Nov 17
Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
A group of industry leaders have formed a new coalition and released an ambitious roadmap to deploy electric vehicles and infrastructure in the United States. The Electrification Coalition states “Our primary mission is to promote government action to facilitate deployment of electric vehicles on a mass scale.”
Their goal is to have electric and plugin hybrid vehicles account for 75% of all light duty miles by 2040.
To achieve that objective, two shorter term milestones are proposed:
1. by 2020 plug in cars should account for 25% of all car and light duty truck sales. Meeting this objective would mean having 14 million plugin cars on US roads by that year
2. by 2030 plugin vehicles should;d account for 90% of all car and light duty truck sales. This would require 120 million plugin cars on US roads by that year.
To reach those benchmarks the group recommends rolling out electric cars and infrastructure in selected markets and expanding those markets incrementally through learning about consumer behavior. This approach is preferred to a blanket national rollout.
The group also recommends government funding to help achieve the goals which would come at a cost of $124 billion. They would like more than $7500 in tax credits to go to each buyer of electric cars, and for the government to provide 50% tax credits for utility company upgrades and 50 to 75% credits for the cost of installing public infrastructure.
“The first electric vehicles will be delivered in 12 months,” said member Carols Ghosn, Nissan CEO. “The widespread acceptance of zero emission cars will require more than the efforts automakers can provide on their own. Public and private collaboration will be the key to mainstream acceptance.”
If the 2040 target were achieved it would mean US petroleum consumption would be reduced from its current rate of 8.6 million barrels per day to 2 million barrels per day.
Members of the group are as follows (absent anyone from GM):
Timothy E. Conver, Chairman, President & CEO, AeroVironment, Inc.
Peter L. Corsell, CEO, GridPoint, Inc.
David W. Crane, President & CEO, NRG Energy, Inc.
Kevin Czinger, President & CEO, Coda Automotive
Peter A. Darbee, Chairman, CEO & President, PG&E Corporation
Seifi Ghasemi, Chairman & CEO, Rockwood Holdings, Inc.
Carlos Ghosn, President & CEO, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
Ray Lane, Managing Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
Richard Lowenthal, Founder & CEO, Coulomb Technologies, Inc.
Alex A. Molinaroli, Chairman, Johnson Controls-Saft and President, Johnson Controls Power Solutions
Reuben Munger, Chairman, Bright Automotive, Inc.
Frederick W. Smith, Chairman, President & CEO, FedEx Corporation
David P. Vieau, President & CEO, A123 Systems, Inc.
Source (Electrification Coalition)
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 at 9:33 am and is filed under Financial, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
-41
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:39 am)(click to show comment)
+11
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:40 am)Instead of saying 120 million by 2030 i rather hear 5 million by 2012. Any plan that lasts for more than a few years is basically no plan at all because the people that started the plan are no longer in charge by the time they get there.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:45 am)Lofty goals for such a small group of greed-motivated individuals. Maybe this group will help get the word out, but, I doubt that the goals are achievable.
There just aren’t any electric cars out yet to get a mass-market take on how Americans will respond. If we get something shoved down our throats, it will be bad for automobile electrification. The push-back will make a mule look easy-going.
(Quote)
-3
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:48 am)TO get to these numbers they will have to convert existing (ICE)cars and trucks to electric.
For example : A $7500 credit to convert an existing pickup truck to electric will just about make it free (No cost) to the consumer. THe same credit to buy a new $40,000to $50,000 electric truck puts it out of the reach of most people anyway.
(Quote)
+5
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:48 am)Some very powerful and recognized names plus elecctric car CEOs… GM, Ford, Chrysler, Tesla, Fisker, Magna etc are busy with their own agendas.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:51 am)Same with cars,dont rebuild that ICE engine,convert it to electric, with govt incentives,it would be little or no cost to the car owner. No matter how old the car ,it would then be emission free. Everyone in america can not buy a new car,even with a $7500 tax credit. We need to reach those who NEVER buy a new car ,those who spend $3000 to $6000 or so every few years for someones reliable trade in.
(Quote)
-7
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:55 am)Just what is the cost of 120 million new electric cars at $30 to 40 thousand a pop. IS there even that much money available? Without converting existing cars and trucks ,its not going to happen ,period.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:57 am)“..government funding to help achieve the goals which would come at a cost of $124 billion.”
The goal of getting government to spend this money this early in the game is not going to happen. Already, there is a backlash that we need to reduce government spending and involvement in business.
Their goal should be to convince their boards to invest in these initiatives instead of going to the government trough.
(Quote)
+6
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:05 am)Where did these numbers come from? If I could convert my truck for $7500 (and get 100miles per charge) I would do it without any other incentives. Just converting the p/s and a/c to electric would be a costly undertaking. Getting wheel motors (simplest solution) and a large battery array would cost way more than $7500 right now.
(Quote)
+6
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:06 am)I like this line …. “Our primary mission is to promote government action to facilitate deployment of electric vehicles on a mass scale.”
The government can’t facilitate a simple thing like getting the H1N1 vaccine why do you think they can get the plug in vehicles going? What a crock. The article also states that this group wants more then $7500 per vehicle. That would be all well and good if our deficit was not already at an all time high. Where do they think Obama is going to get this money? His Stash?
We need to CUT BACK on spending not spend more.
(Quote)
-1
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:08 am)I noticed that the majority of those listed are from companies who would be expected to profit very highly from the electrification of the automobile. Now why am I not surprised? I am only surprised to not find a high ranking congressional representative or administration official involved also.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:12 am)This will be taken care of by the natural selection process. As cars get older, they will go to the scrap yard (as they do now) without any intervention by the government. When used cars are electric, you won’t be able to get a gas-powered used car any more.
