A black swan is what we call an unexpected technical innovation that disrupts existing markets. Intrinsic to the whole black swan concept is that you can’t predict them: they come when they come. Only today I think I’ll predict a black swan, thank you, and explain exactly how the automobile business is about to be disrupted. I think we’re about two years away from a total disruption of the automobile business by electric cars.
One of the readers of this column is Robert Cumberford, design editor at Automobile Magazine. Nobody knows more about cars than Bob Cumberford, who has written about them for more than half a century. Here’s what he told me not long ago about the Tesla Model S:
“Since the entire automotive industry delights in bad-mouthing electric cars, and no one expects them to amount to anything significant, I predict that the Great Unwashed will enthusiastically embrace electric vehicles as soon as there is a direct personal experience. I’ve been professionally involved with cars for 60 years now and can say with the certainty based on having driven perhaps three thousand different cars over that period, perhaps more, but not surely not fewer, that the Tesla Model S is the best car I’ve ever driven. Oldest was probably a 1914 Benz from the Mercedes museum collection, newest whatever I drove last week. Wide range of experience, then. Nothing better than the Tesla. Faster? Sure. Sportier? Absolutely. But better? Nothing. I want one. Probably will never have one, but the desire is there, and will be assuaged by something electric one day Real Soon Now.
“I see the acceptance of electric cars happening in a sudden rush. Maybe not this year, maybe not for a couple of years yet. But it will happen in a magic rush, just as the generalized adoption of computers happened in only a few years.”
There are two obvious problems with electric cars today (this is Bob Cringely writing with thanks to Bob Cumberford) and they are driving range and cost. My neighbor Avram Miller drives a Nissan Leaf and loves it, but the Leaf won’t make it all the way to San Francisco and back so Avram requires a second car. Any car that needs you to have another car to make it practical can’t qualify as a black or any other variety of swan. What’s needed is a single car solution.
You can get exactly that in a Tesla Model S but it costs too much. The base model starts around $55K with the top-of-the-line running around $95K and the only significant difference between the two is how much battery capacity and therefore driving range you have. A $95K Tesla Model S has plenty of range to qualify as a single car solution but it just costs too darned much money.
As a second data point to confirm Cumberford’s opinion of the Model S, Computer History Museum chairman board member Dave House (ex-Intel) drives a Model S and says it’s his favorite car, ever. Dave’s other car, by the way, is a Bugatti Veyron. Now there’s a bumper sticker!
If only the Model S cost, say, $20K, right? I think that’s coming, though maybe not from Tesla.
The black swan we are talking about here isn’t a car but a power train and probably more specifically a battery technology. All that’s required for electric car to really break out is a way to make cheaper batteries and I am sure that’s coming.
Elon Musk of Tesla says he is going to make that happen by building a $5 billion lithium-ion battery factory, driving down the cost of manufacturing. This will work, I’m sure, and I applaud Elon for his commitment. But I strongly suspect that it will end up being a $5 billion boondoggle. The better approach would be to abandon lithium-ion for a superior battery technology.
There are dozens of startups working today on alternative battery chemistries intended to dramatically increase the range and decrease the cost of electric cars. I don’t know which of these will ultimately dominate but I am sure one will which is why I can be so confident in predicting a black swan. With dozens of groups working on the problem and an eventual market worth probably $1 trillion I have no doubt there will be a solution within the next couple of years.
Here’s one of my old friends describing his work in this area: “Last year I produced a sulfur-lithium-lead cell combined with a carbon-aluminum ultra capacitor. The ultra capacitor layers form the separator between lithium cells. Such a configuration charges ~ 10 times faster, has twice the energy density of conventional lithium-ion and no real limits as to surge current so no over heating that would lead to boom.”
Maybe my friend has the solution but it’s just as likely it will come from someone else. My point is that the solution is coming. Twice the range, one tenth the recharging time and safer, too. That’s a black swan.
Sure, it all makes sense. Your only mistake here is your assumption that Tesla’s “gigafactory” is a sign that Musk is ignoring emerging alternative battery technologies. I seriously doubt that. Rather, he’s doing what he needs to do RIGHT NOW in order to meet current and near-future demand, while also keeping an eye on everything that might change in the next couple of years.
” keeping an eye on everything that might change in the next couple of years.”
VW already has lighter 80kWh Metal-air batteries under development:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1090854_volkswagen-to-triple-battery-capacity-with-lithium-air-technology
“auto makers have already assailed Tesla by getting the government to close direct to buy stores in N.J.”
Never mind the New York Times hit piece on theTesla Model S… history demonstrates the willingness of big oil to engage in anti-competitive behavior:
https://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive
GM acquired a controlling interest in patents controlling the manufacture of auto batteries. In 2001,GM sold these battery patents to big oil ( Texaco/Chevron ) who then filed lawsuits suit against Toyota’s supplier, Panasonic, that restricted the NiMH batteries to certain uses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries#Chevron_and_Cobasys
Then Big Oil was suckered, because NiMH batteries are crap. Here is a comparison chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_battery_types
A NiMH batterie loses 30% of it’s charge a month, on top of only returning 66% of the charge you pump into it.
Lithium has the best energy density of all the elements in the atomic chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Secondary_cell_energy_density.svg
The future of automobile propulsion will certainly look very different. At some point economies of scale will win out and the great 100+ yrs. of addiction to petroleum based automobile power will slowly come to an end. I say “slowly” as the oil companies, just like the cable companies in the telco industry, will not give up their cash cow’s so easily. They will attempt to control or seize control of whatever transition will take place. The auto makers have already assailed Tesla by getting the government involved in closing down two direct to buy stores in N.J.
This movement is a beast, but once the consumer gets wound up, just like the computer industry analogy, look out. Change is a com in’!
“the great 100+ yrs. of addiction to petroleum based automobile power will slowly come to an end.”
Yes, that will happen, but it won’t be because we’ve run out of oil as so many people have predicted since the 70’s. New oil sources are being discovered all the time. And it won’t be because of “global warming” either…
It will happen because electric motors are better and cheaper than gas motors. The market will decide if and when that happens.
Fortunately for electric motor makers, it looks like gas motor efficiency has nearly peaked. Unfortunately for them, heavy research in battery technology has been going on for over 30 years with only incremental improvements along the way. Hopefully Cringley is right that a black swan is right around the corner!
If you are getting your electricity from oil powered power plants you gain nothing.
Just slap some solar panels to the roof of your car and the problem’s solved. I remember reading that Elon Musk wanted to make this a reality by the end of the decade. And since he also owns Solar City, I would bet that he’ll do it. Of course, the charge wouldn’t be strong to start out with, but give it time and I could envision cars running on 100% renewable energy.
Mike, solar power technology is a LONG way off from accommodating a solution like this. Sorry.
Mike
The incident solar energy, in optimum conditions, is about 1 KW / square meter. A 10 feet square panel, if perfectly efficient, would provide about 1 HP. Actually quite less. Solar panels on cars are OK for driving clocks, not engines. Sorry.
Now do the same energy density calc with a gallon of gas. It weighs less than 10 pounds and takes up less than 1 cubic foot. Yet it can move a heavy car 40 miles. Imagine how much work it would take 2 strong men to do the work of that 10 pounds of liquid. No battery will ever do that. It’s simple laws of physics. If you think so, you flunked science.
Cringe mentioned 2 obvious problems with electric cars. A third one that nobody mentions, is batteries have a life of about 1000 charge cycles. Fill and empty it 1000 times and it needs replacement. So every 5 or so years you have to spend the equivalent of another car, just to replace the used up batts. NO THANKS.
Apparently you gain a better car. Even before Tesla S, there was the Volt and it got praise from every one who wasn’t a reactionary republican.
I think dragging out the sad old trope of “electric cars are just as bad, because power stations” is basically trolling at this point. Surely there can’t be anybody left who is unfamiliar with the principle of economy of scale?
Late to the party, but…
To refine oil takes large amounts of power – current refineries use more electricity to do this than it would take to propel a car the same distance using the refined product, and I would bet refineries do this as absolutely efficiently as possible to protect their bottom line.
Electric cars don’t mind where the electricity comes from, coal, oil, gas, solar, wind, nuclear fission (uranium or thorium?) or nuclear fusion.
One last point is that wen you burn a gallon of oil, it’s gone forever, but batteries can be recycled at the end of their life.
@Jerry Steele Re: “refineries use more electricity to do this than it would take to propel a car the same distance using the refined product”. If that were true, refined gasoline would be more expensive than diesel to pay for the refinement cost of electricity. That is no longer the case, so diesel is less popular now than it was 20 years ago. In the end all the costs of ICE vs. EV must reflect themselves in the cost per mile of moving the same mass. In southern California electricity is so expensive that we can’t justify it financially, since most of us are paying tier 3 rates. Still, I’d like to a detailed reference to your data.
There are no large scale oil fired electric power plants. Maybe a few very small towns using diesel generators, but none that I’m aware of in the US. Natural gas and coal fired plants yes, but oil, no.
The percentage of the world’s electricity being generated by renewable sources is many times higher than the current number of vehicles on the road being powered by electricity.
–
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
There aren’t very many oil powered power plants. There are lots of natural gas and coal power powered plants.
@Scotty
“New oil sources are being discovered all the time.”
.
Any remaining sources are getting less and less cost effective to exploit, and they *will* run out. Smart money is on trying to get out of that business, but that takes more than just short-term thinking.
How is using oil an “addiction”? Is using metal, stone, wood, and all the other natural resources that people extract from the environment also an addiction?
Fossil fuels are in limited supply and non-renewable. The other things you mention are easily recyclable (metal), renewable (trees), and/or much more greatly abundant (stone).
I think the term addiction refers to the fact that we’ve built up entire industries, vested interests and infrastructure around the idea of combustion engines and other uses for oil. It’s not something that is easy to switch away from and it won’t be done without a shock to the system. In that way it mimics a human chemical addiction.
You also have to consider the ways in which oil is bad for humans.. poisonous, carcinogenic etc. as well as the environmental concerns and it really does seem like substance abuse on a grand scale and differentiates from the other resources you mention.
Do you see now?
Because we live in a petroleum based global economy?
Even if a New! Improved! battery technology is announced tomorrow, it will take a couple years (at least) to work out the bugs, then a few more to scale up the production, so Elon won’t lose by building the Big Battery plant. Especially if he make it flexible enough to adapt to the New! Improved! battery.
Another issue is that the energy density of batteries has to approach that of explosives, with a low recharge time, to be practical, while simultaneously not being likely to catch fire (like Sony laptop batteries) or explode.
The real dark horse is Apple partnering with Tesla. Apple owns a ton of IP around batteries and chemistry – probably because they are heavily dependent on batteries too. Tesla and Apple working together on the next big thing? You betcha!
Last year “Consumer Reports” named the Tesla as the best car it had ever tested, with a score 99 out a 100, it’s highest score to date.
I’m really looking forward to how all this ends up interacting with self-driving cars.
Because another way to drive down the cost of any expensive thing is to share it. Sharing one car between three families becomes a lot more easy to cope with if the car will almost always come running, on its own, whenever you whistle for it.
@Doug D. Uber (https://www.uber.com) is already proving the “whistle and your car will come running” concept. All we have to do now is figure out is how to replace human drivers with computers. By the time we do this Uber and and their competitors will have innovated the management systems to the point where they’re a commodity. The future sure looks exciting when you factor in convergence!
Wait a minute! Now why would Elon Musk spend so much money on a battery factory which won’t come online for another two years when instead he could invest that money in one of these battery innovation companies? The answer is that they simply aren’t as close to a breakthrough as you think. Cringely, you say that it will happen in two years without any evidence to support it. What are the technologies that are so promising? I’ve been following this industry closely for a number of years now, and each promising new breakthrough just doesn’t quite ever meet all the required factors for success – namely: low-cost, high-density, and high numbers of recharge cycles (this last one seems to be the most difficult to crack – most technologies that beat Li-Ion can only do so for a few recharge cycles – none can match the 1,000+ recharge lifetime of Li-Ion). I have to say that after years of seeing these ‘battery breakthroughs’ always 1.5 to 2 years away, that I’m just a bit jaded by it all. I think commoditizing the Li-Ion market as Elon is doing is what is needed, and might be the ‘black swan’ you’re looking for.
