jetsons have suddenly arrived. They will eventually arrive, but not in a government-subsidized golf cart foisted on the market by a dying carmaker.
I agree with all who wrote that oil is running out and we need to plan for the future but RF is also quite right about the fact that EVs are as much hype as ethanol. Given the environmental problems associated with batteries maybe we just trade an oil dependence with a lithium addiction and a truckload of battery associated environmental problems? And then there is the practicality issue of long charge times.
But there is hope – Hydrogen from nukes is realistic – nuke power is about four times the cost of coal and gas power but, at the equivalent of $8 per gallon, coupled with some efficiency improvements I think we can make it work without descending into post-apocalyptic barbarism.
Hydrogen? You do realize of course that fuel cells rely on platinum as a key component? EVs are probably a better bet than hydrogen fuel cells.
Here’s a question that bothers me a bit.
We say that the situation best suited for EV’s is when travel distances are short, and city style driving is the norm, and when gas prices are high. Sounds like Tokyo to me.
I’ve just come back from Japan (I travel there for a few weeks every year) and there are about exactly zero pure electric cars on the road. There are tons of Kei class (660 cc engines) and tons of hybrids… but no electric cars.
Why not?
“If you really want to save the planet, drive less. Move closer to work. Let your spoiled brats play on the front lawn instead of a soccer field 20 km away.”
Since Kaaalifornia is a popular scapegoat these days, let me add that if you live in some place with a climate like our golden state and care about Saving The Planet®, you really also ought to be considering killing that lawn out front and replacing it with something that doesn’t require water nearly every day in the summer.
That said, it’s a bit dismaying that there’s so much either/or thinking going on here. So reductive. It’s not as if EVs and the like designed for your average commuter can’t coexist alongside efficient ICE-powered commercial vehicles and ICE-powered off road vehicles for those of us who absolutely must have long range capability in a vehicle that won’t freeze to death or melt in the desert; or, those of us who consider racing ICE-powered cars or even just driving cars that utilize essentially 19th century technology tuned to within an inch of grenading going nowhere fast, in circles, on a track, or on open mountain roads–just for fun…
My commute is 12 steady freeway miles each way. Usually no stop-and-go. My employer already has limited EV parking. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. She runs almost exclusively local errands during the week. My garage even coincidentally already happens to be EV-ready (for other reasons). BUT, as should already be clear, we also spend as much time in the wilderness as possible, and I love race cars like there’s no tomorrow (F1, or much more recently, RS Spyder engines echoing down the halls of downtown Long Beach is one of the glories of humanity). Asking for and expecting both to be or remain viable seems utterly reasonable. To me anyway.
Let that diversity of opportunity exist. Isn’t that what this whole American project is supposed to be about? The land of possibility and opportunity, not restriction of choice.
As long as everyone is willing to take responsibility for his or her own choices, accept the consequences, bear the costs (be it of expensive batteries, generating power for EVs (go nuclear!), or of more expensive post-peak oil gas), I don’t see why the idea of EVs coexisting alongside responsibly operated ICE cars is so anathema. I’ll bear the costs for my choices.
In the meantime, it should ALSO be full speed ahead on developing even newer, and truer alternatives. Personally, I’ve driven a hydro fuel cell prototype, and it was pretty neat. More research! More science! More research! Less fear, and and less complaining, and less reductive thinking please!
Oil power plants basically don’t exist in the continental United States. Power in the US is provided by natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, etc.-not oil. All of the fuel for these are almost exclusively from domestic sources.
Plus, even when powered by dirty coal, electric cars pollute less than gas powered ones per mile traveled. With natural gas, even cleaner. Nuclear, wind, solar, cleaner still.
So, switching to battery power absolutely will reduce pollution and oil imports. To argue otherwise is just sticking your head in the sand.
Now, there are definite flaws in electric cars. Pure electric cars basically can’t go on road trips, and they can’t be owned by people without access to electric outlets where they park at night. Plus, without subsidies, they still cost many times the equilvalent gasoline powered model.
hazard: People forget sometimes that the free market is simply a mechanism for efficiently distributing limited resources, not a magic geenie or some wondrous force of progress. It can take you backwards as well as forward.
