Why We Need Electric Cars, Part I
The most important part of the innovative process, arguably, is finding the right problem to solve. The competition between visions for our automotive future indicate that not everyone is trying to solve the same problem, and as a result we seem to be wasting a great deal of effort on low-quality solutions.
If we can all agree that the problem we are trying to solve is ‘How Do We Eliminate Our Dependence on Oil,’ or something similiar, it seems there are three distinct (and often non-complementary) problem restatements:
1. How might we move to a sustainable biofuel-based economy (develop new biofuels that allow us to keep our current internal combustion engine vehicles)?
2. How might we move to a sustainable electron-based economy (develop sustainable energy sources for power generation, and new batteries that allow practical transition from ICEs to full-electric vehicles)?
3. How might we move to a sustainable hydrogen-based economy (develop cost-effective ways to generate and transport hydrogen, and new cost effective hydrogen fuel cells to power our vehicles)?
Each has associated challenges and opportunities. But there are definitely discriminating factors that would, if we all got on the same sheet of music, allow us to prioritize scarce investment.
First off, let’s look at problem 3). The big advantage to hydrogen is that, if we can ever find a way to generate and use it cost effectively, it’s everywhere, it’s good for the environment, and it’s pretty efficient. But the negatives are pretty overwhelming, because right now, calling a spade a spade - hydrogen is a panacea. No path to the hydrogen economy exists that doesn’t include the phrase “…and then something magic happens.” Because right now the technology gaps are DECADES away from being filled. We’re talking order-of-magnitude drops in cost and increases in portability. Some day, hydrogen might be practical, but we can prepare for that by choosing another path today - more on that later.
The biofuel solution is getting a lot of press. Ethanol, biodiesel, and the like are favored by many for one overriding advantage - it allows us to keep our current ICE-based vehicle infrastructure intact. Detroit et al can build the same cars, and we can get our fuel from the same gas stations. But this solution leaves the baseline problem intact. We don’t have a problem because our cars use gasoline - we have a problem because ICEs ARE DAMNED INEFFICIENT. From the oil well to the wheels of your car, the total system efficiency is about 14%. If our ICEs were even 20 percent efficient, we’d use a third less gasoline that we do now. Plus, keeping the ICEs means we keep all the existing maintenance problems which result from a mechanical system with thousands of parts. This is why I regard biofuels as a short-term solution that tides us over to the best of the three - the electron economy.
Electricity is everywhere. It is more ubiquitous than gasoline - there might be a gas station every few miles on American main roads, but there’s an outlet every few FEET in every America neighborhood. We rely on it for everything BUT transportation. And the only reason we do that is because gasoline is energy dense, portable, and, even at today’s prices, cheap. In contrast, even the best batteries have been too expensive and take too long to charge to make electric cars a viable alternative for anything other than short, slow commutes in the city.
Taken on its own, gasoline coming out of the pump is cheaper, per unit energy, that electricity coming out the socket. But burned in an ICE, gasoline becomes more expensive by a factor of 3 or more. Electricity used in an electric car has a cost equivalent, as compared to gasoline, of about 80 cents per gallon.
Electricity is generated by a more diversified portfolio of energy sources - coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric and even small amounts of wind and solar. But because the plant-to-wheels efficiency of the electric car is in the neighborhood of 30-35% - inefficiencies are distributed fairly evenly across the process - it takes a lot less energy to make the electric car move than it takes for a gasoline equivalent.
At the same time, solar thermal and solar photovoltaic technologies are maturing and will result in an even further drop in non-renewable energy usage. These technologies have been around for a while but are just now becoming cost effective enough to be competitive. States offer incentives to businesses and homeowners for installing solar electricity. And there is a new technology on the horizon that might make us more of a CARBON-based economy.
