"Back in 2008, a lot of people thought higher (sales) numbers were achievable within 10 years," Michael Holman, a research director at Lux Research, told Design News. "But that's an area where people have come around to more realistic views. They're realizing that it might take a longer time, coupled with some fundamental scientific breakthroughs, before the battery costs get down to the level that's needed."
To be sure, the forecast isn't grim for all electrified vehicles. Plug-in hybrids, particularly those with smaller batteries, seem to have a better near-term outlook. By 2020, Lux Research predicts the auto industry will hit annual sales of 600,000 "light" plug-in hybrids (like the Prius PHV) and 150,000 "heavy" plug-ins (like the Volt). In contrast, Lux says sales of pure electrics will reach just 60,000 per year by 2020.
It's worth repeating that battery size plays a big role in those numbers. The Prius PHV, for example, employs a 4.4kWh lithium-ion battery (hence the higher sales forecast), while the Volt uses a 16kWh pack, the Leaf employs a 24kWh unit, and the Tesla Model S can reach as high as 85kWh. The bottom line is that the vehicles with massive battery packs generally have lower sales expectations.
None of this should be a surprise, of course. Bigger battery packs cost a lot more. And despite the ever-present hype around electric cars, consumers will usually reach for the more cost-effective solution first. "The economics of battery-electric cars don't make a lot of sense right now," Holman told us. "With hybrids -- even micro-hybrids -- you can get similar benefits in terms of reduced gasoline cost for a lot less money."
Chuck, the situation with battery packs seems to be following the trajectory of nuclear fusion. Let me explain. The situation in fusion is that we know we can generate energy from it, but can it be sustained and can it be better than break even. There is even a big international project underway. It took them something like ten years to decide where to put it. The point is, that while we think it can be done, the uncertianty is so great that no commercial venture would approach it. In fact, it looks like no single government has the funds or will to do it alone either.
Battery technology is the same. There are commerial companies working on it, but most, if not all, get direct government subsidies. There is still no guarnteed way to get to a battery cost and density that would make all electric vehicles a true competitor. Sometimes these scientifc breakthroughs don't come along, or come along too late to "save" a particular industry.
The final piece of the puzzle is charging time. What happens when you are running low on charge. Even if there is a high voltage charging station nearby you are talking a couple of hours. If you are running low on gasoline, you pull into a gas station, of which there are many, and in a few minutes you are on your way with a "full charge". There has been talk of having battery swap stations for decades. I mean decades. Ever since the first electric vehicle mandates in California this has been a solution discussed by the industry. What that would require is a standardized battery pack. Perhaps you could have a small number. Just think of that in terms of the EV car industry today.
So, as I have been advocating on this site for a while, we need to look to solutions that improve our efficiency while keeping total cost of ownership at current levels or better.
The CBO report on federal tax credits and electric vehicles is incomplete and relies on poor assumptions. They use no actual statistic from the 40,000 PHEV and BEV's (AEV) that are mentioned in the report.
- It assume that the average range of an all-electric is 55 miles (pg. 32)
- It assumes that EV's are only be charged once per day (pg. 7)
- It assumes that EV's are driven fewer miles than an ICE would be by the same driver
The report was obviously written by people who are only academically familiar with electric vehicles. Who chose not to use available real-world data and instead chose "CBO assumptions."
Toyota just does not want to build an EV, they stated that they were focusing on hybrids-only a couple of years ago.
With the failure of the EV Project, the slow roll-out of infrastructure has hindered the demand of the cars. Constant misinformation supported by very deep pockets is another challenge. However, as I continue driving my Nissan LEAF in my daily commute alongside the gas-burners, people will realize that there is a lot of money to be saved by owning an EV.
As I've said before, the present batteries are fine, it's the overweight, overpriced, overteched EV's big auto is making because they don't want them in great numbers.
Next your charging point isn't true as EV batteries, especially ones in lighter, more eff EV's can be charged in 15 minutes with the present charghe points being put in now.
EV's are not designed for long distance, but local driving,go somewhere, park/charge while doing whatever it is you went to do, then go to the next thing. But rarely would one do over 60 miles/day according to national studies of actual daily travel needs.
Changing battery packs was normal in 1900'1910 as NYC Taxi , delivery trucks had them then, No? A Better lace has stations in Tokyo and building them in Cal Hawaii, Israel, Denmark, etc.
Most in fact would be used for commuting with side trips going to, from work which it's perfect for 90% of US car trips. If one needs longer range they can rent or own a small fueled generator onboard, Lotus makes a 35kw unit that weighs 115lbs IIRC, though most smartly done EV's need less than 1/3 that takes away all charging needs.
Who one buy a Hoe to plow a field?
EV 'problems' all have reasonable solutions but too many don't want to think critically enough to find them by bias, laziness, ignorance though I have to admit the common propaganda put out by big oil, auto certainly would make one think they are not practical.
But are we not suppose to be designers, engineers here who should be able to look at the real facts and tell them from the obvious propaganda?
Charles I noticed your quote of me, EV's are overweight, overpriced, overteched in EV article in the print DN's. That big Auto is against EV's is a fact, not a idea as Chevron did buy up the NiMH patents and did stop others from producing EV size batteries from them, No? GM did crush rather than sell the EV-1's at a nice profit, No? Is it parnoid thinking if they actually do it or just a fact?
