How Improved Batteries Will Make Electric Vehicles Competitive (in a decade maybe?)
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506881/how-improved-batteries-will-make-electric-vehicles-competitive/[font size=4] It will likely take a decade, but improvements to lithium-ion batteries could lead to much cheaper EVs.[/font]
By Kevin Bullis on November 9, 2012
[font size=3]There are plenty of reasons why electric cars aren’t catching on, but one problem is certain: the batteries cost far too much.
For electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids to compete with gas-powered cars, battery prices need to drop by between 50 and 80 percent, according to recent estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy. Getting there might require inventing entirely new kinds of batteries, but there’s also a strong case that improvements to the lithium-ion batteries that power the current generation of electric vehicles may be enough.
The United States could have the capacity by 2015 to produce enough battery packs for 500,000 cars. But this year, due to high prices, plug-in vehicle sales won’t even reach a tenth of that in the United States. As a result, advanced battery makers in the United States have struggled. A123 Systems went bankrupt. Dow said its battery joint venture Dow Kokam had dropped markedly. And an LG Chem factory meant to supply batteries for the Chevrolet Volt has been built, but the factory is sitting idle, waiting for demand to pick up.
Electric vehicles cost less to operate than gas-powered ones, but that economic advantage largely disappears in the face of expensive batteries. The battery pack for the Chevrolet Volt costs about $8,000. The larger battery in the Nissan Leaf costs about $12,000.
…[/font][/font]
= new reply since forum marked as read
Look for the more comprehensive reporting on the same story.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/20121113aaa_thanksgiving_travel_should_increase_slightly/srvc=home&position=recent
Note that the 706 average for last year was itself down from over 800 miles the year before.
According to this article a 300-mile battery pack will be "as low as" $38K two years from now. There's no reason to assume it couldn't drop below $20K in 5-10 years.
Which means that the imaginary 600-mile pack would cost closer to $40-50k. Note that this does not include the rest of the car.
A 600-mile pack won't be necessary for cars because adoption of parallel ports will allow a 300-mile pack, on a Level 3 system, to be completely charged in under an hour using today's technology.
And you keep missing the argument that stopping for over an hour every 250 miles or so is a concern. (And heaven help the parents driving the kids to Thanksgiving dinner at grandma's if the line for those chargers is a couple cars deep). And it isn't as if you can actually drive 300 miles and then charge up. Most of us start looking for a gas station with 40-50 miles of gas left in the tank... and regardless of the future build-out of charging options, it will be decades before gas stations are harder to find than charging locations. I doubt that most EV drivers will be comfortable going more than 200 miles before they start focusing on where they will recharge. I'd bet there will have to be a reservation system at truck stops so that you know there's a level 3 system available when you get there.
Note - I'm not knocking EVs in general. I drove a hybrid for almost a decade and would happily buy one of these if the price were more reasonable (as one car is purely for commuting and short trips). I'm just saying that cost isn't the only challenge EVs present.
or we wouldn't be arguing about something so inconsequential. 
Map of Metropolitan Statistical Area:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metropolitan_and_Micropolitan_Statistical_Areas_of_the_United_States_and_Puerto_Rico.gif
I-5 goes through the Second largest MSA, Los Angles-Long Beach-San Ana, the 11th largest, San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont and other, smaller MSA in between. I notice no one is building any outside the area serviced by interstates, even in California. Thus I can NOT say I-5 is anything but an urban road, the urban areas may end within a block of I-5 but it is still urban. The problem is getting beyond I-5 and I do NOT see that happening for 10-15 years at best (Which is MY definition of "Foreseeable future"
.
I notice you did not address the problem of decline in battery power in cold weather (below freezing). Known to happen, I have seen it on the lights in my bicycle, in winter in cold weather, the lights stay on for seconds, as oppose to minutes in hot weather (I use a generator on by Bicycle to power my lights, with a back up capacitors to provide power for a few minutes whenever I stop for traffic. Thus I readily see the significant drop in electrical storage that happens in cold weather). More a problem in the middle of the country, for the coasts rarely get below freezing temperatures for any length of time, but such low temperatures can last for weeks and months between the Appalachians and Rocky mountains. In Pennsylvania we had a long snowy winter in 2009-2010, while the Winter Olympics in Western Canada had almost no snow (last winer we had almost no snow, a more normal winter for us).
I see you charge your vehicle up every night, but that is still 6-8 hours of charging, what is the norm in the US today.
Now, the I-5 system is along I-5, but not inland, thus not ready available to people who have to travel in those areas. In fact I would have to travel 20 miles just to get to an interstate, if all of the interstates had such a system (and the interstate is in the OPPOSITE direction from where I have to go on most trips).
http://westcoastgreenhighway.com/electrichighways.htm
Sorry, the electric car has a lot of problems before it can challenge the gasoline car, many of the same problems that saw it lose out to the gasoline cars in the 1920s.
