(Peak Oil)What's wrong with electric cars now?

[Adrian Laguna]

To expand on that:

Our economies have been running on solar energy accumulated through chemical processes over eons and then stored under the ground thanks to geological processes. We have burned through a good portion of it over the past two centuries and will be using-up the rest over the next one. The issue is, in the absence of this vast store of accumulated energy, what do we use instead? Peak-oil is the harbringer of an energy shortage crisis, thus we shall all be forced to make the most efficient use energy possible. None of these schemes are it. Indeed, if I am not mistaken the cars we use today are themselves energy-inefficient when compared to mass transit systems.

[Stark]

All these ideas are pointless because the problem with peak oil is the loss of energy resources, and these ideas are extremely energy-inefficient in absolute terms (i.e., manufacturing). Get used to riding the interurban, for chrissake.

I have to say, the concern people express over maintaining their present energy-intensive (some might say staggeringly energy-wasteful) lifestyles is bizarre. Obviously we should worry primarily about the availability of cheap, high-performance personal transport! None of that 'infrastructure of civilisation' business!

I can't even be assed owning a car because I don't need one. I'm far more concerned about the broad sweep of problems the overturning energy cart is going to cause than 'oh noes my teh carz'.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Stark has a point that many tend to overlook when this subject is broached with them, since most all people have only ever known what we live through now and think that is all there is. So they'll fight tooth and claw to keep their otherwise wasteful, and likely not even all that much fulfilling lives, if only because change scares people.

Even if we had electric cars or super efficient turbine ones tomorrow, that would only validate Jevons Paradox and cause increased consumption to drive us into and even bigger problem. In many respects, solving this with a new energy source is the last thing you want to do, if it were even possible. You'd just get more mouths to feed, more complacency and the next limiting factor will fell you instead, be it water or food or space.

A lot of smart speakers on the subject have started getting steadily more pessimistic as of late. Some energy sector investors like Matt Simmons had doubts about averting major upheavals unless we had truly groundbreaking programmes put in place right now. Today, his view is darker still and toes the resource war and die-off line.

You know when Dubya and the IEA admit that we're heading for "darker days", to quote one energy economist, we're doing something wrong.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The automobile is simply not going to be a component of civilization past 2045 at the latest, and that is being almost silly in my generousity.

Grow up, get over it, and let us have people start using their brainpower to try and keep our civilizations alive in the future, instead of simply to create a Mad Max scenario, because if we spend all our energy on building electric cars, that's all we're going to have, period.

I can get on an 3,800-ish tonne auto ferry right now in the city I'm currently living in that has a passenger capacity of 1,500 people and gets me the 27 miles into the heart of downtown Seattle in an hour. Maybe someone should be making plans for how to power it without diesel. The auto decks could be replaced by batteries, for instance; could we get around 14 hours (enough for 7 round trips) of running time at 16 knots out of that? The current schedule has an hour and fifteen minutes docked in the middle of the day that could be used for a partial recharge, too.

[Darth Wong]

The really sad thing is that many future-city visions from the 1930s were more sustainable than the present day reality. A lot of those early futurists envisioned great cities where people lived in huge sky-rise buildings and rose in high-speed monorails. That vision, fanciful as it is, is actually much more sustainable than the present-day urban sprawl situation.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd far prefer an autogyro, too, over a car.

[Chardok]

I have to admit to being scared...and extremely unprepared. Why even bother buying a house if we're looking at world war forever in a few years?

[Flagg]

The really sad thing is that many future-city visions from the 1930s were more sustainable than the present day reality. A lot of those early futurists envisioned great cities where people lived in huge sky-rise buildings and rose in high-speed monorails. That vision, fanciful as it is, is actually much more sustainable than the present-day urban sprawl situation.

And you have US automakers who bought up trolley and light rail systems in alot of major US cities and immediately shut them down.

[Kanastrous]

I have to admit to being scared...and extremely unprepared. Why even bother buying a house if we're looking at world war forever in a few years?

Because you're best served by hoping for the best, even as you prepare for the worst.

[SirNitram]

That, and it's hard to imagine a world war without petroleum. What, are we going to convert aircraft carriers to the world's biggest troop carriers?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Stark has a point that many tend to overlook when this subject is broached with them, since most all people have only ever known what we live through now and think that is all there is. So they'll fight tooth and claw to keep their otherwise wasteful, and likely not even all that much fulfilling lives, if only because change scares people.

