From Guest Blogger Rebecca Hill: Eight Reasons EVs are the Future of Transportation
Whether you’re glued to Google headlines or the New York Times, reading the next headline about electric vehicles probably gives you a rush.
Perhaps, it was news of Apple’s interest in charging stations that caught your attention. Or maybe it’s Tesla’s pledge to sell two cheaper Model S cars. These announcements leave you hungry to hear what else is to come, and the continuous stream of updates is what makes electric vehicles so exciting to watch.
To satisfy those cravings, Auto Loan Solutions has created an infographic to reveal some other exciting developments in the EV world. “8 Reasons EVs are the Future of Transportation” explores the trends driven by electric cars.
What you’ll find in this infographic is a far cry from what skeptics say.
It comes as no surprise that there are people who label EVs as impractical. For example, range anxiety stands as a “go-to” criticism. Additionally, skeptics add to their argument by highlighting the somewhat limited charging infrastructure.
But those criticisms are seriously dated. The individuals making these statements are likely paying no attention to the advances in technology, and how reliable EVs have turned out (high satisfaction ratings prove it).
Also, these skeptics ignore the efforts electric car manufacturers have made to meet driver demands. It’s as if CEOs, execs and presidents of these companies announce new plans to extend the range of their cars every week. And for those who criticize the costs of EVs, someone should remind them of the competitively priced cars entering the market.
As you’ll see, this infographic takes a deeper look at the trends unfolding on the roads and in the factories where electric vehicles inhabit. Some of them are ongoing changes from years past, while others have recently emerged. Take a peek to see what they are!
Rebecca , your posting and data slides make a impressive case for the long term market adoption to cleaner EV vehicles.
Nice supporting data.
I think like 12 or 14 of large established auto Mfgrs. have stated that 25 to 35 % of their sales will be for EV or some sort of Hybrid fule other than gasoline by late 2025 or so. The number could be higher so the World is a changing as we transition away from current fossil fuel usage. Progress
Hi Rebecca,
It’s great to see someone enthusiastic about EV’s !
However, this sort of cheesy, inaccurate, preachy little sermonizing is counter-productive. EV technology has become a very serious business requiring a lot of equally serious investment and realistic hard work to become accepted.
The sort of “gee-whiz ” nonsense you have selected, dates from sometime around 2007 and was overly optimistic, even back then.
I certainly don’t want to hurt your feelings, or discourage your enthusiasm, but naive little sermons only damage credibility, and make the task of advancing adoption more difficult.
Things like “battery swapping” are (and always will be ) ludicrous. The idea was first promoted in a 1950’s ‘Popular Mechanics’ type magazine and still pops up every so often. When the infamous “Better Place Corporation” collapsed, taking with it $2 billion of investors money, the flaws in this ill-conceived concept suddenly became very obvious !
Siemens has abandoned the concept of “electric highways” as logistically uneconomic and inefficient.
Faraday Futures are get to produce anything except SEC investigations. The only thing still giving Faraday any credibility is the involvement of the Jia Yueting’s PRC based corporation, LeEco.
Savings of $ 13000 ( half since the time the article was published)over the lifetime of the vehicle, is a poor economic incentive when the cost of battery replacement is factored in, along with an initial capital cost of $ 15,000 = which can’t be amortized.
Although Elon Musk’s achievements are absolutely astonishing and the very determined Carlos Ghosn of Renault_Nissan keeps pouring money into EV production, sales are still very small.
In fact it’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s become evident that EV sales world-wide rely on Government support. In area’s where government has been withdrawn sales slump dramatically.
The future of EV’s will be determined by a “breakthrough” in ESD capacity. Without that leap in technology, EV’s will remain a fairly low volume technology.
The era of cheesy little sermons, and optimistic advocacy is over. EV have entered the world of mainstream auto-motive technology. EV technology will no be judged on performance, not idealism.
Rebecca, don’t get me wrong, I love EV’s, but the limitations and realities of the technology requires a little more knowledge than your information provides!
If you really want to help, buy an EV yourself, and tell us about your experience.
Evs are practical for some people, but with current technology, not for everyone. The principle limitation is range. For people who have two cars it is often practical for one of them to be an EV because they can use the other car when range would be a problem with the EV. But as an only car, I certainly would not want one since the range limit would be a problem for me even though I would seldom exceed it.
I would not completely rule out battery exchange to solve the range problem. For well over half a century, electric fork lift trucks have been used in factories and warehouses. At the end of each shift, they simply exchange batteries and the partially discharged battery is connected to the charger. However, for that to work with EVs, it would be necessary to have standardized batteries and only a very limited number of battery types. Whether that will ever occur is impossible to know at this time.