Luckily there are now so many diffeent battery types especially of various Lithium versions they can no longer buy them all.
Here is what with a better looking body, 100 mile battery range and using medium tech composites EV's should be.
I don't have time now to address this adequately, but for now let me just point out that the problems ramping up production of the Tesla S have nothing at all to do with its battery pack or the size of that pack. This is all anyone needs to know to see the bias of this article. (2nd quick point: Why is the Chevy Volt doing so well? That doesn't figure in with your premise. No matter, you'll re-spam your subscribers yet again with the link to the old articles about the bogus and overblown "Chevy Volt Battery Fires!!" any day now. That'll scare potential buyers off yet again.)
UBM Electronics publications never stop their drumbeat of doubt and pessimism about the technologies for environmental sustainability and the need for any at all (e.g., climate "skepticism," etc., ad nauseam). In spite of those technologies thoroughly dominating your articles and advertising over the last few years. A few examples: Avnet Chevy Volt Drive, the "greening" of power supplies with lower power, reduced standby current and power factor correction, wind turbine innovations, and LED lighting. This is where your and the industry's growth is, but you can't stop bashing it.
Is it is the controversy you want because it's good for business, or is it something more about UBM's politics?
The main problem with EVs is one of marketing. The travel profile that today's EV are designed for (short range urban transport of a limited number of passengers, little luggage space, no towing capabilities) are better addressed by mass transit. Even if true running costs of EVs would be competitive to a similar sized IC vehicle the same traffic and parking hassels as well as sky-high insurance rates apply to both technologies. Whenever I travel to places like mid-town New York or Chicago during business hours I wouldn't think of driving in the central city. I know several adults who live in Manhattan who don't own a car, don't want a car, and drive only when out-of-town using rental vehicles. So this leaves the market for EVs being a second car for the suburbanite who wants to over-spend for a vehicle that could be nicely addressed by one of the many MUCH cheaper IC, high mileage offerings on the market.
Yes it is true that EV cars could be used as a commuter car tha will go 60 miles, and this would satisfy many commuting needs 90% of the time for most people, but to what benefit? A similarly small gas car would still be cheaper by comparison, and there would be no limits imposed on driving distance. How convienient is it to drive an hour, stop and fire up a generator to recharge the battery, drive another hour, stop to reecharge the battery, etc. How stupid an idea, and this has become a gas powered car at this point by the way. And, everytime I want to drive 70 miles I have to go rent a gas car?
The arguements I'm hearing in favor of electric cars are basically that the consumer is too stupid to know how good he/she would have it with an electric car. I'll agree that there are a lot of stupid people out there, but when it comes down to it most people manage to figure out what works for them, and obviously most do not want to stop the car every 60 miles to recharge it. Where in the heck are they even going to stop at anyway, just pull off on the shoulder or in the ditch?
How about everybody that wants to drive an electric car just go buy one (and how about just use your own money to do that without expecting the rest of us to help you pay for it), let the rest of us choose what we want to spend our money on, instead of worrying so much about how the rest of us can be forced to drive golf carts too. I'm quite OK if you want to drive a golf cart, doesn't bother me a bit, but I'll stick with my truck or MG Midget for the time being.
Brian, your statement that there is a lot of money to be saved with an EV is false. You may want to look at other posts that I have made on this subject on the Design News site.
The problem again is the cost of the batteries. If you want to get to some serious range you are talking about the Tesla cars. The original Tesla roadster could get over 250 miles. The battery, on the other hand, weighs 900 lbs and costs the manufacturer $25,000. To replace it in the field costs $40,000. This is not worth it.
The other issue with EVs is the driving pattern. Sure, most trips are short. But most people do take longer trips with their car. Having a vehicle that can only be used around town, whcih would require a vehicle to go on trips with (or to haul more that a small amount of stuff) is a luxury. There are plenty of times when my wife and I need to drive a distance at the same time. So, owning one EV and one ICE powered vehicle is not practical. If you are in the a situation where you can own a third or fourth then you don't need to suppossed savings you are talking about.
I guess we are so used to sitting in a car with a bomb in our trunk (gas tank) and so we nitpick the EV batteries. I think they have their place and we should not expect them to be like gasoline or diesel vehicles. It just needs to be inexpensive, easy to charge, and safe. I don't expect to drive non-stop 1000 miles in any car I have. Why expect itfrom electric?
The reality is that there is a lot more power per pound in gasoline than there will ever be in batteries. And that is OK. It goes according to need. We don't complain because our flashlights go dark and say "I wish it had a gasoline engine instead of this stupid battery!"
So with that in mind, it seems to me that the car companies are chasing the tax relief instead of the market. There should not be a bounty on gasoline cars, i.e. tax deduction on electric, but let the market decide. Look at the success of the Smart car. We just need a "smart" electric car that fits the needs of the short range driver, and that is a lot of us. It just needs to be inexpensive, easy to charge, and safe. I don't expect to drive non-stop 1000 miles in any car I have. Why expect it from electric? But I repeat myself...
Tesla Motors’ $35,000, 200-mile electric car may not revolutionize the auto industry by itself, but it could serve as a starting point for a long, steady climb to a day when half of the world’s vehicles will be plug-ins.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.