Electric vehicles can cut greenhouse gas emissions in two ways. They are clean and efficient. By acting as storage capacity, they can also make the electric grid more efficient.
Electric cars are also cheap to drive and to maintain, and they don't make much noise. They still are relatively expensive to buy, but automated production and economies of scale can overcome this hurdle and make electric vehicles cheaper than gasoline cars.
If the electricity came from coal-fired power plants, driving an electric car still causes less
greenhouse emissions than driving a gasoline car. Electric cars have zero emissions and are also more efficient. Thermal efficiency of power plants is higher than the thermal efficiency of most gasoline cars. Much of the fuel burned in gasoline cars turns into heat. Electric cars use regenerative breaking and do not use their motors when waiting before traffic lights. Electric cars use energy more efficiently, especially in city traffic that causes most of the emissions.
Impact on the grid - Running our entire fleet of vehicles on electricity instead of oil would 
not put much stress on the electric grid. One study concludes that if we transformed our entire fleet of vehicles into electric vehicles, they would jointly consume only 20% of grid capacity.
We wouldn't even need much expansion of the grid in terms of extra capacity or transmission lines. The majority of vehicles could run
on the idle capacity that is available in the existing grid. One study concludes that there is sufficient idle capacity in the grid to power 73% of light vehicles, i.e. cars, SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans, without adding generation or transmission.
Moreover, such a move would benefit the grid. Car batteries can contain many times more power than what cars need for their average daily travel. Cheap off-peak rates would make
it financially attractive to charge batteries at off-peak times, over and above what the individual user consumed during the day. The surplus can then be fed back into the grid to help out with high demand at peak times. Net-metering at good rates could make this attractive, while the grid becomes more efficient, more reliable and less prone to outages and glitches.
New batteries for electric cars are light, safe and do not harm the environment. Batteries
are on the market now that allow electric cars to drive for hours without recharging. While these batteries are still expensive - they can cost over $10,000 - and are hard to get, mass production can overcome these hurdles.
Most cars only drive short distances. Recharging them at home and/or at work would suffice in most cases. In case they needed extra power to travel longer distances, their batteries
could also be recharged at other locations with the required outlets, e.g. gas stations, parking buildings or parking meters. New batteries are now on the market that can be recharged in minutes, they can last for over a decade and can be recharged thousands of times without degeneration. This would make recharging convenient and safe, compared to filling a car with gas.
We don't all need to buy new cars. Many existing vehicles can be converted into electric vehicles. With some financial assistance, the conversion cost can pay itself back over time
through savings on the cost of driving and maintenance. For those who cannot afford to buy a new electric car, there are also initiatives such as Project Better Place that plans to offer electric cars at a cheap price, while making profits on services such as car maintenance, battery upgrades and recharging the batteries. In an effort to offset the company's greenhouse gas footprint, employers may also contribute through leasing arrangements and by making recharging facilities available at work.
Renewable energy looks set to become the dominant supplier of energy. Wind turbines are
being installed around the world. This will increase the amount of surplus energy in the grid at night. Storing this surplus energy in the batteries of electric cars will increase overall efficiencies.
Owners of electric cars will consume more electricity (but no gasoline) and are more likely to get solar panels, for the savings as well as to help the environment. Similarly, as more of their staff start driving electric cars, businesses will be more inclined to get solar panels on the roofs of their buildings and car parking facilities.
Solar facilities typically include a battery. Car batteries could be used instead. Most cars are parked at home when people switch on their lights, air-conditioners and TV-sets. Similarly,
the power needs at work coincide with cars of staff being parked there. Using the batteries of electric cars to store electricity can reduce the need for batteries in solar facilities and will thus reduce the overall cost of solar facilities.
Cost of solar power has come down over the years. As an example, Nanasolar now offers thin film material at under $1 per watt. This promises clean and safe energy that is price-competitive with power plants. It also becomes increasingly attractive for households
and businesses to install solar facilities. Recognising the market opportunities and the financial incentives made available at different levels of government, there now are numerous companies offering to help people adopt green energy at home without having to make large investments, sometimes even without any upfront payments.
A FeeBate Policy can help facilitate the switch to zero emission vehicles and to clean and
safe ways to produce energy. A FeeBate policy can include fees on gasoline cars, with the proceeds used for rebates on zero emission vehicles. A FeeBate policy can also include fees on fossil fuel, with the proceeds used for rebates on clean and safe alternatives, such as wind and solar facilities.
