New York Mayor Bloomberg has decided to build an extensive infrastructure of electric vehicle charging stations throughout the boroughs of NYC. There are powerful trends driving this decision. For instance, electric vehicle (EVs) batteries are undergoing a significant learning curve as did the MOS/LSI chips with electronic calculators. Now EVs are cheaper to drive than gas vehicles since electricity costs less per driver mile than gasoline.
Throughout this century, oil supplies will be depleting and the practicality of EVs will be even more evident. Besides being more cost effective, EV charging at parking spaces will provide a much needed economic boost to neighborhoods throughout the boroughs.
Sales of plug-in vehicles have been growing steadily in recent years as the population in the United States gets larger and the retiree population begins to explore cheaper alternatives to the gas guzzlers now on the road.
Since more people are expected to adopt EVs as a viable alternative in the coming years, the electronic neighborhood infrastructure must be put into place to service the tremendous demand. In addition, EVs are cheaper to maintain since they are lighter with a simpler design for access by mechanics.
Power generating companies like overnight charging of electric vehicles because overnight charging stabilizes the distribution system so that the load is not experienced all at one time.
There is a dual benefit for consumers. The migration to EVs will begin to reduce the demand for gasoline thereby lowering gas prices proportionately. In addition, battery electrics require very little servicing beyond tires and wiper blades.
There is even a benefit for consumers in the aftermath of major storms. As seen with Hurricane Sandy, distribution gas outlets were down for weeks after the storm while electric power was restored on a more timely basis.
In addition, gasoline is flammable at the fill-up station. This is the reason motorists are asked to shut off their running engines while filling up. In addition, patrons are asked not to smoke while filling up in order to reduce the likelihood of explosions at the pump. Clearly, the safety advantages of EV charging at parking spaces are vastly improved over the dangers of filling up at the gasoline pump.
Improvements to the solar energy technology this century will make EV fill ups at parking spaces even cheaper because the energy source (the sun) is virtually costless and limitless.
Electric vehicles are here to stay. The cost benefits and ease of maintenance far outweigh the conventional gas guzzlers at the gas pump and repair service stations. Mayor Bloomberg's decision to go ahead with EV infrastructure construction at parking spaces is farsighted and clearly in the public interest.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clav
You say, "Now EVs are cheaper to drive than gas vehicles since electricity costs less per driver mile than gasoline."
While it is true that electricity is cheaper on a per mile basis than gasoline, the cost of electricity or gasoline is only part of the equation, particularly where EVs are concerned; there is a substantial difference between the cost to purchase an EV, even taking into account the government's $4500 rebate for the purchase of an EV, as well as the various state rebates available.
In an article titled "How to Compare the Cost of Electric and Gas Cars,"National Geographic makes a far more realistic comparison study, which takes into account the difference in purchase price.
Notes the magazine:
[T]he initial price to buy a new Leaf, at $37,250, is 44 percent higher than the Elantra ($20,595), based on the top manufacturers’ suggested retail prices cited fueleconomy.gov. The Leaf’s price pain is eased by the federal tax credit of $7,500, and for drivers in California, the state clean vehicle rebate of $2,500. With the tax incentives, the Leaf costs 32 percent more than the Elantra.
It would take nearly six years for the EV fuel cost savings to pay back the $6,655 initial price premium for the California consumer who chooses a Leaf over an Elantra, based on average U.S. driving habits outlined and the current gasoline price at fueleconomy.gov. In states without rebates as generous as California’s, the payback would take longer. Only if gasoline prices skyrocketed to $15 per gallon would consumers see a payback period in less than a year for the original outlay required for the Leaf. (Emphasis added)
Until the pricing of EVs becomes more competitive, they will not be a good substitute for gasoline vehicles. At current prices, none but the most well off can afford to buy an EV, and subsequently absorb the substantial difference in operating cost incurred by the huge price difference.
2 - Doug Hunter
If I was going to buy one, I'd skip the $37K for the Leaf and turn heads in a Tesla starting at $52K. You can also get up to 300 mile range with the Tesla although you need an upgraded battery that cost more.
