Monday, August 02, 2010

Sparks fly over electric car funding

Accounting for well to wheel efficiency in electric cars: Do electrics have lower emission levels than hybrids?
WASHINGTON (ISNS) -- As the Senate struggles with energy legislation this week, one of the few fixes with bipartisan support is a bill that would invest billions in putting electric-powered cars and trucks on the road. But it’s not clear whether it would be environmentally beneficial to do so. That debate has played out in an open conflict between electric vehicle proponents whose proposals would be implemented in the bill and auto industry executives pushing for funding of alternative technologies.

The measure, as approved by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, would provide an additional $3.6 billion for electric vehicles if passed by the full Senate and put into effect several proposals in the Electrification Coalition's roadmap, including $1.5 billion to lower battery costs and help link the vehicles to the electric grid. Also in the bill is $2 billion in funds to put 400,000 electric cars on the road in the next three years and funds to develop specific communities that will rely on electric cars in a few regions throughout the country. It also creates a $10 million prize for the first commercially-viable battery with at least a 500 mile range.

"Republicans and Democrats agree that electrifying our cars and trucks is the single best way to reduce our dependence on oil," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) in a recent statement. “Our goal should be to electrify half our cars and trucks within 20 years, which would reduce our dependence on petroleum products by about a third.”

While nearly every major auto manufacturer in the world plans to debut an electric vehicle in the next two years, scientists are divided on their estimates of the electric car's impact on the environment. Industry scientists have argued that an electric car is only as clean as the power plant it's plugged into, while proponents of electrics -- including Electrification Coalition member and FedEx CEO Fred Smith -- argue they produce less greenhouse gas emissions than a conventional hybrid even when the source is a dirty coal-fired plant.


Conflicting Studies

"Until we significantly alter how we produce electricity in our nation," Kathryn Clay, director of research at the industry group Auto Alliance said in Senate hearings on the bill, "including upstream emissions in the vehicle greenhouse gas standards will mean that electric vehicles will rate only marginally better than conventional internal combustion engines and comparatively worse than the conventional hybrids we have on the road today."

A study by the Sloan Automotive Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, funded by Ford, found that electric vehicles plugged into nuclear or renewable sources would result in drastic reductions in emissions; however, vehicles powered by electricity from coal plants would have larger carbon footprints than conventional automobiles. In June hearings on vehicle electrification legislation, the Auto Alliance stated it did not support the bill because it believed the government was unfairly favoring one technology over others. The Alliance represents most major car companies in the world with the exception of Nissan, Honda and Hyundai. Of the group's member companies, only GM received relatively substantial electric vehicle funds from the Recovery Act.

Auto Alliance members are also worried that emission standards on electric cars will leave auto makers uniquely responsible for upstream emissions from power plants -- a source which they have no control over.

"Including upstream emissions creates a huge disincentive for producing electric vehicles versus less costly and less game changing technology," said Clay.

Many non-industry researchers claim that there is a net drop in greenhouse gas emissions no matter what the power source is. Studies done by the National Resources Defense Council and the Electric Power Research Institute found that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles -- even those plugged into a dirty coal-fired plant -- would offer dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And a Tesla Motors analysis found that even when considering the average sources of electricity in the United States, its fully electric Roadster is significantly more efficient than the Toyota Prius or other hybrids.

"Our studies would indicate that plug-in electric vehicles, even if powered by coal power plants that have not been modified to clean up the emissions … produce significantly less CO2 emissions than conventionally powered vehicles," said Smith.

As an additional benefit, the Electrification Coalition says it would be easier to regulate emissions from a few power plants than the hundreds of millions of cars on the road. And the cars will only become more efficient with time as the grid shifts towards renewable sources of electricity.


EPRI's report, which the Electrification Coalition relies on in its claims, says that previous studies have relied on limited information from the electricity and transportation industries. "We stand by our study with the NRDC, … that was the bellwether study," said the group's media relations manager Clay Perry. "We examined all the power sources throughout the country and those went into the study. We had access to a lot of data."