In conclusion, all this will lead to a more distributed grid, with numerous suppliers and with numerous places where electricity is stored. The grid now draws electricity from a relatively small number of large power 
plants, to supply electricity in an area. Renewable energy supplies only a fraction of power, most of it through hydro facilities. The existing grid looks much like a broadcasting network, with a relatively small number of broadcasting stations sending content one-way to the public. In future, the grid looks set to become more distributed, with two-way connections to most users, much like a multitude of users can send and receive information over the Internet.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
This page from Blogforward shows some 29 start-ups that have come out with electric cars. That doesn't even include the companies that add batteries or convert existing cars. An example of conversion is Lion EV, who will convert a Ford Ranger, using a battery core that provides a range of up to 200 miles.
The end product will cost $29,500, almost twice the regular cost, but imagine how low the price could be if Ford would offer such a car itself. Just look at all the parts of a gasoline car that an electric car doesn't need!
Many question whether anyone really needed an internal combustion engine at all. As long as you're just making short trips, you're just carrying dead weight around. It's not just the engine, it's the fuel tank and many, many parts. By comparison, batteries aren't heavy, but the problem at the moment is that they're still expensive and hard to get. But once mass-produced at automated production lines, cost will come down. There are new batteries on the market that can be recharged in minutes, quicker than it takes to refill your gas tank.
Thanks for commenting, Larry. Feel welcome to go through the calculations with me, in case you have any doubts about the article's conclusions.
Still I do live in New York, and Al Gore's worries not withstanding we still get cold, snow filled winters. I drive a 2002 Toyota Prius. I have to be careful parking when there is a major storm coming because my reverse gear is electric only and even a small pile of snow will keep it from moving. (I realize that a pure electric will have more electric horsepower.) More over the question of performance when a lot of power will be needed to heat the interior cabin has to be considered. Not all electric car buyers will come from Sunny (and warm and never rains in Southern) California.
The green boxes are a bit distracting.
I find the notion that the idle capacity of the existing electric power system could power almost 3/4 of the vehicle travel in the U.S. a bit unrealistic.
Can you offer any links tho the study you mentioned in your article.
I highly suspect the suggestion is very much in theory but very little in practicality.
Your feebate suggestion would of course NOT be good for the country's economy and would target the most damage on the lower earners in our society.
All in all a great plan for the future but since we are not in the future yet, we need solutions for today which do not weigh heavily on the economy and does not target the lower income earners of our society.
I do not believe additional taxes are the answer to growing the alternative energy industry, much more can be accomplished by incentives.
We can start tomorrow by reducing/eliminating taxes on income earned by investing in alternative energy related companies, eliminate taxes on companies who derive their profits from alternative energy production or the building of alternative energy products.
Taxes, no matter what you call them are a restrictor of the economy NOT a grower of our economy and we need to keep our economy strong in order to let people to be able to afford to be more green.
Incentives on the other hand do not restrict the economy they allow it to grow and the industry targeted grows too.
As the article says, Paul, there now are batteries on the market that allow electric cars to drive for hours without recharging. While these batteries are still expensive - they can cost over $10,000 - and are hard to get, mass production can overcome these hurdles. As I wrote in the article Electric Lightning, this car has a driving range of over 250 miles. It uses a NanoSafe battery by Altairnano, which has no operational safety issues and contains no toxics or heavy metals. The battery does not need to be cooled or heated, there's no risk of that it could explode and there's no thermal runaway. The battery will work comfortably in temperatures between 75°C and minus 30°C (-22° to 167° Fahrenheit).
While the Altairnano warranty is restricted for EVs to three years, the battery does have a life expectancy of 12+ years, and can retain up to 85% charge capacity after 15,000 charges. With 15,000 cycles and an average of 40 miles per charge, you can drive the car for over 600,000 miles, before needing battery replacement. The batteries exhibit no memory loss, i.e. partial charging and discharging of the battery does not have a negative impact on the life or the holding charge capacity of the batteries.
Also, the battery can be recharged rapidly, depending on the power available. A standard single phase home type power source can be used to recharge the battery overnight or at work. With a 3 phase power supply (EVCS), it can be recharged in about 10 minutes. In recent laboratory testing, Altairnano has demonstrated that a NanoSafe cell can be charged to over 80% charge capacity in about one minute.
I agree, Dan, the images were designed for a slide-show, as part of a presentation. In the accompanying document, the boxes are located in a separate panel on the right. The Gather layout doesn't offer enough width for that, so this was the compromise.