Much of the rest of the article is pure speculation and probably never will be practical. Recharging batteries takes time and there is a limit to how quickly a battery can be recharged without shortening its life.
There have been many articles which attempted to predict the future. In the late 19th century, it was predicted that ocean going ships would run on battery power. It was also predicted that trains would run on battery power. One writer stated that in the future, people would no longer read newspapers. Instead, early in the morning, a wax tablet would be delivered. Then, to hear the news, the wax tablet would be wrapped around a cylinder and played like a cylindrical recording. It was also predicted that many families would have a helicopter.
Dick Tracy, a comic strip detective, had a two-way wrist radio. At the time that was considered impossible, but of course now it would easily be possible. So, although many attempts to predict the future fail, some do not fail. It isn’t always possible to tell what will fail and what will not fail. The problem is assuming that predictions will work; that is not a good idea, especially if it results in making plans and spending money in anticipation of something that may never happen. It can result in wasting billions of dollars.
Hi Frank,
Perhaps I have a little bit more information than you as to the feasibility of battery swapping.
I went through this exercise in great detail when “Better Place” was at it’s height of popularity. To this day I will never understand how so many, otherwise sensible and shrewd, business investors got involved in this obviously flawed and absurd business model.
“Better Place” seemed to suspend reality while it’s employees and executive conducted themselves more like a ‘new age’ cult than business.
Was “Better Place” just an elaborate scam ? Not really,it was just one of those idea’s which seems so like it should be true, that people suspend rational analysis, preferring it to “believe” it to be true.
Marcopolo,
Battery swapping would require dealing with several challenges. There would have to be some way to determine how much energy is left in the battery which is being swapped out. Probably that would require some computerized monitoring system which would be part of the battery pack. That way the driver would pay for the energy he used and, in addition, a fee for the swapping. Obviously standardization of battery packs would be necessary because it would be impossible if there were dozens of kinds of incompatible battery packs.
There would also have to be a minimum number of EVs designed to expedite battery swapping and an adequate number of battery swapping stations.
It is unlikely that such a system would work now and it would be unwise even to try it now, but if the above conditions were met, which could take many years, I see no reason why it would not work. The planning would have to begin years before the system was implemented.
Hi Frank,
Of course you are quite right, it would be possible to make battery swapping function. In fact, it’s possible to make almost any concept function if the problem is adapted to fit the solution by ignoring all the negative factors.
But in reality, battery swapping is not economic, logistically feasible, or even desirable. It’s a science fiction writers device, where a futuristic concept can be postulated without having to explain the logistics.
That’s the trouble with most visionary advocates, just a little knowledge of logistical analysis would dispel a lot of urban myths and failed projects.
Hi Frank,
I hear you ! You’d think the light commercial sector would be an easy sell for EV technology.
In fact it’s very difficult as the few companies manufacturing for this sector will attest.
The history of commercial EV’s is very interesting, and many examples survive into the modern era. Airports, milk floats, even security vehicles at such secure facilities as oil refineries are all users of EV technology!
Renault of France produces an excellent light delivery van, the Kangoo and Polaris of the US has recently acquired Goupil of France to bolster its small EV vehicle range.
Weight is the biggest negative factor for commercial EV’s, followed by cold and heat. Batteries work better under constant load, increasing and decreasing load is very taxing.
But the biggest factor preventing greater introduction of such vehicles, is apathy. These vehicles need “widespread public acceptance” to justify their introduction as most are bought by public utilities or companies servicing public facilities.
Very little, no government support, subsidy or incentives, is offered for light commercial EV’s . Most highly specialized vehicles EV’s are completed ignored, only the most technically difficult of these vehicles, buses receive any serious attention.
It’s very hard work selling specialized EV’s. Only a few manufacturers remain interested, most quickly get discouraged in the face of public apathy. The history of this industry is littered with the bankruptcies of so many ventures and failed dreams. The apathy, (even antipathy) includes very vocal “green” activists.
The very people who are so loudly vocal about the evils of oil companies, Koch Brothers etc, don’t buy EV motor mowers, or seek local councils to replace small fleet vehicles with EV’s. In reality, these activists, so absorbing in preventing keystone, do nothing to assist EV introduction. They prefer pursuing agendas involving political or social engineering, instead of promoting actual engineering.
Without any real support this industry sector has languished. The few investors and manufacturers in the sector are constantly irritated by wiseacres loudly proclaiming what “should be done” while not actually doing anything useful.
For these reasons, (perhaps unfairly) I find Rebecca’s undoubtedly well meant, but cheesy little article, irritating.