Researchers at Lawrence Livermore Labs and elsewhere are developing a technology called direct carbon fuel cells. This type of fuel cell uses ash-free carbon from coal, coke, charcoal, or just about any other source of carbon you can think of and generates electricity directly, at a conversion efficiency up to a whopping EIGHTY PERCENT. This is a huge innovation, one that has the potential to change the way we generate and use electricity forever. This is another reason to support the electron economy - the woody biomass that would otherwise be used for cellulose ethanol could go to making charcoal for use in DCFCs. Between coal and biomass, we could provide all of our electrical needs domestically when DCFCs become practical. And the CO2 byproduct can be easily sequestered and used elsewhere.
To summarize: of the three paths, the electron economy has the most potential and the liabilities are the easiest to mitigate. Biofuels can serve as a bridging factor that help us achieve energy independence, but when DCFCs become practical the majority of biofuel feedstocks should be shifted to carbon production.
Part II will discuss improvements at the other end of the plant-to-wheels energy chain - innovations in battery technology.
Comments
5 Responses to “Why We Need Electric Cars, Part I”
Leave a Reply
While it is relatively true that the time when hydrogen vehicles are going to be for sale in showrooms is probably about 10 years down the road (many of the major auto manufacturers are likely to accelerate that timetable), it won’t be “DECADES.” The blanket statement that hydrogen technologies are too far in the future is an incredibly inappropriate way to generalize a HUGE suite of different technologies—all fueled by hydrogen. There are technologies that can be used in portable products (TODAY), for stationary power (TODAY) and for specialized transportation uses like fork lifts in the world’s warehouses (TODAY).
Far too many people focus only on the light duty hydrogen vehicle. Sure they’re sexy–have you seen the latest generation of hydrogen vehicles? very cool–but that’s only part of the picture. Oh, and last time I checked, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle IS a full electric vehicle. Let’s not forget that.
Furthermore the statement, “and then something magic happens,” just shows the lack of vision and understanding. Hydrogen or any other alternative doesn’t need magic. They need R&D, steady funding to keep making progress, and they don’t need detractors like some of the statements above trying to slow that down. I don’t think we’re going to have one solution. We need many–all of the above, in fact. It’s also true that some of these technologies will be ready in the near-term and we should use them and the near-term and then as a bridge to the next generation of alternative technologies. But to overlook hydrogen technologies and to cast them as a group, only fit for future use is shortsighted and wrong. Hydrogen is out there today, it will be out there tomorrow and there are a lot of people working to keep the development going to make sure the longer-term technologies are ready for AFTER tomorrow.
For an idea of what’s out there, for sale, today and in the next 12 months, visit the
NHA’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Product Catalog:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/productsSearch.asp
or the USFCC’s Product listing:
http://www.usfcc.com/resources/outreachproducts.html
Hydrogen’s doing more than you might think already.
My article was focused on the use of hydrogen for transportation, so I’m not addressing the use in other areas. I’ve been keeping up to date with hydrogen for the past several years. While I understand your points, battery powered electric cars are far closer to being practical than hydrogen fuel cell powered. So that is where I think the investment needs to go - battery tech needs merely pushed over the hump. In the second part of my article I will address the future, when hydrogen is more economically feasible.
PS-”and then something magic happens” is a paraphrase from a DOE assessment of hydrogen. Meaning that many revolutionary innovations would have to take place which drop costs orders of magnitude, and make hydrogen as ubiquitous as electricity.
EDITED TO ADD: And Europe agrees:
http://www.thewatt.com/article1210-nested-1-0.html
[...] Catalyst in Energy Tech, Electric Cars, Nanotechnology, Innovation, Business. trackback In the first installment I discussed the three main paths we are taking to rid ourselves of the need for oil, concluding that [...]
[...] in Energy Tech, Electric Cars, Creativity, Innovation, Business. trackback In my two-parter on the need for electric cars I discuss the internal combustion engine (ICE) as being the biggest reason we need to go electric. [...]
[...] Why We Need Electric Cars, Part I Posted on June 14, 2007 by Innovation Catalyst Open Source Innovation has moved - here is the new link to Why We Need Electric Cars, Part I. [...]