Latest Oil, Gas and INvestor news; Oil Price.com
Crude Oil Graph Heating Oil Graph Natural Graph Gold Graph
      Home Alternative Energy Renewable Energy Batteries Are the Shocking Truth about E...

Batteries Are the Shocking Truth about Electric Cars

PDF Print E-mail
Written by Llewellyn King   
Monday, 19 July 2010 17:09

Can white elephants come in green?

President Barack Obama flew to Holland, Mich., on Thursday to attend groundbreaking ceremonies for a new lithium-ion battery plant, which the White House advertised as an example of federal stimulus grants at work and a gateway to a clean-energy future.

Great stuff — if you don’t look too hard.

Indeed, the Holland plant, effusively hailed by Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm as creating 300 jobs, and 62,000 “green” jobs down the road, will produce batteries in America.

But Compact Power Inc., which received $151 million from a federal stimulus program to open the $303 million plant, isn’t American and neither is its technology: It’s a subsidiary of the giant South Korean conglomerate LG Chem, and its technology is Asian.

Also that age-old bugaboo for electric cars — range and battery life — is still a work in progress. General Motors says its Chevy Volt will go up to 40 miles on a single charge and will have a range-extending, gasoline-assist feature. Nissan’s fully electric car, the Leaf, will have a 100-mile range. Ditto Ford’s electric Focus. Much depends on driving conditions.

Lithium-ion batteries are way ahead of traditional lead-acid batteries in power and weight, but they aren’t perfect. As yet, the best battery is far from being a competitor for a tank of gasoline.

There’s a back story here. The most obvious narrative is the need to create jobs in Michigan, and the hope is that electric vehicles will bolster car production there.

More obscure is the administration’s belief that a brave, new clean-energy America can produce jobs and reduce the output of greenhouse gases. In Obamaland, windmills will turn silently through the night, while millions of fully electric cars get their batteries topped up in driveways and garages.

A green and pleasant land is just a few million batteries away and, by Jove, the Department of Energy is on the job. It has $2.4 million to spend on electric car infrastructure. The department is helping to bring on nine battery plants, including the one in Holland. It’s also promoting charging stations.

FREE Breaking Investment & Geopolitical Intelligence - Previously only available to Governments, Intelligence Agencies & selected Hedge Funds. Click here for more information on our Free Weekly Intelligence Report

Some small facts: These batteries are still so expensive (about $16,000 apiece) that any fully electric car, or near so, requires subsidies down the line to get the price down to where ordinary people will buy them in quantity. The only fully electric vehicle on the market today, the Tesla, is a sports car that costs over $100,000 and is aimed at the well-heeled greens of Hollywood.

While official retail prices for the Ford, Nissan and GM models haven’t been announced, estimates are in the range of $30,000 to $35,000. Federal tax credits are likely to trim several thousand dollars for many buyers.

Batteries have stood in the way of electric cars for more than a century. In the early days of motoring, electric cars covered short distances and held promise. But while internal combustion engines revved ahead, batteries languished.

But the dream of an electric car never died, though the batteries frequently did. In the 1970s, the U.S. government spent lavishly on battery research, including lithium and aluminum air batteries. There are dozens of ways to make batteries, but all have their disadvantages: weight, disposability, life, rate of discharge and market indifference.

If you want everything you get today on a car — electric windows, air conditioning, electric seats, multiple lights, highly variable loads and easy refueling and, maybe, towing capacity — you need a hell of a battery

We have, so to speak, been shocked by presidential energy enthusiasm before. Jimmy Carter believed in liquids from coal and launched the ill-fated Synthetic Fuels Corp., and George W. Bush went hog wild over ethanol — and those expectations are being trimmed daily.

I’ll buy a hybrid and wait, if it’s OK with Obama.

By. Llewellyn King for OilPrice.com

 

Comments  

 
+5 #1 Ron 2010-07-19 22:31
Why even bother with a hybrid? Buy a cheap used low emission vehicle and with the money you save, you can use those dollars to make much more rational decisions about how to save energy - like replacing your old appliances and insulate your home. Buying a hybrid is a terrible waste of money (and energy) - buying an EV is even worse...
Quote
 
 
+1 #2 Political Athiest 2010-07-21 01:11
Never mind that still ~50% of our electricity is generated by coal any way. Its all a shell game to fool yuppies who want to feel Prius. I mean pious. Oh, and the 20% unemployment rate in Spain, the leader of the "green economy"? It eliminated 2.3 regular jobs for every green job. Good luck with that Detroit.
Quote
 
 
0 #3 joe 2010-07-21 04:20
Obamaland is indeed a fantasy place. "Green" jobs will increase in China for all the same reasons that much car and heavy industry have moved offshore. Nothing will be solved by increasing the use of electricity. Besides, why not sell European diesels here? They are 2 times as efficient as the cars we already have here. Leave the $100,000 electric cars for the rich hollywood types who like to waste money in order to be noticed.
Quote
 
 
0 #4 Toeser 2010-07-21 14:23
Just ask Spain how well it works to go green ahead of rational economics and sufficient technology. The country went broke promoting ultra-high-cost green energy. I wish Obama would go back to Acorn and let the private market work. Seriously, do you want the sky full of bird killing windmills? The one energy source that could really use Obama's help is nuclear. We should be building plants - using newer and better technology - as fast as we can.
Quote
 