Even if we had electric cars or super efficient turbine ones tomorrow, that would only validate Jevons Paradox and cause increased consumption to drive us into and even bigger problem. In many respects, solving this with a new energy source is the last thing you want to do, if it were even possible. You'd just get more mouths to feed, more complacency and the next limiting factor will fell you instead, be it water or food or space.

A lot of smart speakers on the subject have started getting steadily more pessimistic as of late. Some energy sector investors like Matt Simmons had doubts about averting major upheavals unless we had truly groundbreaking programmes put in place right now. Today, his view is darker still and toes the resource war and die-off line.

You know when Dubya and the IEA admit that we're heading for "darker days", to quote one energy economist, we're doing something wrong.

Where's Matt Simmons' new views? Any of these other analysts?

[Adrian Laguna]

The really sad thing is that many future-city visions from the 1930s were more sustainable than the present day reality. A lot of those early futurists envisioned great cities where people lived in huge sky-rise buildings and rose in high-speed monorails. That vision, fanciful as it is, is actually much more sustainable than the present-day urban sprawl situation.

And you have US automakers who bought up trolley and light rail systems in alot of major US cities and immediately shut them down.

The free market always knows what's best.
The free market always knows what's best.
The free market always knows what's best.
The free market always knows what's best.

If they tell you it lopsidedly favours accumulated wealth, don't believe them, the free market always knows what's best.

Portal reference

[Sikon]

Electric vehicles have major advantages in regard to energy efficiency and environmental concerns, much better than gasoline vehicles, even superior to a hypothetical hydrogen economy with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

The average gasoline vehicle of today is around 2% efficient overall. That little of the thermal energy of the gasoline ends up in the kinetic energy of the driver. Internal combustion engines don't have more than ~ 20% to 25% efficiency for the ratio of mechanical power at the driveshaft to the thermal power of fuel burned, and there are other factors that increase overall inefficiency even much more than that alone. Such include the basic inefficiency of having a multi-thousand pound vehicle transporting a 100-kg person.

Hypothetical hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are part of a system involving a number of energy losses, an example estimate being 71% efficiency getting from AC electricity to the energy content of hydrogen produced by electrolysis, then 90% efficient compression, then 80% efficient transfer, then a 50% efficient fuel cell ... leading to the overall efficiency already dropping to under 26%. Such is technically possible despite the inefficiencies, building enough power plants, but such is a disadvantage.

In contrast, relevant rechargeable batteries are around 85% efficient while the electric motors on an electric vehicle can be 90% efficient. It helps that the vehicles tend to be made for far less weight than the average car of today, less aerodynamic drag, fewer frictional losses, etc.

Considering that total U.S. gasoline consumption amounts directly and indirectly to about 110 gallons a month or ~ 13000 gallons a decade per typical household, that's a gasoline energy expenditure on the order of 1,600,000 MJ per decade per household.

For perspective, one or more people driving an electric car as much as 50 miles a day would use merely on the order of 330 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month to recharge the vehicle, considering the example of the Tesla Roadster that travels ~ 245 miles on just 53 kilowatt-hours of electricity stored in its batteries. That would amount to ~ 140000 MJ per decade.

The difference between these two figures is a factor of 11.

This example is imprecise since a future household could have either more or less driving than 50 vehicle-miles a day; consumption is a mixture of personal and commercial usage; and diesel fuel is neglected.

Nevertheless, it illustrates the approximate situation:

Electric cars can use about an order of magnitude less electrical energy than the gasoline energy used by regular cars.

The efficiency gain could drop to a factor of several times (rather than a full order of magnitude) if adding in the inefficiency of the power plant. Such could apply in regard to CO2 emissions if coal power plants were used. However, that is only so much an issue if fossil-fuel power is used.

Most importantly, the energy source can be different, as the electricity may come from nuclear power, such as the example of France with most of its electricity from nuclear power. The more common coal power isn't economically friendly, but observe that only 3% of U.S. electrical generation is from oil, as the cost of petroleum is uncompetitive outside of small special-purpose generators.

Electric vehicles are so efficient that adoption of them doesn't have to increase electrical power consumption by more than a few percent above current levels, able to be countered by a moderate number of new power plants and/or by conservation.

Consider the earlier illustration of 50 vehicle-miles per day of driving an electric car for around 330 kWh per month. Total U.S. electricity usage is the equivalent of about 3100 kWh per month per household, so the preceding rounds to about 10% as much.

Weaknesses of electric vehicles include performance and convenience tradeoffs, especially disadvantages of limited range and substantial recharging time. Safety disadvantages apply if far more massive vehicles are on the road and colliding in accidents.