That's the only remaining concern I have with electric vehicles (besides the lack of recharging infrastructure NY is addressing)... the batteries. You mention maintenance, the cost to replace a battery gone bad is $20K-$40K. They are advertised to only lose down to 70-80% of their original charge over 5-10 years but anecdotal evidence is that that is under better conditions... run it too hot or too cold and you can decrease output much quicker. Also, in some cases your battery can simply "brick" and not hold any charge forcing you to spend the aforementioned $20-40K. Once there is reliable data showing long term reliability of the battery system among a range of drivers you can count me on board to get one myself (I've pondered getting on the Tesla list a few times, I just can't quite bring myself to pull the trigger on such a fancy toy)
3 - Doug Hunter
To be clear on my above post, they still maintain 70% of their power after some years, not lose 70%.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
I agree with Doug - I'd much prefer the Tesla. I checked one out at a showroom in a local mall and it was an instant case of lust. A Leaf or a Prius might please my liberal senses, but the Tesla satisfies somethinga a bit more...visceral.
5 - Dr Joseph S Maresca
I did mention learning curve in the article. We are just at the beginning of the learning curve technologically. Prices should go down, as they did with calculators, television sets, computers and many other consumer goods. In addition, the technology of vehicles like the Tata is providing a much more affordable product for consumers. Soon, vehicle manufacturers will marry the Tata concept with the electric vehicle in the USA.
6 - Clav
An interesting (and accurate, IMO) take on electric cars in an article published online today at Real Clear Politics.
Some excerpts:
Electric cars never really made any sense. They are cloaked in the sanctimony of the green movement, because they don't use nasty fossil fuels like gasoline. Instead, they use electricity, which is sent out through power lines from big power plants, which generate this electricity; how? Oh yes, by burning fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas. This is known as the "long tailpipe," which goes from the car charging up in your garage all the way back to the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant. And don't forget, electric cars also have giant batteries made from nasty toxic metals like lithium and cobalt, the manufacture of which frontloads carbon dioxide emissions.
So the electric car was always more an exercise in green paternalism: it is the future, as selected for us by our betters, than a serious attempt to solve any real or imagined problem.
The rest of the article discusses the controversy generated by New York Times reporter John Broder, [who] set off to test the Tesla S by driving it from Washington, DC, to Boston, only to encounter persistent problems with the range of the car and its ability to make it from one Tesla charging station to another without running out of juice. He ends [by] having to drive with the heat off on a cold day to conserve power, some luxury car!, until his battery conks out and the Tesla has to be towed. In short, the review was a PR disaster for Tesla.
Electric vehicles (EVs) one day may or may not be at least one of the solutions to the alternate energy problem (but not by operating on electricity produced by burning fossil fuels), but that day is still far in the future.
Meanwhile, most of Mr. Bloomberg's special parking slots will remain empty for lack of demand.
7 - Doug Hunter
#6
The facts remain that electricity can power a car for around 25%-50% the energy cost of gasoline today, although fair comparisons are hard to come by. You can't compare a Leaf to an SUV and gasoline has additional taxes that skew the results, but $2 in electricity can currently get you 60-100 miles in an electric vehicle. Maintenance costs are minimal as well. You know I don't care about carbon emissions, but those big power plants are pretty efficient and I think electric vehicles are indeed the future.
The local NY government may be jumping the gun, but the technology is close. The Tesla is supposed to have a 300 mile range, but lets say that's only 200 miles. I think a legitimate 300-400 mile range would be satisfactory to most people so we're only looking at a 50%-100% increase in capacity. Charge times for the Tesla are supposed to be an hour, but let's say it takes 90 minutes. I think people could live with 20-30 minutes when you need a fast recharge on long trips, give you some time to obese up on some convenience store snacks and hit the toilet. If the charging infrastructure was there, then day to day running would be no problem on 300 mile range. The battery cost needs to come down from $40K to $15K or so before people will take the risk.
The battery range, recharge, and price are all not far off for fairy fledgling technology (gas cars have many decades and hundreds of millions of units of practice perfecting their system). China is spending $15 billion getting a jump on the electric vehicle market, they're not ones to be stupid with their money. Ultimately, I think the flexibility (electricity can be made from anything) and efficiency of electricity will find it's way into vehicles... it's only a matter of finding a capable battery and I think they're getting at least in the ballpark.
I'd love to see the US make the breakthroughs and take the lead in this technology. If an electric car can survive our mountains and desert southwest, make it on cross country trips and through our suburban sprawl it'll exceed capacity and sell like hotcakes anywhere else.
8 - Igor
A lot of cars will be sold to Early Adopters (the same people who made the iPhone popular), they are rather price-insensitive.
