Switching The World To Electric Vehicles Will Take Way Longer Than You Think

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That article is meh. Basically a click bait headline. I don't envision being able to drive (due to age) by the time the world is driving electric cars exclusively. In fact, I will probably be long in the grave by then.
 
downeykp said:
No matter how long it takes, it will happen faster than switching the world to hydrogen powered vehicles.
It seems the simple fact that H2 vehicles are electric is still lost on this group... :roll:
 
GRA said:
Via GCR:
Switching The World To Electric Vehicles Will Take Way Longer Than You Think
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101394_switching-the-world-to-electric-vehicles-will-take-way-longer-than-you-think
Thanks for this, Guy. It'll take a long time even if ICE is banned...but before anyone can create those laws we need a LOT of progress on charging infrastructure, range, and vehicle price. It's happening but at a glacial pace. That's not enough, even with the 'new, improved' 21st century glacial pace...
 
Nice. One fan boy stroking another. How quaint.

AndyH said:
downeykp said:
No matter how long it takes, it will happen faster than switching the world to hydrogen powered vehicles.
It seems the simple fact that H2 vehicles are electric is still lost on this group... :roll:
 
"Longer than I think"? I'm not sure how they decided what I think. Seems like the side-view mirrors that tell me that "objects are closer than they appear". Rather presumptuous. :roll:
 
Heck I never thought the world would switch fully, it does not make sense.

Similarly I never expect the world to go fully solar, well at least not within the next century.

However a huge impact can be had by even getting half the vehicles miles to be electric, and half the worlds power to be wind/solar. A partial solution can still be a big improvement.

Heck if every family had one crappy Leaf equivalent electric commuter car and one mini-van people/cargo mover we could see well over half the vehicle miles be electric. Similarly if all we did was put in enough solar to cover the summer AC usage it would be huge reduction in CO2 without even addressing the storage issue.

Someday (again probably longer than you think) we will see cars and power systems that can actually talk to each so that cars will charge according to when the grid has power to spare, and ease off when it does not. So far the "smart grid" has been vaporware, but it will come before too long. When all the occurs we might see the combination of electric cars and solar be able to create enough of a storage (or at least variable load) to allow solar to go beyond being a 20-25% solution.
 
Moof said:
Heck I never thought the world would switch fully, it does not make sense.

Similarly I never expect the world to go fully solar, well at least not within the next century.

However a huge impact can be had by even getting half the vehicles miles to be electric, and half the worlds power to be wind/solar. A partial solution can still be a big improvement.

Heck if every family had one crappy Leaf equivalent electric commuter car and one mini-van people/cargo mover we could see well over half the vehicle miles be electric. <snip>
At the moment, we can achieve the same results far easier and cheaper, in a way more acceptable to the general population, by using PHEVs. Volt 1s were already driving almost as many miles on the battery annually as LEAFs were in the U.S., and IIRR we have the highest annual VMT and highest average daily driving distances in the world (not sure about Oz). More importantly, most of the world doesn't own multiple cars per family; a PHEV can be the sole car, while (current) affordable BEVs can't be for most people, renting/borrowing aside. Maybe Gen 2 BEVs will cross that threshold, but it's unlikely that they will have a price advantage compared to PHEVs for some years yet.
 
AndyH said:
downeykp said:
No matter how long it takes, it will happen faster than switching the world to hydrogen powered vehicles.
It seems the simple fact that H2 vehicles are electric is still lost on this group... :roll:

H2 + battery + electric motor = hybrid. You still have to pump a liquid or gas into a tank just like gasoline + electric for a Plug in Prius. It doesn't matter what the fluid is if you have to add it for power it isn't a pure BEV.
 
dhanson865 said:
AndyH said:
downeykp said:
No matter how long it takes, it will happen faster than switching the world to hydrogen powered vehicles.
It seems the simple fact that H2 vehicles are electric is still lost on this group... :roll:

H2 + battery + electric motor = hybrid. You still have to pump a liquid or gas into a tank just like gasoline + electric for a Plug in Prius. It doesn't matter what the fluid is if you have to add it for power it isn't a pure BEV.
Hybrids are also Electric Vehicles, hence the acronym, HEV (Hybrid Electric Vehicle); in this case, AFAIK all current FCEVs are FCHEVs (sometimes shortened to FCHV), as they all include a small battery for acceleration and regen storage. Pure FCEVs have also been built and operated, but at least for now fuel cell technology doesn't provide the rapid power ramp rate needed for fast acceleration. The determining factor of an Electric Vehicle is that it's propelled (wholly or partly) by electric motor(s) (or is a MagLev), not where or how the electricity that powers that motor is produced or stored. The letters (B/P/H/PH/FC etc.) that precede 'EV' just tell you what kind of EV it is. To quote the wiki:

An electric vehicle (EV), also referred to as an electric drive vehicle, uses one or more electric motors or traction motors for propulsion. An electric vehicle may be powered through a collector system by electricity from off-vehicle sources, or may be self-contained with a battery or generator to convert fuel to electricity.[1] EVs include road and rail vehicles, surface and underwater vessels, electric aircraft and electric spacecraft.
 