For scenarios such as electric trucks transporting goods thousands of miles, one common proposal has been having the batteries leased from the manufacturer, while service stations would swap out the truck's depleted battery and replace it with a fresh battery, subsequently recharging the depleted battery to give it to the next truck. The alternative is to have the truck wait minutes to hours (depending on the specific battery technology) to recharge before traveling on.

The Electric-Car Slide
Automakers Have Pulled the Plug on Battery Power

By Greg Schneider
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 22, 2003; Page E01

Steven Dibner drove the thinking man's hot rod. Instead of roaring with power and guzzling gas, his car whispered along on rechargeable batteries.

But make no mistake, Dibner's all-electric GM coupe could zoom away from a stoplight with drag-strip speed. He was saving money on fuel, causing no pollution and "driving the coolest, sexiest, most interesting car on the road," said Dibner, a bassoonist with the San Francisco Symphony.

General Motors Corp. built 1,100 of the two-seater EV1s beginning in 1997, pushing electric-car technology further than it had ever gone in a mass-produced vehicle. But to the dismay of Dibner and other alternative-fuel advocates, GM has canceled the program and is confiscating all the cars.

The auto industry's electric-car movement -- which gained momentum in the 1990s thanks to a push by California regulators -- is now all but dead. GM and other major automakers are abandoning their efforts to produce a battery-powered car for the mass market.

Instead, they are focusing on hybrid vehicles that boost the mileage of a gasoline engine with the use of some electric power. [...]

The death knell for pure electric cars sounded this summer when California's regulators, responding to industry arguments that battery power wasn't economically feasible, backed away from stringent antipollution rules that had accelerated the vehicles' development. Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG all have canceled electric-car programs this year.

GM is now taking back EV1s as their leases run out. Battery-power enthusiasts staged a mock funeral for their cars in July in a Hollywood cemetery, complete with a hearse and bagpipes.

Dozens of EV1 drivers have sent GM $500 checks to beg for more time, but the company returned their money. About 100 of the cars will go to the state of New York for research on battery performance in cold weather. A few others are going to museums, and the rest of the EV1 fleet will be scavenged for parts or scrapped.

Automakers say that electric vehicles cost too much to manufacture and that batteries will never provide as much driving range as a full tank of gas. The internal-combustion engine simply has a lock on American driving habits -- it is the rare car buyer, the reasoning goes, who will accept having to tether a vehicle to a power outlet for hours to refuel it when a quick visit to a gas pump is still possible.

But scientists who have spent careers working on batteries say the auto industry is retreating just as progress in battery technology is finally pushing toward a breakthrough. Battery life is extending rapidly, and electric cars' performance and styling have edged ever closer to their gas cousins. The mass market "could have battery-powered cars in five years or less," said Tom Gage, president of AC Propulsion Inc., a California company developing technology for electric cars.

What's needed, Gage said, is a commitment from just one major corporation to use its might to shove past the last few hurdles, such as manufacturing new batteries in big enough numbers to bring down their cost.

Battery supporters, whose ranks include major names from industry and science, insist that the promise of electric will yet bear fruit -- in future hybrid vehicles that rely more on electricity than gasoline, in commercial uses such as fleets of delivery vans, and ultimately in a return to mass-market battery-powered cars. [...]

Electric cars are nothing new. In the late 1800s, electricity vied with steam and internal combustion for the top spot in new automotive technology. Henry Ford's wife drove electric cars, and the clean, quiet vehicles were cast as products for genteel society women.

But there was a problem that even Thomas Edison couldn't solve, and it has continually held back electric-car development: Batteries haven't been able to compete with the driving range of a full tank of gas. [...]

[The EV1] had no gears to shift and delivered full power instantly, so the EV1 accelerated from zero to 60 mph in 8.5 seconds -- comparable to some Mustangs and performance cars. Test versions reached nearly 200 mph.

While the EV1 was being developed, the state of California was drawing up the nation's most stringent clean-air requirements -- requiring that 10 percent of new cars be emission-free by 2003. That pushed all automakers to develop electric vehicles, and quickly.

The backlash from the industry was ferocious. Car companies -- and the oil industry -- fought California's electric-car mandate "every way you can think of," said Jerry Martin, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board. [...]

But GM executives viewed the cars as a liability. One industry official said each EV1 cost the company about $80,000, including research and development costs [...]

