The EV future is bright with unnamed programs at makers.
Battery technology has advanced to the point that it is viable for powering vehicles and they could be in dozens of new electric vehicles within the next few years, the leader of a growing battery company said Thursday.
Christina Lampe-Onnerud, founder and CEO of Boston Power, called on those attending the Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City to join in developing the vehicles that will run on batteries.
Battery costs of $500 per kilowatt/hour are now low enough for BEVs to make sense when the total cost of ownership is considered, she claimed. Other industry estimates put cost of lithium ion batteries for automobiles at twice that – before any markup.
While she would not give figures for her own company because of its venture-capital funding, Lampe-Onnerud expects as many as 100,000 EVs on roads in as little as two years. And phone calls from consumers who want to know about EVs show the public is clamoring for them, she claimed.
The company is currently building electric vehicle batteries for pilot programs, but she would not say how many the company has in production.
“I can’t wait to see our children driving electric transportation,” she said, not without self interest. “I believe the electric vehicle will be a thrill for most users.”
Half of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by burning coal, a dirty fuel that causes large amounts of CO2 emissions critics maintain.
While battery technology has advanced rapidly, Lampe-Onnerud said there is more that can be done. “On the all-electric side, there is tremendous opportunity for innovation,” Lampe-Onnerud said.
She called on others in the auto industry to work with her company on those challenges.
“Let’s explore, let’s invent to make this new technology real,” she said.
Backed by more than $190 million in venture capital funding, Boston Power made its first three-cell lithium ion battery for HP computers in 2008.
Lampe-Onnerud said her company’s advanced battery design ends the frustration for laptop users who see the capacity of their batteries quickly dwindle after purchase. In fact, HP warranties the battery for three years, and she said, it will last longer if cared for properly. That same durability will extend when the company increases the number of cells needed for use in a car.
She said the company is currently producing batteries at a plant in Taiwan and is planning a plant in mainland China.
“Half of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by burning coal, a dirty fuel that causes large amounts of CO2 emissions critics maintain.”
This statement, regrettably, betrays the author’s lack of knowledge of the field. A comprehensive study done jointly by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in 2007 looked at the issue of wells-to-wheels carbon emissions for gasoline vehicles vs electric cars powered off the grid.
Short conclusion: Even on the dirtiest grid in the nation (N Dakota, IIRC), an electric car emits lower carbon for 1 mile driven than a 25-mpg car.
If you double the car’s efficiency to 50 mpg, you start to get some edge cases (like N Dak) where it’s *slightly* better to burn the gasoline.
For the U.S. grid on average, though, you have to get to something like 80 or 90 mpg *fleet average* before gasoline has carbon low enough to equal powering transportation from the grid.
See here for more details: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/how-green-is-my-plugin/0
John,
Thanks for your note. I will ask the author to reply when he returns from the Traverse City event. I will note that in my own conversations with industry leaders — both automotive, battery/electric technologies and power generation — this issue remains a matter of more debate than you suggest in your note. And that doesn’t even include questions about the environmental impact of battery manufacturing and the energy-intensive production of lighter-weight materials, like aluminum. One study that made significant headlines, was the rust-to-dust report, from CNW, which several years ago suggested that some of the seemingly greenest vehicles, such as the original Honda Insight, would actually have an energy (and thus, CO2) deficit when compared with some seemingly dirty light trucks because of the manufacturing issues involved with lighter greener technologies.
There is little doubt that in states using greener power generation, whether NG, renewables or even nuke, CO2 output will be down with battery cars, but for the nation as a whole I remain less convinced. One advantage that could work in the favor of battery power is night time charging — which I believe some studies calculate into their equations. By using energy produced anyway and usually wasted overnight, battery cars will get a sort of free pass, whatever the source of generation, if they require little or no added capacity to be online.
Paul A. Eisenstein
Publisher, TheDetroitBureau.com
Paul
Thanks for a thoughtful response.
Over a vehicle’s lifetime, manufacturing accounts for roughly 10 to 15 percent of its total carbon profile, so while there are legitimate issues around the energy-intensiveness of new materials and batteries, they pale in comparison to overall energy used to move it around.
Is that the CNW report that said a HUMMER was “greener” than a Prius? If so, it’s been widely critiqued (I hesitate to say “debunked”) online for inconsistent assumptions and a couple of outright bizarre use cases.
