CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
April 19, 2009 – 11:06 p.m.
An Earth Day Primer on Plug-In Cars
By Elizabeth Wasserman, CQ Staff
When the average cost of a gallon of gasoline breached $4 last summer, consumers of all stripes were forced to confront alternative-energy strategies. Commuters who previously hadn’t considered buying hybrid, alternative-fuel or electric vehicles suddenly began debating whether to take the plunge. And although a variety of flexible-fuel, hybrid, diesel and natural gas technologies existed for vehicles, it took last fall’s stimulus package to create a fresh economic incentive. The law included tax credits of $2,500 to $7,500 to the first 200,000 purchasers of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Congress bumped up the number of eligible purchases to 200,000 per manufacturer when it enacted the recent stimulus package.
“We believe up to 2 million cars could be covered now based on the announcements from manufacturers,” said Jay Friedland, legislative director of Plug In America, a nonprofit that promotes the use of electric vehicles.
There are three classes of electric vehicles:
• Existing hybrids. These are primarily gas-powered hybrids that have already been integrated into the vehicle fleet, such as the Toyota Prius, Chevy Tahoe and Ford Escape. The vehicles feature a gasoline engine working in tandem with a small electric motor that allows the gas engine to shut off periodically to conserve fuel. When the cars brake, an electric system captures the braking energy and stores it in a nickel metal hydride battery for use later. This type of vehicle can offer fuel-
efficiency savings of 50 percent or more but still requires gasoline to power the electrical components. Purchasers of these vehicles are eligible for tax credits enacted as part of the 2005 energy law.
• Plug-in hybrid. This variety relies on more battery power. Drivers plug these autos into electrical outlets in order to charge the vehicle batteries overnight. In contrast to the existing hybrids, these concept cars actually will displace some of the miles driven on gasoline with electricity, Friedland said. The first are coming to market next year and include the Chevy Volt and Toyota Prius.
• Electric cars. These vehicles run entirely on electricity. Manufacturers made electric cars such as Toyota’s Rav4-EV earlier this decade in response to more stringent environmental laws in California, but many dropped production shortly thereafter. Large-scale production began again in the spring of 2008 on the Tesla Roadster sports car, and some nine other manufacturers plan to introduce pure electric models.
The Energy Information Administration expects sales of PHEVs to grow to almost 140,000 vehicles per year by 2015 due to the tax credits. But, as with the smart grid, there are substantial technological challenges.
“The big question is can you make the battery better,” said Pew’s Greenwald. Existing battery packs can now power a vehicle for up to 100 miles per charge — about one-third of the distance the average tank of gas will take a vehicle. And the batteries are very expensive, costing $10,000 to $25,000, according to Ron Cogan, editor and publisher of the Green Car Journal. “I’ve been following battery technology for 20 years, and while we’ve had incremental improvements as we’ve gone along, we’ve been waiting for a battery breakthrough for several decades,” Cogan said. February’s stimulus act included $2 billion in funding for domestic manufacturers to develop more advanced batteries.
There are other alternatives beyond electricity, such as cleaner-burning gasoline-ethanol blends such as E85, which consists of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Compressed natural gas, one of the cleanest- burning hydrocarbon fuels, now powers fleets of city and school buses, delivery trucks, and the Honda Civic GX. Hydrogen-based fuel cells, likewise, have been shown to power vehicles such as the Chevy Equinox Fuel Cell, launched in 2008, without producing greenhouse gases.
“Government is trying to choose a winner at the moment with huge incentives for electric-drive vehicles,” Cogan said. “The batteries are so costly right now that I don’t know that this is the slam-dunk many think it is.”
Silicon Valley startup Better Place aims to build a network for charging electric cars. The Palo Alto, Calif., company is developing a series of charging locations and battery exchange stations that will essentially allow drivers to pay for the miles they drive. Officials predict that converting the fleet to all electric will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below current levels.
“We have a device that’s a battery swap station, which takes up a lane in a gas station,” said Michael Granoff, the company’s head of oil independence policies. Better Place already has started building a network of charging spots in Israel and plans similar deployments in Denmark, Australia, California and Hawaii.