BTW, I too am excited about electric cars – especially the Model S – my friend let me drive his and I can honestly say I have never been more excited about a car. It’s simply amazing!
Li-Ion is rock solid but new chemistry is going to show up within the next 5 years. Folks in the industry think an increase in energy density of at least 50% inf 5 years is very possible, with the cycles comparable to Li-Ion.
You must be very young. Most of us have heard these stories for 20 years or more. The magic battery always moves 2 years further away just as you reach for it. It’s just a way to scam naive investors.
When you think about number of recharge cycles, do the batteries have to support many thousands of recharges?
If the battery technology could match, distance for distance, a tank of gasoline, I would only have to charge every couple of weeks. That would be pretty near 40 years for my car. But let’s say I have to charge every two days. That is still about 6 years on a 1000-charge-cycle battery. As long as the replacement battery was not too horrendously-priced, I think people would go for that. Or get used to that.
Tesla has a contract to build batteries for Daimler’s smart car. I would not bet against Elon Musk!
What’s Chinese for BlackSwan that’s where the car will be coming from- at least in mass production.
So twice the energy density but you’re still using Lithium. It’s really only available in Bolivia and China. China is already playing it fast with prices of precious metals and the Bolivian president said his country wasn’t going to be raped over Lithium as it was with tin. The batteries will have to be made there.
And 1/10th the charging time. So instead of 10-16 hours on level I, 110 circuits, it a hour to 1.6 hours.
The model S is amazing. I want one after just having looked at it up close and fumbled with the doors, but you’re not going to have millions of people plugging in because four or five people on your block will cause the local utility to look hard at the transformers in the neighborhood.
And what if you forget to plug in? Getting a little juice for a iPhone is different than getting a little juice to make your car last.
Unfortunately people will not change their habits en mass.
I had the exact same thought while reading Cringley’s blog. I was thinking China, I had forgotten about the Bolivian deposits, but put the two together – the geopolitics of lithium are going to get very interesting in the next few years…
You make some good points, but I never understood the “what if you forget to charge?” argument. You can just as easily forget to fill-up your fossil-fuel vehicle, but people still buy them.
In terms of power utilities, I like the incentive that some utility companies are offering: If your car is plugged-in and you don’t plan on driving it, then feed your battery power back into the grid and receive payment (credit on your bill) for it.
With a gasoline powered car a quick call to AAA will get you a gallon of gas and you are on the way to a gas station and wherever you want to go.
With a battery powered car there is no ‘quick fix’ for your forgetfulness.
Lithium is more common than people think. It’s like ‘rare earth’ elements, not rare, just somewhat nasty chemically to extract. There was just a big lithium discovery in Wyoming. No small group of countries is going to ‘control’ lithium.
https://www.mining.com/web/america-finds-massive-source-of-lithium-in-wyoming/
You obliquely refer to an important point, but you miss the solution.
Current-model electric cars at home are limited by the power of the home circuits. On an ordinary 110VAC 20A circuit, you’re looking at 1,400 W maximum theoretical power (actual power depending on load characteristics of the charger), and the Tesla Model S battery is 85,000 watt-hours. No matter how fast that battery charges, it’s going to take all night, unless you hire an electrician to install a specialized high-speed charger. A higher capacity battery only makes it worse.
You can see that effect with an iPad. On an ordinary 500mA USB port, the iPad takes forever to charge. It comes with a 2000mA charger, and with that it charges in a reasonable amount of time.
That’s another reason for Musk to invest in all those Superchargers. You need a lot of charge in a hurry, just go to a Supercharger. You don’t need the car for several hours because you’re working or asleep, just plug it into an ordinary circuit. It won’t blow up your neighborhood, and you won’t ever be far from a Supercharger.
110 volts at 20 amps??? Who uses that?!
What do you think your home air conditioner uses? Anyone use a welder? How bout an electric dryer, or a jacuzzi or a spa?
Most homes in the US of A have 220 volt 100 to 200 amp service. I personally have two 220 volt outlets in my garage, and two in my house, for the Stove, and the Dryer. My AC uses 220 volts.
At 220 volts, and 40 amps, the car charges in a couple hours, mainly because, when you park next to a power supply (gas cars call this a gas pump), you don’t let the tank go empty before you fill up again. We Tesla owners charge every night, after using 30 to 100 miles. Which takes about 1 or two hours. While we eat dinner and watch the news.
What does YOUR car do while you watch the news?
I sense a socioeconomic disconnect here.
My house is old. It has no 220V circuits as far as I know, and definitely no 220V outlets. The main circuit breaker is 200 amps, and then it has 100 amp circuits for the heaters and stove. The rest are 20 or 15 amps.
I have no spa, air conditioner, or jacuzzi. My welder is tiny. My dryer takes a long time to dry clothes, and some moron put it on the same circuit as my living room wall, so if I run my vacuum cleaner and dryer at the same time, the circuit trips.
So, if I get an electric car and want it to charge quickly, I’m going to have to hire an electrician to install the charger.
The normal power hookup in the US/Canada is 2 lines/phases plus the ground; you get 220v by using the two lines, 110v by using 1 vs GND. Roughly speaking.
It’s highly likely your stove and heater(s) are 220v.
You would be unlikely to have any serious problem wiring in a Tesla charger though there might be slower than expected charging when you are using the stove, heating, charger and every appliance in the house all at once.
It’s true there would be no problem wiring a charger to a 240 v circuit. But the charger has no way of knowing what else is on the same circuit so it will draw it’s full current until the circuit breaker for the circuit trips. If the charge rate is manually adjustable, you could lower it to allow for the other devices when they are on. Of course it’s best to have a dedicated circuit. If you can run a new 240 v circuit to a main or sub panel, just make it capable of handling the maximum charging current you ever expect for a charger you’re willing to buy, times the number of cars being charged simultaneously. Of course, you’re still limited by the rating of the main or sub panel circuit.
If your house has a 200 Amp service it is not “old” and most certainly has 220V service. If your main breaker is a circuit breaker and not a cartridge or glass fuse (and even then if you have two cartridges that’s 220V) you have a modern electrical system that will more than likely support the Amperage for a 220V rapid charger. You’d have to be a pot grower with lights on 7×24 to not have a 200 Amp service that couldn’t charge a car even in the middle of the night when other consumption in your home should be at it’s lowest.
I thought of this when I read Bob’s post. I had forgotten about Bolivia, But China alone, or China and Bolivia together controlling the market? The geopolitics of Lithium are going to get very interesting over the next few years…
And then we’ll trade our carbon monoxide environmental problem for a lithium battery recycling environmental problem. And instead of making the despots in the Middle East rich and somewhat in control of our economy, we’ll transfer those riches and powers to the tyrants in South America who control the majority of lithium deposits. Only the players change, not the game.
False equivalency.
.
Recycling the lithium from large battery packs is a much smaller, more easily centralized problem than handling carbon emissions. There’s also a lot more incentive (particularly financial) to recycle lithium than there is to capture the carbon coming out of exhaust pipes and try to do something, anything useful with it.
Suppose in your time frame:
1) Every multicar family bought only electric after the first, and
2) One third of one car families bought electric.
At that point over 50% of car business would be electric.
Why wouldn’t that qualify as a black swan?
What makes you think that he’ll be investing $5 bn? If he’s smart, and he usually is, what will happen is that the banks will loan him the $5 bn. Hence the risk is pretty minimal (as the money is loans to Telsa Batteries, not to Telsa cars etc…).
Money was raised in a massive bond sale, which sold out almost immediately.
https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2f2387a0-a00a-11e3-9c65-00144feab7de.html#axzz2wSIHg2D2
I’ll buy a Telsa as soon as I can afford it…
For now, I’m extremely happy with my Chevy Volt. Not 100% electric but close, and all the greatness of an electric car without the range anxiety. (For me, the gas engine only runs about 10% of the time and an overnight recharge is just fine.)
John Jeunnette
Chevy Volt.. Word! (click on my name above to see my EV stats!)
The truth is that no matter how big the battery pack is, people will always want to go a little further. Proof: Why does range matter in gas cars too? So until there is very-high-current fast-charging stations everywhere, pure EVs will not be able to unseat the liquid re-fueling kind. Which is why I love my Volt… I can run it on domestically captured electrons, or on dinosaurs, and do it all today.
I think Elon is onto something for sure, EVs are both a better driving experience and a much better TCO situation, but I also think demand will rise faster than supply – because of re-fueling. GM made a smart play with it’s Voltec EREV design.
I agree about personal experience being the killer ingredient: if you know someone that has an electric car and uses it for their daily drive to work etc, and hear that they like it just fine, you’ll be much more likely to buy one.
I don’t agree, though, that people will continue to insist on “my electric car MUST go the same distance as my gas car”. The fabled “200-mile range for $20K” will be a long time coming. BEFORE that I think we’ll reach a critical mass of people realizing that 80 miles is plenty for most people, most of the time. Most families have two cars anyway; a lot of people will realize that choosing an electric car to replace one of them will save them money, and as long as they know that Bob-next-door has been driving his 80-mile range Leaf for 2 years and never got stranded, they’ll make the same choice.
Thanks for covering the subject, Bob, and I agree Tesla has done wonders for electric car awareness. I’d love to have one too, one day 🙂
That will happen right after everyone realizes that they don’t need a huge SUV to get a single person to work and back every day.
Or a pick-up truck to buy groceries. 🙂
Or a place to pee (bye-bye gas stations).
What’s wrong with an SUV or a Pickup….. if they’re electric?
Thats the genius of how Tesla is making cars. They saw that electrics had a premium price, so instead of building a tiny econobox, they built what is arguably the best luxury sedan on the planet.
Their next trick will be an SUV. Whaddya know, they’re building what the people want, not making compromises that lead to sub optimal implementations of electric vehicles.
I expect a truck will be coming in the future too. As stated electric motors are more efficient, and SUV’s and trucks are generally larger so you have more space for batteries. With light, strong materials and creative construction of the vehicles, they’ll be able to pack lots of batteries (new or old technology) into these electric SUV’s and trucks.
Electric will replace the internal combustion engine, it won’t change the types of vehicles we drive.
Toyota started producing a fleet version electric SUVs in 1997. Toyota then started to sell RAV4 EVs to the general public in 2003, at which time the program was terminated despite waiting lists of prospective customers – See Who Killed The Electric Car? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsJAlrYjGz8 )
Toyota worked with Tesla Motors to develop the second generation RAV4 EV – Toyota again started selling electric SUVs in 2012:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV#First_generation
Big oil bought the patents from GM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
It’s a nice idea Bob but I think you have to consider the total amount of energy involved – do you really think our electric grid could deliver the amount of power needed if even 10% of the auto population switched to electricity? It’s struggling at the moment and almost nobody is plugging their cars into the grid.
Also, storing the amount of energy needed to drive a car over long distances in a conventional battery-ish device is going to make accidents really interesting – gasoline is a relatively safe fuel and it’s containment, risks and handling is well understood. This is not going to be the case for your new batteries.
I’m not really trying to dis your idea – there is so much that we could do with better forms of energy storage and if we could just up the energy density by say four times it would make a huge difference to the devices that we use every day (phones that only needed charging once a week) and other devices that simply are not fesible today because the batteries don’t exist to power them.
“It’s a nice idea Bob but I think you have to consider the total amount of energy involved – do you really think our electric grid could deliver the amount of power needed if even 10% of the auto population switched to electricity? It’s struggling at the moment and almost nobody is plugging their cars into the grid.”
Bingo. And this is only one part of the Stupid.