The 73% comes from Rob Pratt's June 2007 workshop. On what calculations is your finding based?
I'm not against supporting companies that promise to deliver alternative energy and clean cars, but this alone is not enough and it's not the most effective way to achieve the shift we need - in fact, it could be counter-productive. Detroit and Big Oil have received all kinds of support (including tax relief) for many years on the basis of their claims to deliver cleaner energy and cleaner vehicles. To achieve the quick shift we need, a FeeBate policy is more effective.
Dan E.: "we need solutions for today which do not weigh heavily on the economy and does not target the lower income earners of our society."
A FeeBate policy would make the US less dependent on imported oil and would create numerous jobs in renewable energy. This would benefit the economy in many ways and would especially benefit lower income earners. A FeeBate policy encourages and assists everyone to make this shift, whether rich or poor. Those who proportionally spend a lot on cars and gasoline would also benefit proportionally more from both the rebates on electric cars and from the lower cost of driving and maintaining those cars. And of course, apart from socio-economic considerations, we need to facilitate this shift with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Note also that the Nov 2007 technical analysis concludes that up to 84% of U.S. cars (including SUVs and pickup trucks, but excluding vans) could be supported by the existing infrastructure.
Your link "Nov 2007 technical analysis" did not work but your earlier one did.
I understood "idle capacity" to mean something different.
After seeing their estimations it looks promising.
It's rather academic, since I foresee more and more capacity to be added by households and businesses in the form of solar panels, while wind farms and geothermal can also add much capacity at night. In conclusion, electric vehicles won't be too much of a burden on the grid and the Grid looks set to become more distributed.
Importantly, this constitutes a move away from centralized power plants, such as fuel-fired power plants (including nuclear). Developments at companies such as at Nanosolar promise to deliver price-competitive solutions that fit in better with the distributed grid model and that are also clean and safe.
That was the definition I was going with, (and was doubtful about) but after visiting your link I realized they were talking about the difference between normal usage and peak power production being capable of providing the power needed for E.V.s and I think they make a good case for it.
All we need now are more E.V.s
As Dan frequently says, net metering is key. A distributed grid will depend on net metering. Utilities certainly will continue to produce energy for some time to come, but in the future (with net metering), the role of the utility will gradually shift to distribution, rather than production (on balance).
I think that we are only beginning to see the very early stages of how nanotechnology will impact energy production and transmission. You highlight the Nanosolar breakthrough above, the capacity to produce $1/watt electricity, which is competitive with coal. Nanotechnology is also going to play a big role in future transmission lines, which will dramatically improve transmission efficiency. It will also improve battery capacity. I think we are just beginning to see the infancy of nanotechnology potential in the energy field.
http://www.dsireusa.org
Great to see the success of nanotechnology in improving products such as solar panels and batteries. I just read that Nanogram has raised $32M in funding. Did you also see the article in Nature on how silicon nanowires could increase the capacity of lithium batteries tenfold.
No, Sam, I hadn't seen that article, but I have now. Thanks. I am aware of the potential for nanotubes to be used as transmission lines, greatly enhancing the efficiency of the grid. Also, I have been reading about the use of nanotechnology in the production of hydrogen directly from sunlight.
Nanogram's funding is good news. At this point, production is the priority. It is a mystery to me that $1/watt solar energy is not all over the news and the political campaigns. It should be.
I agree! As the federal energy bill passed late last year without extending tax credits for renewable energy, politicians should now look at other ways to encourage renewable energy and vehicle to grid connections (V2G). One would expect politicians to insist that utilities have net metering, feed-in tariffs and minimum percentages of energy sourced from renewables, and supply more green energy to customers willing to pay extra for that. And of course, subsidies, rebates and tax credits for renewables will be back on the agenda this year as well. Have you seen any politician with new ideas on all that?
Actually, I was extremely pleased to see Bill Clinton attend and address the 25th anniversary conference at the Rocky Mountain Institute. I think that Hillary Clinton must be well aware of Lovins' work and his approach to energy and efficiency. I do wish she would have challenged Russert in the last democratic debate, when he stated that renewables are not sufficient to meet our energy needs. She at least speaks to the energy issue without being asked about it. I don't know of any other politicians who do that.
I was pleased to read that such cars had regenerative braking ... it only stands to reason that they would, with all of the energy going up in wasted heat in normal brake systems.
Thanks for the invite Sam.