Perhaps I being overly harsh, and I have no real wish to create hurt or offense, but having invested, built, sold and helped develop a market for specialized EV’s for nearly two decades, with minimal government support, I find the bleating and whining of sanctimonious commentators like Cameron Atwood annoying.
I believe advocates who confuse environmental issues with unrelated political agenda’s, while constantly espousing hatred of the fossil fuel industry etc, only serve to dilute any real progress.
These advocates when asked about what practical efforts they personally have undertaken to support EV adoption, and they fall strangely silent !
That’s been the problem with “green” advocacy. Because of the inclusion of so much leftist economic and political ideology, the general public associates leftist-green politicians with ill-conceived spending of other peoples money.
That image doesn’t help when it comes to maintaining public incentives for introducing new and beneficial technologies.
Frank, I agree with you, it’s not really possible to replace all motor vehicle traffic with zero-emission vehicles, and it will take many decades. However, it certainly is possible to adopt EV or zero emission vehicle in the secondary market very quickly.
It all depends on priorities.
Marco,
Your point is that making EVs would be very challenging; I agree. However, if abundant power were available and if vehicle fuels were heavily taxed, the situation would be very different. And, heavily taxing vehicle fuels would be justified because of the externalities.
It is true that batteries work best within a narrow temperature range would could be hard to maintain. But what about ultra capacitors? A garbage / trash / rubbish truck, in urban areas, is constantly accelerating and decelerating for very short distances, commonly not much more than every hundred feet (please excuse my use of the antiquated English measuring system). Under those conditions, ultra capacitors would work better than batteries because they are less affected by temperature and don’t lose efficiency when handling high current. So, batteries of moderate capacity could be used to get to and from the route and ultra capacitors used while on the route.
I also agree that there has been entirely too much leftist ideology which is impractical when what we need is approaches based on science and pure cold logic which would include numeric approaches instead of emotion and gut reactions.
It’s interesting what can occur when knowledge and clear thinking are not used. This link will provide a good and notorious example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
A more recent example occurred when it was discovered that refrigerant gasses, especially CCl2F2, were depleting the ozone layer. Activists immediately asserted that we should immediately do without refrigerators, air conditioners, etc. They were unaware that we had those BEFORE artificial refrigerant gasses had been invented and that by changing refrigerant gasses, we wouldn’t have to do without anything. It seems that some of these people (but certainly not all) advocate a more primitive life and are seeking ways to enforce a more primitive life on everyone.
For what it’s worth, I did notice Tesla chargjng stations at a rest stop on the New Jersey turnpike when on a business trip last week.
Cool. And I’ve been in those rest stops, e.g., the “Molly Pitcher,” zillions of times. Brings back good memories.
Ah Ha, Craig and Brian, it’s great to see you appreciate Tesla’s amazing infrastructure.
But here’s the question, why haven’t you invested in a Tesla ?
Busy investing in myself right now. That’s how I get to write things like this at 2:00AM on solar power.
@Brian,
Hmmm,…ok, so you don’t regard the investment in the purchase of An electric vehicle for your personal transport, an investment in yourself ?
Interesting……
Perhaps he has a low mileage car and efficient car which will be serviceable for many more years. In that case, replacing it with anything may not make sense.
Hi Frank,
” Perhaps he has a low mileage car and efficient car which will be serviceable for many more years. In that case, replacing it with anything may not make sense.”
Maybe so,…but if everyone thought like that, how could EV technology ever reach commercial viability.
I’m not really criticizing Brian personally, just using his comment as an illustration of why the shrill demands and accusations of ‘conspiracy” from ardent fans of “Who killed the Electric Car” didn’t translate to volume sales numbers, for manufacturers who took them at their word.
We haven’t discussed EVs used as delivery trucks, rubbish trucks, busses, etc.
Delivery trucks and rubbish trucks are constantly starting and stopping and generally don’t get driven long distances or at high speeds. That is an ideal situation for EVs.
Constant starting and stopping significantly shortens the life and increases maintenance requirements for engines, transmissions, and brakes. On the other hand, constant starting and stopping does not increase the wear for electric motors. Also, electric traction motors can be used for regenerative braking thereby capturing energy which would otherwise be wasted by the mechanical brakes. That also increases the life of the mechanical brakes.
City busses would, in many situations, also be a good place for battery electric power, at least on routes where range would not be a problem.
These applications would not need to wait for widespread public acceptance.
Hi Frank,
Thank you for your interesting comment.
Yes, it’s possible to alter economic dynamics to favour any technology. Whether or not the electorate will tolerate such arbitrary regulation is another matter. Heavy taxation is only effective if a convenient alternative is available.
Currently, such alternatives don’t really exist for everyone, or every circumstance. My issue is with those vociferous “Who Killed the Electric Car” advocates, with their tirades against “Congress being owned by Big Oil” and hatred of imaginary conspiracies by the Koch brothers, while and demanding “government action”, but when it comes to putting their hand in their own pocket to practice what they preach, they become very coy indeed !
What price principles, eh ?
Research into advanced super-capacitors continues, along with other ESD technology. But EV’s in their current form do have limitations created by access to recharging, slow recharging times and lack of ESD capacity.
People who live in apartments without designated parking for instance, public charging of EV’s would be overwhelmed by sheer volume without fast charging, and of course heavy vehicles like Fire Engines or Emergency service vehicles, which are required to travel at high speed and distance are impossible to consider for EV conversion.
EV’s have limitations due to immature technology. The technology will improve as more are sold and research continues, but right now it’s early days.
An interesting site is the recent acquisition by the US Polaris group of Goupil of France [www.goupil-industrie.eu/ ] or the electric ride on mowers produced by the US manufacturer Jacobsen.
These existing application for EV technology are ignored by most activists who seem convinced that the solution to difficult technical problems, is ideologically motivated legislation !
Your example of the legislation attempted in Indiana, is absolutely relevant and spot on ! .
Marco,
As you’ve noticed, some people think that legislation can change everything which is why I gave the example of the Indiana state legislature; I wonder how many people know about that. However, legislation can change some things. The Americans with Disabilities Act did make things easier for people with disabilities.
I also think that there is room for EV technology improvements. There is room for further increases in efficiency, especially recovering a higher percentage of kinetic energy during braking. It would also help if more people had home access to recharging. Apartments which could have assigned parking places could have a few parking places equipped for recharging EVs and assign those places to EV owners. Also, many businesses could also provide for recharging EVs thereby reducing range requirements.
As you point out, an EV drive system would be impractical for some vehicles. However, at some future date, it may become reasonable to manufacture an artificial liquid fuel, which would be carbon neutral, for vehicle use where EVs would not be practical.
I’ve had no experience with riding lawn mowers (motor mowers in British English), but I’ve used corded electric lawn mowers and see them as the best choice for most city-size lawns. However, they require more flexibility than some people have; they have to learn how to handle the cord efficiently.
Hi Frank,
Oh yes, I agree the future will bring amazing advances in EV efficiency and convenience with dramatically improved ESD technology.
The problem is some advocates claim this has already occurred and only “the forces of darkness ” are preventing the technology being available right now !
The corded lawn mower is pretty obsolete. Battery powered mowers have been available for decades. Several manufacturers offer excellent commercially available models. ( Some models even have removable battery packs, than can power other types of equippment).
It’s not an “oil-company conspiracy ” that prevents the adoption of these small, convenient, quiet, examples of EV technology, but apathy !
Each year while Americans squabble and protest about grandiose environmental projects, indulge in massive political action resulting in little real change, rant indignantly about the Koch bros etc, they studiously ignore the environmental benefits of more humble technology applications.
The US governments and jurisdictions, (including local communities) could easily convert all these 2 and four stroke units to electric within 5 years.
The environmental benefits would be greater than all passenger vehicle emissions in the US ! The technology exists, it’s commercially available, all it needs is appropriate incentives and motivation.
In addition to lowering noise pollution, the significantly lower cost makes the exercise extremely feasible.
The problem is simply a lack of political support. Oddly enough, die-hard doomsayers like ol’ Cameron etc, seem very coy when it comes to doing anything practical to help the environment.
It would appear that activist “greens’ are more concerned with grandiose projects like wind farms etc, inventing weird conspiracies and social-political engineering advocasy.
I mean, when Americans spill more that 20 million gallons of oil (more than the Exxon Valdez disaster) each year just filling the damn things, you’d think there’d be more outcry, wouldn’t you?
But no, it’s far more important getting ‘outraged’ about what some old CEO of Exxon did, or didn’t, think 40 years ago about global warming, than descend from their sanctimonious pulpits and do something today practical and useful!
I actually haven’t used a lawn mower since 2007. My new house is xeriscaped to reduce to a bare minimum the amount of water required. But when I was using an electric lawn mower, it was corded. The only experience I had with a battery lawn mower was way back in about 1973 and the battery was insufficient to do the job. Of course better batteries are now available.
Unless a lawn is of a difficult shape with many obstacles, a corded lawn mower may be better. In my neighborhood, several people use corded electric lawn mowers. Gasoline powered lawn mowers are a headache. If they are 4-stroke, the oil has to be changed periodically. If they are 2-stroke, oil has to be mixed with the fuel and pollution is greater. Also, gasoline goes stale, especially here where ethanol is added to it. Considering all that, electric lawn mowers are usually better. In Oz you have 240 volts which makes it possible to have a more powerful corded lawnmower.