And overnight charging, as you note, is by far the best way to charge EVs. Given the average daily mileage of most U.S. vehicles, it won’t be necessary to recharge even a 100-mile BEV during the day–and electric utilities will *heavily* incent their customers to charge overnight, with special rates, as is already the case for SoCal Edison.
Utilities love the idea of selling you vehicle fuel, and have a lot of interest in doing so. But they want to do it overnight, when they have loads of spare capacity. Leveling out their demand curve with overnight charging actually has benefits for their equipment reliability, I gather.
Overall, this is a complex and multifaceted topic. But there’s lots of misinformation, confusion, and outright misrepresentation out there. Hopefully I can provide data to help clarify some of these issues.
“In god we trust. All others, please bring data.”
Ah, John,
To paraphrase, but fairly use, an old quote: lies, damned lies and data.
Paul E.
When asked about electricity generation and CO2 at a background session I participated in, the head of the U.S. EPA replied that the U.S. power system was not ideal, and it depended on how the power was generated – an interesting hedge, but coming from a political appointee from an Administration that has endorsed a design standard, in this case EVs.
In all regulatory areas we fundamentally oppose design standards as a policy making method. We favor performance standards and have written about the economic benefits of such an approach numerous times.
There is too much ideology in assertions all around this subject, John, in my view. Note the source you cite – companies that stand to gain from selling more, possibly coal-generated electricity, but electricity in any case.
However, I will look at your data – and thanks for raising the issue. I will get into this in further detail in a subsequent post. An honest debate is essential here, and you are contributing to it. – editor
John to quote an excellent story on this issue:
“As for greenhouse gases, the EPRI-NRDC study determined that total emissions of plug-in hybrids, including the power plants used to charge them, are considerably lower than those of regular gasoline-powered cars—under all scenarios. The comparison between plug-in hybrids and conventional hybrids, however, depends on the sources used to generate the electricity.”
Ken
The EPRI-NRDC study was a joint effort. I hardly think the Natural Resources Defense Council is inherently favorable toward coal-fired utilities.
I view it as smart of EPRI to bring NRDC onboard to co-author the study. IMHO, it takes the conclusions out of the strict “utility self-interest” category your comment paints it as.
Totally agree that performance standards are better than picking winners. All you have to do is agree on what they are: wells-to-wheels carbon profile? The idiotic MPG measure that doesn’t apply to BEVs or blended powertrains, and is widely misunderstood by the car-buying public?
Happy to engage in the dialogue, feel free to ping me. Lots of stuff I don’t know, and I like to think I’m educable too.
But after watching the OEMs’ behavior through 30 years of regulation, I tend to be pretty suspicious of everyone’s motives. Inertia and resistance to change is a very powerful force in industry.
Ken
LOL, yes, I recognize that quote. In the market projections I get paid to do (separately), it’s pretty clear that plug-ins will be a small fraction of the # of full hybrids through 2020 at least.
As I keep saying, the amount of press about plug-in cars is wildly out of proportion both to the number that will be built and their impact on the environment.
For the next decade, the bulk of improvements will come from vastly more efficient combustion engines. But that doesn’t mean we (meaning industry + govt) shouldn’t invest in the R+D and rollout testing toward the next technology.
Do you know anyone who thinks that oil will be the same price or cheaper 10 years hence? I suspect if we have another oil price shock, public opinion toward EVs will improve markedly.
I can go on like this … but I won’t. For now.
John,
Though EPRI and NRDC might seem to come from opposite ends of the spectrum they are no more the oddfellows than the curious Ron Paul/Barney Frank pairing on some key new bills before Congress. Find a common goal and old enemies will often put clothespins on their nose and shake hands. The strong but mutual self-interest in battery technology must be considered here. And it impacts a lot of interpretations. Remember, per another comment of yours, that data is, ultimately, the result of assumptions and assumptions are usually the result of self-interested choices.
Before we go much further, let me state my own position which you and other readers should use to filter any comments I make as we continue this discussion: I like to call myself a skeptical proponent of battery power.