"Lithium [ion batteries] will eventually be found to be the good substitute for gasoline-powered cars," MacCready said. Thanks to mass production in Asia, "the price is going down and the capability is going up, and researchers think that in another year they'll be up 50 percent from what they produce now in terms of energy and maybe double in two years," he said. [...]

At the same time, the Northern Virginia-based New Generation Motors Corp. is poised to announce a contract to mass-produce electric vehicles in India. While those cars will have a range and speed suitable for the average Indian's 15-mile commute, the technology could scale up to an EV1-like level, said Eric Takamura, director of manufacturing and engineering at New Generation.

"I think the battery technology is already there, as far as being practical for a typical commuter car," Takamura said. "It is really more of a costing issue. Without people actually going out there and buying it, you can't get the volumes up enough to bring down the cost."

From here.

The above article from 2003 illustrates some of the factors involved in the historical rarity of electric cars.

The high figure of $80000 production cost per car for the EV1 was due to research & development amortized over only a small number of vehicles. However, the actual marginal cost if the EV1 had entered mass production would have been around the $34000 figure the lease was based upon in the next quote. This is the same principle as why a custom-made product costs much but one manufactured by the millions does not.

If electric cars become less rare in the future, some old used electric cars may cost under $10000, even if new vehicles go for a higher price like $30000, analogous to the situation with gasoline vehicles today.

I have two driving techniques for my personal EV1: "economy mode" which has given me up to 80 miles range of freeway driving at 65-70 mph, and a "let's see what this thing can do" mode around town that yields a range of 45-50 miles. [...]

An 80% recharge can be obtained in 45 minutes. The new 50kW Fast Charger takes 10 minutes to charge to 80%.[...]

I have a separate electric meter for the EV1 charger so I can monitor my energy costs. I am driving approximately 800 miles per month on $17 worth of electricity. [...]

Top speed is electronically governed to 80 mph, ostensibly for safety reasons. However, the EV1 is capable of much more. A test car without the governor has done 183 mph. It's QUICK! 0-30 in 3 seconds, 0-60 in 8 seconds. [...]

WHAT MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED?

Basically, none. A free 5,000 mile tire rotation is recommended. There is no oil to change. The AC induction motor has only one moving part and requires no service. There is no transmission.

HOW MUCH IS THE LEASE? [...]

The Generation 1 EV1 (1997) M.S.R.P. is $33,995. In California, the EV1 leases for $399/month which includes a 220 volt home charger and a portable 110 volt "convenience charger."

From here

The cost of electric vehicles varies with performance, from motor scooters costing just a thousand dollars each to the Tesla deluxe electric sports car costing two orders of magnitude more. The Tesla has high performance such as 245 mile range and 0 to 60 mph in 4 seconds with a base price of $98000, aside from optional features on their ordering page, like $400 more for satellite radio. The Tesla price is projected to drop to $50000 each if they get enough sales to enter mass production.

Another example is a Mitsubishi electric car, albeit a concept not in production today, which could sell for $19000 each in the future, while avoiding a chicken-and-egg problem with recharging stations by being capable of recharging off the electrical supply of the average home:

[...] Aikawa said the planned mini-electric car, which will be available for test fleets next year, has a cruising range of 90 miles on a single charge and can be recharged in a regular home. The top speed is around 90 miles an hour.

Mitsubishi is targeting housewives who drive to pick up children from school, go grocery shopping and won’t need to travel long distances, Aikawa said, adding that they are expected to enjoy owning a car that never needs to fill up at a gas station.

Officials said the electric car will cost slightly more than a comparable gas-engine vehicle but they hope to keep prices down through Japanese government aid available for buyers of environmentally friendly cars. Although the price isn’t decided, it may sell for under $19,000, according to Mitsubishi Motors.[...]

From here.

What about the energy cost of manufacture for electric vehicles? That is relatively small. A $20000 electric car does not cost $20000 of energy to produce, rather not more than very limited portion of that. The bulk of the cost is other economic expenses: labor, capital, etc. Before getting specific, begin by looking at the economy as a whole.

In 1998, the price of oil was as low as under $15 per barrel in 2004-dollars, yet eight years later it then became upwards of $60 per barrel in 2005-2006, while recent headlines point out how it is approaching $100 per barrel. The amount of oil that can be purchased for a given amount of money has decreased by a factor of several times. Meanwhile U.S. GNP has not decreased by a factor of several times, not decreased by trillions of dollars. Such has occurred precisely because the amount spent on oil is a significant but nevertheless small percentage of the total economy.

