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.
Batteries have indeed come quite a way in the past hundred years, there is no question about that. Of course, that does not mean that we now have what it would take to bring about the wholesale adoption of EVs by the majority of people. The lack of enthusiasm is probably what has been saving us from the disasterous discovery that an adequate infrastructure to charge all of the battery power packs just does not exist. Probably, if you were only allowed to recharge your new EV on Thursdays from 1AM to 5AM you might not be completely satisfied with the situation. Clearly, the simple solution to the problem is to develop a battery that runs on gasoline, or perhaps diesel fuel, since it is safer. That would solve our problems, perhaps, if it had no "carbon signature", and ho unhealthy byproducts. Of course there are a whole bunch of physics relationships that will need to be changed for that to happen. So while it "sounds like a great idea, it does have a few obstacles in the path.
I think that while range is a major factor, the idle time spent in charging is a bigger factor. If there was an ICE vehicle with a two gallon tank (for instance) then commuting and shorter trips would be a pain, frequent fuel stops, but they would be possible. With an EV and a 1-20 (depends on whose data you listen to) hour stop to charge it is just impractical as anything other than a secondary mode of transportation.
You have a negative attitude. All we need is for government to mandate technological innovation and BANG it happens. The problem is finding the right date when we need to institute the technology as manditory.
Hi Jerry: The reason I keep saying that batteries cost $800 - $1,000/kWh is that I'm quoting the cost of building the entire battery pack, with sensors, cooling systems, battery management and cost-over-life issues included. It's essentially the difference between cell cost and pack cost. Please see this earlier article:
Interesting article Charles. Serveral p[oints. It's not how much an EV will do but will it do the job and for 90% of US trips, the answer is yes even using lead batteries.
The Older 90's EV examples have 5 different battery types. They also except the EV1 were just ICE's converted to EV., lead/NiFE, Nicad, lithium anf NiMh depending on which version as some had 2 different batteries.
Edison battery, NiFE was good but required a lot of watering and self discharge rates were not great, dead in a couple weeks. But some made then are still working at 100 yrs old!!!
Next why do you keep saying Lithium cost $800-1000 when you can buy EV size from multiople caompanies for under $500/kwhr retail? And small cells like Tesla, Toyota uses under $250/kwhr in 10kwhr amounts?
Fact is EV's need to be built differently than ICE's are to make the most of battery capacity. They need to be lightweight, aero and built for the job they are suspose to do. If built that way EV's can do 90% of US trips even with lead batteries which are 3x's the weight of lithiums/kwhr. Secret is have 40-50% of the weight of the vehicle in lead batteries. So by having a much lighter body/chassis by using composites, you need less battery, EV drive, thus cost. This same vehicle could easily hit 350+ miles with lithium batteries.
Now for the added weight of 60-90lbs a small gas generator can give most EV's unlimited range either with a built in space or on a trailer hitch. I expect these to be big aftermarket items as more EV's hit the road.
So it's not really battery advances that is stopping EV's but big auto which doesn't really want them because they are so simple they will rarely break down and require few after sale parts income as no oil filters, tune ups, etc need to be done.
Next the disinformation campaign by big oil PR firms with names like friends of the good earth putting out lies like batteries polluting, not true, but say nothing of the fact 200million lead batteries in ICE's don't have a problem. And of course Chevron buying the NiMH battery patents forcing Toyota to stop making it's 125 mile range RAV4EV, EV-1.
But while most bow to big oil, oil dictators and terrorists it supports with huge cash offerings at the pump, I laugh all the way to the bank paying just $.005/mile for fuel, $.01/mile for battery. Admittedly mine is very light, eff but it could be made in mass production for under $10k with 60-80 mile range and 80mph top speed using lead batteries. And using tech from before 1970, most from 1910.
Predicting technological advancements is nearly impossible. Speaking from my knowledge of the defense industry, investment into directed research is not necessarily related to breakthroughs in the area of interest.
Many have become accustomed to the fast pace of innovation in the commercial electronics industry, but that is not the case with all fields:
Firearms have seen very little improvement over the last century, despite much research and the constant, critical need by some around the world.
The basic power generator has not seen much improvement despite ever increasing electrical demand.
Patience is a virtue - R&D should always be performed, but must be tempered against budget realities. No one can predict what will spark the next breakthrough or where it will come from.We can only work with what we have and be ready to take advantage of whatever comes our way.
I know you are busy but check out the latest EV times - 6.8!
www.NEDRA .org
Also regarding replacement batteries: Remember we are all waiting for the Li-Ion GLUT and the more EVs on the roads means more EV batteries in junkyards!
For those who think EV /battery progress is too slow...What might have been if the Post Office had continued using EV delivery vans in 1975 and demand for improved batteries to service them had remained on the table? 36 years MORE R&D momentum!
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 3
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
20 
