If you want to get a sense of how far the electric car market has really come, it's instructive to read "Foreign Trade in Electric Vehicles," an article available on the New York Times Website.
In glowing terms, the article describes the future of electric cars. The vehicle "has long been recognized as the ideal solution" and is "cleaner and quieter" than other cars, as well as "more economical." The article also praises the electric vehicle (EV) battery. "It is simple, light, easy to take care of and far more efficient than the old lead battery," and the new battery "solves the problem of electric transportation."
An Edison storage battery in test setup, from the 1916 monograph "The Edison Alkaline Storage Battery," by the technical staff of the Edison Storage Battery Co.
The article is dated Nov. 12, 1911 -- 100 years ago this month.
It's hard to look at the article and not wonder how far we've come. Yes, the EV is back. Nissan has its Leaf. Ford has two EVs coming out soon. General Motors has announced the Spark EV and has the Chevy Volt, an electric car that burns gasoline part of the time. Tesla plans to roll out the Model S soon and is working with Toyota on an electric RAV4. Mitsubishi has its i MiEV. Even DeLorean has announced an electric car.
But the EV battery... has it really advanced much in the past 100 years? In a 1998 Design News article, battery makers discussed the creation of a lithium-ion battery with an energy density of 90Wh/kg. Thirteen years later, the Nissan Leaf battery is rated at 140Wh/kg -- a 55% increase. That's not bad, but is it enough to make the EV battery a serious competitor with gasoline, which offers 80 times as much energy and a five-minute refueling capability?
Moreover, there's the issue of cost. In the 1998 Design News article, engineers set a target of $100/kWh to make EV batteries more competitive. Today, the cost figure still hovers between $800 and $1,000/kWh.
Because the costs are so high, most EV makers are using the higher energy densities to reduce the size of their batteries. Instead of a bulky 900-pound unit, they're employing higher-energy packs of about 400 or 500 pounds. But the flip side of that strategy is that EV range hasn't changed much. If we go back to the 1998 Design News article, we see the ranges as follows:
Chrysler Epic minivan: 68 miles.
Ford Ranger EV: 58 miles.
GM EV1: 90 miles.
GM S-10 electric pickup: 45 miles.
Toyota RAV4 EV: 118 miles.
Now contrast that with today's Nissan Leaf. Nissan says its 2011 Leaf travels 100 miles between charges. (The EPA rates it at 73.)
Many EV proponents have explanations for all this. A popular one is the "big oil conspiracy." According to this logic, oil executives have conspired with automakers to suppress development of EVs over the years. Numerous Websites are dedicated to explaining this conspiracy. However, they have not explained why our universities have had limited luck in creating a revolutionary battery over the past 100 years.
The truth is that the EV's real gains have been in speed and performance. On drag strips around the country, EV converters are turning quarter-mile times as low as 10 seconds using old Ford Pintos and Datsuns. The old GM EV1 was said to have hit a speed of more than 180mph, and the White Lightning racing EV reached 245mph. If Thomas Edison (who invented the battery discussed in the 1911 New York Times article) could see the performance of today's EVs, he'd be astounded.
Still, Edison might be equally surprised by the lack of advancement in the area of battery energy. Many potential buyers are still turned off, not only by the cost, but by the pure EV's inability to make long trips. Bill Reinert, national manager of advanced technology vehicles for Toyota, said it best this year, when he told us: "Even if I'm covered 90% of the time, I'm probably unlikely to make a [buying] decision that leaves me uncovered 10% of the time."
Obviously, researchers are working on the energy issue, but their efforts would be best flavored with a little public patience. If the 100-year-old New York Times article teaches us anything, it's that vehicle electrification could still be a long, arduous journey.
Related reading
For a look at GM's Chevy Volt, go to the Drive for Innovation site and follow the cross-country journey of EE Life editorial director Brian Fuller. In a trip sponsored by Avnet Express, Fuller is taking the fire-engine-red Volt to innovation hubs across America, interviewing engineers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and students as he blogs his way across the country.
While the Times article and Chuck's coverage point out the impressive gains EVs have made over the years, it strikes me that the advancements are really diminished when you look at other technology industries like computing, the Internet, consumer electronic devices, and medical equipment. I can't imagine that in 1911 anyone could fathom what's possible today with smart phones or smart grids. When you look at those advances, particularly as recent as the last 25 years, it seems EV battery and vehicle progress pales in comparison.
It seems that battery technology only advances when there is a good market. Battery powered power tools have been around a long time. However only recently have they become more powerful at a lower weight. As the demand went up, the supply followed
While far from an expert in the battery world, it certain seems safe to say that there certainly have been improvements in batteries over the years - cost is way down and performance (cost per kwhr or any measure you would care to make) is way up. However it is equally true that the rate of progress has been .... well, slow.
This rather slow rate of change along with improvement in motors, chargers, and converters/controllers (the blocks that act as the interface between the battery and the motors) have, over the years, created new application areas that are now becoming quite common. To name a few: battery powered tools (e.g. drills, saws, etc) and electric powered model airplanes.