 
0 #5 Walt D 2010-07-21 16:33
There's one more problem nobody seems to be considering with regard to electric cars being the green answer to transportation. They have to be plugged-in and charged up, right? Let's see, it takes three units of carbon-based energy to produce one electric unit of energy; a three to one ratio. That means we're going to have to burn up one hell of a lot of fossil fuels in order to power-up our supposedly eco-friendly cars.
Quote
 
 
+1 #6 baldeagle 2010-07-21 17:00
In Europe right now about half of the cars sold are diesels. Higher adiabatic efficiency and higher BTU content per gallon yield 20-30% better fuel mileage than gas powered identical models. With low sulfur diesel about 15% higher than gasoline there are savings available and infrastructure is already in place. We could also use Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) for fuel. Its BTU per gallon content is about 20% lower than gasoline but it is currently less than half the price of gasoline. In the USA natural gas is very abundant and getting more so rapidly. Natural Gas distribution is already ubiquitous and only needs compressing to become LNG. LNG burns much cleaner than gas. Light trucks that have been converted to LNG often run a million miles before overhaul. Could I stand the same car for a million miles?
Quote
 
 
0 #7 Richard Garrett 2010-08-10 22:20
I rode in a 1910 or 1915 Detroit Electric in Houston, Texas in the 1950s.
Drive from the left rear with a tiller. Cut glass bud vases and all. It rode great and had about 25 mile range. It was kept two blocks north of The Rice University.
Quote
 
 
0 #8 Richard Garrett 2010-08-10 22:22
Quoting baldeagle:
In Europe right now about half of the cars sold are diesels. Higher adiabatic efficiency and higher BTU content per gallon yield 20-30% better fuel mileage than gas powered identical models. With low sulfur diesel about 15% higher than gasoline there are savings available and infrastructure is already in place. We could also use Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) for fuel. Its BTU per gallon content is about 20% lower than gasoline but it is currently less than half the price of gasoline. In the USA natural gas is very abundant and getting more so rapidly. Natural Gas distribution is already ubiquitous and only needs compressing to become LNG. LNG burns much cleaner than gas. Light trucks that have been converted to LNG often run a million miles before overhaul. Could I stand the same car for a million miles?

Don't say gas when you mean gasoline.
Quote
 
 
0 #9 T. Caine 2010-08-23 18:10
Just because the industry is in its infant stages of development doesn't mean that beginning the process of fleshing out its existence in the US is a waste of money or time.

Yes, the Tesla is a very expensive car that is only available to the smallest percentage of Americans. So what? The Tesla provided a way for R&D work to be financed and sold to consumers who were willing to pay a premium for something new and rare. The Tesla is really just another thing that most Americans don't need, which is exactly what we love to buy.

Maybe our cars don't need all the frills that we have today? Maybe working towards a more efficient electric cars will give us an excuse to shave unneeded poundage? The people who will buy these first electric cars, and people will buy them, don't expect or need them to compete with a gas powered vehicle. Just like the people who buy a Prius don't do it to save money. These people believe in the goal and respond accordingly.
Quote
 
 
0 #10 FrankT 2010-08-31 19:24
Has anyone actually bothered calculating the average daily BTU of solar energy that actually falls onto the land surface of say the continental US? It's all FREE ENERGY! I still think that solar/electric is the long term solution to our energy needs. It's the collection/storage/distribution aspect of this energy that we have to greatly improve upon. AND WE WILL. Just imagine how futuristic the WIFI technology I'm sending this post on would have seemed just 25 years ago! Expensive, short range, battery powered electric vehicles are NOT the answer, at least not for now! Oil will probably lose out to CNG in the next 10 years, followed eventually by advanced solar powered vehicles. Plenty of time for all the oil industry to adapt to new technologies.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh


 

Follow us on Twitter

Watch Financial Video News

Latest Comments
  • I had heard that Petronas had a disagreement and was packing up to leave Ethiopia. Is this true or a...
    More...
    By abinet2

  • That was good despite of financial constraints still the defensive side are keep on doing upgrading....
    More...
    By Stephen SS

  • When I began to teach energy economics, which was a long time ago, I knew about thorium. And it was ...
    More...
    By Fred Banks

  • Time to start learning Mandarin..
    More...
    By Sharky

  • I think the author of this article presented the fact and the consequence of the future in new wealt...
    More...
    By Getachew

Advertise on Oil Price.com
Oil Price.com
No. 1 Oil Resource Site
More About Us Energy Metals Alternative Energy Site Info
About Us Oil Prices Gold Nuclear Power Terms and Conditions
Site News Crude Oil Silver Solar Energy Disclaimer
Sitemap Natural Gas Prices Commodities Hydroelectric Privacy Policy
Advertise with us Heating Oil Platinum Renewable Energy RSS Feeds
© 2010 OilPrice.com
The materials provided on this Web site are for informational and educational purposes only and are not intended to provide tax, legal, or investment advice. Nothing contained on the Web site shall be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or offer to buy or sell a security to any person in any jurisdiction.