To show how “data” can be completely misleading consider something that proponents of EV technology have all but turned into gospel, the concept that energy will cost only about 1 or 2 cents per mile in a battery car, or roughly 1/10th what gasoline runs. To be honest, I have used that figure myself on numerous occasions. But this assumes: 1) nighttime charging; 2) most likely using a smart charger that can be interrupted if grid loads get high; 3) a battery-friendly utility that will give a huge discount for battery cars under such circumstances. A fillip in any of these means prices could run 2, 3, 4 times as high. And forget plugging in during the day to a standard outlet.
Everyone is also immediately factoring in the $7,500 federal tax credit and assuming, ie, Leaf at $25,000. But you and I know there are limits on the number of credits available to any maker. Prius, I believe, went way past that volume last year, and if battery cars start generating real numbers, many — perhaps most — buyers will be stuck with the retail price.
There are similar issues of contention in the EPRI-NRDC report, from my earlier readings, and other pro-battery studies. But the same can be said for some arguments against them.
Bottom line, I am very uncomfortable with anything that purports to support the adoption of EV technology without a significant push to a smart grid and more clean generation sources.
Paul E.
Well, that’s suitably cynical, Paul. If not data as a starting point, then what DO you propose?
Paul
All fair comments, and kudos for stating your position up front. Scepticism is an appropriate attitude. A few comments on your points:
Power cost: Yep, charging costs may not be the 1 or 2 cents per mile some people quote. There are ~ 6,600 power-selling utilities in the U.S., with widely varying (and diversely regulated) rate structures.
However, I’ve yet to see power prices that equal the 13 cents/mile a 25-mpg car costs on $3/gallon gasoline. Even NYC rates of 15 cents/kWh get you about 3 cents/mile, using the widely accepted 5-miles-per-kWh metric. So doubling that still puts you at half the running cost of an average car at today’s gas price.
I share your concerns about timing of charging. Load interruption won’t be required at night, but it may be during peak daytime periods. That said, it will be MANY years–more than 5, anyhow–before EV charging is even noticeable on any grid. That will get us much further toward smart charging. Meanwhile, one EV = 4 plasma TV sets in terms of charge load, and any grid can handle that any time.
Totally agree on the idiocy of “net pricing” a la Tesla. We quote exclusively MSRP with a footnote on the credits. Tax credits themselves are far less useful and effective than purchase rebates, but that’s a different story.
There are 200K plug-in credits per manufacturer IIRC. That’s 5-plus years of plug-in sales in the U.S. for anyone if not more, even Nissan.
To your last statement: I am not nearly as convinced as you seem to be that smart grid is necessary to start getting EVs on the road. Again, the pace of adoption of EVs will be (a) slow; (b) predictable; and (c) constrained by the cost of infrastructure and progress in reducing price-performance of automotive-grade lithium-ion cells.
I follow those numbers pretty closely. By the time any utility notices EVs as a portion of its total demand, we’ll be well past 2015 and with luck, smart grid will be closer to universal than it is today.
Finally, re/clean generation: The U.S. grid will gradually get less carbon-intensive. Not as quickly as some would like, but it will happen. It could happen faster with some form of carbon pricing, but that too is another story.
China is ramping up coal as quickly as it can, however. Any U.S. and European reductions in carbon may well be swamped by that. But (a) that’s not a reason to try; and (b) the Chinese know that and are making a significant effort to eat the U.S. for lunch in electric vehicle technology.
And THAT is a piece you’ll have to wait for til I write it. 🙂
This is too fun not to jump in a little…
Lots of good points made. The only point on which I’d disagree is on the “yet to see electricity that rivals gas” point. Given TOU rates and tiers here in CA, I know a few Tesla drivers who pay 53c/kWh to charge their cars, cause they haven’t gotten on PG&E’s EV rates and use so damned much electricity in general that they’re in the highest tier. But even here, it’s the exception, not the rule.
And TOU rates in general are an interesting paradox- given that early adopters generally aren’t as price sensitive, it’s actually a pretty small incentive financially. Most drivers charge at night because that’s when the car is sitting around anyway. And smart grid is absolutely not required; for years we’ve been doing it with nothing more sophisticated than a pool timer. But it should be noted that a huge motivation for getting an EV is to be “part of the solution, not the problem”, regardless of what that problem is to any given individual. So early EV drivers tend to be personally motivated to charge off-peak, especially since it doesn’t generally impact the experience of using the vehicle. Once you’re home for the night, it’s utterly transparent whether your car starts charging at 6pm or midnight, as long as it’s full in the morning. This same factor is what will ultimately enable utilities to stagger vehicle charging via those smart meters, but John’s right that it will unfortunately take years before we have enough EVs on the road for that to be an issue. It’s still important to set up TOU rates and various mechanisms to reinforce “good” behavior w/r/t charging, etc., but I often see this issue overblown in PUC discussions and utility circles.