Battery powered cars are stupid because you burn the fossil fuel (huge energy loss), then transmit the electricity over power lines (huge energy loss), then use energy to build batteries (huge energy loss), then put energy into the battery (small energy loss) and then use the energy in the batteries (small energy loss).
Compare that to just burning the fossil fuel in the internal combustion engine, and you understand that battery power will never amount to a practical solution simply on an energy efficiency basis even if we develop the “perfect” battery. And we haven’t even really been able to do that in over a century of trying!!
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
@Buckaroo Banzai. Alternatives for generating electricity instead of burning fossil fuel already exist. I have a friend who lives “off the grid” and powers his Tesla from solar panels on the roof of his home. Check out his documentary Life With Tesla at https://www.lifewithtesla.com.
.
Gasp!… Elon Musk owns Solar City, the company that has installed 80% of the solar panels in the US. Are you noticing the trend here?
Unfortunately Brad, solar power’s contribution to the US grid is a tiny rounding error. Nobody is a bigger fan of solar power than me (I used to work in the industry), but it will take several decades before solar makes a meaningful impact on the US energy market– at best.
Nope, there is no doubt: battery powered cars are a compete waste of time and money. Elon Musk is a smart guy, but you can’t outsmart the Laws of Thermodynamics.
@buckeroo… I’m sorry if this appears offensive but really! Your (and other commentators here) apparent arrogance is only exceeded by your total ignorance. Even in the face of proof that you are wrong, you still continue to bury your head in the sand and ignore the patently obvious. I have been using an EV perfectly satisfactorily for 3 years as have thousands of others, some for considerably longer. There is no need for a major improvement in any of the technology used in modern production EVs to make them entirely workable for at least 50% of current ICEV use – including transport vehicles – , probably a lot more. Nor is there a significant improvement in the grid needed. All that *is* required is some intelligent investment in a fast charge infrastructure – much like Tesla is already installing for its forward-thinking and very lucky customers.
As for the issue of solar ‘not working’, given that here in the UK the average daily mileage for privately owned motor vehicles is only 10 miles, a PV array of 1kW output (typically four large PV panels) would only require three hours sunlight per day to generate enough electrical energy to totally offset an average-sized EV’s use. The US has 3 times the average mileage figure. A PV array 3 times the size is hardly an impossible proposition! Sure, the sun doesn’t shine for 3 hours every day. So, you get a bigger PV array. Outputs – even domestic ones – in excess of 20kWp are not uncommon… and , of course a lot of the US has a lot more sunshine that does any of the UK! MW
Banzai, You’re pretty much wrong across the board.
#1 Transmission losses over electric power lines are quite small. (Around 1%)
#2 You get massive economies of scale burning fossil fuels at a power plant versus a car engine. A modern natural gas plant with a combined cycle can get efficiency around 60%. A car engine will average around 20%. An electric engine is around 95% efficient.
#3 You note the costs of manufacturing batteries which of course, are not zero. But then neither is the cost of extracting oil from the ground.
The reason environmentalist are pushing for electric is that they’ve done the math and efficiency gains from economies of scale swamp out all other inefficiencies. (When you get 3x as much energy per unit fossil fuel at an electric power plant, it becomes very difficult to compete, efficiency-wise)
Just back of the envelope, 0.6*0.99*0.95 = .56% efficiency. So end to end efficiency of an electric is ~2.8x that of the best best internal combustion engine. I don’t have good numbers on charging inefficiencies, but I believe they’re about as negligible as power lines. But if we want to be extremely conservative, we can call it 95%.(5% loss) Which still leaves us at 2.7x the best gasoline engine.
Patrick, actual transmission losses in the US are 6.5% according to Wikipedia.
@Reinier
Fair enough.
Updating my back of the envelope calculation,
0.6(plant efficiency)*0.935(line efficiency)*0.95(charging efficiency, guess)*0.95(motor efficiency)=0.506303
So electric cars are 2.5x as efficient as internal combustion engines.
60% efficiency on electric generation??? Nonsense. 35% is typical. Here are the figures from the EIA:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=107&t=3
Battery powered cars are decidedly less energy efficient than gasoline power.
As far as solar power is concerned: solar power accounts for about 0.5% of electric power generation in t
Thank you for that link to an irrelevant page. That page shows how to calculate the efficiency, and only from another form of efficiency, it does not list figures like you say. I can only guess you have taken their worst figure as a realistic figure when it is just an example. We don’t know if it is realistic or just arbitrary.
I have heard quotes for a long time, over decades, of near or over 50%. However there is a lot of wiggle room on how you measure the efficiency. People who don’t understand that (not just know it) shouldn’t be arguing about those numbers.
Martink, it is a shame I have to do all of your thinking for you. The page I linked to describes how to calculate efficiencies from heat rates, and then there is a link on that page to the heat rates of many common generation types.
“To express the efficiency of a generator or power plant as a percentage, divide the equivalent Btu content of a kWh of electricity (which is 3,412 Btu) by the heat rate. For example, if the heat rate is 10,140 Btu, the efficiency is 34%; if the heat rate is 7,500 Btu, the efficiency is 45%…. Learn more:
Historical average annual heat rates for fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html”
Do you know how to click on a link? I realize that the interwebs have only been around for 20 years so you may not be fully up to speed yet.
@Buckaroo
You’re citing numbers for single cycle. I said combined cycle. Which is standard for new natural gas facilities in the US. Thus, a reasonable number to base our future power grid efficiency on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle#Efficiency_of_CCGT_plants
“In general in service Combined Cycle efficiencies are over 50 percent on a lower heating value and Gross Output basis. Most combined cycle units, especially the larger units, have peak, steady state efficiencies of 55 to 59%. Research aimed at 1370°C (2500°F) turbine inlet temperature has led to even more efficient combined cycles and nearly 60 percent efficiency has been reached in the combined cycle unit of Baglan Bay, a GE H-technology gas turbine with a NEM 3 pressure reheat boiler, utilising steam from the HRSG to cool the turbine blades. Siemens AG announced in May 2011 to have achieved a 60.75% net efficiency with a 578 megawatts SGT5-8000H gas turbine at the Irsching Power Station.[6]
By combining both gas and steam cycles, high input temperatures and low output temperatures can be achieved. The efficiency of the cycles add, because they are powered by the same fuel source. So, a combined cycle plant has a thermodynamic cycle that operates between the gas-turbine’s high firing temperature and the waste heat temperature from the condensers of the steam cycle. This large range means that the Carnot efficiency of the cycle is high.”
“Martink, it is a shame I have to do all of your thinking for you. The page I linked to describes how to calculate efficiencies from heat rates, and then there is a link on that page to the heat rates of many common generation types.”
My apologies, the links are indeed there and clear, I don’t know how I could have missed them.
I still don’t believe the figure of 35%, or even the 45% for combined cycle. I have heard figures of around 60% for steam turbines (presumably combined cycle) for over 30 years. That figure may well not include some indirect energy costs and be best case rather than average, but to consume an extra 30% (or nearly 50% for the 35% figure) is certainly hard to believe. It would almost have to include transport energy, or even mining energy.
@Buckaroo Banzai
“And this is only one part of the Stupid.
Battery powered cars are stupid because you burn the fossil fuel (huge energy loss), then transmit the electricity over power lines (huge energy loss), then use energy to build batteries (huge energy loss), then put energy into the battery (small energy loss) and then use the energy in the batteries (small energy loss).
Compare that to just burning the fossil fuel in the internal combustion engine, and you understand that battery power will never amount to a practical solution simply on an energy efficiency basis even if we develop the “perfect” battery.”
So let me understand this. You have somehow missed the whole power requirements of oil extraction, refinement and transport- distribution(all those oil tankers) to various gas stations not to mention having to burn fuel to move that fat suv to the gas station and whatever minor power is required to fill the actual gas(runing the pump).
Vivek
Really, Vivek? All the relevant costs of the gasoline in your tank are embodied in the price of the gasoline at the pump.
And more importantly, you are completely missing the point. We are talking about the inefficiencies involved in the supply chain of the energy that comes out of the battery that powers the car. Coal –> Electricity –> Transmission –> Battery. There are inefficiencies every step of the way.
Gasoline, of course is different: — it is the energy source AND the energy storage mechanism, all in one. As an energy storage mechanism it is perfectly lossless compared to batteries.
If the electric car was directly powered by coal, then that would be one thing. Of course, it is not. And that is where all the problems lie.
It would be equally true that all the relevant costs are indicated on your power bill. And power is quite cheap compared to gasoline.
A Tesla Model S has an 85 kWh capacity. Electricity in Ca costs about 16 cents per kWh so your cost to fill up a Tesla is $13.60. This gives you a 265 mile range.(According to the EPA) Which means roughly 5 cents / mile.
Optimistically, a very good car gives you 40 miles per gallon. And a gallon of gasoline costs you ~$4 in California. Which means a gasoline car costs you ~10 cents per mile.
If we’re using end-prices, electric is at least twice as efficient as gasoline today. (And of course, you’ll only get 40 MPG if you drive something like a Mazda 3 highway only.) If use a more realistic estimate(30 mpg) you’ll get 13 cents per mile.
Not coincidentally, this gives us an efficiency around 2.5:1. Exactly what my other calculation from power efficiency indicated.
Now we’ve got two corroborating sources of data telling us the same thing.
@Patrick: You and Mr. Banzai are using entirely different definitions of efficiency. Banzai is talking about true energy efficiency which is the percentage of energy from the source (measured in BTU or Joules) that is turned into the kinetic energy of motion of the car (also measured in BTU or Joules). It has nothing to do with the price of electricity or gas. Your use of cost per mile is the most meaningful to consumers but it’s distorted significantly by politics (gas taxes and the high electric rate tier that would apply to your electric bill or that of a charge station). I pay over 36 cents per kwh so at 3mi/kwh that’s 12 cents per mile, not counting the cost per mile of replacing the batteries. In the end, I’m afraid the true winner will depend on which technology is allowed to be cheaper for the consumer, and most profitable to government, based on politics. Currently, gas taxes pay for the highways but your electric bill doesn’t. That will change, eventually, if we are allowed to charge at home.
Unfortunately Patrick, the price you pay per kwh going into the battery does not tell the full story; unlike with a gasoline engine, that is not the the final cost of energy. The electricity cost going into the battery does not account for the cost of the battery, which is significant. A gas tank is cheap stamped sheet metal and never wears out; a battery is expensive and eventually needs to be replaced.
Again: when you analyze ALL the costs associated with battery powered vehicles, they simply do not pencil out. The Laws of Thermodynamics are very clear on this.
@Buckaroo
You’re moving the bar. You want to account for the costs of the electric vehicle(effectively conceding that the per mile cost is lower), but not for the cost of gasoline vehicle. (because “it’s cheap” we can assume it is zero?)
But I *do* agree with the premise of the original Cringely post. EV vehicle price must come down to be competitive. I’m not arguing the EVs are currently competitive and neither was Cringely. The post was saying that they’re well poised to beat gasoline in future if battery technology improves. You *do* save money on fuel costs because grid power is cheaper than gasoline, but it would take a lot of driving to spend $60k on gasoline and make up the cost of the Tesla.
But if battery prices do come down, EVs will easily beat gasoline on a per mile basis. (And I’m not convinced that they will.)
@Ronc
#1 Further up in the thread he was talking about energy efficiency, but in this strand, he was saying that “All the relevant costs of the gasoline in your tank are embodied in the price of the gasoline at the pump.” And if that is true, then apples-to-apples EVs beat gasoline.
#2 I’m not sure how you pay 36 cents per kWh on electricity. That is massively above typical, even in an expensive state like California.
Source:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a
But even if you *do* pay 2-3 times the average for electricity, I think that we can agree that using your exceptional personal experience is a bad way to evaluate the plausibility of the EV technology, in general. (If you’re paying 36 cents per kWh, and the average is 16 cents, that means someone else must be paying much less just to make the math of averages work out. For those people, EVs will seem like an exceptionally good deal.)
#3 I’d rather not get into the whole “who get’s more subsidies” argument. It strays from technology into politics and can run in circles for hours. Of course gas is taxed, but oil companies also receive various tax incentives, and implicit and explicit subsidies, so whether EV or oil gets more subsidy is either a very difficult question or a fool’s errand, depending on how you look at it.
” A gas tank is cheap stamped sheet metal and never wears out; a battery is expensive and eventually needs to be replaced.
Again: when you analyze ALL the costs associated with battery powered vehicles, they simply do not pencil out. ” {having to reply oddly because stupid commenting system}
A battery needs no major servicing at regular intervals. An electric motor does not need valve clearances adjusted, nor does it rust out the exhaust – nor even need one with expensive catalytic components. Frankly, I’m not sure how petroleum driven vehicles ever made sense. Musta been a conspiri-wotsit by the oyl-bankstas.
“A battery needs no major servicing at regular intervals. An electric motor does not need valve clearances adjusted, nor does it rust out the exhaust – nor even need one with expensive catalytic components. ”
Modern ICE cars need virtually no servicing aside from oil changes all the way up to 100,000 miles.
The battery in your electric car will degrade continuously, and will need to be replaced, at a major cost, during that time frame.
“You’re moving the bar. You want to account for the costs of the electric vehicle(effectively conceding that the per mile cost is lower), but not for the cost of gasoline vehicle. (because “it’s cheap” we can assume it is zero?)”
Wrong. You are the one moving the bar. The vehicle can be broken down into systems: energy storage, and energy conversion. The energy storage costs of a gasoline engine are virtually zero. The energy storage costs of the electric vehicle are huge. As far as the energy conversion systems go, we would be comparing the cost of the engine and transmission of the ICE car to the electric motors of the electic car. My guess is, those are roughly equivalent– and that guess is certainly consistent with what the marketplace is telling us, which is, electric cars are really really expensive.
Again, the electric vehicle comes up short.
Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
We were talking about per mile costs, now you want to talk about storage costs. I’m not sure how this isn’t moving the bar. I got into this discussion because of your suggestion that EVs were less energy efficient than ICEs, when the opposite is true. Since you’re no longer defending this point, My work here is done.
{stupid replying system, again}
“Modern ICE cars need virtually no servicing aside from oil changes all the way up to 100,000 miles.”
Oh, really? Then why does my car (5y.o.) need servicing once or twice a year? Just at a random sample, edmunds.com suggests a ’12 BMW-3 will cost ~$9000 for 5 yrs, a Honda CRV about $4000, a Dodge Durango about $5000 and so on. That’s only for 75000 miles estimates.
“The battery in your electric car will degrade continuously, and will need to be replaced, at a major cost, during that time frame.”
Oh really? I’m not sure we can tell yet, not having much large scale experience of big Lipos. The experience with Prius packs is that rather a lot seem to survive 250,000 miles in taxi type usage. And they cost around $3000 to replace IIRC. I seem to recall many claims from when they came out that the figures would be more like 50,000 miles and $15,000.
Governments every where are subsidizing the cost of oil.
Here in Canada over a billion dollars has been pumped into the oil sands by the federal gov’t.
You are not paying the true cost for this product and if you had to pay for the CO2 and the damage it is doing to the earth, it’s use would diminish very rapidly.
The CO2 is increasing the acidity in the oceans dramatically and destroying the ability of life there to survive.
I don’t expect anything anyone here has to say will change your mind in any way, so I won’t be back.
The earth will evolve as it should, hopefully in time to stop a global disaster. I have faith that oil is a dying industry.
@Buckaroo Banzai: “Battery powered cars are stupid because you burn the fossil fuel (huge energy loss), then transmit the electricity over power lines (huge energy loss)”
1. The combined cycle systems for generating electricity are at least twice as efficient as the engines in the petrol cars.
2. The petroleum fuels are also transported through pipes and tankers etc., to the gas stations and hauled around in the cars.
Sorry.
Unfortunately Solomon, the combined cycle technology is only used in a tiny fraction of power plants. The vast majority of power generation infrastructure plods along at a 35% efficiency– not much more than the efficiency of a gasoline internal combustion engine.
Unless you are prepared to swap out the entire generation infrastructure, at a cost of trillions and trillions of dollars, electric cars are a nonstarter. At least according to the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Buckaroo Banzai, please pick a single measure and stick to it..
My Chevy Volt costs me so much less to run (while being so much more fun to drive) that if all costs are included, I STILL come out on top.
– Maintenance schedule (like the various fluids list) is ridiculously small, compared to an ICE engine.
– Volt battery pack at 120K real world mi shows no meaningful degradation. And even if it did, it would only change the electric/gas miles ratio, not change the whole equation. compare a replacement engine or transmission cost to a replacement battery pack. Similar to cheaper even IF you had to go there..
– fuel cost is 10%-25% of gas – OVER THE LIFE OF the vehicle. That tilts the economics in favor of EVs right there.
Example: I drove 21,000mi last year in my volt. 80% EV (which as the driver I can control) cost me ~$400, but saved me from buying 698 gallons of gas at an 2013 Avg of $3.50. So, in year one of the car, I saved $2,443 and spent ~$350 for the exact same miles, saving me ~$2,100! An ICE car at 22MPG (fleet average) would have SPENT $2,700! That is a $4,800 swing BTW. My EV almost pays me to drive, your ICE just costs, and costs, and cost.
– See maintenance burden, above.
– My EV has 10 airbags, even knee airbags. Does yours? Glass smooth ride? Quiet as a baby nursery?
There is more, but looking at what the end result is in $ helped me decide.
Most people charge at night when there’s large excess capacity. That’s why time-of-use electricity rates are lowest in the middle of the night. Power companies will like electric cars because it evens out their demand cycle.
I’m also very knowledgeable on the whole subject of automotive engineering and supply chain. Bob Cumberford is absolutely right. Living in Michigan, as I do, I’ve noticed a modest surge in the number of so-called “extended range” EVs (i.e. “Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles” or PHEVs) particularly the Chevy Volt. The Volt is by no means a perfect vehicle, nor is it purely electric. I drive a Ford Fusion Energi PHEV with about half the all-electric driving range of the Volt. In Michigan, both cars suffer from considerable battery efficiency loss in cold weather (about 50%). The problem of climate won’t likely be resolved in Michigan unless Al Gore is right, in which case, I’ve made a great investment. But I digress….
The point is that the economics of EVs are already a lot better than people expect it to be. Many electric utilities, including DTE Energy here in Michigan, offer incentives to install home charging stations at little to no cost to consumers, and with reduced rates for charging during off-peak times (3.5 cents/kWh for DTE Energy). Rebates and other incentives from federal, state and local governments bring the payments for EVs and PHEVs into range of ICE-powered vehicles. Sure, those rebates can make for an “unfair” comparison, but nevertheless, they exist. Because the electricity for recharging vehicles can come from renewable or other domestic sources vice crude oil, there are indirect benefits for going the EV route.
We still have a long way to go in battery technology. I expect that it will be at least 5-10 years before it can really offer the current cost per kW advantages of gasoline. In the meantime, ICEs will become still more efficient, which means engineers will be chasing a moving target. Nevertheless, I have been absolutely delighted with my Fusion and I know many Volt owners who feel the same way. As the technology becomes more mainstream and economically on par with conventional autos, I expect the transition to EVs will happen fairly quickly.
What about the costs of replacing the batteries? Lithium batteries don’t last very long.
The cost of battery replacement remains an issue for the industry. However, most industry analysts – and particularly those who follow the EV market – maintain that battery packs will continue to hold 75% – 80% of original capacity after 5 years. In most cases, the lithium packs are mostly (80-100%) recyclable and can be used for stationary applications after their usefulness in EVs is done.
However, while replacing the whole pack is expensive (around $2,500 or more these days) some of the OEMs (including Nissan, etc.) are recommending replacement of individual bad cells, not the whole pack. That can cost a few hundred dollars, not thousands. At 5 years, most vehicle owners of all types (including conventional ICEs) normally foot a major maintenance bill anyway, so pick your poison.
last guy who thought electric would go viral and wanted to be the battery king had sort of a track record, too.
fella name of Edison.
there are higher-energy reactions out there, most of which are highly exothermic and unstable. meaning they go BOOM.
the keys are new materials and very exacting uniformity in manufacturing, if any of them are going to stabilize into ten times miracle. hope it gets done.
The great (fill in the blank) will want a pickup truck, then you may win them over
OK, but how many cupholders does it have?
None in the back. Seriously. And this is an American car? What were they thinking?
Yeah… all well ‘n good…. good drive, low running costs – for “rich” folk… whilst the rest of us are stuck with what we can afford.
I’m not putting it up to get in your faces – I like electric cars … there is one word that everybody so far hasn’t mentioned – the “S” word – subsidy..
Mr. Musk and the Tesla crew have been caning Federal funds like a good ‘un – anybody know who’s done the proper bottom line on how much a Tesla actually costs (including the taxpayer bit)?
I suppose the gigafactory will include a giga-recycling plant ? yes? or will that be China as is the case at the moment?
About 40 years ago I was in engineering school One of our class projects was to study alternative means to power cars. We had an extremely good professor who could ask really interesting and hard questions. I learned more about engineering in that single class than I did in my other four years of study. I learned by then electric cars would be the future. The problem was the battery.
.
One of the things this amazing professor taught us was to chart the evolutionary progress of a technology. The process is like Moore’s Law. Over a certain time a technology will improve by a measurable amount. In the 1970’s batteries had been around for over 100 years, so we had good data to chart its improvement rate.
.
A tank of gasoline stores a tremendous amount of energy. After charting the evolutionary rate of the battery we realized it could be another 100 years before a battery could store a comparable amount of energy. That was a sobering realization. It led us to look at fuel cells and other forms to store energy and produce power. It was a great semester.
.
So for the last 40 years I’ve been watching the car market from a very interesting perspective. I must agree Elon Musk and the Tesla is quality work, outstanding engineering. They’re doing it right. They have my highest compliments. I agree the lithium ion technology may not be the best long term battery for electric cars. It is however the best today and is mature and well understood. It will be years until something better can replace it on a large scale. We need an interim technology and I think Tesla’s investments are appropriate for today’s vehicles.
.
Another thing that very wise professor taught us was the difference between local and long distance travel. Most cars are rarely driven over roughly 70 miles a day. It is easier to store enough electricity for 70 miles a day than 100’s of miles. Since I’ve been thinking about this for 40 years I have an alternative approach to long distance driving….
.
The traditional internal combustion engine is big and heavy. A Wankel engine produces a lot of power in a much smaller package. So does a turbine engine. I believe it should be possible to produce the equivalent of an auxiliary power package for an electric car. It would consist of a fuel tank, a small engine, and a generator. Maybe you would package it in a trailer. On long trips you would attach it to your electric car. It would provide the driving range you would need, quick refueling, etc. Since you would only need this device a few times a year, one could rent them for your trips.
.
Again my compliments to Elon Musk and his team!!!
Not a new idea, actually:
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_extender_(vehicle)
you describe the Chevy Volt.
Robert,
I don’t think you can assume that we’ll get substantially better batteries just because we really want them. (ie There is strong economic incentive) The incentive has been there for a long time.(from aerospace, to laptops, to cell phones, to power grids) The problem is that we’re running up against some physical limits. Which is why progress in batteries has tended to be gradual incremental improvement, not leaps and bounds.
The DOE has a project that they started last fall to develop batteries that are 5X more powerful and 5X cheaper (or as I like to say, 1/5 the cost) within 5 years. It is supposed to be a big cross-specialty partnership and run like the Manhattan Project was. You can read about it here:
https://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9234200/DOE_wants_5X_battery_power_boost_in_5_years
Of course this doesn’t mean they will come anywhere close to their goal, but hopefully something will come of it. That said, I’m not holding my breath.
That sounds interesting. We can hope…..
A battery revolution would affect a lot more than just cars. Obviously, we’ll start with smart phones that last more than 5 hours between charges. Batteries could replace emergency generators. This would be especially helpful in areas with frequent disruptions. Areas completely off the grid could store solar-generated electricity to use at night. I’m sure there’s a lot more.
