Dark Age of Cars Part 3: Alternative Fuels

This post should make you mad.  Keep in mind this was written in June 2010 during the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Ah, another of my favorites, especially in the current political environment.  Environmentalists think that with all of the oil erupting into the Gulf of Mexico that people will be more accepting of the idea of alternative fuels.  The reality, people are going to be more accepting of the idea of getting more of our oil from foreign countries where it has less of a chance of messing up our land and they’ll buy less fuel from BP.  Trust me, I want a replacement for oil just as much as the next person, but I’m not going to punish myself for it, and that is the key.  Any replacement for our current vehicles will have to be cheaper, faster and more affordable for it to be embraced by the public.  The average consumer will not accept a Zapcar as a replacement for their standard vehicle under any circumstances.  Consumers are also not going to purchase a fuel that is better for the environment but costs them more and decreases the power and efficiency of their vehicle.  Alternative vehicles that succeed will be the ones that divert as little as possible from the current formula while providing equal power, range, convenience, and value that is at least equal to the current automotive offerings.  Car buyers will not be punished into buying more efficient vehicles, if they don’t want them, they won’t buy them and they especially won’t buy them if they’ll cost more to operate and own.  Four dollar gas wasn’t enough for consumers to kick traditional vehicles to the curb so why should we assume that higher gas prices will force a change?  The only change that high fuel prices force is a recession and inflation.  What I’m trying to get at is that people will not be convinced to use anything but internal combustion engines until someone offers them a vehicle that is better than what they have for them, not just for the planet.

            So, if we want to accomplish that, what do we need to do?  Well, our future vehicle needs to have great power, be safe, be able to do at least a 300 mile round trip and be cheap to operate and own all of the time.  Electric vehicles can do all of these things.  While they lack the auditory charm of internal combustion engines, electric motors are incredibly efficient and powerful by comparison.  Their instant torque would be incredibly useful for the standard driver’s commute and they make much more efficient use of their available energy.  Therefore I argue that the vehicle of the future will definitely be powered by electric motors.  However, the average sedan should have about 150 kW (~200 horsepower) of power and sports cars will need upwards of 250-300 kW (~335 – 400 horsepower) of power.  The problem with this is that there is currently no inexpensive, safe, or reliable way to carry enough energy on board to supply that level of power for the 5-6 hours needed to complete a 300 mile round trip.  The Chevrolet Volt carries enough power to move a car with 110 kW 40 miles before needing recharged and they expect to charge $40,000 for this!  I’d wager most of that inflated price is due to the batteries.  This being the case, any vehicle wanting to replace internal combustion engines is going to need an energy storage system that currently does not exist.  Hydrogen fuel cells could replace internal combustion, but the only known production example (FCX Clarity from Honda) is hyper-expensive ($600 per month lease, similar to a high end luxury car) and has lower power and range than the requirements I’ve listed above.  Current battery technology cannot even come close.  The Tesla Roadster is the most promising example because it meets the power requirements but again, the technology is hyper expensive and the range is sporadic at best.  So the goal should be to find a way to get 120 kW/h of energy into a car and make that car cost less than $30,000.  Such a feat is completely impossible at this time.  The roadster has 53 kW/h of energy and the replacement cost for its battery pack alone is expected to be $36,000 for less than half of the needed energy.  This battery pack is said to allow 288 miles per charge but most actually achieve around half of that and we haven’t even talked about recharge times.  These examples are still decades away from being functioning replacements for the internal combustion engine.  The average consumer cannot afford to be spending more than $30,000 on a car and for that you can barely get a Zapcar that goes on the freeway not to mention the huge number of cars now on the road in China and India that will need a viable, cheap replacement as well.  A new technology is required and if we are going to realize it in time to make a difference, a huge capital investment is going to have to be made soon.  This is not pessimism, its realism.  I suppose it could be possible through the use of massive gasoline taxes and fascist emissions laws to punish people into more efficient vehicles, but can we really consider ourselves the ‘Land of the Free’ if we dictate which vehicles our people can and cannot drive through economic means?  We need to spur innovation and the best way to do that is by spending boat-loads of money.  Whoever discovers the battery technology necessary to complete the electric car is going to be swimming in money so why not make a healthy capital investment in discovering it?  We aren’t talking about an impossible feat here, but if we continue at our current pace, the electric car will come far too late to make any difference against global warming.  We need to stop wasting money on Band-aids like hybrids and more efficient internal combustion engines and spend that time, money and innovation trying to find a solution that makes hybrids and internal combustion engines obsolete.