That definition is too limited. If enough people want something, the free market will eventually find a way to provide it.
a link to jim kunstler’s cluster[nsfw]nation blog & his insistent ranting about the end of happy motoring™ is needed. note the similarity of kunstler’s point & fargo’s (above). ev’s are bullshit but the notion that this suburban walmart nation can keep on motoring is the same.
on yer bike, folks!
Robert,
I appreciate that your objections have less to do with the viability of electric vehicles than they do with the politics, economies, and culture of shoving them down your throat.
That said, for someone who gets the big picture–who “think[s] about the planet in terms of millions of years rather than last week,” you’ve written objections that dramatically overstate the power of recent EV hooplah. Consider:
* there are how many mass-produced EVs available for public purchase? none?
* There are very few niche or custom EV makes availble, none of which arise from businesses as stable as elite or niche ICE manufacturers–is Telsa as going a concern as Lamborghini?
* EV prototypes from major manufacturers reek of high concept-car forgetability–I think of that hasty Dodge EV sports car that’s actually a Lotus Europa (though, honestly, isn’t the Tesla just a slightly stretched and electrified Lotus Elise?)
Right now, and for the forseeable future of, say, the next decade, the only legit way to get an EV is to build one yourself–and live with the golf-cart-like performance of having thown a forklift motor in your ’82 Volkswagen Rabbit.
So what are you so afraid of? The hooplah surrounding Paris Hilton certainly doesn’t match the reality of her talents (should I use quotation marks?) or presence. Since there are no EVs available and since no EVs will be available for some time to come, why grant the hype meaning it doesn’t deserve?
Parties with real power–the California State Legislature, the Obama Administration–derive much of their persuasive sway from the angry and insecure growls and snaps of manufacturers who’ve felt boxed into a corner. Bad PR courts more bad PR. If you don’t want an EV shoved down your throat, Robert, then don’t give the hype credit it doesn’t deserve with insecurity you don’t need to feel.
Enjoy your ICE.
In 1909, the manufacturers of the Detroit Electric were telling their customers “As soon as we can overcome the problems with batteries, we’ll pull ahead of those noisy, complicated gasoline engines.” Or words to that effect. Well, things have changed over the years, and technololgies have evolved, but people who want to sell us electric cars are still telling us the same thing.
I’m certain that there’s a market now for some electric vehicles. I genuinely don’t see that this market is much different in type or volume than it was ninety to a hundred years ago.
Re: jerseydevil
And no heating, and no air condition.
The TH!NK city is a small two-seater or 2+2-seater highway capable electric car, with a top speed of 65 mph (105 km/h) and an in-town range of 126 miles (203 km) on a full charge [1]. …the City will sell in the US for $15,000 – $17,000, with a Mobility Fee of $100-$200 per month to lease the batteries that may also include Wireless and Car Insurance.
If those numbers will pan out in the real world the answer will be pretty obvious who needs an EV. People that now are buying Smart/Mini/Yaris/Fit/, but would not mind driving a car with lower environmental impact as their city car or for a short commute.
People that now buy Porsche/F-350/Grand Caravan/ have other needs/wants and will not be seen in an EV for a while, if ever. F-350 makes about as much sense as a city car or a commuter as the Th!nk does as a farm truck, not every car needs to be everything for every possible user.
One simple point, the oil is at 50 USD with the world being in the throes of the deepest recession in decades. Farago, where do you think oil is going to be if we ever get out of this shit?
ra_pro
Let me think… Higher? I’m not against higher oil prices. Or lower oil prices. The market will react to either. As it has done. As it will do. Should “we” prepare the country for higher oil prices through legislation raising average vehicular efficiency? Sounds ridiculously ineffective to me.
bunkie:
I’m of the more liberal political persuasion. Having said that, the single dumbest thing we liberals did in the last 40 years was oppose nuclear power.
I’ve often wondered if the coal industry (which has grown by about 2 percent/year over the last 30) is secretly funding many anti-nuke environmentalists.
The current downturn is the only thing keeping demand for more coal plants down. Then, all bets are off. President Obama should be careful about getting between Americans and (relatively) cheap electric power.