Banning gasoline lawn mowers would be possible and perhaps it should be done although the reduction in CO2 emissions would be tiny. The pollution reduction would be more significant.
Hi Frank,
The reduction of CO2 emissions would be greater than you imagine.
The US EPA estimates that lawn-horticultural equipment uses approximately 1.2 billion gallons of oil per year in the US alone.
Unlike Automobiles, few of these engines are fitted with highly efficient catalytic converters, as a result the EPA estimates that lawn-horticultural equipment is responsible for as much as 4-7% of all CO2 “vehicle” emissions.
Lawn-horticultural equipment also emit dangerous, toxic and carcinogenic emissions and fine particulate matter to the atmosphere, these ground level emissions have far greater impact on human health, especially on the operator than motor vehicle emissions.
I agree that the impact of converting lawn-horticultural equipment wouldn’t make such a major impact on CO2 emissions, as ending the usage of bunker oil in shipping, but it’s something individuals can do to promote better, cleaner technology.
I love my verdant expanse of lawn, I especially love the vast historic expanses of lawns in the multitude of public parks and private gardens of Melbourne Australia.
I certainly don’t support the ideologically driven proposals to replace formal gardens with “native” wilderness. The idea that a wise ” Mother Nature” exists, who but for human intervention, a sort of Eden would exist, is a fantasy !
Nor are indigenous peoples always “wise’ environmentally conscious, “custodians” of land management.
Human expansion and prosperity can create problems, the answer is not to restrict human prosperity, but to devise better technology to reduce undesirable environmental impact.
Marco,
It is because this is a water scarcity in this part of the country that we try not to use too much. The water table is continually dropping, a problem that will eventually have to be addressed. The price of water is quite high too. A friend has a large lawn and he figures that in summer he’s spending about $200 to water it! A friend in San Diego waters his very little and it looks terrible but the price of water there is even higher than here. There is a trend to use native plants and large boulders instead of grass. I’m not sure whether California has restrictions on power lawn mowers (motor mowers) but by now they may.
In California, there are even restrictions on the kinds of paint you can use because oil based paints emit unburned hydrocarbons while they are drying. The action of sunlight on unburned hydrocarbons generates ozone.
Indigenous people have destroyed environments. However, I think that modern indigenous people are more aware of such problems.
I’m convinced that a few environmentalists, probably a minority, are more concerned with forcing people to live a more natural lifestyle than they are with the environment. On the other hand, some people are way too materialistic in ways which don’t improve the quality of their lives.
Hi Frank,
Thank you for your reply.
I agree with your observations. I wasn’t really criticizing indigenous peoples, more the ridiculous fantasies created by trendy liberals, about imagined indigenous virtues and knowledge.
I have just watched a documentary castigating European development of the Australian Gold Coast. Showing a computer simulation of the Queensland Gold Coast before European occupation, the narrator moralized this was the vista enjoyed by Aborigines, and included in ” sacred dream-time” legends, now destroyed by the wickedness of the “White Invader” !
The narrator went on to show a ceremony being conducted between some aborigines (mostly of dubious aboriginal ancestry) and some leftist white politicians, and earnest spectators. The ceremony was held to say “sorry” for historical injustices, and recognizing the aborigines as the first owners of the Gold Coast.
No one challenged the absurdity of this ceremony ! The narrator filed to mention that the coast line had been completely obliterated by natural disasters, and without modern technology and logistical capacity wouldn’t exist !
No one also mentioned that the only way an pre-European indigenous inhabitant could enjoy the “magnificent vista” was to be 400 ft in the air in a helicopter !
Water conservation and distribution is an increasing problem with growing populations. There’s a lot that can be done to improve water supply with better management technology.
$200 ($4 bucks a week) seems a very cheap price to pay for the pleasure of owning a verdant lawn ! Well worth the price ! What else could you buy for a mere $4 that provides so much pleasure as your own patch of living green ?
Marco,
I agree with you about trendy liberals. Probably many would consider me to be a liberal, but I definitely am not trendy. I believe in carefully evaluating things by using the best available information. Unfortunately, that makes me very uncomfortable when I have to make decisions when information is conflicting or incomplete. I also believe in changing positions when new information dictates doing so.
There are indigenous rights which have often been and still are being violated. That is especially problematic in the Amazon rain forests.
On website
https://bravenewclimate.com/2016/07/03/open-thread-25/#comment-460739
there is discussion about decision making. It includes comments I’ve made. You may find it interesting.