And it’s true that today’s grid isn’t “ideal”- from a security perspective as much as an environmental one. But there’s a huge difference between “not ideal” and “as bad or worse than the status quo”. The grid isn’t perfect, but it’s generally cleaner than gasoline- and CO2 is but one of several reasons to step away from petroleum as a sole transportation fuel. Over the years, we’ve also seen a trend of EV drivers going on to get solar panels or other renewable electricity- just over half of the current production EV drivers have done it. It’s not a lot of people (as we’ve never had many EVs), but it’s an interesting trend, and demonstrates the value of gadget-driven infrastructure. Generally, the vehicle comes first, and raises awareness of where that electricity is coming from- but the ability to offset gasoline purchasing also vastly shortens the payback period for solar. But the visibility of the vehicle and passion around cars helps drive interest in infrastructure upgrades that otherwise have a tough time garnering support.
There’s also a subtle but important difference between this administration’s “anointing” of plug-in technology vs those of the past. Typically, each administration has had its technological darling- EVs, then H2, then ethanol, and so on. But this is the first one that has picked a technology based on a performance metric that’s useful. That metric is that it’s even remotely viable today. It also happens to have certain advantages over some of the other alternative fuels, but it doesn’t matter how good a technology is if it won’t hit showrooms for 20 years. There’s nothing about this approach that precludes folding in other technologies as they become viable- but for the first time in years we’re inching away from letting the perfect be the enemy of the good and toward giving consumers an actual choice that’s not tied to a gas pump.
Chelsea: Thanks and a tip of the Zino fedora (yes I have one) for your intelligent, and civil comments. – editor
Chelsea,
Thanks for the insightful comments. A little anecdote: back in — if my memory is still reasonably functional — 1992, I attended a big EVIA summit at Disneyland. After a speech by the then head of CARB, I began peppering her with questions that didn’t follow the “company line,” so to speak. Afterwards, as I came up to say hello, she paused, gave me a look up-and-down, and asked, “who’s side are you on?”, in terms of the original ZEV mandate. I told her I thought it was a very bad law and that I hoped they didn’t change it — not til the last minute possible. That drew a look of total confusion. I explained that I did not think either the market or the industry(s) were ready to deliver truly competitive battery cars but that the longer the industry had to stick with the mandate the more they would invest, the more they would learn, the more they would lay the groundwork for the future, when EV technology really did start to become viable.
The fact that there’s a lot of EV1 in Volt is proof of my point.
By the way, a couple thoughts on your own comments: as you mention, some folks are paying a fortune to charge their Teslas and Zap electric vehicles. For them, going to solar or wind, or having the koi in their ponds hooked up to a generator makes sense. But what about the folks who will get the 1-cent/kWh power? For them, the penalty to hook up solar arrays actually will be even more steep than for the average consumer paying 10-20 cents/kWh to run their TVs and computers.
Paul A. Eisenstein
Publisher, TheDetroitBureau.com
Thanks guys- refreshing to have the comments section of a site actually become a dialogue. ;o)
I’m assuming that was probably Jananne, Paul, sounds like her. And I agree that we’re seeing evidence of the last programs in this generation, EV1>Volt especially. Though the amount of institutional knowledge that’s been purged from all of these companies during the years of trying to forget EVs existed is really frustrating to watch.
I agree with you that the only reason that the companies got as far as they did is because of the mandate. I disagree that it was a bad law, as while I’m the first to agree that EVs were niche products then (and now, by standard industry definition), I do think they would have experienced a trajectory not unlike early hybrids, and that we’d (industry and society) would be in a different place now. Particularly as it was watered down, the mandate never required more vehicles than the market would likely have absorbed, even then. Sadly, it now requires so few vehicles that CARB isn’t even relevant to the ZEV discussion at the moment- which is part of why the political energy has shifted to DC on this topic. Curious to see how that changes as ZEV is revised, though all signs at the moment point to it becoming even more bullish about H2.