John Broders misfortunes could have been avoided. There's a rebuttal by Tesla at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Of course, RMI is biased, but so is RCP.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk almost immediately took to social media to cry foul. On February 12, Broder published a defense of his initial article on the Times’ automotive blog. One day later, Musk published his own rebuttal on the Tesla blog, with a scathing and seemingly damning refutation of Broder’s claims, based on what Musk claimed were data logs from the Model S Broder drove. Yet another day later, Broder responded to those criticisms. Finally, two days ago, the Times’ public editor, following a detailed investigation in light of the firestorm that blew up surrounding the review, noted “problems with precision and judgment” in Broder’s Model S and Supercharger network review. Consider it a partial vindication for Tesla.
Meanwhile, other media outlets, including CNN, have successfully completed the D.C.-to-Boston drive in a Model S with barely a fraction of the issues Broder encountered.
9 - Doug Hunter
An Clav, although NY's plan may indeed be a boondoggle at least it's one that has a potential return on investment rather than the usual spending as of late which just makes being poor that much more comfortable. Paying people unemployment longer or more food stamps, while making people comfortable, has no future payoff after it is spent at Walmart... encouraging electric vehicles may ignite a spark that puts us ahead of an entire industry, making transportation cheaper and more efficient for all.
10 - Igor
@6-=Clav: I'm surprised to hear anyone say that "An interesting (and accurate, IMO) take on electric cars in an article published online today at Real Clear Politics."
The Times itself said ... two days ago, the Times’ public editor, following a detailed investigation in light of the firestorm that blew up surrounding the review, noted “problems with precision and judgment” in Broder’s Model S and Supercharger network review. Which goes directly against Clavs assertion.
11 - Igor
The supercilious attitude of the RCP article should reveals their bias:
"Electric cars never really made any sense."
"They are cloaked in the sanctimony of the green movement,..."
"...because they don't use nasty fossil fuels like gasoline."
"Instead, they use electricity, which is sent out through power lines from big power plants, which generate this electricity; how? Oh yes, by burning fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas. This is known as the "long tailpipe," which goes from the car charging up in your garage all the way back to the smokestack of a coal-fired power plant.
"And don't forget, electric cars also have giant batteries made from nasty toxic metals like lithium and cobalt, the manufacture of which frontloads carbon dioxide emissions."
"So the electric car was always more an exercise in green paternalism: it is the future, as selected for us by our betters, than a serious attempt to solve any real or imagined problem."
The RCP article seems to follow the pattern many of us have become accustomed to from RCP: they start off seeming reasonable and unbiased then they veer off into far right politics.
12 - Clav
In re electric cars:
Hydrogen power is infinitely a better choice; it just needs more development, although Hyundai has announced they will have a hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle on the road by the end of this year. In addition to Hyundai, Toyota, Daimler and Honda all have fuel cell powered cars in development.
According to this CNN article:
A fuel-cell-powered car can travel much longer distances than battery-powered ones before needing to be refueled, and fuel cells can be more readily used in large vehicles like trucks and SUVs.
Although Hyundai claims that it will be the first to offer fuel cell vehicles commercially, other carmakers will be right behind it. Toyota and Honda have said they will release a fuel cell car in 2015.
The advantages fuel-cell vehicles have over cars like the Leaf and Volt are shorter refueling times and greater range.
The Nissan Leaf, for example, runs for only 73 miles and takes seven hours to charge on a home-charging station.
In contrast fuel-cell cars can be driven for hundreds of miles before needing to be refueled, and it takes only a few minutes to fill a tank with hydrogen.
The relative high purchase price of electric cars comes from the cost of the lithium-ion batteries, which a Ford executive recently revealed can make up one-third of a car's price.
In a survey of auto industry executives conducted by KPMG, respondents expected that among electric vehicles, hybrids will have the highest customer demand by 2025, followed by fuel-cell vehicles, outdoing the demand of battery-powered cars.
13 - Clav
Which goes directly against Clavs assertion
Which, as stated, is not an "assertion," but his opinion.
That much of this once-great country is still, last I checked, one of our freedoms.
Except, of course, on college campuses...
14 - Dr Dreadful
I saw a Tesla the other day when I was driving home from work: glided past me effortlessly. That is one nice, nice car.
Musk's reaction to Broder's review hardly shows his company in a good light, though, especially since it wouldn't have made any sense for Broder to have pulled most of the shenanigans Musk accuses him of pulling.