Look at car prices. The cost of oil has gone up close to 500%, but a 2008 vehicle does not cost 500% more than a new vehicle did in 1998, rather having experienced a tiny portion as much change. That's due to energy cost being only a few percent of total manufacture cost, and only a limited portion of the energy used in manufacture being from petroleum, as opposed to other sources including electricity.

Of course, the rise in oil prices hurts the economy, and potentially there could be vastly greater economic harm from more price rise in the future. But the point here is that recent history provides a rather blatant illustration of how a $20000 vehicle involves vastly less than its purchase price for the amount of oil used in its manufacture. Yet a $20000 electric car can save many thousands of dollars of gasoline consumption over its operating life, providing net energy payback in regard to mitigating the effects of oil price rise.

When the average U.S. household directly and indirectly consumes about 110 gallons per month of gasoline, 13000 gallons per decade, as previously mentioned, that is like $40000 of gasoline being consumed per household per decade at current prices. If gasoline price rises much more in the future, that figure would be still much higher, aside from cutbacks in usage in response to the cost. One of the various potential ways to drastically cut that gasoline usage is to switch to electric vehicles.

For manufacturing in general, industrial usage of energy is 34% of the U.S. total, with 29% of industrial energy usage coming from petroleum. As a result, petroleum usage in industry amounts to 9.9% of the total U.S. energy consumption. By far the greatest source of oil consumption is in transportation, and most fuel consumption is in personal vehicles ... gasoline-burning cars.

The preceding understanding of the big picture allows one to guess that the energy cost of manufacture for an electric vehicle is vastly less than the gasoline consumption saved. And such is exactly the case. Here's the specific figures of relevance:

A 25 kWh NiMH battery storing enough energy for a typical electric car requires about 2.45E7 Btu to manufacture. For a typical compact electric car with such a battery, the energy involved in production of the battery is about 45% as much as the total for the car.

The total of about 5.4E7 Btu is a rather small amount when put in relevant context. Approximate U.S. gasoline consumption is equivalent to ~ 1.6E17 Btu per decade. That's proportionally like ~ 1.5E9 Btu per decade per household, almost 30 times greater than the energy involved in making a typical electric car. Again, such should be no surprise: The average household uses hundreds of pounds of gasoline per month, which amounts to many times the mass of the vehicle itself over the 120 months in a decade.

As a result, the total energy used in manufacture of a typical small electric car like this is merely about 3.6% as much as the gasoline used by the average U.S. household per decade. And that energy primarily doesn't have to come from gasoline, making the situation still better.

Electrical powered transportation is very sustainable in the long term, if powered by nuclear or renewable energy.

To address a topic of indirect relevance brought up in other recent threads, when some published reserve figures for uranium show a moderate supply, such are based on assuming only a rather small price rise is acceptable for competition in the marketplace with fossil fuel power plants. That would be a fairly meaningless assumption in this context.

The astronomical difference between the energy release from chemical combustion and nuclear fission is that a few kilograms of gasoline can propel one car down a city's streets for part of a daily drive, while a few kilograms of uranium-235 fissioning can blow up the city ... or, more precisely, it is 40 MJ/kg versus 72000000 MJ/kg.

The amount of nuclear fuel needed is relatively small, a relatively small portion of total electrical generation cost, even despite multiple order of magnitude inefficiencies without breeder reactors. As discussed in detail in a prior thread, the billions of tons of uranium available in seawater would last practically forever. Even without breeder reactors, extraction of such by a polyethylene fiber adsorbent would cause a total generation cost increase of a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour, about $0.002/kWh to $0.007/kWh extra. Here's another discussion:

In 1983, uranium cost $40 per pound. The known uranium reserves at that price would suffice for light water reactors for a few tens of years. Since then more rich uranium deposits have been discovered including a very big one in Canada. At $40 per pound, uranium contributes about 0.2 cents per kwh to the cost of electricity. (Electricity retails between 5 cents and 10 cents per kwh in the U.S.)

Breeder reactors use uranium more than 100 times as efficiently as the current light water reactors. Hence much more expensive uranium can be used. At $1,000 per pound, uranium would contribute only 0.03 cents per kwh, i.e. less than one percent of the cost of electricity. At that price, the fuel cost would correspond to gasoline priced at half a cent per gallon.

How much uranium is available at $1,000 per pound?