I suspect the same thing will happen with electric cars and trucks. They are, at last, reaching some level of practicality and, as the future unfolds, they will continue to develop.
You forgot one point: the COST of those "new" batteries is nearly TRIPLE the cost of the old for about a 40% improvement in capacity. Buying a replacement battery (which NEVER are on sale at a reduced price) is now usually more than the cost of the original tool whcih often included one battery (sometimes two!), charger, case, and accessories.
Batteries and electric cars in general will improve as long as gasoline stays expensive. At the current price of oil, EV's are just starting to compete and without subsidies, really can't. As we run out of cheap oil (remember 1 billion new drivers in China and India) gas prices will rise making EVs practical and necessary.
It's all a question of money and returns. Where returns potential are considered as high, cash is spend in R&D and industrialisation, progress are rapidly made and because of mass volume, technology costs decrease. If not, only few Labs can work on the subject leading to slow technological progress and high costs. Strictly talking about EV, mass market potential and returns on investement cannot be considered as short/mid term. That's why investements are just NIL despit the fact that new EV battery technologies for the future with great potential exist (Li-Su ; Li-Air, AL-Air...)
As long as man will act in priority for short term money return and not in term of long term welfare and earth protection, we will face such nonsense. Petrol ressource should be perserved right now for where it can't be replaced (plastics, some industries...etc)
We all know that 100 years ago and still today the problem with EVs is the battery performance. There is not enough stored energy per kg or per liter or per dollars. Until we get 5x or better battery tech, it is not going to be for mainstream.
What I personally see as the possible future of car power plants is as follows:
Build a hybrid that is like Toyota Prius, having quite a small battery and replace the ICE with steam engine powered by let's say 100kW Rossi E-Cat. Steam engine does not necessarily need transmission, but that battery probably is needed to start that E-Cat and move the vehicle while the E-Cat is starting and stabilizing. Assuming of course that it is desirable to turn the E-Cat off after reaching destination. It could be kept on always, if the released heat is not a problem or at least until the battery is again fully recharged.
This would be a zero emission car (if heat is not counted) and it would need fueling up only maybe twice a year. Assuming that possible filling up of water lost in steam cycle is not too much. Maybe later in future steam engine can be replaced with direct-thermal-to-electric materials powering the EV side. Fueling up could be made by exchanging the whole E-Cat with one that has fresh nickel powder. This could be very similar what has been proposed to EV battery swap, but only needed some times per year, not daily or weekly as with batteries. Therefore this fueling could be made in normal car repair/maintenance shops, like maintenance is today done for regular ICE cars.
It would be a mistake to discount the efficiency & performance gains offered by electrically powered vehicles just because batteries are lagging on the development curve. That's why a vehicle like the Volt and other hybrids are such an important step in fully electrifying automotive drive-trains.
It seems to me that the paradigms that most everyone is comfortable with need to shift. EV's would make a lot more sense if interstate highways had embedded power systems whereby the vehicle uses said power for long trips. The battery energy would be more than adequate for everyday activites (work, shopping, errands) but long trips could be enabled by the highway infrastructure itself.
You are 100% correct about the outrageous cost (IMHO) for replacement batteries for power tools and the like. The last time I purchased replacement batteries for my Ryobi 18V set, I just bought another set! For about $30 more than just the batteries would have cost, I got another charger, 2 batteries and two 'replacement' tools. Actually I use the (now) two drills quite a bit - e.g. one with a pilot hole bit in it and the other with a screw driver bit.
But I guess my main point was that we even have these battery powered tools which, frankly, work pretty good. 20 years ago the battery performance was just not good enough. Now good battery powered tools are readily available and accepted by even the professionals. And that trend continues with the new line Li Ion powered tools.
Another similiar revolution took place in the model airplane field. Folk's back in the 80's were flying planes with batteries but performance was marginal (due to battery weight and motor performance) and frankly only done by a few people who did it just for the heck of it.
But today, with the advent of Li Ion (and similiar lithium chemistry) batteries, better chargers, advanced brushless motors and controllers, electric flight is becoming very prevalent. In fact, I have totally switched over from the old internal combustion engines. No more mess! No more fuel cans, no more starters - ah, the future is now!
I think that the automobile market will also develop - it will take more time and we have lots to learn. And the replacement batteries will cost a LOT! $3,200 for a replacement Prius battery is a number I have heard. Still
For heaven's sake, yes, let's keep pouring petrochemicals into the tank because they are faster, cheaper, and more energy dense. Too bad they are not renewable (Unless we go to biofuels, which aren't efficient, but carbon neutral).
Let's not start develpment and testing of EVs until the last drop of oil has been sucked out of the ground or tar sands processed at increasing cost due to availibility. We can learn to ride bikes while the billionaires breeze past us in their cars. We can learn to scale down our travel expectations until a 100 mile range sounds like nirvana.
EVs should be expected to spring fully developed and cost effective from day one of their existence. Anything else is a waste.
Why the same should have been said about personal computers, I wasted too much money over the years spending $5000 for a computer I can buy today for $50 (equivalent processing power).
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 5
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
25 