GRA said:
dhanson865 said:
AndyH said:
It seems the simple fact that H2 vehicles are electric is still lost on this group... :roll:

H2 + battery + electric motor = hybrid. You still have to pump a liquid or gas into a tank just like gasoline + electric for a Plug in Prius. It doesn't matter what the fluid is if you have to add it for power it isn't a pure BEV.

Hybrids are also Electric Vehicles, hence the acronym, HEV (Hybrid Electric Vehicle); in this case, AFAIK all current FCEVs are FCHEVs (sometimes shortened to FCHV), as they all include a small battery for acceleration and regen storage. Pure FCEVs have also been built and operated, but at least for now fuel cell technology doesn't provide the rapid power ramp rate needed for fast acceleration. The determining factor of an Electric Vehicle is that it's propelled (wholly or partly) by electric motor(s) (or is a MagLev), not where or how the electricity that powers that motor is produced or stored. The letters (B/P/H/PH/FC etc.) that precede 'EV' just tell you what kind of EV it is. To quote the wiki:

An electric vehicle (EV), also referred to as an electric drive vehicle, uses one or more electric motors or traction motors for propulsion. An electric vehicle may be powered through a collector system by electricity from off-vehicle sources, or may be self-contained with a battery or generator to convert fuel to electricity.[1] EVs include road and rail vehicles, surface and underwater vessels, electric aircraft and electric spacecraft.

Waste of time to quote that definition. I sure know it and I'm sure others do also.

I can list 40 different acronyms for vehicles many of which are overlapping duplicates.

PHEV
PEV
BEV

and so on. All that matters to people is what the fueling options are not what the final motor is or what acronym you prefer.

Gasoline/Petrol Hybrid with no J1772 is what an average American would know as a "hybrid"

Add the J1772 and now it's a "Plug in Hybrid"

Delete the gasoline and use any other fuel and its an "alternate fuel vehicle" but that doesn't help anybody because they use that label for BEVs as well as for normal internal combustion based vehicles that can use something other than gasoline.

Calling anything with an electric motor in it an EV without clearing marking it as electric only or a hybrid that uses some other fuel is just wasting peoples time.

You'd be just as accurate to be calling it a 4 wheeled passenger vehicle.

OMG that Marai is a 4 wheeled passenger vehicle and so is that Nissan Leaf. Nothing different about that.

The point is AndyH thinks saying a fuel cell hybrid is just an EV will somehow affect the adoption rate. What does the label have to do at all with how quickly it'll see adoption?
 
dhanson865 said:
GRA said:
dhanson865 said:
H2 + battery + electric motor = hybrid. You still have to pump a liquid or gas into a tank just like gasoline + electric for a Plug in Prius. It doesn't matter what the fluid is if you have to add it for power it isn't a pure BEV.

Hybrids are also Electric Vehicles, hence the acronym, HEV (Hybrid Electric Vehicle); in this case, AFAIK all current FCEVs are FCHEVs (sometimes shortened to FCHV), as they all include a small battery for acceleration and regen storage. Pure FCEVs have also been built and operated, but at least for now fuel cell technology doesn't provide the rapid power ramp rate needed for fast acceleration. The determining factor of an Electric Vehicle is that it's propelled (wholly or partly) by electric motor(s) (or is a MagLev), not where or how the electricity that powers that motor is produced or stored. The letters (B/P/H/PH/FC etc.) that precede 'EV' just tell you what kind of EV it is. To quote the wiki:

An electric vehicle (EV), also referred to as an electric drive vehicle, uses one or more electric motors or traction motors for propulsion. An electric vehicle may be powered through a collector system by electricity from off-vehicle sources, or may be self-contained with a battery or generator to convert fuel to electricity.[1] EVs include road and rail vehicles, surface and underwater vessels, electric aircraft and electric spacecraft.

Waste of time to quote that definition. I sure know it and I'm sure others do also.

I can list 40 different acronyms for vehicles many of which are overlapping duplicates.

PHEV
PEV
BEV

and so on. All that matters to people is what the fueling options are not what the final motor is or what acronym you prefer.

Gasoline/Petrol Hybrid with no J1772 is what an average American would know as a "hybrid"

Add the J1772 and now it's a "Plug in Hybrid"

Delete the gasoline and use any other fuel and its an "alternate fuel vehicle" but that doesn't help anybody because they use that label for BEVs as well as for normal internal combustion based vehicles that can use something other than gasoline.