There is plenty in the Conway granites of New England and in shales in Tennessee, but Cohen decided to concentrate on uranium extracted from seawater - presumably in order to keep the calculations simple and certain. Cohen (see the references in his article) considers it certain that uranium can be extracted from seawater at less than $1000 per pound and considers $200-400 per pound the best estimate.

In terms of fuel cost per million BTU, he gives (uranium at $400 per pound 1.1 cents , coal $1.25, OPEC oil $5.70, natural gas $3-4.)

How much uranium is there in seawater?

Seawater contains 3.3x10^(-9) (3.3 parts per billion) of uranium, so the 1.4x10^18 tonne of seawater contains 4.6x10^9 tonne of uranium.
All the world's electricity usage, 650GWe could therefore be supplied by the uranium in seawater for 7 million years.

However, rivers bring more uranium into the sea all the time, in fact 3.2x10^4 tonne per year.

Cohen calculates that we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption. He argues that given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year. The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium.

He comments that lasting 5 billion years, i.e. longer than the sun will support life on earth, should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource.

From here.

There is enough suitable uranium to last for many more eons than homo sapiens has existed.

In any scenario where future civilization did someday have astronomically more electricity consumption than the current 2 terawatts, a civilization growing that much wouldn't be planet-bound but rather able to use space solar power to intercept some portion of the 170000 terawatts of sunlight intersecting earth, which is less than a billionth of the sun's total power, rather plausible.

But this is getting off-topic. The point here is that an electrical transport system powered by nuclear energy is sustainable.

Of course, discussions like this keep illustrations simple by acting as if everybody does the same thing, yet the way things work in the real world is more complicated, varied, and gradual.

There will not be suddenly, somehow everyone deciding to forgo regular cars in favor of electric vehicles.

However, the coming years and decades may be an unique time in history for both hybrids and electric vehicles.



Notice from the above graph how there have never been any years in the past century when oil has been much above $10 to $20 per barrel in year-2006 dollars, aside from the following two exceptions:

1) The temporary, relatively brief oil crisis of three decades ago:

The price rise reduced the economic competitiveness of oil in marginal applications, such as a drop in petroleum usage in electrical power generation, with 15.1% of U.S. electricity coming from petroleum in 1975 but only 3% such in 2006. However, as illustrated in the graph, the price rise was too short and too limited to force most alternatives, not making gasoline vehicle operation truly unaffordable to the average owner. A lot of investors put money into starting to develop alternative fuel production and other technologies, but facilities can take years to build then years of profitable operation to pay off loans ... and those investors got badly burned when oil prices soon afterwards returned to inexpensive levels, making less convenient alternatives uncompetitive, leading to the cancellation of most funding for the R&D and progress that was starting to occur.

2) The recent history of the past few years.

If oil prices continue their recent rise, eventually the competitiveness and popularity of electric vehicles and hybrids compared to the alternatives may significantly rise.

Consider the average reader of this thread, aside from those who are high school or college students. He or she decided to purchase a regular gasoline vehicle rather than going for a more environmentally friendly alternative like electric vehicles, hybrids, or public transportation because of how the options compared from his perspective. If gasoline prices rise enough, he will be more likely to go for alternatives, being literally financially forced to do so if the rise is great enough.

The competitiveness of electric cars may be increased in the future by technological improvements, as well as by economy of scale if they enter true mass-production. Performance has much improved now compared to decades ago, and doubling battery energy density performance in the near future is frequently projected, which would much reduce the gap between electric vehicles versus gasoline cars.

Over a period of a number of years, electric vehicles may expand from having a relatively tiny market niche today to become a more substantial percentage of total vehicles.

Electric cars face competition from other alternatives. A post in a previous thread mentioned a hybrid gas turbine variant of the EV1, which could run on electric power for short daily commuting around a city, then run on a variety of fuel options for the occasional long trip beyond the range capability of batteries (including biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol which can be produced from agricultural waste, paper garbage, etc).

In addition, the environmental benefits of electric vehicles can be provided by electric public transit options, from electric buses to electric trains. The latter is about the most energy efficient form of transportation possible.

Electric buses can be rather inexpensive. For example, if this Chinese-made electric bus with a purchase price of $54000 makes a couple dozen short trips per day while carrying up to its 29 passenger capacity each time, with its 180-km range, its cost is effectively shared between the several hundred people transported daily. In that case, its effective capital cost is proportionally on the order of $100 per person. Of course, there is more total expense involved, but one can see the general idea.

Although having the disadvantage of requiring more than the existing road system, personal rapid transport proposals for fast automated transport are among the possibilities: vehicles running on rails with direct supply of electricity, not even needing batteries, steering wheels, or the complexity of independent vehicles.

