Institute of Mechanical Engineers: Electric cars aren't enough (w/POLL)
According to a recent survey from the Royal Automobile Club Foundation in the UK, there will be lots of people who want to buy electric vehicles but are going to get frustrated by the long delay in getting EVs ready for mass consumption. That's a problem, but the Institute of Mechanical Engineers seems to think the solution is obvious: invest in multiple green technologies, including hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen and fully electric cars in addition to the continued advancement of gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines. According to Richard Folkson, Chairman of IME's Automotive Division:
We are telling the government to set the targets but to leave the engineers to figure out how it can be done - and electric cars alone will not be the answer.Even among those who believe that we need to reduce the carbon emissions from our automobiles, picking the best technology to do so hasn't been quite so easy to agree upon. Have an opinion on the subject? Click past the break to take part in our poll.
[Source: Channel 4]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mark 10:25AM (5/29/2009)
I don't agree with putting all your eggs in one basket, but EVs are the way to go. I think bio-fuel would be a good second. I think the future should be diesel + EV, but the diesel being bio-diesel.
Reply
Dave 11:12AM (5/29/2009)
Think about it -
How much copper is in a 50+ hp motor and controller and charger and battery cables?
Now multiply that by a billion cars worldwide.
Not gonna happen any time soon.
How much lithium is in a 16kwh battery pack?
Now multiply that by a billion cars worldwide.
Not gonna happen any time soon.
Oil isnt the only thing in finite supply.
giyad 11:14AM (5/29/2009)
I agree about the eggs in one basket thing to an extent. I mean if the clear winner is EV's, but the technology just isn't there yet, then what we need is a buffer fuel. I personally hate the idea of bio-fuels (unless its made from waste), but honestly hydrogen is a good alternative, and I personally think its the best buffer.
Sure its still not ready either, but I think it will be ready before EV's are ready to go 300miles on a 5-10 minute charge. I'm sure someone here is gonna tell me I'm wrong and that with fast charging we can do that already, but there are some other factors that bug me with EV's, like the strain on the power grid, and how to pay for charging without an infrastructure that will account for this (i know hydrogen infrastructure isn't available either yet). Call me an idealist... or call me stupid haha
anon 12:56PM (5/29/2009)
what about recycling copper and lithium... i am pretty sure it can be done.
Ernie 4:04PM (5/29/2009)
"I don't agree with putting all your eggs in one basket"
That's our *current* problem. We have all our eggs in the petroleum basket. It's going to fall off the table, and soon. Even the very most wildly optimistic predictions place that event within my lifetime, and I'm 34. My son *might* get to know what the "good ol' days" of gasoline were like before he turns 21, but there's a better chance that he will never even remember them.
If electric cars are 8 years away, you'd better make sure you're living close enough to work to commute by bike right now.
Chris M 5:01PM (5/29/2009)
Think about it -
How much copper in the wiring of a standard house?
Now multiply that by billions.
ot gonna happen any time soon? Don't be silly.
There is a lot more copper and lithium on this world than you realize, Dave.
Also, there are other metals that can be used to conduct electricity, and to make batteries with.
Tim 10:45AM (5/29/2009)
"We are telling the government to set the targets but to leave the engineers to figure out how it can be done - and electric cars alone will not be the answer."
Politicians LOVE the power and they NEED to be seen as doing something, even the wrong thing to attract voters and campaign capital.
The Engineers are right in that only free competition can produce the best results, but politicians and "special interest" groups seeking taxpayer funds won't leave it up to the free market. It all always boils down to two things....
MONEY & POWER (control over other people's lives)!
Reply
ziv 7:13PM (5/29/2009)
I hit the all of the above response, but I don't think Hydrogen should get a lot of funding in the short term because it is going to be so long before it is commercially viable.
The one, main, thing that the governments can do that is going to push this development along is to buy any vehicle that has a low carbon foot print for their own fleets. Whether it is the post office buying hybrid delivery trucks and in some cases BEV delivery vehicles, or the military buying hybrids and BEV's for on base use, there are hundreds of thousands of federal and state vehicles purchased every year. As the economies of scale kick in, the prices will come down and the federal and state tax incentives will be able to be slowly phased out as the economic benefits of the Volt/Prius/IMiev/Miles cars begin to outway the initial outlay.
But the IME's point is well taken, the government would have a very hard time choosing the correct area to focus money on. Only time will tell what will be the best product. I think the ER-EV's will be the best choice from 2011 on until probably around 2020, when BEV's will have battery packs that are robust, light, powerful and able to have a 200+ mile range, and recharge to 75% or so of capacity in less than 15 minutes without degrading the longterm lifecycle of the battery pack.
Reply
Dan 10:48AM (5/29/2009)
EV & PHEV's are the only way to go at least for the average person.
For the contractor (Pickup Trucks)... Turbo-BioDiesel PHEV
For Airplanes... Bio-Diesel
Hydrogen isnt good for much... STILL MADE WITH OIL! Too Expensive (People think electric is expensive wait till they see the bill for hydrogen both car and fuel). 10 to 20 years before they can be available. etc.etc.
Hybrids were good for the past couple years but not enough for the coming years.
EV's & PHEV are the only choice for real change. The others are just a step above the status quo.
Reply
Dave 11:16AM (5/29/2009)
Hydrogen doesn't have to be made with oil.
It can be made during off peak hours using wind, nuclear, oceanic, and hydroelectric power.
Unfortunately, fuel cells are still made with expensive, rare minerals, and they probably will foul when used in less than perfect conditions.
polo 12:51AM (5/30/2009)
"It can be made during off peak hours using wind, nuclear, oceanic, and hydroelectric power."