The administration and many politicians on both sides of the aisle also see the electrification of vehicles as a step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and as a path to recovery for a nation addicted to foreign oil. The United States currently spends $380 billion a year on imported oil – 70-percent of which is used for transportation -- and President Obama hopes to reduce that number by increasing the number of electric cars from essentially none, to one million in the next few years. The Recovery Act has already invested more than $5 billion in electric vehicles, with half of that going in loans to Nissan, Tesla and Fisker motor companies.

"This is an enormous national security problem," said Smith, "we have two shooting wars going on and there's no question at least in part they were precipitated by our dependence on imported foreign petroleum."

China, Denmark and Israel are among the countries that have also chosen to focus on electric cars, and that has many concerned China will gain an edge on the U.S. in the market.

A study released in May showed that 60-percent of Chinese citizens would be willing to buy an electric car, five-times the amount of Americans who said they were ready to convert in the same study, and the Chinese have already made significant investments in electric vehicle technology and infrastructure. The country produces 20 million electric scooters a year and plans to shift that infrastructure to cars in coming years in part due to the success of its own trial electric car communities program, which has already nearly doubled in size, growing from 13 to 22 cities.

The Alternative: Fuel Cells

While the United States has shifted its focus from fuel cell vehicles to electrics under the leadership of the current administration, other countries like Japan, Germany and South Korea have ramped up their efforts to produce fuel cell technology.

Fuel cells – which use hydrogen to produce electricity and then release water and heat as by-products – are not widely considered ready for prime-time and a production model car would cost around $1 million. Fuel cell vehicles would also require a non-existent hydrogen fuel infrastructure; whereas the electric infrastructure is already present and needs only work out certain accessibility problems. The Senate believes it has addressed those problems in the current bill and legislators have been quick to point out that most people will charge their vehicles at night during off-peak hours, making it much cheaper.

However, many engineers and policy makers in the United States still argue that fuel cell vehicles provide a better solution to reducing greenhouse gases without being limited by the short range of battery power and say the U.S. will be left behind in the long-term by focusing on electrics. The administration went as far as to cut funding for the technology in its last two annual budgets. These funds were eventually restored in the Senate last year, but the Auto Alliance would like to see the proposed electric vehicles bill include funding for fuel cell research.

"Trying to prejudge the market brings tremendous risks, and the problem is compounded if we make just a few large bets," said Clay.

For the time being, the Senate is showing some agreement with the Obama administration by focusing on battery-electric vehicles in the short term, though it continues to fund fuel cell research as well. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D – N.D.), who co-sponsored the bill, believes fuel cells will be important in the future, but thinks electrification is the solution in the near term.

"Last year the administration cut out $190-million of hydrogen fuel cell research that's going on, I put it all back in," said Dorgan. "Hydrogen and fuel cells are important, but that is not the rapid deployment, the near term deployment is electric vehicles."

7 comments:

  1. I guess I'll have to ask a couple of questions since they don't make a lot of sense to me. First, regarding hydrogen fuel cell cars where do you get this figure "... a production model car would cost around $1 million"?

    And second, if the electric car infrastructure is already in place then why is Portland, Oregon and other cities rolling out a large number of recharging stations?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hydro Kevin,

    The cost to produce the Honda Clarity is $1-million, other auto-manufacturers have declined to produce fuel cell vehicles because of their extreme cost. The CEO of GM stated a few years ago they thought they could do it for $400,000, but that it wouldn't be worth the effort to try.

    Hyundai may have found a way to bring that down though, and it plans to start producing fuel-cell cars in a couple years.

    As for electric infrastructure, the existing grid and a suitable plug are the primary needs for electric vehicles. This bill puts some serious incentives into creating "charging stations" to have suitable plugs available for people to charge their cars on the road. Overall, the cars range will likely be limited enough that people will charge their cars at home, at night. To suitably convert your garage receptacle, the government is offering a $2,000 tax credit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, to be clear...