We have to remember the electric car was actually superior in urban areas in the period between 1900 and 1920. Edison advised Henry Ford to design an electric car for that reason. The problem was no one in urban America, except the upper middle class and the rich, were buying cars. Thus it was in Rural America the Electric Car lost out to the Gasoline Engine, and it from that point of dominance that the gasoline engine became the dominant automotive engine.
Just like in the 1920s, it is Rural America where the decision will be won or lost, and so far the electric car offers no advantages to people out in the boondocks who think of nothing of traveling 100-200 miles to go shopping at Walmart. No one is offering them any charging stations except alone the interstates and if you are NOT along an interstate you be out of luck.
Yes, today's Electric cars are not the electric cars of 1912, but neither is the gasoline cars of today the gasoline cars of 1910 (We actually have something called "Gasoline" which is defined as having an octane level of at least 87, concepts unknown in 1912 and not settled on till WWII).
Thus the issue for rural America is distance and within the next 10-15 years (and I have my doubts if Electric vehicles will ever get that high a distance without a re-charge, but that will be determined by time). I do NOT see electric cars getting the range needed by rural America in the next 10-15 years.
Also, lets remember, the working poor tend to drive 10-15 year old vehicles, thus, unless the Federal or State Government starts issuing the working poor electric cars, most electric cars will NOT be in the market for the working poor for 10-15 years. The working poor tend to like V-8s and V-6s, for the simple reason such large engines tend to last longer then smaller engines thus can last 10-15 years of abuse (and due to the fact most small cars are shipped overseas where they can bring higher prices given the demand for such small used cars in Southern Europe, South east Asia and much of the third world, American used mid-size and large cars are either sold in the US, Latin America or the Middle East, thus lower demand for the larger America Cars then for compact and smaller cars worldwide). The working poor want a reliable vehicle more then anything else for they can NOT afford to pay for to many repairs and it is for this reason they tend to go to the larger engines.
Now, the first hybrids are getting of the age to be available for the working poor, but the price for most are beyond they budgets. Right now, Kelly's blue book is saying a 2001 Prius will sell for about $6000, over $2000 more then a similar conventional car. That is a lot of money for someone looking for a 10 year old used car, a car whose warranty on the batteries has either expired or about to expire (i.e. we are talking of a 10 year old car with 10 year old batteries, maybe five if Toyota changed then under warranty). You are also looking at the most price sensitive part of the market, that $2000 difference can be a deal breaker when it comes to monthly payments (I am talking about people on minimum wage or about $14,000 a year).
Just a comment that in Rural America, I do NOT see the gasoline engine being replaced within the next 10-15 years by anything else, let alone electric cars. To many ifs that can NOT be solved by hauling something back home (i.e. which is what people did in Rural America when they first embraced the Automobile, they carried extra gallons of gasoline back to their homes hard to do with electricity, given Rural America have the worse electric service in the country with no plans to upgrade it).
Side note: Gasoline before WWII is interesting (which is NEVER a good word when it comes to something you need). In 1936 the airline makers decided that any engine used in Airplanes would have an octane of 87, due to this during WWII the US Army said it would only buy 87 octane gasoline. except for its high performance fighters, which used gasoline with octane up to 130. Even after WWII, it took a few years for domestic gasoline to get up to 87 octane. Prior to WWII, whenever a state set an octane level it was reported by the New York Times, and the Times would congratulates states that set reasonable lowest octane level, reasonable being anything over 50. Higher octane meant lighter and more powerful engines, thus the gasoline engines of today, design for 87 octane, are much more fuel efficient then the
gasoline engines that put electric cars out of business in the 1920s.
Here is an Article on Sunoco bragging about the fact in 1931 Sunoco Gasoline had an octane level of 71:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SMsLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=glQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1423,953499&dq=gasoline+octane+ratings+history
1936 Article on Sunoco looking at increasing its gasoline it sold to 73 octane instead of 70:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B1EFC3E59167B93C3A9178AD95F428385F9
1939 Article, praising North Carolina for making the minimum octane sold in that state be at least 68:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30712FF3C5A177A93C5A81782D85F4D8385F9
Just pointing out today's gasoline is NOT the gasoline of the 1920s and due to that fact neither are the engines. Rural America will prefer Gasoline engine more due to the lack of any electric infrastructure to support any large charging stations in addition to the lack of such charging stations.
it's still an important fraction.
People buy cars based on these scenarios. The last time I went car shopping, I looked at a Prius but I eventually picked a Honda Element simply because it could fit two people and three dogs. I don't think I've had all three dogs in it once since I got it, but if there was an emergency and I had to evacuate my house, all three dogs aren't going to fit in the back of the Toyota Corolla.
See the first dog, relaxed, watching the TV.
See the second dog, apparently wearing speedos but still somehow looking cool.
See the third dog, upside down, ears flopped, eyes wide, four paws in the air,
saying "Hey Xema! Make a fuss of me - you know you want to!"
Mop up keyboard ...