Calling anything with an electric motor in it an EV without clearing marking it as electric only or a hybrid that uses some other fuel is just wasting peoples time.

You'd be just as accurate to be calling it a 4 wheeled passenger vehicle.

OMG that Marai is a 4 wheeled passenger vehicle and so is that Nissan Leaf. Nothing different about that.

The point is AndyH thinks saying a fuel cell hybrid is just an EV will somehow affect the adoption rate. What does the label have to do at all with how quickly it'll see adoption?
The point Andy is making is that an FCEV is an EV. Which EV tech(s) will ultimately succeed in the marketplace remains to be seen, but any that can generate their electricity solely from renewables is the goal. As such, BEVs, FCEVs and PHEVs (assuming sustainably produced bio-fuels when running on the ICE) can all do so. FTM pure ICEs running on sustainable biofuels would also get us off fossil fuels. The only question is which one(s) can do so at the lowest cost while meeting people's other transportation requirements. The average person doesn't give a hoot which letters precede 'EV', or even that it IS an EV, all they care about is whether it works for them at a price they can afford.
 
Suspect the switch to computer drivers will happen quicker than the switch to EVs.
human%2Bvs%2Bcomputer%2Bdriver.png

jk = just kidding
 
GRA said:
...any that can generate their electricity solely from renewables is the goal.
That's about the worst goal I've ever heard. And it explains why people are promoting and/or deploying "solutions" which do more damage to the planet than the incumbent technologies.

We should ONLY make changes which reduce our impact on the planet. If we go the opposite way, then we truly are insane. As I have said many times, the FCVs being deployed today are among the most environmentally-damaging vehicles we have ever put on the roads.

Just because something is renewable does NOT mean it is a good idea.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
...any that can generate their electricity solely from renewables is the goal.
That's about the worst goal I've ever heard. And it explains why people are promoting and/or deploying "solutions" which do more damage to the planet than the incumbent technologies.

We should ONLY make changes which reduce our impact on the planet. If we go the opposite way, then we truly are insane. As I have said many times, the FCVs being deployed today are among the most environmentally-damaging vehicles we have ever put on the roads.

Just because something is renewable does NOT mean it is a good idea.
Actually, MY goal (as I've enumerated many times) is to eliminate the need for as much powered transportation as possible through improving the built environment and simultaneously reduce energy wastage, as the two areas make up the majority of GHG emission/energy usage, and without major reductions in both areas we have no hope of getting to 80% reductions by 2050 - owing to population growth (in the U.S.), we need to reduce our per capita GHG emissions to only 12% of what they were in 1990 (20% of the 1990 total). The remaining transportation needs can be handled by whichever sustainable renewables best meet the requirements. We know we disagree on the means, but I wasn't aware that we disagreed on the ends.
 
RegGuheert said:
We should ONLY make changes which reduce our impact on the planet. If we go the opposite way, then we truly are insane. As I have said many times, the FCVs being deployed today are among the most environmentally-damaging vehicles we have ever put on the roads.
Agree.
 
Nubo said:
"Longer than I think"? I'm not sure how they decided what I think. ... Rather presumptuous. :roll
I'm going to agree w/ Nubo. They have no idea what I think. The loudest camps tend to be the "It'll never happen" and the "As soon as (pick your favorite next-tech) arrives everyone will be driving electric." There's a reasonable (quieter) majority that thinks battery chemistry improvements will happen gradually. As these improvements progress, EVs will get cheaper, have longer range, and spread into more market segments.

Here is what I think sales will look like:
Fullscreen+capture+6282014+115506+PM.bmp.jpg


And here's what I think the vehicle "population" could look like:
Fullscreen+capture+6292014+55330+PM.bmp.jpg


GreenCarReports said:
It would take until 2034 for half of the U.S. fleet to turn over.
Well, looking at the chart above, by my guestimate, it will take until 2045 for half the US fleet to be plug-in. So Stephen Edelstein, writer at GCR, I say Switching To EVs Will Take Way Longer Than You Think.

You can see all the assumptions that went into the above graphs here. I certainly hope it happens faster, but I wouldn't count on it. Much like my financial plans, I hope I win the lottery, but I am not counting on it.
 
patrick0101 said:
Here is what I think sales will look like:
...
And here's what I think the vehicle "population" could look like:
Those look entirely reasonable to me.

I think your assumptions also look reasonable, although I do expect worldwide auto sales to increase over time. That said, I will grant that your assumption of flat sales is also a real possibility.

Good posts, both here and on your blog. Thanks!
 
Back
Top