It's Almost 2009 - Do You Know Where Your Electric Car is?

November 06, 2008

According to an analyst at Piper Jaffrey, the first all-electric car to reach the US mass market will come from a California company named Miles Electric. Slated to hit the market in early 2010, the big differences with this car versus better publicized vehicles from Chevy, Toyota and many others (including Tesla, makers of the nearly $100K Roadster 2 seater) is that this vehicle:

• Seats 4
• Uses no gasoline at all
• Travels 100-120 miles per charge
• Battery life of approximately 100,000 miles
• Minimal maintenance required
• One charge costs about the price of one gallon of gasoline
• will be affordable (or almost affordable) from the start (price not set yet but it seems to be heading for $30-35K before rebates)

It's funny, but some folks I've spoken with recently have the impression that the Chevy Volt is all electric. GM's done a great job marketing the car, but is said to be struggling reaching its 40 mile target for electric operation prior to switching to the on-board gas engine.

Photo courtesy of Miles Automotive Group

Comments

[stomv]

Cars like this won't work for everyone. Neither do motorcycles, 2-seaters, or SUVs. S'OK. It works for plenty of people.

In my neighborhood, very few people drive 100 miles or more a day. I'd bet few drive more than 30 miles a day. This will work for nearly all circumstances.

What about the other circumstances -- driving to see Grandma on Thanksgiving and so forth? Two options: (1) drive the other car; most families own more than one. However, in dense neighborhoods where this car is even more attractive lots of families only own one car. For them, simply (2) rent a car. Sounds crazy, right? Consider this: 100 miles in your 20 mpg car will cost you $15.00 [$3.00 / gallon]. Driving 100 miles in this guy costs you $3.00. That's a savings of $12/100 miles. It won't take you long to save enough to pay for a rental car, about $60/day including taxes. My family owns zero cars -- when we want to go to NJ for Thanksgiving or VT to leaf peep or to upstate NY for a basketball tournament, we just rent a car. It's really not that hard, and you don't have to go to the airport to do it.

Remember, it doesn't need 100% market adoption. Heck, all hybrids combined are currently making up about 2.5% of car sales. If this guy got half that, it'd be pretty remarkable.

[artjohnston]

All the hype on electric vehicles is alluring. But the main improvements are more hype, more money, and techno fluff. But all this isn't going to change the basic environmental fact that electric cars are NOT going to reduce transportation’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.

Let’s do the simple math to compare electric vehicles (EV) CO2 emissions to internal combustion vehicles (ICV):

Electric vehicles :
Average electrical CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hr.(kWh) in U.S. = 1.6 lbs.; expected miles per kWh for a normal sized electric vehicle = 2.0 mpk; average CO2 per mile = .80 lbs per mile for EV.

Internal combustion vehicles:
Average CO2 emission per gallon of fuel = 20 lbs; expected miles per gallon (mpg) for a small car (Chevy Impala) = 32 mpg; average CO2 per mile = .62 lbs. per mile for a ICV.

These simple calcs show that an average EV will emit 30% more CO2 per mile than a similar sized ICV! If you want to be real energy efficient and drive a Prius or TDI getting 45 mpg, an EV will emit 80%, more CO2 per mile than an ICV!

The above figures are for the U.S. where 70% of our electricity is generated with fossil fuels; but this is not that much different from the rest of the world where 66% of the electricity is generated by fossil fuel.

Let's look at a country like Israel. 100% of Israel’s electricity is fossil fuel generated, and that would make an Israel EV produce 200% more CO2 than a ICV! In other words, converting Israel’s small vehicles to EVs would about as bad for the environment as converting all of them to Humvees!

Another factor is that converting all small residential vehicles from direct fossil fuel to electric would force the U.S. to increase its electrical production by over 20%. That is a lot of electrical generating plants. Any increases in alternative energy production, like wind, will do nothing to reduce our CO2 emissions if the U.S. must increase electrical generation 20% to fuel EVs.

Worldwide, this issue is even more dramatic and converting the world’s existing residential vehicle fleet to EVs would require about a 40% increase in world wide electrical generation—which, in balance, would also increase worldwide CO2 emissions significantly.

It's time that people promoting electric vehicle do their homework.

[Chris]

Art, the electric vehicle doesn't realize its potential on the power supply that exists today, or a linear extrapolation of that supply into the future, rather it does so on a boldly reimagined power supply: a lot more wind, a lot more solar, fringe bets like enhanced geothermal. The two thrusts (the new vehicle and the new sources of power that would supply them) move forward independently but interdependently, for one because the electric vehicle has the potential to make intermittent sources like wind push to become a bigger part of the power mix, and for another lets those renewable sources become peak shaving tools that mitigate the need to create additional power plants.

Some electric vehicle proponents are excited because they seea radically different future for they way cars would be powered, unfettered by any homework that meticulously accounts for what is.

[artjohnston]

Chris, your comments are certainly correct in that the EV doesn't realize its potential with our existing power supply. But that acknowledgement is rare when EVs are being discussed. We do have to do our homework because that is the reality that we are in—if we can’t get the facts right, we are going to get the decisions wrong.

You go on to all websites or read any article on EVs and they are gushing over statements like “zero emissions” and “carbon free”, and those statements are false and are a poor idea if you are concerned about carbon emission. And they are promoting EVs now, not waiting for 30 years until we have carbon free electricity.

Of course we should be talking about and developing new, non-combustion sources of energy and new propulsion systems for transportation. And we are making important strides in both fronts. And EVs should be developed as they certainly have their niche. But my point is that we must deal with the reality of our existing transportation and energy systems, too. And the reality is that advocating for EVs now, as is currently being done, is contrary to the goal of reducing carbon emissions; and I believe that promotion of EVs is irresponsible except in a few areas of our country where electricity is generated by nuclear or hydro.

On a more philosophical note (that has nothing to do with EVs): coal and oil are concentrated forms of energy that have revolutionized utilization of energy by making it readily available and affordable, and that that availability and affordability have revolutionized our society. Utilizing energy sources like wind is a good idea. But we must acknowledge that such sources have very diffused energy concentrations and capturing such low grade energy and turning into high grade energy, like electricity, is going to be much harder and more expensive than using already concentrated forms of energy like coal, oil, hydro and nuclear. We must be careful in not throwing the baby out with the bathwater—the baby being affordable and readily available energy for all of society.