    I don't care to take sides either way. I think in the end we'll need a diverse range of technologies to get away from petroleum.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Groan. Why do blogs keep asking this over and over? Why not just google the dozens of studies that have already been done?

    Sherry Boschert has done a review of 60 of them. The short answer is that an electric car is about the same (in terms of emissions and CO2) as a gas car IF you are in a state that uses nothing but coal (there is only one), AND you count upstream emissions for electricity but not for gas.

    Even in that one state where a lopsided comparison shows them as roughly equal; electricity is still cheaper and locally produced, so we don't rely on (and send money to) the Middle East. And of course that state can clean up its power plants easier than cars on the road. Of course the US average is less than half coal, so EVs are a clear win overall.

    I don't think electricity is the answer to everything; I certainly encourage research in to other alternatives. But it works now, and it's way better than gas for the economy, national security, pollution AND CO2 emissions. Let's get some EVs on the road already!

    P.S. If you are worried about upstream emissions, looking to Hydrogen is not going to help. Hydrogen is a neat on-source form of electricity because it is fairly energy-dense and produces the electricity easily. But to separate the hydrogen from other components that it's bound to in nature, you have to spend three or four times as much electricity as you would to just propel a car directly on electricity. That means 3 to 4 times the upstream emissions. At least it has a possible range advantage, but it's still a definite tradeoff.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The price to produce the older Honda Clarity may have been $1 million, but the more recent production Clarity’s I haven’t seen or heard a word from Honda on the cost of these. Do you have a resource you can share?

    Also, this is simply not true “…other auto-manufacturers have declined to produce fuel cell vehicles because of their extreme cost.” All the major automakers have produced hydrogen cars and are onboard to rollout production vehicles in 2015.


    Here’s a couple of links to check out:

    http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/hydrogen-cars/toyota-says-yes-we-can-build-50-000-hydrogen-vehicles-by-2015/

    http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/index.php/infrastructure/8-major-companies-sign-h2-mobility-plan-for-germany/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kevin- I agree with your sentiment that it doesn't have to be so expensive. The common number people seem to be predict if they can get to mass production is around $100k. I'd be surprised to see auto companies make the kind of money they're after on that expensive of a car though. Case in point is GM - which has scaled back its hydrogen plans from what was already a fairly paltry effort. And Ford hasn't done anything serious I'm aware of for five years or so. In fact, a lot of the floor debate on this bill centered around whether or not Americans are falling behind on fuel cell tech by not investing as much into it for the last few years.

    http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/30/gm-ceo-electric-cars-require-teamwork-hydrogen-cars-10x-more-e/

    On the Clarity... Honda says it can have it down to a hundred thousand dollars in decade if it can mass produce them and it seems like the cost for fuel cell vehicles will come down rapidly if anyone ever follows through on mass production, unfortunately that will still leave the infrastructure to work out. I don't believe that part can happen overnight.

    http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/29/riversimple-hydrogen-car-markets-faces-entrepreneur.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/business/worldbusiness/17fuelcell.html

    Not to cut you short-as I can see from your website you're a hydro enthusiast- but the point of this article was to examine why the auto-industry was voicing opposition to electric cars and see what truth there might be in their statements.

    I do plan to write a feature on fuel-cells down the road, which will take a much more detailed look at hydrogen than could be done in a few hundred words. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Now I might not know much, but when I see giants like Toyota and Honda jumping head first into the game, we know the electric car has a future, but don't take it from me! Here's a pretty engaging article I got a hold of today that I believe will complement your research quite nicely: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=M2J9P29Q7LH1&preview=article&linkid=f4e13387-35c7-4097-9d67-3f6f5e3f4837&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d

    So if you have a minute, this one's not a bad read :)

    ReplyDelete