Yep. Unfortunately extracting hydrogen for fuel is about as third as efficient as a plain ol' EV, so you'll be using 3x's the power to fuel one hydrogen car. Not to mention hydrogen cars cost as much as a very good supercar.
lne937s 11:12AM (5/29/2009)
I wonder what the results would be if you gave the poll to the "Institute of Electrical Engineers" (I made that name up, but I'm sure there is a similar organization).
I have a feeling that the jobs of many of these people are related to the mechanical systems involved with the other technologies...
In terms of private spending, hybrids are the best choice available. In terms of investing in R&D, electric would have the most benefit.
Reply
Carney 11:18AM (5/29/2009)
"invest in multiple green technologies, including hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen and fully electric cars in addition to the continued advancement of gasoline and diesel internal combustion engines."
Conspicuous by its absence here is alcohol fuel such as methanol and ethanol, despite its being renewable, water soluble, biodegradable, non-carcinogenic, non-mutagenic, and emitting no smog-producing smoke, soot, or particulate matter when burned.
And yet they tout not only the Hydrogen Hoax
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
but even more petroleum fuel cars?
Reply
Dave 11:40AM (5/29/2009)
Ethanol has already replaced ~10% of gasoline in most pumps I've seen. No?
Carney 4:07PM (5/29/2009)
Correct, Dave, and that has had a limited beneficial effect (holding down the price of oil a bit from what it would have been otherwise during the high prices we saw the last few years).
But as we saw, it wasn't enough to make a big enough difference - OPEC was still able to loot the productive and humane portions of the world for trillions, eventually collapsing the economy with the equivalent of a crushing tax increase.
We need to be using, not E10 or E15, but E85 and M85 as our normal, routine vehicle fuels. But high-alcohol blends can only be used in flex-fuel vehicles, which are about 3% of the market. If we mandated that all new cars sold in America were fully flex-fueled vehicles (only a $130 expense for automakers), that portion would skyrocket and E85 and M85 pumps would become commonplace.
brett 10:08PM (6/06/2009)
There are so many statements with-in this post that are just plain wrong that I wont even try to correct them
meme 12:08PM (5/29/2009)
"How much copper is in a 50+ hp motor and controller and charger and battery cables?"
1. Hybrids and FCVs need wiring for electric motors, too, not just EVs.
2. You can also use aluminum alloy wiring in motors and other EV wiring. It means a somewhat bigger motor for the same power output, but it's absolutely doable. Up until powertrain 1.5, even Tesla was using an aluminum alloy in the motor windings -- and that's a high-performance, high-end sports car. Note that you shouldn't confuse this with home aluminum wiring from the 70s, which was generally pure or near pure aluminum, not alloys, and crimped, not welded (it's mainly the crimped connections that caused the problems). And it was often installed wrong to boot because people didn't know the differences between how you should install copper versus aluminum wiring.
3. I hate to be the bearer of good news, as I know it's very unpopular among people like you, but natural resources don't work that way. Reserves figures are for the amount of *know*n resource producable *at a given price* and *with current technology* -- not how much is out there, or even the tiniest fraction of what is out there. When either of those things in asterisks change, the size of reserves changes -- and not linearly, either. With either a price rise or a tech advance, the size of available reserves increases geometrically -- and thanks to that scaling factor, tech advances tend to outpace consumption. And, as prices rise, so does exploration, although that's a more minor factor -- but often plays a huge role (random example -- the recent discovery of millions more tons of copper at Bingham Canyon, which was thought to be mined out). Hence, the long term price trends of most metals is downwards. For more detail, see the Simon-Ehrlich Wager.
4. Even if that *wasn't* the case, the amount of copper you're talking about is not a problem. Even if we produced 5 billion electric cars, each consuming 50 pounds of copper, that'd be 125 million tons of copper. According to the USGS's 2005 survey, *current* known copper reserves are 470 million tons.
"How much lithium is in a 16kwh battery pack?"
15-30 kilograms lithium carbonate equivalent. Lithium carbonate ranges from $5-8 per kilogram when produced from brines, and $22-32/kg from seawater (where it's available in essentially limitless quantities). $5/kg * 15kg = $75 of that ~$7,500 pack. $32/kg * 30kg = $960 of that $7,500 pack. Either way, it's not a problem in the slightest.
Reply
Dave 12:26PM (5/29/2009)
1. The small motor in a hybrid takes far less copper than the large one in an EV. Yes, a FCV requires just as much copper - so what? I'm not advocating FCVs over BEVs - neither is ready to completely replace the ICE yet.
2. Aluminum is also a finite resource.
3 and 4. I didnt say copper and lithium did not exist in the earth. I said "not happening any time soon." It takes time and energy to mine and refine ores. It will be many years before the raw materials are available to manufacture enough EVs to displace ICEs.
EVs (or FCVs if there are some breakthoughs) will take at least 20 years to become a majority. In the meantime, hybrids and improved ICEs are the best we got and we are stuck putting R&D into them whether you like it or not.
meme 1:28PM (5/29/2009)
"2. Aluminum is also a finite resource."
You do realize that aluminum is the third most abundant element in the Earth's crust, making up 8.3% of the crust by mass, right? The most common minerals on Earth -- feldspars -- are aluminosilicates. It's cheaper to produce it from bauxite, which is plentiful, so we mine that, but we will *never* run out of aluminum. Most of the costs of aluminum production are electricity, not mineral, just like most of the costs of li-ion battery production are not from the lithium.
Ernie 3:56PM (5/29/2009)
I would like to thank Meme for this insightful post in a sea of misinformed blathering.