We need to enforce pollution controls across all cars and trucks, not just newish ones. Right now, most states will grant immunity to vehicles that are past a certain age. If they had to pass emission testing, they would go to the scrap heap earlier since it would cost too much to fix.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:15 am)Did anyone say that the “implementation of the plan has begun”?
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:23 am)OT.
Anybody else having problems with IE8 on this site? It locks up my session when I post something.
Firefox doesn’t have this issue, so, I switched.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:27 am)They look very stern, therefore I guess they mean business.
Cheap batteries and advancements in range will be the 2 driving factors to achieve the goals they are setting here. Here’s to hoping that their goals are met.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:32 am)Yes.. IE8 seems to be a problem. Google Chrome too.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:46 am)Ha! good one Mike!
——————————-
Anyway, this article is good news. When Americans get a bee in their bonnet to do something and change, you better believe they will do it big time.
We have a history of doing the right thing when we are challenged as a nation, and doing it virtually overnight.
I love America!
Go Chevy!
Go Volt!
(Quote)
+12
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:57 am)We’ve seen think-tank and industry panel approaches to this before, and we’ll see many more; all without much positive effect. This is seeking to achieve a laudible goal the wrong way around — from the top.
I posted this near the end of the “Lessons learned from the Mini-E” and I think maybe 12 people saw it; it works just as well here:
~~~~~~~~~~
The BEV is going to turn out to be one of those simple, elegant ideas whose actual implementation is impractically complex. The solution to widespread adoption of BEVs is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.
Nor does that infrastructure have to consist of fast-charge “stations.” Imagine being able to charge a car at more normal rates wherever you park, when the vehicle is stopped for extended periods anyway. I think we visualize the fast charge station as a direct replacement for the paradigm of the gasoline filling station … a paradigm whose day may be about to pass.
EREVs are a more complex idea, but much simpler to implement; and I think this truth will dawn on most BEV makers eventually.
The real question is this: will the ‘charge where you park’ infrastructure be installed to top up EREVs sooner, or later? If the EREV and PHEV market takes off, it will happen sometime. When this infrastructure begins to get widespread, you may then see BEVs become a practical option for many drivers … but not before. Even at that, you won’t see many of them on the Interstate between cities.
Liquid fuel may become “occasional use,” but it’s not going away anytime soon — though you may one day have to drive to the nearest Interstate to buy some, on a semi-monthly basis
The EREV is not a half-measure, it will persist for a very great many years barring some major and unforseen development.
~~~~~~~~~~
My central point being, we need the plug-ins first, and the infrastructure (public funded or not) will follow. The only electrics which don’t absolutely have to have infrastructure to be accepted are EREVS and PHEVs. Pure electric vehicles are a distant third on that list of priorities.
GO VOLT!!!
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:58 am)Powerful names…non impressive profits…seems odd to call them powerful. Lets hope they can get the job done.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:01 am)This says it all:
“Our primary mission is to promote GOVERNMENT (not free market capitalism) action to facilitate deployment of electric vehicles on a mass scale.”
Translation: “We want your tax money and we want politicians to kill any competing ideas with taxes and regulation.”
Corporatism is NOT capitalism. Corporatism is a progressive socialist-fascist hybrid.
Those who believe that the ends justify the means must also believe that intentionally getting AIDS is a good weight-loss strategy.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:06 am)They need to define “electric vehicle” better. 100% electric? Plug in required? What battery size?
Its a lofty goal, but until major breakthroughs are achieved in battery tech, it will take a combination of solutions (i wont list them all again, you guys know them) to get the US off foreign oil.
(Quote)
-4
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:09 am)120 Million by 2030 ?
What are they talking about?
Make all cars electric by 2030, period.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:11 am)Notice that the only car maker in the group is Nissan, and they haven’t announced any EREVs.
I’m concerned here. I don’t believe an infrastructure for BEVs is viable. Fast charge filling stations are too dangerous. Battery swapping is too too much of a design limitation. So I believe both will fail.
I saw firsthand how fool sells killed the zero emissions mandate. The promise of something perfect in the future can delay the implementation of something good right now.
So anytime I hear about some plan that requires major changes to the infrastructure, I get scared. This is how they killed ZEV before…
(Quote)
+3
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:11 am)I think this group proves that we are not ready for BEV’S and it will take a lot of money to get there. And at the same time the Voltec type auto has way less NEED for such infrastructure in order to get off the drawing board and on the road. Our government should not put money in a program that will be slow as well as selective regarding market. Put the money into tax credits for E-REV and PHEV vehicles. With this program as they want it, it will be of great help to foreign auto companys and nearly none for our builders.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:12 am)OT.
Good piece and a bit related to Statik’s article.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20091117/OPINION03/911170345/1148/rss25
(Quote)
+3
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:29 am)Yes, well said.
Here’s what I think our government should do:
1) A floor tax of $70/barrel for imported oil. Note that current oil prices are around $78/barrel, so there would be no tax collected near term. In fact, the idea of this is not to collect taxes, but rather to encourage private investment in alternative transportation. Investors will be a lot more bold if they know OPEC can’t pull the rug out from under them…
2) A mandate that all vehicles sold in U.S. be flex fuel by Jan. 2013, which is something that Obama has already promised:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf
Mandate All New Vehicles are Flexible Fuel Vehicles. Sustainably-produced biofuels can create jobs, protect the environment and help end oil addiction – but only if Americans drive cars that will take such fuels. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will work with Congress and auto companies to ensure that all new vehicles have FFV capability – the capability by the end of his first term in office.