Cheapest electricity rates I know of are 2.9c/kWh, but I take your point re comparing to solar cost. Obviously, the payback period will differ depending on the electricity rate you’re starting from (though Hawaii just proposed 19c/kWh for their off-peak EV rates!) but my point was more that no matter the baseline, the gasoline offset provided by introducing an EV into that picture can only help the equation.
I also think we have opportunities to take advantage of the “conspicuous non-consumption” aspect of plug-ins to marry them to renewables and conservation. People are willing to do the right thing, but it’s human nature to want to be recognized for it- which is in part why the distinctive looking Prius sells better than the Civic hybrid. Part of the issue that utilities have had in selling green power is that short of a gaudy lawn sign, there’s no way to tell your neighbors you’re buying it, and the electricity that comes out of the wall is the same either way, so no experiential difference for you either. But vehicles are rolling billboards- and while I think we should generally make the hurdles to EVs as low as reasonably possible, I can easily see providing certain incentives only to EV drivers who commit to powering them with renewables, or otherwise tying tangential “good” behavior to the cars themselves.
Hi, Chelsea,
Yes, I’m also enjoying this dialogue and hope others will jump in.
No question people are motivated by incentives and rewards, whether it’s getting a thumbs-up for driving an obviously green vehicle like Volt, Leaf or Prius, or getting access to the HOV lanes. Ironically, that can also backfire and I think there’s a generation of non-Prius owners who hate the hybrids after getting stuck behind one at 50 mph in the Diamond Lanes.
That touches on your last comment about tying behavior together before providing rewards and incentives. I’d love to install solar at my Detroit home but have so many large and relatively old-growth trees in my older neighborhood that I can’t even grow roses but in one or two spots that get a whole 6 hours of sun in mid-Summer. My plot is also too small and restricted for wind power. Should I thus be basically discouraged from at least adding an EV to my household fleet? I could, however, appreciate a tiered reward system that ups the level of incentives the more you do.
By the way, I’m not as discouraged as you regarding the “purge” of institutional knowledge in-between the abandonment of the original CARB ZEV rules and now. A lot of those folks went on to work for or even found other companies that specialized in green technologies, whether battery, hybrids, motors, aero, etc. In some ways they got a lot more done than if they’d stayed within GM, Ford, Toyota or Nissan. Now that battery power is essential to the big makers they are tapping into these new partners (significant, no, that both Daimler and Toyota are partnering with Tesla and a range of OEs large and small are tapping what is now Remy for assistance?)
In some ways, starting fresh is a good thing, and this could be the best of all worlds: the big OEs are, in most instances, starting over, with relatively little old-think, at least in their green units. But they can tap into significant institutional knowledge that just went to where it was better appreciated.
Paul E.
PS: I still think abandoning the original ZEV mandate was a good thing. It would not have been a consumer-driven success but likely generated a mainstream public backlash that actually might have made it harder to sell the idea of battery power today. With relatively few in the public beyond true believers and enthusiasts having experience with the limits of pre-lithium technology I am certain it is easier to build buzz and excitement now.
To the original sentence that started the whole conversation, it’s imperative that eco-friendly sources of electricity be a part of the revolution in personal mobility. Continuing to use coal to create our electricity would be dumb. We have to have more nuclear, more wind and more solar plus geothermal, tidal and other energy sources.
What excited me about the story was the genuine enthusiasm of Christine Lampe-Onnerud. Either she’s an Oscar-worthy actress on the side, or she has authentic passion for what she’s doing.
Even if today’s power comes largely from coal, we still have to work to develop EVs. The auto industry can only develop the vehicles; others will have to figure out how to make the power generation cleaner.
Bryan- we’re on the same page, I think. We’ve just been peeling back layers on that theme. Hey, you started it with an article that clearly inspired the rest of us! (And yes, Christine is really that passionate.)