[Kanastrous]

If the Tesla hits $50,000 I'm buying one, for sure.

[SirNitram]

Sikon, I had been wondering the efficiency of present electric cars, thanks for digging that stuff up.

But I really wonder about the idea that we should make electric trucks. Why? Isn't it more sensible to lay more rail and use trains? Even when the recovery has proceeded to the point that EVs are commonplace, rails will likely remain the main source of long-range transit, so there's not going to be a shortage. Then again, I don't know the efficiency numbers on electric trains to compare to our hypothetical electric trucks, and I'm not skilled in the relevent areas to work it out, so I could be talking out of my ass.

[Singular Intellect]

Personal vehicles with large cargo space (trucks) will still be in high demand by people like myself, who absolutely need the room to move large amounts of tools all over the place (ie: to construction sites and devoloping areas).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Sikon, I had been wondering the efficiency of present electric cars, thanks for digging that stuff up.

But I really wonder about the idea that we should make electric trucks. Why? Isn't it more sensible to lay more rail and use trains? Even when the recovery has proceeded to the point that EVs are commonplace, rails will likely remain the main source of long-range transit, so there's not going to be a shortage. Then again, I don't know the efficiency numbers on electric trains to compare to our hypothetical electric trucks, and I'm not skilled in the relevent areas to work it out, so I could be talking out of my ass.

You would still need point-to-point trucks for transport from the marshalling yards of the rail hubs to the sites of demand, just not cross-state or cross-continent transit. To say nothing of the need for intensive construction and excavation equipment that runs on something other than petrochemicals.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Out of curiosity, how many times can lithium ion (as an example) be recharged before they need to be replaced? What about other battery types that could be used? If the number of recharges isn't longer than the life expectancy of the vehicle it uses than that would be problematic. Keep in mind that current car batteries eventually lose the ability to hold a charge. If they could be recharged an infinite number of times a new battery would be something you can only get at specialty stores or a repair shop, rather than even Wal-Mart offering them. Increasing the amount of work the battery gets done means it needs to be recharged more and means thus will have a shorter life-span, in proportion to a current car's battery. Unless the battery will be good for as long or longer than current batteries, it'd result in he need to dispose of a lot more batteries than we need to now.

So just how big a concern is this?

[Guardsman Bass]

Sikon, I had been wondering the efficiency of present electric cars, thanks for digging that stuff up.

But I really wonder about the idea that we should make electric trucks. Why? Isn't it more sensible to lay more rail and use trains? Even when the recovery has proceeded to the point that EVs are commonplace, rails will likely remain the main source of long-range transit, so there's not going to be a shortage. Then again, I don't know the efficiency numbers on electric trains to compare to our hypothetical electric trucks, and I'm not skilled in the relevent areas to work it out, so I could be talking out of my ass.

You would still need point-to-point trucks for transport from the marshalling yards of the rail hubs to the sites of demand, just not cross-state or cross-continent transit. To say nothing of the need for intensive construction and excavation equipment that runs on something other than petrochemicals.

On top of that, unless we all end up living in extremely compact spaces, you will probably need a set of electric powered-vehicles for police deployment, good fire departments in the larger cities, and for various weird repair jobs (like fixing the powerlines in your city that aren't adjacent to rail lines).

Actually, this has me wondering. With the advent of both expensive and a declining quantity of petrol, plus a (hopeful) eventual mass switch over to public transit and rail lines, do you think we might see the rise of "car clubs"? I'm thinking of basically clubs with a special license where, for paying a probably large sum of money (and having passed drivers' license requirements), you get to drive around a car of your choice on a privately owned track for maybe an hour or two for fun. Driving as an occasional recreational sport, like riding ATVs offroad.

[Androsphinx]

Sikon, I had been wondering the efficiency of present electric cars, thanks for digging that stuff up.

But I really wonder about the idea that we should make electric trucks. Why? Isn't it more sensible to lay more rail and use trains? Even when the recovery has proceeded to the point that EVs are commonplace, rails will likely remain the main source of long-range transit, so there's not going to be a shortage. Then again, I don't know the efficiency numbers on electric trains to compare to our hypothetical electric trucks, and I'm not skilled in the relevent areas to work it out, so I could be talking out of my ass.

You would still need point-to-point trucks for transport from the marshalling yards of the rail hubs to the sites of demand, just not cross-state or cross-continent transit. To say nothing of the need for intensive construction and excavation equipment that runs on something other than petrochemicals.