Oh dear Mr. Farago… This article isn’t particularly helpful in the quest for the truth about cars is it? Ask your self how come that after a century of mass motoring we’re all still driving glorified model T’s: tin cans burning fossil fuels, and we can’t even imagine it being any other way. I’m pretty sure that if you can find the answer to that question your a lot closer to knowing the truth about cars.
Anyway, why the sour comments about electric motoring? Not everybody has to drive electric for electric motoring to work. The availability of an alternative will force Big Oil to reconsider it’s supply policy, making sure that high prices don’t scare even the biggest fans of gas guzzling V8’s (such as your self) into a mobile major appliance with all the sex appeal of a fridge (yes, I admit it). Let’s face it: once the economy picks up again, demand for oil will soar again and at some point in the not so distant future even $4/gallon gas will be a distant memory of better days when gas was cheap unless a substantial portion of motorists can be convinced to go electric…
I think it would have been a good idea for the Founding Fathers to write a Constitution that prevented the government from robbing the people and handing the money to their buddies..
Hey! Defense contractors need to eat too!
Oil power plants basically don’t exist in the continental United States...
Not true! There are several big power providers in the Northeast that are mostly oil. LIPA in New York, for example. Collectively they source about 5500KW peak load, much of that from old oil plants.
Let the price at the pump reflect the true cost of gasoline or diesel. No more tax BREAKS for gasoline or diesel. No more wars to secure political influence over oil reserves. Take into account the cost of health care related to tailpipe emissions from millions of vehicles doing the cold start routine several times a day.
Not saying that there should be tax penalties on gasoline or diesel – just let it reflect the true cost.
Then EVs make sense for ALOT of people. Well, they already make sense for ALOT of people but then with the true cost at the pumps people may realize here and now that SUVs and suburbs have a cost we might not be able to live with. I don’t want my kids saddled with the costs of our lifestyle.
Thats a big problem – leadership that won’t make decisions b/c they rely on the popularity contests we call elections to get them elected. Not that I am any sort of communist – I don’t see a better alternative to democracy but elections are less about substance and too much about charm. VERY few politicians make hard choices. Barack Obama is probably the best chance we’ve had at real leadership in this country in some time BUT he is fighting his own’s party’s old politics as much as he is the Republicans… Both sides lining up for funding for all their old pet projects.
Meanwhile the rest of us seem to think everything needs a silver bullet either/or solution. EVs must be able to match or exceed the capabilities of an ICE powered vehicle.
By that argument I ought to do all of my cabinetry with a chainsaw b/c it does a faster more capable job than my coping saw.
Not everyone needs a cross country capable vehicle. Not every vehicle needs Ferrari performance or the ability to carry a cub scout troop.
Some folks, if they were honest with themselves, could do quite well with an EV compact car for commuting. Drive it until the doors fall off and keep something nice in the garage for trips or nights out or trips to the hardware store. And our air would be cleaner for it.
Power generation: people RIGHT now are driving EVs powered by power geneated by solar on their rooftop. Right now. Right now people are powering their homes with wind. RIGHT NOW. There are people driviing NiMH powered EVs from 5+ years ago with 100+ mile ranges and with a/c or heat. RGHT NOW. What we need is access to the tech. Chevron has that one locked up. Thanks GM.
We are capable of changing how we do what we do RIGHT NOW. We don’ have to wait for mythical technologies to reach market – they are here RIGHT NOW. Another thing that we have RiGHT NOW are people who don’t change. How fear change or make up stories about the gov’t taking things away from them by force.
Wake up and be creative… We are at my house…
Americans are not “against” electric cars. They are against cars that don’t work — that don’t deliver the same range, reliablity, comfort and utility of real cars.
Exactly. I don’t care if my car runs on gasoline, hydrogen, electricity, dirty diapers or bee spit–I just want it to work. And without having to remember to plug it in. Or hunt for an outlet on the road. Or sit for an hour while it charges.
John
When America implemented any idea in a good way? Why it should happen with the EV?
However, many European countries have already solar panels and windturbins on their electricity networks, added to their conventional plants.
This should reduce carbon footprint and provide the extra energy the EVs will need