I would add: 3) A significant tax credit on plug-in vehicles, but they have already done that. In fact, since the Volt’s battery costs GM about $8000 to manufacture, the tax credit basically pays for the battery, so I don’t think we need more tax credits for plug-ins.
(Quote)
-3
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:49 am)I’m glad to see Carlos Ghosn on the list. He has the car and the network to make this happen as fast as we want.
What is the network? Better Place. You need some form of quick-charge system to make it all work. Currently, only swap technology is ready to go.
Maybe sometime next decade we will get a quick-charge battery ready for production but why not start today? The swap stations can be converted to quick-charge if and when the technology is ready.
I guess we will have to wait for Israel to be up and running to see how it all works together. We will see it happen by the end of 2010.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:52 am)This grand does sound like too little too late. But I’ll be in line for the first EREV/BEV car that I can afford can meet my rather modest needs, so they don’t have to work too hard (beyond making the product available at a sane price) to get one sale.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:53 am)Very good post. Here’s what I think. I think that besides Nissan-Renault, virtually every auto maker is making EVs for
a. to fulfill the CARB ZEV mandate coming back in a few years
b. so that they are not hopelessly behind if gas prices skyrocket again
c. PR, they don’t want to look like the only auto maker still stuck in the past, or in big oil’s pocket or whatever.
That pretty much includes GM, although mainly just in the beginning. I think they still are looking at the Volt in those terms in the short term, but they also have a long term plan. The engineers have convinced the powers that be at GM that they will be able to make a profit on them eventually. Due to either being good or lucky, GM has made the right call to go Voltec instead of BEV.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:56 am)as bad as it seems, it “only” totals ~ 5 trillion dollars. Compare it to US national debt of 12 trillions
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (11:59 am)Dave,
Not sure , look at battery models used in the Renault ZE concepts, they go from a cube to a plate, so …
regards,
JC NPNS
(Quote)
+2
Nov 17th, 2009 (12:00 pm)I concur,
regards,
JC NPNS
(Quote)
-2
Nov 17th, 2009 (12:10 pm)All these problems go away with a BEV with a real range of around 100-150 miles, like the Tesla (50kwh pack).. and the ability for 20 minute charges like the Catfish for longer trips. Use this BEV as a second car in a household with an existing ICE car and you need zero infrastructure. many millions have a place where they can recharge their BEV and already own a gas car.
NO infrastructure is needed now, we can accommodate many millions of BEVs right now with the existing plug in the home garage.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (12:18 pm)GM learned this the hard way, why must other automakers like Mini learn the hard way as well?
(Quote)
+2
Nov 17th, 2009 (12:20 pm)Yes, the perfect being the enemy of the good – a reality most leftists can’t fathom.
(Quote)
+4
Nov 17th, 2009 (12:25 pm)Aint no luck about it. GM learned the hard way from the EV1, so the Volt is every bit intentional.
(Quote)
+5
Nov 17th, 2009 (12:33 pm)Greed is not inherently a bad thing. You can be greedy for many things…. good leadership, renewable energy, a good and wise life. Greed is a good motivator and this goal – our goal, needs an advocate.
(Quote)
+2
Nov 17th, 2009 (1:02 pm)It’s not a problem for multiple car households where the BEV will be a second (or more likely a third) car. This may be enough of a demographic for full electrics to get a toe-hold, but if we’re talking widespread acceptance on the scale of 120 million in twenty years, we need to think of a vehicle that doesn’t require another kind of vehicle as a backup, charging somewhere other than in a garage.
And by the way, charging 100-150 miles’ worth of battery in twenty minutes just isn’t going to happen in your garage. A widespread network of such high energy charging stations isn’t likely to appear within 20 years (without some mindless government ‘cart-before-the-horse’ mandate), and isn’t possible with near-term batteries in any case.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (1:31 pm)To make this happen, the cost just needs to come down. Its not going to happen with $40k cars. But a $15K BEV would go a long way towards this goal.
I think Nissans “all in” gamble on an affordable BEV has a very good shot of sucess. If I were GM, I would be thinking about throwing a battery in a Cobalt and getting something out there to fill this market segment.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (1:34 pm)I’m never sure whether the “government should never do this” comments are more ridiculous than they are boring or vice versa. Of course there is a role for government when you’re moving from one energy platform to another. It takes a lot of resources to do this and the only entities which can marshal those resources are governments. Private enterprise is very good at doing some things, but fighting wars or constructing a new energy platform aren’t among them. (Without government action we’d have exactly how many roads?)
Right now we’re spending somewhere between $250B and $750B PER YEAR on foreign oil and that number is likely to go up in time. Not to mention the price volatility which creates havoc in the economy. Spending $150B to turn this spending into domestic demand — replete with domestic jobs — is a no-brainer, though in truth the number seems unrealistically low. My guess is that the real number is closer to $150B per year for ten years.