Paul- didn’t mean to imply all or nothing in terms of tying behavior together. Quite the opposite; I tend to see a lot of oversimplification of the issues, especially on the environmental impact of generation side. It becomes very binary after a while: grid is clean/dirty, ergo, EVs are good/bad. Not only is each issue far more layered, but so are the solutions. Meant the vehicle+solar incentive as just one example of the types of things we can do to move more than one needle at a time. But could also apply to those who can get green power from a utility or some other scenario altogether- and incentives can absolutely be tiered. I can’t have solar either (though my view is not of trees but a Chevron refinery, so you’ve got me beat there!) and have long pushed back on the renewables and vehicle communities about finding ways to collaborate while acknowledging that not everyone can do both. Each stands on its own merits, and while they do indeed enable the other in different ways, we can’t let the messaging slide toward “if you can’t do both it’s not worth doing either”. It’s the complexity of all of this that keeps me attracted to the space, but it comes with its own set of communications challenges- for the media as well.
I’m not discouraged, per se, by the knowledge purge. I agree completely that there are advantages to the fact that some of the OEM teams are starting from a fresher perspective- let’s face it, some of the veterans have some significant baggage around the history of this technology. Likewise, I like that some of my veteran cohorts have gone on to populate new companies and teams. I adore the Bright Automotive folks, for example, and believe that a large amount of their team’s strength comes from deep experience in the incumbent OEMs. Same goes for the industry in general- there’s a lot of new blood, which is useful in balancing the grizzled ones left over from the last generation. I’m not so concerned with where the actual bodies are today. But there were a lot of lessons learned in the last go-round that aren’t being considered this time, for a variety of reasons- including the fact that that knowledge isn’t being tapped where it currently is in many cases. Even a lot of the data and documentation is gone from the OEMs (which is part of what I mean by the purge- literally boxes tossed into shredders). While not at all the end of the world, it does mean that we’re skinning a few of the same knees and having many of the same conversations over again. That’s occasionally frustrating to watch, not least because there are so many new bridges to cross this time and I’m admittedly slightly impatient on the old stuff. It’s a lot like parenting- you know that your kids have to learn from their own mistakes sometimes, but that doesn’t keep you from wanting them to learn from yours.
On the limits of pre-lithium technology…interestingly, those who used it didn’t find it to be nearly as limited as those watching from the outside assumed it to be. One of the things I like about this generation of BEVs is that it looks a lot like the last one in terms of vehicle specs. One of the unexpected things we learned was that when we did have the opportunity to give consumers a choice of somewhat longer range, they didn’t necessarily want it. For example, people preferred the (Panasonic, not Delphi) lead-acid EV1 over the NiMH version. Even though the cost difference in that case wasn’t significant, especially for those early adopters, they determined that the extra mileage didn’t deliver much in terms of daily benefit. The sweet spot of range really turned out to be ~100 miles or so. Yes, we all want battery tech to get better and ranges longer, but I’m happy to see an equal emphasis on continuing to make those 100-mile cars more economical. And part of what’s helping to build buzz around vehicles like the Leaf are a bunch of old EV1 and RAV drivers who are able to say from firsthand experience, “yeah, 90-100 miles really is enough”.
chelsea
Hi, Chelsea,
As I am running late for an event — but couldn’t let your thoughtful note go unanswered — I will follow with something unusually brief, for me, anyway.
Thanks for the clarification of your position on pairing technologies. I think anyway we get people to even consider alternatives is a viable first step. Though the true believers and early adopters may have their reasons it won’t be the same for everyone, certainly not if/when green propulsion goes mainstream.
Earlier in this long chain, John Voelker referred to the EPRI-NRC study. While I raised questions about it, the fact that we had two groups that often clash coming together — even if they simply found a vested and common interest — is critical to moving forward. I’m happy to see folks adopt NiMH AA batteries at CostCo v endless use of Alkalines. And I honestly don’t care if the motivation is cost or greenness or both.
As to the EV1, yes, I’ve heard people did opt for lead-acid, in many cases. Ironic considering the truly dirty nature of lead…
I think there WILL be plenty of folks happy with 100 miles or so. Certainly, Nissan is betting on that with Leaf, as is Ford with Transit Connect Electric. The latter may actually be a more logical move, long-term, as fleet buyers largely know to a few miles how much a vehicle will be driven each day. And that will permit them to lock down a segment of their fleet that will be safe with limited range.
Again, to my point about mainstream, the mass of buyers will largely want to make the least sacrifice, whether price, range, operating cost, etc., and thus the debate on Volt’s price and Leaf’s range. Recall that OEs frequently advertise range-per-tank with gasoline models and data show that fact DOES influence potential buyers. So, going forward, I think the need to push to 200-250 will be critical. So will 80% quick charge stations. Personally, I would not feel comfortable with Leaf at 100 miles, but would become more comfortable at 150 (2 trips to the airport on a charge, which is something I have had to do far more often than I like, or a drive to Ann Arbor using the more scenic route with a few errands thrown in along the way), and might see it as an interchangeable part of my household fleet at 250, with a gas or PHEV/E-REV as my alternative for the longer trips I make every month or three.
(Jeez…this is my short note?)
Paul E.
The debate over range is really an interesting issue. It appears that most experts think that if battery capacity suddenly doubled tomorrow, they would prefer to reduce the size of the battery rather than double the range. My issue is that this leaves a sizable portion of car buyers on the sideline. It all but requires you to live in a two-vehicle family and if you are single, you likely don’t. At some point, I hope pure EVs are more than just a second vehicle. Even if fueling were to take the same amount of time it currently takes to fuel a car – such as Better Place’s battery replacement model – I still don’t want to stop every 100 miles (or more like 90 so I know there’s still juice in the tank).
This is why I’m so excited about the Volt. If it works as promised, it’s like getting the best of both worlds. I can do almost all of my daily driving during the week without using any gasoline. But on Friday, I can drive my Volt to the lake with no range anxiety and no more limitations than a conventional car. I think it’s the bridge to what is next, whatever that is.
Agreed that the motivations don’t matter, really. While EVs were once painted as a “crunchy enviro CA thing”, the coalition is now much broader. I comment all the time that I care about the table (plug-in technology) not what got you to it. And as much as the early adopters are seen as very cause-motivated, that’s actually been the smallest group historically. Above that ranks the geeks who resonate to the technology, and the biggest group by far are those who simply think they’re cool, fast (depending on the EV in question) fun, new thing to have, etc. Economics are a factor as you get into mainstream adoption, but at the end of the day, vehicle purchases have an underestimated emotional component in every group, and it’s no different here. I watch a lot of folks portray EV buyers as uber-pragmatic, and talk about how we have to get EVs to “pencil”compared to an equivalent compact vehicle- which will be true for some, but it’s not as if a Yukon is the most cost-effective way to get a truck. For each vehicle, there is an audience. Only relevant question is whether that audience is big enough to make a business out of.
I think we’ll see movement in both directions (longer range and cheaper cars that stay at 100 miles or so) as battery tech improves. But not very many years ago, the only discussion was around the longer range side- that it’s not is the difference I was noting. And it’s in part because of vehicles like the Volt that I think we’ll see more skewing in the near term toward making BEVs cheaper instead of adding batteries to them. Many of those that truly drive long distances on a semi-regular basis or can only have one car are likely better off choosing a PHEV/EREV for now, and the Volt enables that “best of both worlds” idea. But, most of the early adopter community has more than one car, as do most households heading into market segments heading away from the EA’s. And as a vehicle buying community in general, we’re dipping toes into the thinking that not every vehicle in the house has to do everything. The “commuter” vehicle doesn’t have to hold all family members or have unlimited range. We’re starting back toward smaller vehicles in general as part of this thinking. So while I think there will always be an appetite for a 250-mile EV, I think there’s for now a bigger one for a $15k (or less), 100-mile EV, with those who want more range (but not in Tesla territory) going for Volt. I don’t think there’d be as much excitement if the Leaf had 200 miles of range but cost $40-50k (after incentives), but it’s really compelling at $20-25k net. But there’s definitely a place for both, and it’s too our collective benefit that both paths are being pursued.
I also think other ownership models altogether will enable EV uptake. The most common question we get is some variation of “what do I do if I want to drive cross country (or Vegas, on the west coast)?” Of course, when you dig into how often that happens, it’s almost never, or maybe once a year, and in an airplane as often as a car. We have had a lot of people get EVs as second cars, then either reserve an old gas car for the few times per year it’s needed, or ultimately ditch the gas car and rent one. Things like Zipcar only help in that regard; people can still have the vehicle with range when they need it, but aren’t carrying around extra batteries or a gas propulsion system when they’re not used 90% of the time.