Lord Taylor, who runs the ERSC was very optimistic about electric trucks. Though this may well be uniquely British, based on railways infrastruture and the like.

[Civil War Man]

Out of curiosity, how many times can lithium ion (as an example) be recharged before they need to be replaced? What about other battery types that could be used? If the number of recharges isn't longer than the life expectancy of the vehicle it uses than that would be problematic. Keep in mind that current car batteries eventually lose the ability to hold a charge. If they could be recharged an infinite number of times a new battery would be something you can only get at specialty stores or a repair shop, rather than even Wal-Mart offering them. Increasing the amount of work the battery gets done means it needs to be recharged more and means thus will have a shorter life-span, in proportion to a current car's battery. Unless the battery will be good for as long or longer than current batteries, it'd result in he need to dispose of a lot more batteries than we need to now.

So just how big a concern is this?

The bikes that I work on use Nickel-Metal Hydride batteries, which are really good at holding a charge. As far as I know, the battery is supposed to be able to last the full life of the bike. So when the battery goes, the rest of the bike is probably ready to be scrapped, too. And with the combination of a pure aluminum frame and a shitload of nickel in the batteries, there's a pretty large wad to be made from recycling it.

[Civil War Man]

As long as I mentioned Vectrix bikes, I'll double-post to respond to this

On top of that, unless we all end up living in extremely compact spaces, you will probably need a set of electric powered-vehicles for police deployment, good fire departments in the larger cities, and for various weird repair jobs (like fixing the powerlines in your city that aren't adjacent to rail lines).

Our fleet sales have been pushing our bikes hard on police, fire departments, and courier companies. When I was in NYC a little while back some NYPD officers commented very favorably about them. Right now, they use a lot of Piaggio scooters. Thing is, probably only the really big precincts would have gas pumps in them, but you won't find a building in the whole city that doesn't have electrical outlets.

[Mr. T]

I wonder if the roads will even be maintained once driving becomes unaffordable for everyone. It would really suck if someone shelled out $100000 for a brand new Tesla in preparation for peak oil and then couldn't travel 1 km without busting a tire on a shitty road surface.

Roads are still important even without cars as they'll be needed for electric scooters, bicycles, horse drawn carriages maybe but I wonder if streets will be at all car friendly. My guess is they will be but driving will be extremely frustrating and a hastle since you'll be sharing the road wtih bikes and lots and lots of streetcars and the roads won't be as well maintained, but my guess is the option will be there for those that can afford it. And trucks will be needed to haul products to the grocery store and to the shopping mall (it makes sense to me shopping malls will still exist after peak oil, only with less expensive garbage and with ALOT less of its area being taken up by a parking lot).

Stringing up cantenary and introducing electric streetcars seems the likeliest route for transportation to head in. Their's going to be some places that are too sprawled for something like that but I think quite a few suburban areas may maintain themselves just by making themselves denser and having streetcars for inter-urban transit and heavy rail for intra-urban transit. Peak oil is going to suck for the people that have to give up there house, but it wont kill them.

Really the only things I'm worried about in a post-peak world is finding a good job (I'm hoping for government employment dealing with urban planning as that's what my education has been working towards, but hell I wouldn't be opposed to junking my University education and being a train conductor if all else fails, might even make more money). I'm also worried about where to live, right now I'm thinking a major city, and just exactly how many luxuries I'll have to give up (I don't mind giving up driving, hopefully I don't have to give up internet though). I'm not worried about mad max at all, maybe I'm just naiive that way but I don't think so.

[SirNitram]

You would still need point-to-point trucks for transport from the marshalling yards of the rail hubs to the sites of demand, just not cross-state or cross-continent transit. To say nothing of the need for intensive construction and excavation equipment that runs on something other than petrochemicals.

Good point. Which ultimately means one will have to find a way to make an electric truck.. It's possible if the area they move point-to-point is small enough, one could exploit Tesla's wireless transmission of electricity trick to avoid the troubles of batteries, but I'm sure there would be some downside in such heavy use.

[Guardsman Bass]

Roads would probably just shrink in size. You'd maintain two lane roads in the cities where you need these electric vehicles for the purposes I mentioned above, but they'd be "Emergency, Repair, and Licensed Vehicles only", with no biking or walking allowed on them. The rural folks away from a rail line wouldn't be getting many consumer products anytime soon, although people who paid for an electric truck to ship goods them could probably make a killing on the exchange.