Clav's Real Clear Politics piece is off the mark though, because while it is true that most generated electricity currently comes from plants that burn fossil fuels, it assumes that such will always be the case. It's as if the author has never heard of nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, tidal, wind or solar power. It also ignores the fact that many new fossil fuel plants are designed to reduce pollution to a minimum, and that research is under way to develop conversion technologies to reduce or eliminate altogether the emissions from existing plants.
Electric cars were as popular as gas-powered ones a century ago. They died out not because they were any less efficient or "never really made any sense" but because Ford, who pioneered mass production, happened to manufacture vehicles with internal combustion engines. Who knows where electric technology would have been today if the car industry had gone in a different direction back then...
I think Doug is right, purely on economic grounds. Gasoline isn't going to be getting any cheaper, and that fact is already driving consumers to look at alternatives. I can't turn my head in a parking lot these days without seeing at least one Prius; as a matter of fact we just bought one ourselves and so did my sister-in-law, who drives a lot on business.
The hybrid car is the bridge technology in the move toward electrification of the roads. We considered a fully electric vehicle but decided the existing efficiency and infrastructure didn't justify our buying one - yet. Maybe in 5-10 years when we're next in the market, though...
15 - Dr Dreadful
Oh, and Doug, while I'm on your side here I couldn't let this one slip by:
Paying people unemployment longer or more food stamps, while making people comfortable, has no future payoff after it is spent at Walmart...
I was out of work for eight months last year, and although I received unemployment benefits for almost that entire period, I assure you that I did not spend a penny of them at Wal-Mart.
:-)
16 - Doug Hunter
#15
Maybe yours went to something useful then. Had those benefits not been available you might have had to find out what it's like to work there though (at least until you found a position more commensurate with your experience). I've never had a job or been eligible for unemployment since my military days, but for some strange reason they allowed you to get unemployment benefits for several months after choosing to leave the military which they helped you file for on discharge. I never had any intention of getting a job, but I soaked up unemployment as beer money for a few months anyway. I could have extended too for up to an additional year or something but it wasn't a whole lot of money and my conscience finally got the best of me (I do have one, it just takes longer than average to kick in)
17 - troll
y'all should consider the recent sleek endurance models of horses...
18 - Clav
Doc,
Did you read my post on fuel cell technology?
19 - Clav
I think Doug is right, purely on economic grounds.
Not when one considers purchase price he isn't. Not yet (and maybe not ever). As the article mentions, to offset the astronomical cost of electric cars, one has to drive for more years than most people keep their cars.
In addition, I'm not so sure that, with new tech like fracking, we'll actually run out of carbon fuels as fast as the doomsayers say we will. I'm reminded of Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlichmann.
20 - Clav
y'all should consider the recent sleek endurance models of horses...
Looking for job security, troll?
21 - Clav
(the same people who made the iPhone popular)
Actually, the Crackberry addicts were the early adopters; the iPhone came later.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Doug (@ #16):
My unemployment benefits went almost entirely towards household management and paying the bills, just as my wages did and again do. My wife is the chief breadwinner in our household; nonetheless, life without UIB would have been difficult.
My remark about Wal-Mart was pointed, but a joke. I loathe the place and wouldn't be caught dead shopping there, let alone working there.
Your idea about lowering one's expectations and working in a more humble situation during lean times is fine in principle, but impractical in today's economy. During my period of unemployment I did apply for many low-wage jobs in retail, fast food etc., but encountered very little interest due to the fact that I have no experience in those fields and (I suspect) because I'm too old and brainy.
I actually was offered a job after only three months out of work, but since it was in the law enforcement industry the background checks took forfreakingever (they were fascinating though), so I figured I might as well keep looking. It turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as I eventually received three good competing job offers and was able to pick the best of them.
23 - Dr Dreadful
Clav (@ #18),
I did read it, but you must have been composing it at the same time I was typing mine. I didn't see it until after I posted my comment.
Fuel cells are another exciting technology and I'm interested to see what develops. As superior as they may be to batteries right now, I feel that the clean vehicle industry would be unwise to throw all of its eggs into one basket. The advantage batteries have, to my mind, is that they're a proven technology with a pedigree going back more than a century, and that makes them highly promising.
24 - Dr Dreadful
I'm not so sure that, with new tech like fracking, we'll actually run out of carbon fuels as fast as the doomsayers say we will.
Bit of a red herring, that, Clav. It's not a question of running out but of cost. I'm not sure that it makes more economic sense to invest in fracking R&D than in alternative vehicle power R&D.
25 - troll
(...you know me Clavos Grande - ever self-promoting)