(Quote)
+3
Nov 17th, 2009 (1:41 pm)Changing batteries is NOT going to work…lets assume Israel as a model because it is happening there..ok Israel is 8500 sq miles, lets assume 300 x 300 for ease, with a 100 AER and stations every 50 miles ina grid (again for simplicity) you need about 36 stations. the population is 7.5 million, lets say 3 people on average, so 2.5 million families, @6% there would be about 150,000 BEVs., assuming all cars use the same batteris, to change every one 1 x each station needs to have 4167 batteries in house. (assuming an even spread of cars density wise, easy to do ina country about 4x the size of RI.
do the math, double the stations to 72, still need 2088 per, ok, again 144 needs 1044 batteries.
this assumes they are all the same, and evenly spread even at 25% we are talking a TON of batteries (about 250 per station)
what if there are 5 battery types?
and lets take that to the size of the USA..you need as many everywhere even if there are fewer vehicles because people will need the swap..and how much larger is the usa compare to Israel?
imagine big, multiplied by huge time collosal and you get the idea.
and to my knowledge, nissan, GM, tesle, karma, ford, Toyota, BMW are all using DIFFERENT battery styles, and are not going to change at this point inthe game because they would all have to redesign their cars.
Nope, wont happen and NEVER will, better place is a small country 1 type electric car applicable industry.
sorry
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (1:53 pm)I can’t disagree with this particular point or any of your others, but it seems that Nissan’s and the DOE’s approach of rolling out BEVs together with the infrastructure has a chance of being successful. It makes sense and there are no obvious flaws. As far as PHEVs go, constructing a public EV charging infrastructure should greatly benefit them, though they don’t, strictly speaking, need it.
Before writing off the public charging approach let’s wait to see how the Leaf rollout works out. Surely it won’t be flawless, but it may be good enough to substantially increase BEV market penetration, which would be a good thing, or it may demonstrate that this approach won’t work, which is a good thing to know.
/tip of the hat to your post at #6, very thoughtful and insightful
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (1:55 pm)First, we use more than 8.6 million barrels per day.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp
Right now we consume 9 million bpd of gasoline and 3.5 million bpd of distillate (diesel and home heating oil). See the demand chart at the bottom of each page. This doesn’t include jet fuel and other petroleum products.
However, they may mean that 8.6 million bpd is consumed by the automotive transportation sector.
Second, $124 billion is a lot of money to waste. In the ’80’s, the government was offering 40% tax credits for solar hot water systems. Many times the states offered another 10%. When the tax credits ended, the industry collapsed. Without the government support, the products didn’t make economic sense.
The purpose of these tax incentives is to bootstrap an industry that provides a public benefit, but then have the industry survive on its own. This just sounds like a government welfare program for those in related businesses.
I agree with Dave G, in that we need something to support a floor price for alternate energy. Many projects in the ’80’s; biomass, cogeneration, waste-to-energy, etc., didn’t survive in the long term once oil prices dropped from $40 per bbl to $14 per bbl. James Woosley, former director of the CIA, discussed this very fact at a convention that I attended a few years ago.
So tell me if I am wrong, but it sounds like this group has probably banded together and invested some meager amount of money, not to really advance technology, but rather hire lobbyists to plead their case in DC.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:00 pm)- A $8000 credit for any battery 16kwh or bigger for first 5 million cars is all you need and everything else will happen as a result (R&D on batteries, economies of scale, charging infrastructure).
- Increase the gas tax 5 cents a year because the tax is just way too low even if we didn’t have electric cars in the future
- The 2 points above are all the government action that is needed, and as has been posted before an $8,000 credit on a volt eliminates between 12,000 and $24,000 in US$ to import oil (based on 150,000 miles battery lifetime).
- We don’t need any mandates, just the credit which pays for itself by redirecting American money from Oil to buying cars that use American electricity instead of importing oil
- The credit won’t be need as soon as the electric cars cost close to a comparable gas car and batteries are twice as good as they are today (5 years + or -)
- Changing batteries is just stupid (unless they are the size of a few double As). The technology for fast charging will evolve fast enough. There are millions of people that can buy EREVs and folks that don’t need more than 100 aer for their BEVs until technology improves.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:09 pm)Definitely true of Bob Lutz, whom I admire. It’s amazing what he does at his age but sometimes his age shows. The most recent example of the age gap between himself and his customers were his remarks when discussing how there would always be some demand for performance cars. His basic point was doubtless true, but his example of how some men still want a Rolex was funny. How many people under 30 buy watches? No one I know in this age bracket has a watch — if they need to know the time they just use their mobile phones.
In a similar way, he doesn’t get that green tech has a much wider appeal than roaring engines for a majority of the younger demographic. He still thinks green tech is a niche when in fact it’s the mainstream. Basically he is having trouble getting his head around the change in attitudes about cars, clinging to the belief that most people look at cars as he does.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:10 pm)For those in the LA area, free tickets to the LA Auto Show may be available.
“From Nov. 27-29, the Volt will be on display next to Bloomingdale’s at the Westfield Century City mall in West Los Angeles. During regular mall hours, visitors to the Chevrolet Volt display may get two free tickets each to the L.A. Auto Show, while supplies last. The L.A. Auto Show opens to the public Dec. 4.”
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/gm-show-volt-u-s-cruze-laias-86214/
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:15 pm)Multiple articles out there today about Volt’s roll-out plan being released at the LA show on Dec. 2nd.
Hope there’s a dealer in Texas somewhere.
Exciting times!
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:24 pm)FYI……
GM to Show Volt, U.S. Cruze at LAIAS
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/gm-show-volt-u-s-cruze-laias-86214/
DETROIT – Chevrolet affirms its commitment to fuel solutions and building refined, eco-friendly vehicles with the debut of the U.S. production version of the Cruze sedan at the Los Angeles Auto Show, on Dec. 2. The Cruze, along with the much-anticipated Volt electric vehicle, will give visitors to the L.A. show a close-up view of Chevrolet’s expanding lineup of gas-friendly to gas-free products…..
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:32 pm)Panels of “experts” like the ones listed above make me very nervous. I don’t trust the fellows in the above list. When I see the name Kleiner ,Perkins, Caufield, Byers I get REALLY nervous!
Look let’s get the Volt out there and all the follow up vehicles as well. Let’s prove out the EREV concept. Once it’s accepted and profits are generated from the sale of these cars, then everything else will fall into place. But first the cars will have to work and will have to be practical and reliable. Eventually we need to remove the government subsidies and that should be sooner rather than later. Government Subsidies distort the market which is the best mechanism for determining products and services.
Sorry if I offended any Obama voters with my advocacy of markets rather than central planning by “experts”.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:40 pm)My guess is that there might be “islands” of success for this approach in particular, targeted markets. These markets will be larger urban areas, picked for mainly political reasons, which can then be held out as examples of what could be done everywhere, someday, given enough public spending.
The problem with this is that it favors a particular make/type of vehicle without any market filtering/reaction, and that there won’t be enough public money to use the same approach on a national scale. A few targeted markets won’t begin to approach a penetration of 120 million vehicles in 21 years.
I believe that, given enough EREVs and PHEVs, there will be plenty of incentive to provide “where-parked, normal-rate” charging access (with perhaps some modest tax-relief incentive on the part of governments at all levels, not just the Federal, where more people have more say about how public money is spent).
I believe that given the choice, EREV and PHEV owners will avail themselves of any accessible, sufficiently convenient public charging opportunities, if not exhorbitantly priced (including taxpayer cost to provide). The more this kind of infrastructure takes hold, the greater the case for a pure BEV as something other than a “third car” wealthy man’s plaything.
Yes, there is a case to be made that government/industry pushed infrastructure intended for a particular model of pure electric car might also benefit EREVs and PHEVs — if general plugging in is allowed for every kind of electric — but it strikes me as less efficient than favoring a type of vehicle which doesn’t actually need the infrastructure, but would still find it beneficial. This gives the driver a vehicle which is useful while the infrastructure is actually being built.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:40 pm)If gas wasn’t artifically cheap, that might be a good argument. But in the absense of a real price for gasoline, we have to also subsidize the alternatives.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:41 pm)Does anyone else think that with the growing intricacy of cars and technology, that there is no longer a car mechanic but instead a car technician?
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:44 pm)$15k is too low.. I think the Volt at $40k is almost at parity with the average car that americans buy.
The average cost of a car in the US is around $25k, the average mpg is 20mpg.. at 1000 miles per month average that works out to $150 ($3 per gallon) fuel expense per month.. thus an EV at $25k with a monthly battery lease of less than $150 (including electricity) would be about equivalent to the average ICE car, with the exception that it would not use much imported oil. Since the fuel expense remains in the USA it increases the national economic activity and thus tax revenues.
The cost to GM for the Volts battery pack is $12k, thus the car less battery is about $28k… The Volt economics are in the ballpark with the standard ICE car, IF we are willing to lease the battery and buy the car.. I think making the $7500 tax credit applicable to the down payment would be a great motivator.
A Voltec Cobalt would be a real bad idea, nobody will pay $40k for a Cobalt.. but if you base it on a Cobalt but completely update the looks and give it a different name then its a different car.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:46 pm)CorvetteGuy popped the question in #13! “Did anyone say that the “implementation of the plan has begun”? ”
Capitalism is already functioning to establish the infrastructure in five U.S, cities where Nissan will deploy 1000 Leaf BEV,s in each city. (Seattle, Phoenix, Tennessee, Oregon, and San Diego) DOE has already issued $100 million grant to eTec to deploy electric vehicles and infrastructure in those five cities to “evaluate the effectiveness of commercial and public charging infrastructure.”
Those in the industry have already begun in states that are interested in deploying electric charging infrastructure. The process have already begun before federal government infusion of funding. With DOE grants and tax rebates for investing in green technology, the Federal government is now pushing to improve the national electric grid.
In Boulder, Colorado, the SmartGrid City project is moving ahead to install 50,000 smart meter and support hardware and software. The system has already allowed Xcel Energy to save on maintenance of their power grid by identifying problems with transformers, thereby speeding up deployment of repair crews and minimize down time for their customers. ne of the partners is Grid Point a member of The Electrification Coalition.
Many individuals in Industry realize that we are wasting at least $25 billion every month on foreign oil. The Electrification Coalition goal is reasonable considering this needless transfer of money abroad when it could be better spent growing a new industry within the United States of America. To achieve their goal means freedom from the need to militarily protect oil resources abroad, new jobs for U.S. citizens, and leadership in this growing industry. The expense by the Federal Government is modernizing the national electric grid goes hand in hand with its regulatory authority over the electric power industry in most of the U.S. (Texas being an exception and a model for the rest of the country and the Federal Government. Here, the primary purpose of the Federal Government is the promotion of private industry investment. As can be seen by this example, modernizing the nation electric grid will lead to recovery of our economy and place the United States of America in a position among world leaders in these related industries.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:49 pm)Letting the solar industry collapse in the 80s was a major mistake, IMHO. If we’d stayed the course, the environment, the technology, and our economy would all be in much better shape than it is now.
Let’s not make the same mistake again. If an industry is going to provide public benefits, which this will, then the government should subsidize it. Yes. That means that they waste money on lobbying, which is why we need campaign finance reform. But I’d rather have them do it than Goldman Sachs. .