So, what does the 2-year prediction mean? A scientific breakthrough? Or a finished product? I’m so tired of hearing about some great new product and then waiting forever while people try to learn to manufacture it.
Welcome to Cringely-world, where not only huge scientific breakthroughs, but also the practical implementation of them only take 2 years! 😉
.
At least we can’t fault Bob for lacking optimism! 😀
Right on Bob, but off by about four years – the big change will be the 2020’s.
There is a thirty year pattern in the automotive industry – every thirty years there is a series of wonderful cars.
For example, cars first became wildly attractive and popular around 1900, thirty years after they were first invented.
1930’s cars are still considered some of the most innovative and beautiful.
The autos of the 1960’s were also note worthy for their design and engineering, still lusted after by the public.
In the 1990’s we saw the whole United states market turned on it’s ear by impressively engineered imports – the public lined up to purchase.
2020, six years from now, hybrid and full electrics will be ‘proven enough’ and self driving cars will also be capable of pretty much auto piloting on the interstate system, park themselves and brake before fatal crashes, etc… the public will beat the doors down to own those cars!
Electric cars are probably the way of the future. However, no one talks about where the electricity to charge these cars come from. right now, it probably coming mostly from coal.
We need to get rid of the coal power plants (and all the pollution) before we all jump on the electric car band wagon. Until then we are just swapping coal for oil.
Probably from natural gas, actually. As the price of natural gas has dropped and we’re not likely to run out any time soon. Also, natural gas plants tend to be cheaper, more efficient, more flexible, and less polluting.
But natural gas or any power grid source(even coal) is much better than internal combustion engines. Economies of scale in power plants mean that they’re much more efficient than car engines, because it is just easier to optimize one big power plant, instead of millions of tiny engines. Since you get more power out of each thing you burn, switching to electric would be equivalent to doubling or tripling fuel economies.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love it if we got some cleaner power sources. But the efficiency gains from just going to the power grid are so large that it is completely incorrect to describe it as “just swapping coal for oil”
“However, no one talks about where the electricity to charge these cars come from. right now, it probably coming mostly from coal.”
Well, no one except the hundreds of people that go on again and again about this as if it were an actual crucial issue. And of course the hundreds of people that point out that electricity is a completely fungible power transmission medium that can be produced by any of a gazillion methods ranging from hamster in wheels through coal-powered steam turbine gen-sets to fusion or quantum wish-fulfillment. My favourite is harnessing the hot air from anti-electric pundits in a magnetohydrodynamic power system. Most of them seem to think magnets are a liberal conspiracy anyway.
Some thoughts…
1. The range of an EV drops as the battery ages. 80 mile range becoming 60 miles makes a car much less useful than 160 -> 120 miles.
2. If a $20k pure-EV battery pack has a 1000 cycle useful life and a 100 mile average charge range over that life (note: not the initial charge range when new), that’s 20c per mile cost to amortise.
3. Countries have a surplus of base-load electricity at night, when it is uneconomic to turn off most plant. I’d like to see leglislation that forces cars to recharge at night. The worst is institutions thinking they are green by offering daytime charging platforms from the grid.
You seem to believe that if many smart people focus on something, breakthroughs will come soon. If only that were true for cancer and other terrible diseases affecting people today, for which a huge number of very smart people are looking to find a cure.
Okay I made it this far through the comments without feeling a need to say anything. I love a self-sustaining conversation. But here’s where I draw the line. I said significant changes in battery technology are coming in two years not so much because two years is enough time but because 42 years is enough time. Battery technology has been the focus of much research ever since the OPEC oil embargo of 1973. And just like advances in medicine, battery advances take a lot of time — time that has now for the most part passed. Lithium-ion performance of today isn’t significantly better than it was when the technology first appeared a few years ago. We’re ready for an upgrade. And this time READY means a market with demand driven by $4-8 gasoline (many of my readers are in Europe, remember) and global warming. Electric cars aren’t going away like U.S. diesels did in the 1970s. They’ll only get better. And that was my point.
[…] Cringely: The black swan we are talking about here isn’t a car but a power train and probably more specifically a battery technology. All that’s required for electric car to really break out is a way to make cheaper batteries and I am sure that’s coming. […]
What is it like to drive one of these electric cars on a cold, 10 degree F morning in the midwest? How long to defrost the windshield? What range? Is it comfortable at 60 mph? Do electrics work well everywhere? Around here, in Northern California, the biggest subsidy to buy electric is the free pass for solo drivers into the carpool lane. That cannot last forever.
Since Teslas seem to sell well in Norway, which is quite cold quite a lot of the time, I suspect they have dealt with some of those issues. See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsLMlozXjhk
Or they only drive them a small fraction of the normal temperature battery range.
My biggest concern is: Will Lithium (a “rare earth” metal) be the new oil? As for today, lithium-ion is the best battery technology. But those batteries don’t last forever. So, when the electric car revolutions gains momentum, there will be a demand for tenths of Millions of batteries, which needs to replaced within 10 years (?). This results in a gigantic demand for Lithium. Lithium does not grow on trees. Most of it is buried in the earth of countries with – err, questionable – political systems.
Unlike oil – which is quite tricky to recycle from exhaust pipe emissions – lithium can be reclaimed from dead battery cells.
I drive a Leaf 58 miles a day at 75mph in the car-pool lane to-from the school where I work. It’s range at that speed is around 80 miles (I go up a grade on 101 that kills the milage). My school has a solar array that provides 43% of peak power needs, so we have 4 EV charging stations. I love my Leaf even though it’s kinda shoddy compared to a Tesla. When I want to go to San Francisco, I use my wife’s car – she only commutes a couple of miles a day. When I leased my Leaf, the $2,500 down payment was reimbursed and the $200/mo payment was about what I was spending using my 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid for fuel and oil changes. The Nissan dealer did not want to sell me the car – the pitch being better batteries are coming in three years when the lease is up. I expect I will be able to go to San Francisco and back in my next leased car.
Where will you get the electricity to charge it? Ok, you’re the only buy in 10 sq miles with one now, but what if 100 People per sq mile try to charge? In July. When it’s 99 degrees. Huh?
Wish I could find that old JPL whitepaper from 1977 about alternate prime movers, this is old news and I’m sure that the infrastructure isn’t there for this to happen any time soon
Ken, you are exactly right. The infrastructure is a train wreck, and it will cost a fortune to build out. That is one of the reasons why wind energy hit a big wall a few years ago– the transmission infrastructure is a major limiting factor. Transmission infrastructure is expensive to build out, and the politics involved with allocating the costs are Formidable, with a capital “F”.
Sure, Mr. Musk is building a huge factory, but you don’t think Tesla would want to build a plant that transition to use a different chemistry on the batteries as the technology arises?
He needs batteries, and this is what he’s going to get. If/when Li-Air batteries come around, he could switch over. Plants can be re-purposed. It’s not like they stay stagnant and a new factory needs to get built.
The _current_ winner is Li-ion, so he’s focusing on that. It’s rock solid tech with thousands of cycles for the battery with lower degradation. Unlike fuel cells, which generally have a small number of cycles before completely going out.
So building for an unproven, say a Li-S battery plant worth billions of dollars seems too high of a risk. Building it so that it _could_ take Li-S is a lower risk, which I suspect he’s doing.
Still a little early for me to worry about. Current tech doesn’t suffice for me. Frequent 200 mile trips, along with longer vacations. But maybe the next time I buy. I’ve had my current car for over 10 years. Plenty of time for improvements.
The ultimate battery technology would be super capacitors. They will weigh very little (they’ll be able to use them to power airplanes – imagine a silent prop plane) and provide instant recharging. People have been working on that too, but I wouldn’t expect anything anytime soon. There down side is that they may take up a lot of space.
May be right. Batteries are limited by reversible chemical reactions, which degrade over time and limit the number of recharge cycles. Capacitors have no such limit as they store energy in an electric field. The dielectric may degrade over time but it isn’t a function of cycles (if that were the case, the capacitors in your amplifier, computer, etc. would die very quickly as they’re operating at thousands or millions of cycles per second). There’s some interesting work in improving electrode surface area using everything from nano manufacturing schemes to using DNA from viruses. Energy storage is a function of effective surface area and how closely spaced the electrodes are. Larger surface area and closer spacing dramatically increases energy storage. some very interesting research in ultra thin, high breakdown voltage dielectrics.
Downside is there’s no internal resistance like in a battery, so a capacitor can discharge instantaneously and would be like a bomb going off if several kilowatts of energy shorted out at once. Think Tesla’s battery fires are a problem. Several kW of energy going through a chunk of metal would vaporize it instantly and you’d have flying metal vapor exploding outward. I’ve seen the large buss bar fuses in industrial 3 phase power systems explode right through the metal wall of the switch panel. Scary. Like a 12ga shotgun at close range.
I think that super-capacitors still have pretty small capacity compared to a battery. They’re just super compared to standard caps.
When I can drive 500 miles after 5 minutes of fueling in a car that costs under $25K new.
The black swan is not Battery but somthing else BUT what?
Look, this is nitpicking, but the term Black Swan is important and your lack of understanding of what it means, and the number of people who have read this article, means that now there’s a whole bunch of people who also don’t know what it means.
A Black Swan is by definition unpredictable. What you are predicting is a disruption – which everyone and his dog knows is coming – NOT a Black Swan.
Bob said “A black swan is what we call an unexpected technical innovation that disrupts existing markets.” I think the word “unexpected” is the key that makes his use of the phrase correct. If something is unexpected, then predicting something that depends on it would make no sense.
For your benefit, from Wiki:
The event is a surprise (to the observer).
The event has a major effect.
After the first recorded instance of the event, it is rationalized by hindsight, as if it could have been expected; that is, the relevant data were available but unaccounted for in risk mitigation programs. The same is true for the personal perception by individuals.
***
If you predict it, it cannot be a surprise, therefore is not a black swan.
Other than that I enjoyed your article.
Last weekend, down here in Melbourne, we had the Australian Grand Prix, which was the first large-scale test of the new hybrid racing cars. Albert Park, where the race is held, is home to a large colony of black swans. Totally irrelevant, but an amusing co-incidence. Apparently the fans don’t like the new cars – not noisy enough. I’m not sure what the swans thought of them.
So many people seem to think that an EV has to be equal to a petrol vehicle in every way in order to be successful. They think it has to have the same range, the same number of fuelling stations, the same internal heating for Kansas on a cold day.
But it doesn’t. Petrol vehicles are way over-specced for many uses. My family has two petrol vehicles. My regular commute is about 25 kilometers. On days where I have classes after work that might stretch to 70 kilometres.
We could easily swap one of our petrol vehicles for an EV. Sure, we might have to plan which car we used more than we do now. Sure, I might have to lobby the parking station to put in a recharger. None of that is impossible, or even challenging. It’s just business.
Even without battery life improvements, there is a huge market for EV’s for second family cars.
@ Clive Harris
This an important factor that will need to be resolved
before any mass take up of EVs occurs IMHO.
Your average guy does not want a silent vehicle.
I’ve driven a Toyota Prius and liked it a lot but the quietness is a major turnoff for the those who equate noise with power.
There will have to be some sort of artificial noise
incorporated into these vehicles to make them
appeal to the revheads.
I’m reminded of a Science Fiction story from the 50’s by
C M Kornbluth called “The Marching Morons”.
https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1951-04/Galaxy_1951_04#page/n131/mode/2up
Cry Logic says “Your average guy does not want a silent vehicle. I’ve driven a Toyota Prius and liked it a lot but the quietness is a major turnoff for the those who equate noise with power”.
>—————-
A Prius isn’t a race car, nor is “Power” once of it’s selling points. Economy. Driving slower than everyone else. Hyper-miling… Fuel efficiency. This is why you buy a Prius.
While enjoying the sound of a big engine is certainly a thing, a silent Tesla beating the pants off tuned sports cars speaks volumes about real “Power”.