Some good points there, Chelsea. A couple follow-up thoughts:
First, I absolutely agree about the emotional issue. I think one of the fallacies that hurt Detroit (and other competitors) was to assume that people who bought appliance-like cars and trucks, e.g. the Camry and Highlander, were only buying on practical terms, such as reliability and resale values. Well, true, that’s a fair bit different than 0-60 times or the usual emotional factors, but many of the folks I know who’ve bought a Camry were as emotional as a Mustang or Corvette buyer. They would brag about resale values and the like as much as a muscle car owner could brag about horsepower. The ability NOT to have to be terribly into cars was a sort of anti-car guy mindset.
I think that battery vehicles will likewise generate a variety of emotional issues, some unique, some familiar, some enticing some repelling to potential customers. To ignore that would be a big mistake for an automaker. The challenge will be to figure out how to make that play into marketing and the broader business case.
As for range, well, I still think more will be better, but Nissan officials offered an interesting thought, if you go back to the stories I wrote on driving the Leaf, last December: they very well may offer different battery pack options, in the years to come, which would allow you to balance things like range, performance and, of course, price.
Your final point is intriguing and Nissan has also been playing with that as it has negotiated various deals around the world, often with very different strategies country to country.
In Europe, (and perhaps Japan and even China, eventually), where there is a much more mature and flexible transportation infrastructure, it will be intriguing to see how battery cars/mass transit/rentals are inter-mixed. Daimler’s Car2Go experiment, in Austin, will be a very interesting test here in the States. Unfortunately, the number of cities where people have flexible options is limited, here in the U.S.
I was about to point to NYC, but that actually plays to my point about range. If I were to live in Manhattan or Brooklyn, it would be great to rent a Leaf or Think City for the weekend jaunt to The Shore. But almost any destination other than Coney Island would be well beyond the limit of a BEV unless there were guaranteed charge ports in Belmar or Point Pleasant or the like. The same for San Franciscans pushing into wine country for the weekend. You’d really need at least 150 miles on the Leaf to do Napa comfortably. And I stress that few folks will be comfortable targeting even an 85-mile trip on 100 miles range. Who is comfortable when the 50-mile low gas warning light comes on?
Paul E.
Well, I’m one of those folks who drives on E in either a gas car or EV, but I’ll concede from the start that I’m a few degrees off normal in a lot of ways!
Yes, folks do start off with range anxiety, and while it falls away rather quickly, the first time doing a new long trip in an EV is kind of hairy. Which is why I think many folks will take the other car, the rental, or the Volt for those cases. We also have some hotels already installing chargers for the weekends you describe, though infrastructure is a whole other conversation that we’re similarly in the weeds on.
And I particularly like the idea of companies renting EREVs/PHEVs. EVs are possible too, though require a bit more thought, and I’m curious to see how Hertz and Enterprise fare with that. We had Budget do it through a couple locations in the late 1990s, and it’s a mixed bag of experience. I will say though that for both this situation and the weekend trip above, the new user interfaces and telematic support of this generation will be amazingly enabling. The Leaf, in particular, has a fantastic UI, and the Volt’s is good too. Even in the last generation, we found that folks didn’t run out of range very often (and many of them pushed it) but it will be downright difficult to do it in these cars without meaning to, given all the information being fed to the driver.
Agree with the anti-car guy mindset too, though I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten the “I wasn’t a car person til I got my EV1” stories. The torque in some EVs is compelling, even to folks who weren’t car people before, and the attention doesn’t hurt either. We even got reports of lower stress/road rage while driving because the cars were so quiet and smooth, they contributed to a better general demeanor. But yes, for a variety of reasons, people get very emotional about these cars (let’s face it, we’ve had folks get arrested for them!) to the point of making early Saturn drivers look anti-social by comparison. Which is why OEM’s would be smart to get more comfortable with the early adopter community- they’re great ambassadors, tolerant of infant tech problems, love being a part of something, not as price-sensitive, etc. But, many of my conversations with automakers center around their discomfort with that community, or how they reach “mass market” without alienating the early group. Right now, it’s mostly “how do we get through that phase as quickly as possible so we can get to what we really what to do”, instead of taking advantage of the natural features of that group to accelerate progress.
But you’re right- lots of interesting scenarios, and none of them all-or-nothing. Good times!
And PS on NRDC- it’s actually remarkable and a long time coming that they found some common ground w EPRI, though both orgs are very conservative, which helps. We’ve had so much trouble with the enviro orgs over the years that they almost became a suspect in Who Killed the Electric Car? Just not enough time to include everything.