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (2:58 pm)I would have liked to edit the above message but was called away before I was able to finish the corrections. So, please feel free to edit it on the spot. Cities for Tennessee and Oregon were not available so the writer used the state instead. Thanks for the understanding.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (3:01 pm)I know a lot of people under 30 who wear watches. It’s just easier than pulling out your phone.
And, as much as I hate to admit it, green tech is a niche. Not everyone is willing or able to pay more for “green.” Go to the supermarket, and “sustainable” cleaners, and paper towels from recycled paper are still a minority. And just look at the low sign up rates for “green energy.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business/energy-environment/17power.html?scp=3&sq=clean%20energy&st=cse
It’s definately a growing niche. But right now, it’s still a niche.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (3:03 pm)The powerful names have put up a ton of profits…the plus part, not so much
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (3:21 pm)To add AC & PS as well, you’ll break the bank, but there are ‘conversion kits’ (not like you’re thinking – still not ready for prime-time but they exist) that can convert most vehicles, including small trucks – though I mean Ranger-size, not F150. Small pickups are ideal for that because there’s lots of room for a battery chamber in & under the bed (someone even hinged their bed for easy access). You won’t get li-ion batteries for that price but deep-cycle batteries last 3-5 years and are pretty cheap by comparison (think of an array of a dozen or so car batteries).
There are dozens (literally) of websites about them, but here’s one with real prices: http://www.electroauto.com/
Fishmahn
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (3:24 pm)Right on Laura! Hopefully, we will have learned from the above example and not show our ignorance by repeating the same mistake. Other countries governments invest heavily in their industry, in the hopes that they will become the world leaders in the technology. Historically, it has been our Universities where research into new technology begins and develops a new home industry. We have given those technological developments and thus the new industry to foreign countries time and time again. In this modern day world, the competition is steeper: Our Universities still come up with new discoveries that have tremendous potential to keep the U.S. in the lead worldwide. It’s time to wake up and make it happen.
“This just sounds like a government welfare program for those in related businesses.” doesn’t realize that these members of The Electrification Coalition are among those companies that have the knowledge to make it happen.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (3:24 pm)No infrastructure is needed for biodeisel, or ethanol or hydrogen (electrolysis) if any one of them is made at your home. But isn’t it nice to be able to fill up on the road.
I don’t think there is a reason to begrudge or be afraid of the areas that GM and Nissan are encouraging to increase infrastructure.
Side note, I loooked at the benevolent electric infrastructure this week when I took my son for a train ride. The local commuter train stations had paddle chargers that seemed to be nearly 100% broken. A for profit operation would take better care of the chargers than the current process of making a grand benevolent statement.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (3:44 pm)“And just look at the low sign up rates for “green energy”.
Bookmark this page for future reference! This will all change now that the populous is more self-conscious about the environment. Green energy has become more competitive with the current energy sources and technological developments will lead to it becoming a more competitive choice within a few years. New homes are even being built today with PV solar panels installed. More efficient solar devices are being invented along with new cheaper production techniques which will replace current carbon based energy production methods.
Happy trails to you ’til we meet again.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (4:11 pm)What’s a few hundred $Billion more, after all the Wall Street bailouts? I’d rather indenture the rest of my life and those of coming generations to a real product, than to buy a bunch of “financial products” cooked up by Wall Street swindlers solely to line their greedy pockets. Let’s at least get something tangible for the enslavement of the US middle class.
(Quote)
+1
Nov 17th, 2009 (4:41 pm)Jean.
See my post #41. its why Dave is right..you youself pointed out that the battery configurations are various.
Project better place only works in small areas with vehicles sharing the SAME battery pattern, connections and mounting.
it MAY work in Israel (area 8500 sq miles) but be a tough go inthe USA (7.5 MILLION sq miles).
Better place will be headed to a better place…RIP
sorry
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (4:50 pm)LauraM
“If gas wasn’t artifically cheap, that might be a good argument. But in the absense of a real price for gasoline, we have to also subsidize the alternatives.”
Agreed. Stop the Corporatism. The liberals keep confusing it with Capitalism. (they are REALLY indoctrinated by liberal schools)
Stop giving taxpayer money to private companies and let the REAL cost of goods be passed DIRECTLY to the consumer instead of via higher taxes and more gov’t debt… period!
Gas prices would naturally raise and so would EV use due to REAL Free-Market competition. Plus the taxpayers would have more of THEIR own money with which to by the EVs. win-win-win
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (5:20 pm)It’s all pretty simple: 120 MILLION starts one at a time.
Let’s get to 100, then 1,000, then 10,000, then 100,000, then 1,000,000….
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (5:24 pm)#14
Well I dunno, but something’s going on. The thread after this one, on the LA Auto Show and announcing the 1st markets, won’t come up at all for me. Every time I click on comments, the computer locks up.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (5:25 pm)#63
Amen brother! Tell it like it is.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (5:26 pm)A floor tax on oil was a good idea — in 1973 and ever since. We never did it and we never will. There are some things that cannot be changed – right-wingers would crucify anyone that suggested a big tax on oil (i.e. gasoline) — just ‘drill baby drill’.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (6:28 pm)Star Auto,
There will always be the need for mechanics and installers whom are needed to replace defective or worn things *the trained eye can see*.
(Leaky water pumps/radiators, worn-down brake pads/scheduled maintenance things required that the *eye can read in a maintenance schedule*.) People are “mechanics” who must be advised what to do next, although they generally are good at what those things would be.
The big problem, of course, is that technologies are racing so fast and far ahead, that only the experienced and dedicated technicians who are still curious-to-learn are the ones who trust that there can be a systematic approach to learn about in order to diagnose the most complex of the complex systems.
I teach these techs daily. Ironically, my systematic approach is not at all hard to learn. Also, ironically, it is only slightly more difficult to learn only if the tech believes in the first place that it likely might be too difficult to learn. (Business is very good!)
Volt diagnostics, it’d seem to me, will be unique and likely far far more direct for the Chevy Store service tech. Far more direct than a plain ICE vehicle most likely, because electronics can be far more easily designed to self-check than the vast arrays of highly dissimilar ICE emissions and electronic ICE controls (esp for the computer controlled transmission diagnostic tech). And most especially, out here in the independent servicing market, where just about any technological problem presents itself to the tech.
The CAN systems are going to be a nightmare for many techs (excepting, the ones I have taught).
Some CAN systems started way back in 2002. They are across-the-board in 2007. All those 2007 batteries are going to start to wear out in a few more months. That’s when the huge and extremely costly (but simple to prevent) mistakes will be made if an ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT part number or very high quality professional equivalent is not re-installed. (Sadly, Walmart batteries are the most severely destructive to the Ford F-250 diesel trans.)
(As well, grease between the posts and the clamps of ANY battery blows out many expensive PCM’s and IPC’s/instrument panel clusters). (Seal the cleaned connections on the outside with clear acrylic spray paint).
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (6:34 pm)A couple of facts to couple of facts to clear the air:
The top 13 auto manufacturing countries are investing biions to keep their market share. Where do you think those 0% loans for newToyotas are coming from?
Also Japan is providing $14,000 rebates for electric cars so that they can catch up with GM.
We are dreaming if we believe that EREV owners will only charge at night. Solar power from rooftops will be required unless we want to rebuild the intra-city electric grids. This makes solar much more cost effective. Those private electric companies that are fighting tooth and nail to avoid solar feed-in have their heads in the sand.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (7:07 pm)Dude that’s a lot of math based on an assumption that 25% of a car population will need batteries all at the same time. Nothing wrong with a thought experiment but your assumptions have to come from some research or thoughtful reasoning. Even on the busiest driving holidays only a fraction of the cars are on the road at the same time. Only a fraction of that would be traveling long enough distances to need a swap and only a fraction of that would need a swap within the battery’s recharge time. I believe the current Better Place battery can be recharged in less than one hour without degradation issues. So it is more like Israel needs 25 swapping stations with 50 batteries in each to service 150K Better Place cars. This would allow for a max of 15,000 swaps in a 12hr period.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (7:12 pm)Absolutely, but we are well past the 1000 point but need a the heavy lifters to start producing to shoot into the hundreds of thousands. Looks like that’s a done deal but it’s kinda like watching water boil at this point.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (7:14 pm)Your “stop the coporatism” mantra has some legs (not all legs but some), but do you really believe it is “those aweful” liberals that are subsidizing gas.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (7:27 pm)Of course, it is the role of government to act in the interest of the citizens. However, throwing money at a problem does not always equate with success.
I like to use the example of air travel. Although the Wright Bros. discovered powered flight in the early 1900’s, families traveling from NYC to LA in 1915 didn’t book airline tickets. Why? The technology wasn’t ready, its wasn’t proven, safe, convenient, or cost effective. Today, it would be the preferred method of travel due to its covenience and low cost.
Thus we have the issue of emerging technologies and renewables. Many of these technologies are ready to augment the grid, but they are not ready to take over the grid. And throwing money at the problem will not guarantee success.
And although you as an individual may be willing to pay triple for your electricity if it comes from renewable sources, many manufacturers and businesses compete in the global market, and expensive electric rates will hurt their competitive position.
Although many don’t like to accept the realities of our situation, here is an article that paints a picture for the future of our electric system.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aqWp6×5uih8M
Coal is not going to disappear anytime soon from the energy mix, but it will get more environmentally friendly.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (7:33 pm)“This just sounds like a government welfare program for those in related businesses.” doesn’t realize that these members of The Electrification Coalition are among those companies that have the knowledge to make it happen.”
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (8:03 pm)Agreed. The money has to be directed and spent wisely. And, yes, since we can’t invest in everything sometimes we have to pick the winners and loser. For example, I’d argue that the money spent on hydrogen fuel cells was mostly wasted. I’d love to be proven wrong. But, at this point, that’s what it looks like.
The difference here is that using a plane has obvious advantages to the consumer. Electric cars, by contrast, benefit society at large more than it benefits the individual consumer. Every individual consumer who buys one renders everyone else’s air that much cleaner. Does a little bit to prevent global warming. Reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Etc.
People are selfish. If society won’t pay the consumer for that good, then the consumer won’t take the public good (or bad) sufficiently into account when making an automobile purchase. Hence the popularity of SUVs. So, IMHO, the government should kick in something to help the EVs along. Hopefully, the technology will mature to the point where it’s viable without subsidies. But it won’t get there without government help.
Coal is nasty stuff. Yes. Solar and wind are not ready. And, yes, coal will be around for a while. And, yes, these types of projects are “cleaner,” but from what I’ve read, natural gas makes a much better bridge fuel. And so would nuclear power. I’d rather we focused on those two.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (9:50 pm)For those of you talking about BEVs not being practical without infrastructure, I think you are forgetting 65% of Americans have a second car. There are plenty of people I know that have a small compact for commuting and a bigger vehicle for family trips. A BEV is a perfect replacement for the commuting car. The only issue is getting the price down, which is a concern both PHEV/EREVs and BEVs share.
I’m not denying the ICE and oil will stay for us for a while, but I think the ultimate goal of the plug-in is the BEV and the sooner we get BEVs in the hands of people the better.
(Quote)
Nov 17th, 2009 (10:00 pm)I don’t think the comparison is even close with biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen because you CAN’T make it at home practically. Can’t do the same with those fuels, esp. hydrogen which needs to be compressed and be safely handled since there is an explosion risk. With electricity, everyone has it already and you just need a plug to use it.
I’m all for infrastructure though since I think ultimately it is needed for convenience charging since people park in other places for an extended time (for example at work or shopping), and also for emergencies (where a rapid charge station will help immensely).
As for why you see chargers not working, it is because (at least here in California, don’t know about your state) the state government that installed those chargers have pretty much completely abandoned them (due to the reversal of the ZEV program, if you watched “who killed the electric car” you would know what I’m talking about). Right now they are maintained only by a couple of EV enthusiasts and if a station isn’t visited for a long time, no one will know it doesn’t work and no one will fix it.
(Quote)
Nov 18th, 2009 (12:39 am)That’s kind of my point. If there are too many sizes and shapes for batteries, then the swapping station concept doesn’t make sense economically, since a swapping station would have either:
a) a huge inventory of different batteries, with multiple units of each
b) not enough units to guarantee that they will have your particular battery to swap.
In other words, battery swapping station viability is based on having a few fixed types of batteries, which is a severe limitation for new car designers.
(Quote)
Nov 18th, 2009 (12:49 am)If you add a floor tax of $70/barrel for imported oil, then:
a) they can’t say it will kill the economy, since the price is already higher than that
b) with no floor tax on domestic oil, that actually promotes ‘drill baby drill’, as well as all other forms of domestic solutions to replace oil.
(Quote)
Nov 18th, 2009 (12:57 am)Natural gas is used for peak loads unlike nuclear and coal plants that run for baseline generation. NG has been much more expensive than coal, and its use must be timed for peak needs.
Wind is a better “bridge” as it is virtually cost competitive. But going forward it will almost always be located where the grid is at capacity or the grid is non existant. I know we have a lot of small wind proponents here, but that is not at all cost competitive. Although it can be installed where it’s used, without transmission line upgrades, nonetheless I wouldn’t anticipate it being cost competitive with any forseeable technology.
Solar has begun to make sense for homeowners in the last two years, but only in states with generous subsidies and taking advantage of the exceptionally low current costs of financing, combined with less demand for commercial solar installations leading to lower material and equipment costs.
Solar is not cost effective at commercial scale most places and PV doesn’t work at night; NG is too expensive for a bridge fuel for baseline generation; coal works where it is not stopped by environmental concerns; and though the US has triple the number France’s nuclear plants, the US faces decommissioning costs for older reactors and no solution yet to the waste issues. So IMO, with half of new generating capacity being large scale wind already, its ready though the grid isn’t.
(Quote)
Nov 18th, 2009 (1:08 am)(http://umakeethanol.com/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/science_news/4262690.html )
The paddle chargers I looked at are at the newer LA area Metrolink stations. As far as hydrogen you are right, unless you choose to buy your own home compressor like Honda’s Phil for NG. Quite convenient solution, although vey expensive.
(Quote)
Nov 18th, 2009 (1:21 am)BioDiesel can be as simple as saponified cooking oil!
(Quote)
Nov 18th, 2009 (8:54 am)Or just use the cooking oil as it is. Google SVO (Straight Vegetable Oil as fuel).
(Quote)
Nov 18th, 2009 (10:56 am)It is an oversimplification, but to illustrate, not be definitive.
What I assumed is that 25% of the cars swap a battery per day (if you go to Israel, many people driving cross the whole country delivering and visiting.
your reduction may be possible, but remember that it assumes ONE battery style, if you only need 50 batteries and 25 stations, but 6 types of batteries, it is still a LOT of extra batteries kicking around. and for a country that is about 1/750th the physical size of the USA.
My point was that it will NEVER be feasible here.
(Quote)
Nov 18th, 2009 (11:39 am)I agree that wind is worth more investment, but I wouldn’t discount solar power plants. In particular, the largest solar power plant in the world is already cost competitive with coal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS
Yes, these are mainly for desert locations, but we actually have a lot of land like this. The main issue is the same as wind – getting the grid lines to these areas.
Yes, solar power doesn’t work at night, but that’s not the point. Like natural gas, solar power also helps with the peak load, which happens during the day, espcially on hot sunny days when everyone turns on their air conditioner.
In addition, the new solar power tower stations focus heat to a much higher temperature, and they store this high temperature in the form of liquid sodium, which can be stored in underground tanks to make power later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower
So while I agree that photo-voltaics are too expensive, the more basic solar designs that focus light for heat are much better, and they produce the most power right when you need it.
(Quote)
Nov 20th, 2009 (5:45 am)There is still more talk than activity for solar thermal, and the jury is still out on whether there is a reasonable return on investment. One big hint, so far all of the original operators of any reasonably sized solar thermal facilities have sold out, finding the margins that do materialize are just too thin. Wind though, doubles nearly each year measured by capacity, and the operators are hiring more staff. It was thought 2009 would be terrible for wind due to the credit chrisis, but a big constraint appears to be transmission capacity as much if not more than funding.
(Quote)