Discussions of electric cars always seem to assume that owners will have a place to recharge them. Well, many residents of cities (where electric cars are most practical) live in houses or apartments without garages. They park their cars on the street, wherever they can find a space. Where will they recharge?
At work, at Superchargers, at opportunistic franchises. I know a Walgreens and a shopping center in my area of San Francisco with chargers in their parking lots, and I don’t even have an electric car. As electric cars become more common, we hope that the owners of parking lots/structures will install more chargers.
Like how gasoline car owners don’t need to worry about being near a gas station, electric car owners will eventually not need to worry about being near a charge station.
But recharging where you shop etc. is still far less convenient than recharging overnight at home. Yes, nobody has a gas station at home, but recharging takes more time, and the range of electric cars is still substandard.
Another big issue is battery pack replacement. They don’t last nearly as long as a gas engine, and cost far more to replace.
That Walgreens is surrounded by residential buildings, and it’s about 3 blocks away from the homes of several of my friends. That’s totally circling-the-streets-looking-for-parking distance. Those chargers at that shopping center are also simply across the street from residential buildings.
And Cringely is optimistic about the battery pack replacements. It’s sophistry to bring it up now in this way.
How long until the Dinocorporations start patenting the technology and stifling innovatuon?
That has been the bugaboo for transportation since General Motors, Standard Oil, and Goodyear replaced the inexpensive and efficient interurban rail service with expensive smelly buses (primarily by bribing local officials).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries#Chevron_and_Cobasys
I disagree with this whole premise because the moving target that electric-only vehicles are competing with is not petroleum powered vehicles…..it’s hybrids….which already have the best of everything electricity power has to offerred ALONG WITH the best technology petroleum-power has to offer.
What I haven’t heard any mention of here, is not how/why/when will the public want all-electric cars in place of their all-petroleum vehicles, but how/when/why would the public decide (if at all) that they want all-electric vehicles in place of the current excellent HYBRIDS that are available to them now, and that they are continuing to buy?
I mean, aren’t hybrids the perfect “best of both worlds” solution? You’ve got the electric drivetrain that gives all the benefits of a non-petroleum using vehicle, but you have a small gasoline engine that will only kick in when needed to overcome the current shortcomings of electric motors (distance, power, etc.). Perhaps eventually the petroleum-engine will become only a glorified battery recharger, but it’s still using two separtely technologies to enhance each other.
And as the hybrid (i.e. the combined benefits of both petroleum and electric motor technology) improves, IMO the hybrids will remain a step ahead of the all-electrics (and eventually perhaps even a step ahead of the all-petroleum vehicles). E.g. see some of the latest ultra-high performance hybrids (BMW i8, Fisker Karma, Prosche 918 Spyder which is a true supercar, Jaguar C-X75)..these are high-performance cars, period, which actuaklly use electrical power to improve upon gasoline power.
IMO, as long as the hybrid continues to advance in performance and ESPECIALLY as hybrid versions are released of existing favorite cars that purchasers have been buying and loving for years (as Ford, Chevy and Nissan are starting to do more and more), then the all-electric car will remain a “novelty” for some time, geared mainly towards people who, for whatever reason, specifically want an all-electric vehicle. I suspect that if and when Joe & Jane Public move towards electricity en mass, it’ll be towards hybrids before all-electrics.
One last thing….don’t forget that hybrids too will continue to benefit from the same battery (and other electric drivetrain) improvements that find their way into all-electric cars. And they’ll continue to still add that improved technology to their existing petoleum-engine technology too, obtaining the best of both worlds when it ciomes to price, perforamnce, driveability, re-charge/re-fuel time, range, longevity, etc.), and staying a step ahead of the all-electrics.
I think the existence of, and continued advancement / imprtovement of hybrids is what’s been missing from this discuission. The Tesla S is a great car, period, and that’s why everyone’s excited about it as an electric car. but I bet if it was a hybrid (which thewy were gonna offer originally as an “extended range version” but changed their mind), it would outsell the all-electric model 10 to 1.
I can’t wait to get away from combustion engines…
noisy, dirty, stinky, poisonous, complicated, expensive to maintain…
–
I don’t want a hybrid… all of the above and more complicated.. I already hate auto dealerships and mechanics enough.
–
I want an electric motor on each wheel. No transmission, no drivetrain, less maintenance, fewer points of failure. Simple.
Hybrids are a nice short-term solution. Electric cars are a long-term solution.
The fundamental problem is digging up fossil fuels and burning it for our daily needs. We’re using it faster than it can be replenished, and we’re changing the environment in hard-to-predict ways. The “value” of hybrid cars is entirely based on their ability to keep burning fossil fuels. Pure electric cars can be powered by anything that generates electricity, and Elon Musk is working on solar power.
–
As a technology, hybrids are a major compromise. Electric cars have maintenance issues. Gasoline cars have maintenance issues. Hybrid cars have both electric car problems (Li-ion batteries, etc.) and gasoline car problems (spark plugs, etc.). And most hybrid cars are not series hybrid, i.e., most hybrid cars have the gasoline engine supply power to the wheels, so they have far more complicated drive trains than either gasoline or electric cars.
Electric cars’ major expense is the battery. As battery technology improves, electric cars will become drastically more affordable. Hybrid cars, being stuck with both types of engines, will not benefit nearly as much. Hybrids will remain expensive.
Improving batteries are leading to better plug-in hybrids, but I think it’s silly to drag around a rarely-used gasoline engine and all its dangerous baggage when you can get better efficiency with a pure electric. After all, electricity is still not free.
I think plug-in hybrid cars have a place now, because gas stations are everywhere, but they’re inherently too complicated and expensive. They’re not a good long-term solution to our transportation needs.
Can’t agree about hybrids being a “major compromise” and being more complicated that conventional cars. In some cases this is true, where the manufacturer has tried to “hybridise” an existing design by strapping on an electric motor and a big battery. A car that’s designed from the start as a hybrid is potentially very much simpler than a conventional one, although not quite as simple as a pure electric design. The Toyota/Lexus “Hybrid Synergy” design eliminates virtually all the transmission, as well as quite a few other parts. The engine, together with a couple of brushless DC motor-generators, is connected directly to a simple epicyclic gearset. This then outputs directly to the differential. It eliminates virtually all the complicated, heavy and wear-prone transmission components. There is no clutch or gear-change mechanism (as in manuals), and no brake-band and torque-converter system (as in autos). It also replaces the alternator and starter-motor. In addition, the presence of a high-power electrical supply allows other simplifications, for example in the air-con and power steering. In some Lexus models, they’ve added four-wheel-drive, simply by adding another electric motor to the rear axle.
All this is reflected in the acknowledged durability, reliability and low service costs of these cars. (I’ve been servicing my Prius myself for years – it’s got 150000 miles on the clock and never given any trouble) Of course, this mechanical simplification is at the expense of more complicated software and electronics, but modern electronics can be made extremely reliable, and it’s a lot cheaper to fix faulty software than a faulty gearbox! Obviously, a pure electric design would be even simpler, and should be even more durable and reliable, but only when the range and charging problems have been sorted out.
I know there are some poor and over-complicated hybrids around, but I think this is mostly because Toyota have got such wide patent coverage on the simpler designs, so the other manufacturers have to either pay royalties, or devise complicated and unsatisfactory work-arounds.
I agree with Clive and stand by my point….the elephant in the room here is that all-electrics are going to have to become way superior (in all aspects including price, performance, economy, recharging/refueling convenience, etc.) not to petroleum-only cars, but to hybrids, which themselves are a moving target that improve each year.
We’re a bunch of technologists arguing purity of design and operation, but when it comes to the great mass of the general car-buying public, I think all-electrics have a looooong way to go before they’ll offer any kind of substantial advantage over what you can get from hybrids, which already currently allow a great portion of one’s motor-vation to occur thru electricity with very few of the obstacles that all-electrics will have to overcome.
To say that Parallel Hybrids such as the Prius are equivalent to a Series Hybrid like a Volt, is not a supportable argument. While I can handily smoke a Prius off the line in my Volt (but who expects to do that in an economy car anyway?) I can also NOT burn ANY gas at all while doing it.
When you add in the revolutionary leap in maintenance of a pure EV (Oil change? Spark gap? Timing belt? Alternator? Air filter? Transmission fluid?…) signified by the simple revelation that a EV will NEVER leave a oil puddle under the car… Old style hybrids will HAVE TO innovate just to stay desirable. The tipping point is near, people just haven’t been really exposed to it yet. Yet.
Lastly, since these are economy minded purchases – operating costs of EVs are so much lower than hybrid that primarily burns gas. Cheaper to run, lower TCO, more fun to drive… Get a Volt if you have a range anxiety problem. If anything, there needs to be more electric powertrain choices on the market. Every housewife I know that drove one, got one. Unless the still needed a minivan sized backseat for little league. 🙂
Cringley is opining on the very next phase, when the edge cases (economy cars, high end luxury) start folding in on the rest of the market. Cheap wins, and economy of scale and new tech are about to make EVs cheap.
It might be interesting to consider what might motivate the development of energy sources away from our addiction to oil. We’re not just facing technical issues but dealing with vested interests.
–
Recent events in Russia have highlighted how dependence on oil handcuffs Europe’s ability to impose sanctions. Along these same lines I came across an old posting from Scott Adams where he expoused on an ah-ha moment he had with regard to what motivation Israel might have to see solar power succeed: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2008/05/israel-defeats.html
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
Clarke’s first law
If your black swan were to happen I predict a second one: do you think world governments will sit back and take the (potentially huge) loss in fuel tax revenues? No! They will find something else to tax: Likely the cars themselves, because taxing the electricity supply to them would be …well … unworkable. And what does that do to demand for electric vehicles? I hate to say, but hydrocarbon fuels are with us for the forseeable future.
Re: replacing fuel taxes
Easy enough … tax miles driven. Lots of insurance companies already require yearly odometer readings in order to price their auto insurance policies. Some people will say we need GPS trackers to only tax driving on public roads, but that’s unnecessary – no tax is perfectly fair and for cases like farm vehicles the owners can file an exemption (like the one they use now to buy low-tax farm-only fuel with the dye in it).
[…] of new courses, doing my taxes and preparing for a class in Shanghai next week. But I just read this column by Bob Cringely and, well, last Friday I picked up this […]
My thought is that Battery Electric is good for 50~100 km/day, but impractical for long trips, so most people need two cars, which is NOT generally viable.
My idea is to have a small compact Battery Electric car (qv: Yaris, Swift, Mini) for city commuting (eg: 4 passengers without luggage, or two plus luggage), plus a tow ball to attach an optional Touring Trailer. The trailer adds petrol tank & engine for recharging & range extension, plus extra luggage space.
If EV cars can have a standard charging connection at the rear, the trailer could even be interchangeable between car models.
Different trailers could have just more Lithium cells, or Diesel, Petrol or LPG recharging engines, Fuel cells, PV solar panels, Stirling engines, Nuclear power cells, or whatever. By decoupling the primary power source from the main vehicle, independent advances are practical.
Remember – the IBM PC endured so well because it was so generic and modular – each part could be independently upgraded as new technology arrived.
Covering a broader range of user requirements and scaling to volume production should then allow the EV market to take off.
NB: Regarding the power grid being overloaded: Here in South Australia, PV Solar has taken off in a big way. 20% of homes now have a PV array. Power companies are now complaining that demand is declining (“the sky is falling”?). Just a few years ago, they were complaining that there wasn’t enough profit in the industry to fund the extra power stations which would be required for increasing energy demand. Along with the growth in Wind power, proposed Hot Salt Solar Concentrator power stations (allow storage), and the possibility of EV cars being used as battery back-up for a PV Solar & Wind sourced grid, a viable renewably powered future is within sight.
If only there were some way to temporarily obtain a vehicle suited to a specific need just for the period you need it. Say a big truck for moving house, or a large pickup to collect building supplies for that deck, or a large cruiser for that intercostal trip. We could call it ‘rental’ since it’s a bit like how people rent apartments.