Comments
The tax credits you mention are an important step to creating incentives to switch to hybrids and other vehicles. Another incentive that would be felt by owners of gas guzzlers each visit to the pump would be a per-gallon gas tax based on efficient vehicle assessment (EVA). It's a makes more sense than mileage tax (VMT). After two years of evaluating alternatives to the current gas tax, a congressional commission has recommended that by 2020 a VMT replace the current gas tax. VMT would be based on how many miles each vehicle is driven. A better name might be "Track 'n Tax". The VMT may be better than the other 23 options considered. But it is not as good as an alternative not considered: a per-gallon tax based on vehicle fuel efficiency. At the pump an "efficient vehicle assessor" software (or EVA) would scan a bar-coded VIN decal on the windshield and compute the tax based on vehicle make, model and weight – all factors in fuel efficiency. This issue is at the nexus of two urgent national priorities: promoting fuel efficiency and funding our network of roads and highways. The congressional National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission measured each revenue option against five criteria: • Will the future revenue stream be sustainable • Is it fair across geographic regions and income groups • Does it promote efficiency • Is it politically viable and is implementation easy and affordable • Is it applicable to federal, state and local governments Despite scoring higher than all other options, the VMT falls short on three key criteria in comparison to EVA: Is it fair across geographic and income groups? Because the VMT bases the tax on miles driven, it is inherently unfair to rural drivers and long-distance commuters.. EVA, on the other hand, can be based on vehicle make and model. It doesn't penalize drivers who necessarily have longer trips but it does reward hybrid vehicle use. Does it promote efficiency? VMT doesn't do enough to discourage the use of gas-guzzlers or encourage the use of efficient vehicles. Do we really want a rural driver of a Prius to pay a higher tax per gallon than the suburban Hummer driver going 3 miles to the mall? EVA, on the other hand, would assess the Prius at a lower per-gallon rate than the Hummer. Is it politically viable and easy/affordable to implement? Passing a tax that is unfair to rural drivers and long-distance commuters and disappoints environmentalists and privacy advocates won't be easy. EVA, by comparison, encourages fuel efficiency, doesn't violate privacy, and treats all drivers –rural and suburban – fairly. And cost? VMT requires retrofitting all vehicles with GPS tracking- or odometer-reading equipment. EVA requires just a bar-coded VIN decal on the windshield, easily distributed by existing motor vehicle offices. EVA could even be an opt-in program with non-participating drivers paying the maximum tax and all enrolled vehicles – even that Hummer – paying less, with hybrids and motorcycles paying the least.
I feel this article is in severe need of context as some of this information is woefully outdated. Hydrogen has been widely discredited as a fuel source, given that it takes as much energy to produce as it provides, and it's inherently unstable (Hindenburg anyone?) Additionally building an infrastructure to support a hydrogen-based fuel system would be costly. Corn-base ethanol has also been discredited as a viable fuel source, given widespread food shortages facing many third world countries at the moment. Turning food into gasoline makes no sense, ever, least of all now. Batteries will get better and cheaper, technology always does. The infrastructure is already in place. Plug-ins are the future.
Even though I agree with Todd on most of his comment, I just want to quote a part of the Wiki about Hydrogen concerning the Hindenburg disaster: "The explosion of the Hindenburg airship was an infamous example of hydrogen combustion; the cause is debated, but the visible flames were the result of combustible materials in the ship's skin. Because hydrogen is buoyant in air, hydrogen flames tend to ascend rapidly and cause less damage than hydrocarbon fires. Two-thirds of the Hindenburg passengers survived the fire, and many deaths were instead the result of falls or burning diesel fuel."
Five major automakers test-marketed six highway-capable electric vehicles (EVs) in the American Southwest starting in 1996. If the EVs had been mass-produced and sold (test-marketing was lease-only,) American drivers would likely be buying a million every year by now. As it is, the Chinese will bring us their affordable EVs in a few years and take the US market.
earth day is an interesting event with an empty road free from cars. ~unparalled60~
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: