Yep, that's a question mark beside the title of this otherwise dispassionate look at electric vehicle technology. I put that question mark there because in the entire electric car controversy, something is missing, and that something is glossed over by most who shill for the immediate mass adoption of the current electric vehicle technology.
That something is physics.
Yes, Physics, that simple science of unmistakable truths (well, unmistakable except to the Church of Gaia, as interpreted by His Hollowness Pope Algore, but that's for other screeds).
The simple science here is that we can already build a complex machine fueled by petroleum distillate, either gasoline or diesel, that will do a lot of things in the way of locomotion, and have extra power available to do things like heat the interior of the car, cool the car, generate electricity for electrical needs, etc.
Electric vehicles don't convert the latent energy of fuel (unless they are fuel-cell vehicles, which do that, but only with very small mechanical power production capabilities), they release stored electrical energy from batteries of various kinds.
Physics tells us that some forms of energy can be relatively more economical to convert to useful mechanical energy than others. Of all of the available forms of energy suitable for propelling a vehicle anywhere it needs to go, petroleum distillate internal combustion engines are the best compromise between the requirements of safety, economy and total power conversion from the stored or latent form to the mechanical or useful form.
Electric motors are much more efficient devices for producing power than are gasoline engines, but the chassis of a vehicle must not only include the motor, it must include the form of power conversion within it's confines as well.
The present electric power vehicle technology stores it's power in batteries, then feeds that power to a low-horsepower electric motor(s), which then propel(s) the vehicle. In a fuel-powered vehicle, very little of the total weight is given to the stored fuel. In my Mazda B2500 pickup, which weighs 3600 pounds with just the driver, only 107 pounds are given over to fuel with a full tank, and the empty tank weighs maybe another twenty pounds, for a total of around 130, which is only 3.6 percent of the total vehicle weight.
There is an electric conversion kit out for the Chevy S-10, which, for the sake of argument, we'll assume weighs the same as my vehicle. It's electric power is stored within 24 GC5 golf car (6 volt) batteries, which will weigh, with connecting cables, about 75 pounds each. That's 2,025 pounds of batteries. The battery-charger, motor controller and motor probably weigh another 200 pounds, for a total of 2,225 pounds, from which you will subtract the weight of the fuel and tank, 130#, and the gas engine, which weighs roughly 600# (the clutch and tranny remain in the conversion), so that's about 1500 pounds more weight than the truck weighs dry, 2,895#. add them and you get 4,390#. The GVR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) for a mid 90's S-10 (you aren't going to convert a new one, and the older ones are lighter, anyway) is 4,600# or so, so you can have 210 pounds of carrying capacity (enough for two midgets or one driver of average weight) before you illegally overload the vehicle.
When you get that vehicle converted, as this kit will let you do, you have a vehicle which will carry you 40 to 60 miles at up to 75 mph. Very quietly, too. You have to recharge the batteries every 60 miles, and you can't run any air conditioning or heat in the cab, but you are oh, so green. About $12,000 for the truck and the kit. Oh, by the way, those batteries have a useful lifespan of about 3 years if you take perfect care of them, then you'll be spending $2,500 or so to replace them (and grunting a lot as you do the heavy work this entails).
But, the greenies will say I'm unfair for using such a heavy example of an electric vehicle. OK, let's take a current-production one and look at it's specs.
Let's look at the ZENN (Zero Emissions No Noise) car, which is built in Canada from parts imported from La Belle France. It retails for about $13,000 to $15,000 in it's base-model form. It weighs 1,200 pounds, and can be loaded to about 1,700#, for a legal load of 500 pounds. The range is "up to 35 miles". The speed is limited (I don't know about this, I think it's a Canadian rule that may not apply here) to 25 mph, which precludes it's use on freeways or even suburban boulevards. It must be recharged OVERNIGHT, unless you get the optional fast charger and battery upgrade, which total another $9,900. So, you are going to pay about $25,000 for this car in it's most useful form, and that's none too useful. A local proponent of the cars, who wrote in to the local paper touting it, says he expects the recharger electricity from his house to total $65 for the year (he didn't say how many miles that was, but let's say he drives it 500 miles a month for 6,000 miles). Gasoline for a 55-mpg hybrid Toyota Prius (it would be that efficient at those speeds) would cost $350 or so at $3.25/gallon, so the difference on fuel alone (the cars cost about the same) is less than $300/year or $25/month.
Oh, did I mention usefulness? The Prius will do over 100 mph (just ask Pope Algore's son), is air conditioned, will carry 4 adults who are NOT midgets or Twiggy-clones, and has an actual trunk that will carry luggage as well.
Let's talk vehicle politics.