Alternative power cars in some form will arrive eventually simply because gasoline will be long gone or so expensive as to be not practical anymore (what then the airlines?). But I am not sure a 100% electric car will ever really be feasible, mainly because and in spite of your assertions to the contrary, the energy density (energy per cubic inch of space the system occupies) is simply too low when compared to other fuels (even ethanol). Add in the recharge time and a pure electric car is just not practical for anything other than local travel.
I think that hybrids, even using alternative fuels, will be far more successful in the long run.
The only way I can see electric cars being usable as a sole vehicle is if there is an infrastructure in place to effectively remove the need for batteries. Something like inductive coils in the roads to transfer the power to the vehicle as needed. This assumes countries are prepared to dig up and repave all their roads (which we cannot even afford to repair now so not much chance of that is there?) and would still be of no use to anyone going off the beaten (or paved) path but at least you could tax per consumption which is one way to fund it.
But, just maybe, someone is about to come up with “Mr Fusion” (ala Back to the Future) and all our personal power problem will be solved. Hey, who knows, it cold just be around the corner. For now though I think I’ll keep my investments with the gasoline companies.
Being in the tech world you’re probably familiar with the adage, “Perfect is the enemy of good.” You probably know people who put off buying tech because they hear the next version will be better. They’re always a few generations behind and miss out on a lot of good stuff.
Tesla is out there doing it right now. Yes, battery technology will get better, but today it’s good enough. Good enough to allow cross country travel via their Supercharger network. Good enough for sports car acceleration. Good enough to win the highest ever safety rating. How much better does it have to be?
And it will only get better.
Kudos to Tesla for getting the ball rolling.
[…] An impending black swan for electric cars: I, Cringely […]
Bracing yourselves for the continuation of the ‘bashing one’s head against the thermodynamics wall’ will not make fossil fuels go away, nor electric power – for vehicles designed to transport humans and our ‘stuff’ in the regulatory environment we have allowed to be created – any more viable. Go ahead, spend billions. Ever wonder why 1500 watts is the most you can get out of a hairdryer, or an electric heater on household current? It’s nice to dream, though. Just don’t ask me to help fund your folly.
1500whairdryers are a result of internal wiring specifications and fusing, not the outer supply. Or where you under the impression that power stations put out 1500w and we all take turns?
I have a 400A service to my house and I live pretty much in the middle of nowhere. Just as well since my table saw pulls 4kW and needs a 2kW dust collector running at the same time.
Oh, I forgot; I pay about US$0.10 per kWH after taxes and fixed charges.
Musk is going to do the expensive heavy lifting of R&D to develop the technology, then GM, Ford, Honda, Toyota and the rest are going to swoop in and copy it and make less expensive versions. The big auto makers are already trying to shut Musk out of certain states. They probably want to drain him and then when he is about to go bankrupt, buy his technology. There will be electric cars with high capacity batteries, but they will be in other companies’ cars which will have built-in-obsolescence which will only last as long as their warranties before they start falling apart with costly repairs, just like their current gas powered cars.
When electric cars do start to noticeably cut into gas sales, the oil companies will just reduce their markups on gas to make gas “cheaper”.
By the way, gas is a lot less overpriced in other countries that are oil exporters. America is a oil exporter, but the prices here aren’t anywhere near these
$0.81….Kuwait……………………#59
$0.45….Saudi Arabia…………..#58
$0.06….Venezuela………………#60
https://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-02-13/highest-cheapest-gas-prices-by-country.html#slide62
There is no way the existing power grid can handle this additional load. These might be practicable in urban environments but no where else yet until the grid is ready. More utopian dreams shattered by reality. I will be happy to use “electric cars” some day. Let me know when the grid (and battery technology) is ready.
I’m a little late to this party but I would like to mention a few things about energy.
First, if we go electric, as in cars, then we probably will have to go nuclear, as in electricity generation. Alternative energy isn’t going to cut it (a blanket statement but looking at the stats for wind and solar…maybe garbage is a better choice?), fossil fuels are on the hit lists of almost everyone except those selling them, and the idea that we are going to become a nation of urban self-sufficient energy citizens is scifi. What else is there? The good news is that even some of the most hard-core environmentalists are looking to nuclear, done right, as a viable current and future source of power. They make a convincing argument, at least to me. YMMV.
Next, when does it really become economical to change? I’m not talking about it on a personal level where you look at your TCO of your next car, but rather as a whole system. What is the footprint of that $50k car to make, to keep, and then to recycle or discard? When is it better to create new stuff instead of reusing old stuff? Old cars can be fixed and at what point is it better to spend all the resources to make a new one in order to save on gas? Without a new clean, cheap energy source for transportation, when is it better to switch from the energy source that we have now? I know, there are a lot of facets to those questions that will probably preclude them from clear and decisive answers (but certainly not opinions!) but they still need to be asked.
Last, all things considered, what are our transportation needs going to be like in 10 years? Do we need to switch to electricity for personal transport? As we become more urbanized, and assuming that trend continues, is there a need to change what may become a declining use case? As mentioned by others, the actual use case for the average car is probably less than 70 miles or so a day. What happens if that is halved due to changes in lifestyle, work, and public transportation? Changes in my lifestyle and work have reduced my weekly car time to what I used to do in a day. It might make more sense, if we were to look at it from a larger scope, to work on making shipping and trucking more efficient rather than personal transport. One of the reasons I drive less is because others deliver more, to the local grocery, from their website to my doorstep, etc. If we were looking for increased efficiency in the system that might be a better place to invest.
All that said, I want a Tesla too but I am on the Elio list because better gas mileage and low entry cost make more sense to me, at least for now…
No, the moment will not arrive because of superior batteries. Batteries are heavy, expensive, short-lived, and convoluted. The Black Swan moment will arrive because of carbon-based ultra-capacitors that are lighter and capable of charging and discharging almost immediately. It’s coming. Capacitors are already replacing batteries in watches, cellphones, and other small items. Building them to scale is merely a matter of engineering and experience. That Tesla is considering investing billions in a lithium battery plant is scary it’s so stupid.
Dream on.
Super-capacitors are promising, but they’re still microscope-scale prototypes. We’re still working on ways to ways to scale those into usable sizes.
It’s the way this fundamental technology works. For another example, OLEDs are just now coming into small but super-expensive TVs, and they were the future of displays for how long? They’re becoming common enough in high-end cell phones and smart watches, but they’re far from replacing LCDs. So also, when super-capacitors become useful, I think we’ll see them gradually replace batteries in watches and phones first.
Tesla needs billions of watt-hours of batteries now, for cars they want to sell this year. They can’t wait for new technologies, new chemistries. All they can do is make sure their factory can be upgraded when better battery designs become available.
Bob, I sent you a text, phone, and Email with the solution. Please contact me. BTW, “Accidental Empires” is my favorite book!
I agree completely – except on the title… the Black Swan isn’t for electric cars… it’s for the automotive industry. Black Swans are typically unexpected and disruptions. And the only disruption to electric car industry with a large sudden surge of demand would be how to fill it.
But of course – your title sounds better.
The other problem is that while Tesla may be people’s favourite car… other electric cars may not be as enticing.
But I agree – something will happen. Sooner or later. But it will happen.
Will copper resources allow a sudden massive switch to electric cars?
You obviously haven’t heard about “superconducting wire” – no copper! Check out http://www.suptech.com
You’re all Luddites who can’t see past your noses. You forget 2 things.
1. Mass adoption of electric cars will be stymied for the foreseeable future by electrical generation capacity. Adding an electric car is like adding another house to the grid. If we see a 25% replacement of gasoline with electric, who is going to welcome in the additional generation capacity to fuel them? Electric cars are not zero emissions – all you do is transfer the emissions to a smokestack or spent fuel rod pool. No one wants a power plant in their neighborhood.
2. Read https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2013/05/08/driverless-cars-trillions-are-up-for-grabs/. The resulting impact of driverless cars will be utterly chilling in its ripple effect because very few of us will need to own a car. If we only need around 20% of the cars we need now, the electric car black swan will appear to be a knight on a white horse in comparison.
All this will happen. But it won’t be in this decade or maybe next.
“You’re all Luddites who can’t see past your noses.”
Ummmm. Nope. I don’t think you’ve really thought through what you’re saying.
We can produce grid power much more efficiently than internal combustion engines because it is much easier to optimize one big plant than millions of tiny engines.(economies of scale) Combined Cycle Natural Gas plants get efficiencies up to or above 60%. Internal combustion engines do around 20%. What this means is that we get more miles per dollar, or ton of CO2 from electric cars than gasoline. So no, not zero emissions. Just much lower emissions.
I run through the math further up in the thread.
Patrick, combined cycle gas is nice, unfortunately, that type of plant only composes a tiny fraction of the electric power supply. So unfortunately we are stuck with 35% plant efficiency…unless of course you propose replacing the entire power generation infrastructure? Hopefully you have a few trillion dollars handy to do so??
We’re talking about a future technology. Basing the calculations for adoption on near future power grid efficiencies instead of future efficiencies makes more sense. And combined cycle plants are being rapidly adopted. (due to the varioous benefits of natural gas)
Patrick, it is clear I am in a conversation with either a lunatic or a mental midget. Your “future technologies” will cost trillions of dollars to implement. Where, exactly, is that money coming from? The magic money tree in the sky? Last time I checked, it had been picked clean.
I live in the real world, the world where money doesn’t fall out of the sky. We have a gigantic infrastructure buit up around liquid fuels and internal combustion engines. Replacing that infrastructure will cost a HUGE amount of money– trillions and trillions of dollars. Now, on top of that, you want to also replace the entire power generation infrastructure as well– an infrastructure that represents another multi-trillion dollar investment??
Put down the crack pipe.
Have you ever considered it might be more efficient to leave the electric power generation infrastructure alone, and simply start converting natural gas to liquid fuels? At least that way we’d leverage the existing ICE vehicle infrastructure instead of replacing it.
We’re regularly expanding our power production capabilities by building new plants, and old plants are regularly replaced or refitted. More or less, it is just like automobiles. I don’t have to know where the money is coming from to know that in 30 years almost everyone will have replaced their 2014 automobiles with something newer.
Patrick, the efficiency of internal combustion auto engines ranges from 25 to 30%.
The modern power generation infrastructure AS IT IS CURRENTLY COMPOSED is around 35%.
That gives you only 5-10% eficiency margin to work with, which then gets rapidly degraded by transmission loss, battery costs, and other inefficiencies.
Again: THE MATH DOESN’T WORK.
The Laws of Thermodynamics are clear.
Internal combustion engines have a maximum *theoretical* efficiency of 35%, but they only get up to 20% under ideal cases. In practice, 15% is more realistic for internal combustion engines in use. But again, because we’re talking about a future technology, we should use near future estimates, and I don’t see any reason why internal combustion engines can’t get up closer 20% as people replace cars, thereby adopting better engines.
Source:
http://courses.washington.edu/me341/oct22v2.htm
Patrick– sorry, your figures are wrong.
“Modern gasoline engines have a maximum thermal efficiency of about 25% to 30% when used to power a car. In other words, even when the engine is operating at its point of maximum thermal efficiency, of the total heat energy released by the gasoline consumed, about 70-75% is rejected as heat without being turned into useful work, i.e. turning the crankshaft.[1] Approximately half of this rejected heat is carried away by the exhaust gases, and half passes through the cylinder walls or cylinder head into the engine cooling system, and is passed to the atmosphere via the cooling system radiator.[2] Some of the work generated is also lost as friction, noise, air turbulence, and work used to turn engine equipment and appliances such as water and oil pumps and the electrical generator, leaving only about 25-30% of the energy released by the fuel consumed available to move the vehicle.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency
Your source is saying the same thing as mine. 35% if you ignore friction and air resistance. 20% if you include them. 15% in practice.
