The EV has faced one basic problem from the very beginning and that
is an effective battery solution. That means two things. Power
delivery with swift recharge ability for a 600 mile range design base
at an attractive cost. We are perhaps half way there on the first
and still quite out on the issue of cost.
Until those benchmarks are met, no design genius in the world can
win. We are certainly much closer and importantly, the auto industry
has learned how to build compatible vehicles, so when batterys are
available, the roll out will be immediate.
So while much progress has been made we are still waiting to meet the
true kick off benchmark. We have a while to wait.
GM’s vaunted Volt
is on the road to nowhere fast
By Editorial
Board, Published: September10
AS A CANDIDATE for
president in 2008, Barack Obama set a goal of getting 1 million
all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. In
February 2011, the Obama administration’s Energy Department issued
an analysis purporting to show that, with the help of
subsidies and tax credits, “the goal is achievable.” This was a
paltry claim in the first place, since 1 million cars amount to less
than 1 percent of the total U.S. fleet. Yet it is increasingly
clear that, despite the commitment of many millions of taxpayer
dollars, the United States will not hit Mr. Obama’s target by 2015.
A recent CBS News analysis suggested that we’ll be lucky to
get a third of the way there.
The Energy Department
study assumed that General Motors would produce 120,000 plug-in
hybrid Volts in 2012. GM never came close to that and
recently suspended Volt production at its Hamtramck, Mich.,
plant, scene of a presidential photo-op. So far, GM has sold a little
more than 21,000 Volts, even with the help of a $7,500 tax credit,
recent dealer discounting and U.S. government purchases. When you
factor in the $1.2 billion cost of developing the Volt, GM loses
tens of thousands of dollars on each model.
Some such losses are
normal in the early phases of a product’s life cycle. Perhaps the
knowledge and technological advances GM has reaped from developing
the Volt will help the company over the long term. But this is cold
comfort for the taxpayers who still own more than a quarter of the
firm.
The Energy Department
predicted that Nissan, recipient of a $1.5 billion
government-guaranteed loan, would build 25,000 of its all-electric
Leaf this year; that car has sold only 14,000 units in the United
States.
As these companies
flail, they are taking the much-ballyhooed U.S. advanced-battery
industry down with them. A Chinese company had to buy out distressed
A123, to which the Energy Department has committed $263 million in
production aid and research money. Ener1, which ran through $55
million of a $118 million federal grant before going bankrupt, sold
out to a Russian tycoon.
No matter how you
slice it, the American taxpayer has gotten precious little for the
administration’s investment in battery-powered vehicles, in terms
of permanent jobs or lower carbon dioxide emissions. There is no
market, or not much of one, for vehicles that are less convenient and
cost thousands of dollars more than similar-sized gas-powered
alternatives — but do not save enough fuel to compensate. The basic
theory of the Obama push for electric vehicles — if you build them,
customers will come — was a myth. And an expensive one, at that.
By 2015, you could
own an electric Batmobile
By Neal Pollack
One night a few weeks
ago, while on a Honda junket in Santa Barbara, I had dinner with a
couple of Japanese green-car technology engineers. I realize that, in
terms of cool cred, that statement ranks far below “I just got back
from Burning Man” or “have you seen my TED talk?,” but I was
still excited. I guess I’m a green-car nerd now.
After a weird moment
where one of the engineers compared my beard to a bonsai tree, we
began to discuss shop. I’ll admit that I didn’t understand
everything they said to me, but here’s the gist: Honda puts its
best engineers at work on developing alternative-fuel cars. And
they’re not the only ones.
In the past year, as
part of my strange new career as a car writer, I’ve driven
everything from the most exalted Rolls-Royce to the lowly ScionIQ,
and what pisses me off most about the cars I drive is their gas
mileage. Why does that Infiniti only get 19 mpg, or that Mustang
convertible 17 mpg? What’s with all these big, stupid crossover
vehicles that cost 80 bucks a week to fill? Frankly, it’s pathetic.
I’m hoping that
manufacturers might also be feeling the shame, and also pressure from
their governments. Eventually, your average consumers might even
start thinking alternative-fuel cars are cool, too. Look at the
hoopla surrounding Tesla Motors’ recently released Model
S “supercar.” It goes 3,000 miles per hour, approximately,
and a recent Motor Trend test-drive in the desert showed it
has an electric range of more than 250 miles. A change is coming. You
should see these electric cars that BMW is putting out next year, the
i3 and i8. They look like superhero cars from the future. I want one
so bad.