The US auto industry has brought the idiotic idea of these volts-wagons on itself with several bonehead faux-pas. The first is the bonehead horsepower race, which has trickled down into even basic cars. A basic econobox doesn't need more than 80 horsepower or so, they built some very good ones in the 70's with less (I owned several). Stepping up, the "family sedan" that is the holy grail for marketing cars in the US, needs no more than 150 horsepower to do it's job adequately, but larger engines are usually put into them. Some family sedans are sold with engines in the 300 horsepower range now.
Physics again. If you have an engine which will produce 300 horsepower, it's not as efficient as one which tops out at half that. I'm a conservative, and I don't want to ban big engines, but I would agree to have a large penalty for driving one, say a hefty registration fee based on horsepower that goes up exponentially with horsepower over the needed amount. That figure should be whatever will drive the car, fully loaded, at legal speed of up to 80mph, with adequate power reserve, in the high country (think I-10 across New Mexico or I-40 across the Rockies in Colorado). That's about 150 hp, by my experience. The dollars generated by these horsepower fees MUST be directed into engine efficiency research and development, and not into the general fund.
Politics again. The eco-nerds are fond of speculating that the 120-mpg carburettor exists (it does, but trying to keep that weed pipe lit at speed is a bitch), and that the eeeevil oiiiil companies deep-sixed both the equipment AND it's inventors so that it could never be produced. Then there are the "miracle" fuel-line "ionizers" or the "miracle" gasoline additives which will give you fantabulous mileage, and THEY were also defeated by the oil companies. Horsepuckey. Refer these people to the nearest community mental health center, please, and refer back to basic physics. Then there is the very real farce of Ethanol, which works as a motor fuel, but not nearly as well as gasoline, so for it to be a panacea for our fuel import problem, we would have to have it sold at least 25% cheaper than gas (it's about 8-10% cheaper now). It is also a total energy pig, costing more energy to make than the savings it will bring, so it is actually uneconomical. Ethanol is the new farmer's welfare program, and only Archer-Daniels-Midland profits by it. The rest of us poor saps, taken in by it's phony promise, are going to pay a hidden bill for it at our grocery stores (think $7/bushel corn and now, $10/bushel wheat), then pay again at the pump, because Ethanol costs MORE per mile to drive your car than gasoline does. Biodiesel doesn't actually have fuel-usage penalties, it works about as well as petro-diesel, but then, only so much bio-oils can be produced, so it will never amount to much of a fuel source, and there is a lack of production infrastructure for it.
Bottom line on all of this: until the 250-mile electric vehicle is built, which will recharge in 15-20 minutes, go 80 mph with a full load and cost no more than a standard sedan, we can't use them. Sorry about that.
Readers excoriate me for ending on sour notes, so here are some positive suggestions to alleviate the fuel demand issues. First, the car owners:
- Get rid of vehicles you don't use. Most middle-class families in urban settings could get by with one vehicle. Most have three.
- Trade in older vehicles for more modern, efficient ones. The dot.gov needs to incentivize us to do this.
- Consider scoots for single-person short trips. They get vastly better fuel mileage.
Then, the car producers:
- Let us have diesels. Many more miles come out the diesel made from a barrel of crude than do the miles when it is turned into gasoline.
- Keep working on making more efficient vehicles, including by REDUCING engine size and power.
- Develop a no-idle hybrid engine. It's doable now, so do it.
- Keep doing R&D on electric vehicles. We aren't in sight of electric power as a replacement for fuel power yet, but we might be in 30 more years if we keep after it.
The government needs to get into the act too (no worries, elect (D)emocrats and they will, but not with THIS list). They need to:
- Get cracking and approve the new diesel engines for production instead of dragging their feet as they are doing now.
- Instead of CAFE, give tax incentives to automakers for producing more lines of efficient cars.
- Move the automakers towards ending the horsepower race by fees and taxes on excessive power, and lowered fees for those of us willing to live with less power.
- Offer HUGE incentives for the holy grail of the 250-mile range, 15-minute recharge electric family sedan. Something like the first automaker to build one in quantity gets the whole government contract for sedans for five years.
- Scrap the hydrogen vehicle research. This chicken will never fly. The fuel is too volatile and the infrastructure change to offer hydrogen will never pay for itself, so it is a Socialist pipe dream, and we KNOW what those Socialists smoke in their pipes.
- Get some decent motor bus transportation back into the picture. I am a railfan, but I realize that the tracks don't go everywhere they need to, and never will. If intercity transportation must be subsidized, it makes FAR more sense to subsidize bus companies rather than Amtrak, except for about two or three corridors. If second-world nations like Mexico can have excellent bus transport, we should be able to also.