Years ago, someone proposed an entirely different model for handling electric car batteries. Imagine today’s gas stations, but instead of pumping gas, they are equipped with battery-swapping stations. When you buy your electric car, you DON’T buy the battery – instead you buy a subscription to a swapping utility (lowering the upfront cost of the car). Electric cars would have a standard interface for an easily removable standard battery. You pull in, wait 5 minutes while they replace your battery with a fresh one, and drive off.
It’s far too late to implement that model now, but it makes a nice ‘might-have-been’, eh?
An Israeli company tried to do this in Israel. It didn’t really work, they went out of business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place
Tesla pretended to build one to get $100 million in extra credits from the sate of California.
Battery swap? Tesla seem to have thought of that too; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V0vL3nnHY
Is it really practical as a day to day thing? No idea. But I do think Tesla did better than TopGear – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSNCs7bwCw and the aerodynamics are clearly much better – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmYC9zBseSw
Pb,, NiCad. Li .. Next technology is the “Black Swan!
We could cut auto oil usage here by 30% or more, quickly and easily, if the law simply allowed it.
.
Legendary, renowned F1 racing designer Gordon Murray’s T-25 city car gets 95 MPG, and he says it can be built and sold for about $12,000. It’s already passed European crash tests.
.
https://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/previous/t25.php
.
He has a diesel version and an electric version (the T-27), also.
.
He uses F-1 technology to make it lightweight and safe, and has re-invented the auto factory to be 80% smaller, too. He’s just struck a deal with Yamaha – they are going to build cars using this tech.
.
https://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/21/gordon-murray-yamaha-motive-city-car-tokyo-2013/
.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/02/20140221-zytek.html
.
I’d be happy with the diesel version, which Murray says gets 131 MPG.
Wouldn’t be any range worries there, would there?
.
And the battery breakthroughs coming up would be wonderful, and accepted in due course.
.
The only thing keeping us from driving these cars right now, is politics.
.
Why can’t we simply place our order with Amazon, and have one delivered to our door?
The IBM book soon?
I’m on the final chapter today. It will be in all about 40,000 words.
Electric cars have had the same weakness for over 100 years. Instead we have the government giving out rebates to lower the price for rich people to buy electric cars.
I predict a natural gas/electric hybrid – keep on “frackin”!!!!
[…] Robert X. Cringely predicts “we’re about two years away from a total disruption of the automobile business by electric cars.” […]
No Comment, just this:
https://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1090998_fake-tesla-ad-is-better-than-most-car-ads-weve-seen-even-elon-musk-loves-it
I love your blog, Bob.
Seems to me that the trump card for Tesla would be to make their car more modular. Why are we throwing away the house every time we need a new furnace?
If you could replace just the battery in 5 years, or the electric motor were more easily replaceable and/or upgradeable (being an electric motor, maybe it is?), suddenly gas isn’t the only long term cost savings argument (especially because the numbers don’t add up when you only consider gas savings). Suddenly, people are getting basically a new car every 5-10 years for a $2000 replacement here and a $5000 upgrade there. And they are completely locked in as a Tesla customer for 10, 20 years. Maybe for a lifetime. Beat that, GM.
It’s my understanding that Tesla’s new SuperCharger stations offer two choices: 1) a free high-power recharge taking less than an hour or; 2) an $85 battery swap that’s supposed to take two minutes. Provided the swapped batteries aren’t themselves too old or had too many cycles (how can you tell?) this would seem to give exactly what you ask for at an incredible price as your Tesla ages. Battery immortality!
Is there evidence of the SuperChargers in action. It looks like they cheated the state of California out of $100 million with fake stations. See wattsupwiththat.com
Was thinking about a Model S until I saw the Model X on Tesla Web site- wow!
Gull winged sleek SUV that can seat 7 adults and has plenty rear storage yet does’t look big.
Too bad its more than a year away.
Tesla definitely for those with disposable income but it will filter down.
Price on par with other high-end gas comparable vehicles (Porsche, Audi, Mercedes, BMW 7 series) with
very generous federal/ state rebates-credits ($15K in some states).
From what I’ve read the largest client base for Model S is previous Prius and other “lower end” but affluent electric/hybrid brand owners.
Recharging interesting: Economics based on estimated cost of 11c per KwHr.
We are getting hosed by PG&E here in southern cal by the “Tiered” system.
You get a couple hundred KwHr per month at lower priced tier.
Rate jumps to 34 c /KwH after about 500KwH.
NO- I will not put Solar City or any other solar panels on my Mediterranean Clay tiles- just not happening.
Better off popping about 10K for 15-20KwH Kohler “back-up” generator fired by natural gas (cheap cheap).
I live about 5 miles from Hawthorne Municiple Airport, production site for Space X and location of a free SuperCharging Station (free for vehicle with 85 KwH battery) primarily in West Coast and East Coast corridors.
Don’t think I can make it easily up the inland Central Valley from LA to Sacramento/ Folsom (~ 400 miles);
However, LA to Santa Cruz up the I5 and 101 (~400 miles) doable.
Somehow SuperCharging stations sprout up better on more scenic routes.
300 mile range would be tipping point for me and likely a lot of other folks.
Tesla web site lists current and projected charging stations over next several years- very ambitious.
Here are two figures:
energy density of LiPo batteries: 1.08 MJ/l
energy density of petroleum: 34.8 MJ/l
Now this isn’t as bad as it seems since ICE engines are typically only 20% efficient whereas electric motors are around 90%. This gives us the “BHP” version, i.e. energy reaching the wheels:
LiPo: 0.972 MJ/l
gas: 6.96
So to produce a family car with the same range, performance and carrying capacity as a modern ICE-powered vehicle, we need a 600% improvement in battery energy density. That black swan just ain’t gonna fly, Bob.
“Here are two figures:
energy density of LiPo batteries: 1.08 MJ/l
energy density of petroleum: 34.8 MJ/l
Now this isn’t as bad as it seems since ICE engines are typically only 20% efficient whereas electric motors are around 90%. This gives us the “BHP” version, i.e. energy reaching the wheels:
LiPo: 0.972 MJ/l
gas: 6.96
So to produce a family car with the same range, performance and carrying capacity as a modern ICE-powered vehicle, we need a 600% improvement in battery energy density. That black swan just ain’t gonna fly, Bob.”
The Tesla is certainly a match for the family car in performance and carrying capacity. A real world Tesla range might be what, 150 miles, to be safe? Say it is 150 miles. In comparison, the 3 series BMW I drive might have a range of 16 gallons X 23 mpg = 368 miles. Looked at it that way implies the Tesla is close to halfway to the capacity of the BMW. But in the real world I never look at range and hardly any one driving a conventional vehicle will. Why? Because there are multitudes of places to gas up, unless you are driving through the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night.
But continued incremental improvements in range (not even necessarily in the realm of 2X) coupled with a continuing increase in the concentration of charging sites would combine to give all the drivability required by most people, most of the time.
As an engineer, I think it’s very valuable to start the discussion by considering energy density and energy efficiency. It made me wonder how a factor of 7:1 in favor of ICE was not good enough to rule out EV entirely. Then I realized that the cube root of 8 is 2. So all you need is to be willing to halve or double three things to justify an EV over an ICE. For example, double the space devoted to batteries, be willing to live with half the horse power, and be willing to charge up twice as often. And that doesn’t even consider what politics can do to the cost of energy. Government regulators can easily subsidize the cost of electricity at a charging station while raising the taxes on gasoline to the point where the consumer will feel he has no choice but to switch to EV. Government can’t change the laws of thermodynamics, but it’s quite capable of violating common sense.
I don’t think batteries will ever be able to store enough energy to deliver the performance and range of ICE powered cars. The solution is to electrify the roads. Power grids can be built into roadways. The car would extract power from the roadway via induction, no actual electrical contact would be required…..that Tesla guy was really kind of smart. Of course it would not be possible to electrify every roadway. The driver would start off from home using battery power. Battery power would be utilized on tertiary and secondary roads. Once on the main road(electrified) the car would automatically switch to induction power. The induction power source would not only be used to drive the car, but would simultaneously charge the car’s battery, so that when the car left the primary road, it would have a fully charged battery with which to operate on non-electrified secondary roads.
I own a Chevy Volt and it’s the best car I have ever driven when in electric mode. I love the car.
Cringely suggested outsourcing was responsible for the Target breach, coincidentally in line with his views. But it may be that it was Malaysian Airlines brought down by lithium batteries.
Sorry, can’t agree.
I’ve worked in the auto industry as an electrical engineer for over 30 years. I’ve built and raced stock cars and my dad was a mechanic so I’ve also been around cars and driven lots of them for many years too.
What you describe sounds interesting but the cost per watt of a battery with enough range for an elecric car just hasn’t been cracked to an affordable level and won’t anytime soon. And even though there are lots of people trying, a lot of companies have gone out of business trying.
And if by some miracle it happens, the power that exists in the automotive industry will crush it (they did get multiple bailouts from the government). They are no less as powerful as Wall Street (who’s also been bailed out from the government multiple times).
Technologically speaking, the electric car can be made as Tesla has proven but just not affordable.
Driving is boring! I want to fly. So how’s the electric airplane project coming along, Bob?
A hundred years ago Thomas Edison designed an electric car. Then he realized existing batteries weren’t suitable, and went off into battery design, fooling with that off and on for the rest of his life.
For the last 40 years I’ve been reading about Great New Battery Tech Real Soon Now.
Somewhere, Edison is laughing.
Bob, you are absolutely right — the black swan will eventually appear and the whole industry will change quickly. Telsa might be it.
The way to solve the energy density problem is to eschew chemical battery technology entirely: Superconducting batteries have energy densities a millionfold higher than chemical technology. Alas, materials science hasn’t given us a superconductor that can be used at any reasonable temperature, so this type of technology is probably decades off.
Think of it, though! Electric cars that never need to be recharged and can drive for 1,000,000 miles. Home electric power without wires (just haul a new battery in every 10-25 years). Electric aircraft that can stay aloft for weeks or months.
Of course, we’ll still be drilling for petroleum — it’s too damn useful for other things besides energy.
No need to keep drilling for oil in the long term – with cheap enough energy (say orbital solar etc) we can make oil from air. All you need is carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, all available from the air (yes, the H would come from water vapour) and energy.
You are missing line HUGE problem. The best place for electric cars: city driving, think New York City where millions drive and 95% of them would be satisfied with the current range.
Unfortunately, homes with garages don’t exist — everyone either parks on the street or in public/private parking garages which all have one thing in common: no place to plug in the car to recharge.
Until that problem gets solved (I’m all ears for suggestions), the electric car is DOA.
Wanna buy a hydro-electric generator for your fire hydrant? How about a trash-can-lid generator that burns garbage to produce electricity? Or perhaps a series of long extension cords with cigarette lighter plugs located strategically along the L.I.E., allowing drivers to charge while parked there? 🙂
Almost all of the highly intelligent comments above will be radically altered by the FACT that the new super-efficient black swan electric motor is ALREADY IN PRODUCTION. It DOUBLES THE EFFICIENCY OF CURRENT ELECTRIC MOTORS, and cuts the cost in half. Tesla, chevy volt, everyone will be forced to use it to compete economically. The battery thing is all icing on the cake – if and when it happens, fine. But the disruptive technological breakthrough HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. SEE https://www.kldenergy.com – this is not hot air, all verified by EPA tests on mileage. This motor, put into a hybrid, can go 1000 miles on a gallon of gas. The gas is a reversed KLD motor that re-charges the main motor. There are private placements available, if you enquire. Now is the time to invest in the Black Swan.
@Michael=KDL Electric, Re “DOUBLES THE EFFICIENCY OF CURRENT ELECTRIC MOTORS”. Most of the previous comments assume electric motor efficiency is already at 90%. In order to “double” the efficiency of anything it would currently have to be well under 50% to start with. What is the miles per kwh rating of the finished vehicle?
[…] and the thousands of pundits seizing on the marquee examples (newspapers dying! music unleashed! pointless gas stations!) to keep it […]