While it would be
wonderful if the entire world would just travel around on magnetized
super-trains, the fact is, many people have to drive every day. Some
of them have to drive quite far. So the way the car companies behave
in the next 20 years will help determine the fate of our planet. I’m
beginning to see encouraging signs.
For years, Honda’s
been leasing out a hydrogen-fueled car for about $600 a month to
discriminating California consumers. In a more mainstream gambit, the
Honda Accord, a boring college-town sedan for decades, is about to
appear ina plug-in hybrid version. The Honda FIT EV, though poorly
available, gets more than 100 miles to a charge, and everyone I’ve
talked to who’s driven it thinks it’s fantastic.
And Honda has to
double-down on electric cars so it can catch up to Toyota. The Prius
is one of America’s most popular cars, and Toyota’s adding more
EVs to its fleet constantly, including a new plug-in Prius that gets
a modest 12-15 miles per electrical charge. Toyota just introduced a
hybrid Camry, which I drove and thought was pretty good, and an
all-electric RAV4, which blew my mind when I drove it in July. I
had it for five hours solid and there was still plenty of range left
when I was done zipping it around Newport Beach.
Of course, Japanese
and Korean automakers were working on this stuff back when we were
chatting on AOL and enjoying the first season of Survivor. But
now there’s also a little-reported alliance among General
Motors, Chrysler, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, and the Volkswagen group.
Their engineers are jointly developing alternative fuel technologies,
which they must because Europe is adopting very rigid fuel standards
in 2017. The U.S. will follow by 2025, assuming that it continues to
elect federal executives that believe in the reality of global
warming. The new U.S. CAFE standards (which unfortunately do not
ban cafĂ©-based spoken word nights — an initiative I also
support) will bring the average mpg of cars up over 54,
though it will probably be closer to 40 once all the evil oil lobbies
munch their chunks off that. Regardless, it’s a big change from the
current situation.
And now a confession:
I try to enjoy combustion cars for what they are, especially if they
go vroom really fast. People love them for a reason. They can be
fast, fun, and often quite useful. But they have to change. I feel
like, and I may be overly hopeful here, that I’m enjoying the last
moments of a technology before it’s swept away by historical
reality.
Of course, I also
might be totally fooling myself. That awesome RAV4 I drove?
Toyota’s only going to sell or lease 2,500 of them, and all in
California. Same with Honda’s Fit EV. The Prius continues its
unstoppable march toward segment dominance, but other
alternative-fuel cars are struggling. The Chevy Volt, a fantastic car
by any standard, is offering $259-a-month leases on cars that cost
$40,000 last year. I haven’t driven the new Ford C-Max hybrid
series, but everyone seems to love it a lot. Enthusiasm aside, the
C-Max still warrants the usual “will people buy it?” caveat, an
addendum phrase that seems to haunt the world of alternative-fuel
cars. Consumers aren’t yet persuaded, except in rare West Coast
pockets, and the infrastructure doesn’t yet exist to support
alternative-energy cars en masse.
To those of you who
still might be saying “the technology isn’t good enough yet,” I
would say: You’re wrong. It’s definitely good enough. And to
those who are reluctant because of price, fair enough. But the
electric Model T, a car that will change the way the world drives, is
coming. I don’t know what that model will be yet, or from what
factory but regardless, this automotive Messiah will rise.
That said, even EV
geniuses get the need for speed from time to time — and for that,
burning carbon is still optimal. After a long dinner and much wine
with my new engineer friends from Honda, one of them leaned in and
said, “I have worked on every kind of fuel technology for cars,”
he said. “And I am convinced that combustion engines work best.”
This surprised me, but
he assured me that it was true. Though the world needs
alternative-energy cars for its future survival, he said, racecars
need to continue to run on gasoline. I agreed, for now. Watching
electric cars race isn’t much fun — yet. That Model S goes pretty
damn fast.
Neal Pollack is the
author of Jewball and the best-selling memoirAlternadad. He
has contributed to The New York Times, Wired, Slate, Yoga
Journal, and Vanity Fair, among many other publications.
When looking at Who Killed the Electric Car some years ago, I was surprised to note Toyota had marketed an electrified hybrid Rav 4. It was pulled because of $300 million fines in battery technology patents. We have the know how to break the battery problem - and are being prevented from implementing it.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries