Electric Vehicles :: FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) Links

I was looking for a place to collect links to articles which appear to have FUD as their theme.

Here is one from 1 September 2011
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-shocking-truth-about-electric-cars/article2149465/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

August blog from Tom Murphy. Most of the information is accurate if you are charging your car from an oil fired power plant.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/mpg-for-electric-cars/#more-95" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Peterson Seeking Alpha Article (from HERM post below)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/289828-it-s-time-to-kill-the-electric-car-drive-a-stake-through-its-heart-and-burn-the-corpse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plug in cars have a rocky road with problems - references the Peterson link and it's from the oil industry perspective.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-Rocky-Road-Ahead-The-Problems-with-Plug-in-Cars.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NY Times Battery Recycling Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/business/energy-environment/fancy-batteries-in-electric-cars-pose-recycling-challenges.html?_r=1&ref=energy-environment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks to JRP3 for another Peterson optimization analysis on Lithium vs oil consumption.

A new one from Peterson, drawing the wrong conclusion from a study that shows Lithium not to be a constraining factor:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/293742-researchers-prove-the-law-of-diminishing-marginal-utility-in-electric-drive-technology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

Hill in link http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5775&view=unread#p132207" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sheesh - one of the peeps at forbes seems to think we Leaf (or any other Leaf owners for that matter) owners are out of it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ad-idea/2/

Care to comment here or on Forbes? From what I can tell, most comments seems to disagree with Mr. Woodhill. Baaah . . . what do they know.

Click to expand...

Here is an old WSJ link from 2009 "Speed Bump: Don’t Bank on the Electric-Car Revolution, Lux Says"
Link -> http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/10/07/speed-bump-dont-bank-on-the-electric-car-revolution-lux-says/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JRP added ::

A new one from Peterson, drawing the wrong conclusion from a study that shows Lithium not to be a constraining factor:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/293742-researchers-prove-the-law-of-diminishing-marginal-utility-in-electric-drive-technology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

edatokarun shared "Even with $4 gas, electric cars face dark days" ::
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5494&start=20#p181939" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another Petersen LUX based article on Li-Ion cost ::
http://seekingalpha.com/article/468591-new-research-dissects-lithium-ion-battery-mythology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think there are more comments critical of Petersen's analysis than before.

The Wall Street Journal has a doozy of an article by Lomborg :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324128504578346913994914472.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That one is a classic..
This one takes the Oscar for Doom&Gloom:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/289828-it-s-time-to-kill-the-electric-car-drive-a-stake-through-its-heart-and-burn-the-corpse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be honest, last year I was expecting to see more "staged" pictures of Leafs stranded on the side of the hwy, the integrity of auto journalists seems to have improved.

It amazes me how the detractors view the EV issue in black and white terms. Protagonists look at EVs as transportation of the masses in the future and detractors look on them to "Kill the Electric Car, Put a Stake Through Its Heart, and Burn the Corpse."

Interestingly enough, the first quote by Peterson is one from Edison made in 1883. It seems to me a little short-sighted to think a 128 year old quote is relevant when ICE vehicles have had nearly as long to progress while EVs are just getting started in a mass production mode.

I cannot understand why people cannot accept EVs as a niche product that may help our cities clean their air and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It may be some time before we will see cross country EVs. And if the detractors can rally enough support, they'll kill EVs before the following problems are solved. The energy density needs to rise considerably and the charging times must be drastically reduced and a substantial amount of infrastructure needs to be installed nation wide and all the issues of scarcity of metals, etc. need to be solved.

Herm said:

That one is a classic..
This one takes the Oscar for Doom&Gloom:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/289828-it-s-time-to-kill-the-electric-car-drive-a-stake-through-its-heart-and-burn-the-corpse" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Click to expand...

I really like this article. Yes, I find some fundamental flaws that I'm sure many of you do. But, he brings up some very good points.

This can't be argued much in favor of the EV world:

"When Edison was complaining about batteries, specific energies of 25 wh/kg were common. A hundred and thirty years later specific energies of 150 wh/kg are pushing the envelope. A six-fold improvement over 130 years does not provide a rational basis for prevailing expectations."

The next evolution that Nissan claims in 4 years will be double. So, we're getting somewhere, but I agree with the author that using rare earth metals is much like using oil. The price will go up with demand, and eventually we'll run out.

Even a hydrogen fuel cell uses batteries !

When Edison was complaining about batteries, specific energies of 25 wh/kg were common. A hundred and thirty years later specific energies of 150 wh/kg are pushing the envelope. A six-fold improvement over 130 years does not provide a rational basis for prevailing expectations.

Click to expand...

Tony, that's exactly the point, we haven't been working on improving batteries for 130 years whereas we have been working on improving the Internal Combustion engine for well over 100 years. It was the ICE that basically halted further development of battery technology back 90 years ago. I doubt that battery energy density will ever match gasoline energy, but at some point there will have to be an alternative to gasoline. Maybe not in our lifetime but eventually. Hopefully in the next 90 years development will make it much more viable than it is today.

When ever I see a derogatory article about EVs, I look for the advantages to be pointed out as well. If the article is one-sided, I consider it propaganda and not journalism. A good journalist will set their personal feelings aside and report both the positive and the negative and let the reader decide which side of the issue they want to be on. Whenever I see a one-sided article the old adage comes to mind "follow the money" to find the true motivations.

Ya, what are they sooooo afraid of??? Pretty random paranoid opinions which tells you a lot about the fear of the supposed "authors". I like that EV critics are afraid. They are really stupid for feeling that way but to each his own.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for someone to run screaming across a parking lot because they saw an EV in it... zombie apocalypse and all that. I have high hopes though.

Great thread! I want a veritable "EV hall of shame" for these folks... the cat is already so out of the bag and they don't even realize it yet. They are going to look very silly in a few short years.

g

I'd have to refute that. We HAVE been working on battery technology for quite some time for a multitude of products and functions. Battery technologically development has been continuing pretty much non-stop during the last 100 years...

ERG4ALL said:

Tony, that's exactly the point, we haven't been working on improving batteries for 130 years whereas we have been working on improving the Internal Combustion engine for well over 100 years. It was the ICE that basically halted further development of battery technology back 90 years ago. I doubt that battery energy density will ever match gasoline energy, but at some point there will have to be an alternative to gasoline. Maybe not in our lifetime but eventually. Hopefully in the next 90 years development will make it much more viable than it is today

Click to expand...

be afraid, be very afraid.
sounds like the red menace, the arab menace, the terrorist menace, the gay marriage menace, the immigrant menace.

Not true at all! You are focusing very narrowly on automobiles, but battery technology is very significant for many things and battery development has been going on for many applications both stationary and mobile. That ongoing development has resulted in a battery technology that, in addition to the purposes for which it was being sought, is practical for automobiles as well.

It is not at all unusual for technologies that were developed with one purpose in mind to be found useful for other purposes as well. Indeed, it's often the secondary uses where the new technologies really make their mark and become the primary uses.

ERG4ALL said:

we haven't been working on improving batteries for 130 years whereas we have been working on improving the Internal Combustion engine for well over 100 years. It was the ICE that basically halted further development of battery technology back 90 years ago.

Click to expand...

TonyWilliams said:

The next evolution that Nissan claims in 4 years will be double. So, we're getting somewhere, but I agree with the author that using rare earth metals is much like using oil. The price will go up with demand, and eventually we'll run out.

Click to expand...

I agree that rare earth prices will likely increase with demand. However, I do not agree that using rare earth metals is analogous to burning oil. As of yet, there is no other liquid fuel that can take the place of petroleum-derived products. Biofuels show promise, but they tend to require substantial resources to produce and/or are difficult to scale by orders of magnitude. As a result, our economy is subject to the whims of global oil markets.

On the other hand, there are multiple, possible EV battery chemistries, with more on the horizon. Should one particular metal become cost prohibitive, battery manufacturers would likely have alternatives. In addition, rare earth metals are actually relatively common in the Earth's crust. While current production is limited, supply could be greatly increased if needed, particularly if prices rise.

Also, EV batteries are not frequently replaced. Volatility in rare earth metal prices, if it affects battery prices, is unlikely to make a difference to current EV owners. Most likely, battery prices will drop as technology improves, even if the raw materials become more expensive. Even if not, my sense is that volatility in vehicle and battery prices will present less risk to the economy than oil/gasoline/diesel price volatility. Should battery prices spike, folks might just hold onto their older EVs and limited range batteries longer.

As an investor, John Petersen claims to be looking primarily at the short term. However, the "issues" he raises are hardly relevant in the short term. If anything, the market is concerned about the possibility of overproduction of EV batteries in the next few years.

There has always been battery development, but what drove the recent acceleration was cell phones and laptops..

Keep in mind that the LEAF doesn't use very many rare earth metals; less than a conventional car as I recall since it doesn't use any in its electric motor as opposed to the quantity used in your typical car's starter. As for lithium, it is an alkali metal that is not all that "rare" at all and is near infinitely recyclable.

Can you cost-effectively recycle used gasoline? Didn't think so..

The author of the second article was a former Director for Axiom. He might as well have put "advertisement" in the title, as he closes with glowing recommendations for Axioms lead battery for hybrids. And what about the value of clean air and no dependance on foreign oil, or no unnecessary loss of life fighting wars to protect our interests in that oil, etc. I think those are priceless.

Numbers lie, and lairs use numbers. Articles that are objective and scientific should be questioned when they manipulate numbers to prove a conclusion. There is nothing wrong with having a hypothesis, but it must be validated with data that is honest and valid.
To include efficiency and transmission losses with electricity which in of themselves are greatly varied depending on source, to petroleum without including efficiency and transmission losses in petroleum is flawed and skewed in favor of petroleum.

Simple analysis:
EV: driven 8,100 miles over 6 months on 3,120 KWh x 0.15 = $465.00

Previous auto: 8100 miles/15mpg=540 gal x 4.00 = $2,160

In both cases the energy provider made a profit and I saved $1,695

For me, the EV was a significant improvement in efficiency.

Check out the rant here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(scroll down a bit)

TEG said:

Check out the rant here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(scroll down a bit)

Click to expand...

Wow, Ken Rockwell does a great job reviewing cameras. Probably should stick to what he knows.

TLeaf said:

Keep in mind that the LEAF doesn't use very many rare earth metals; less than a conventional car as I recall since it doesn't use any in its electric motor as opposed to the quantity used in your typical car's starter.

Click to expand...

Car alternators dont use magnets, they are induction machines with a rotor field that is externally exited by a voltage regulator.. no magnets and no rare earths.

The Leafs motor does use rare earth magnets.. not sure what kind of motor they use in the AC compressor but probably an induction machine. I think the Volt's main motor is an induction machine (no magnets) but the generator-motor uses magnets. Not sure, have not kept up with GM's latest releases.

The iMiev uses a similar motor to the Leaf. Not sure about the Focus or Coda, probably induction machines.

I read the article all the way through. The author makes some good points, but I think he is forgetting a few valuable points:

• First of all, it is certainly possible to build an electric vehicle without rare-earth materials. Sure, it may not be as efficient, but certainly possible.
• Rare-earth materials aren't as rare as people think. It just so happens there is not a mining and refining industry anywhere else in the world except China so from a market perspective, these materials seem rare. I believe Afghanistan, the USA, Canada, and several South American countries have quite a lot of these elements waiting to be mined.
• As for return on investment over a gasoline vehicle. This line of thinking really needs to be re-examined. People often use that line when talking about hybrids too. What these people fail to realize is that the customer will buy what the customer wants, regardless of whether it pays them back. How many Caddilac Escalades or other similarly priced but useless vehicles do you see driving down the road? I mean, if these people want to complain that the costs are too high, the companies like Lexus, Infinity, Caddilac, and Acura should be out of business tomorrow. But they aren't. When I look out into the parking lot at work right now I can see a vehicle that has a set of tires and wheels on it that cost more than the vehicle itself. There is another that has a stereo system that costs more than the vehicle. I see several expensive, but useless, tailpipe modifications. Did any of these people expect return on their investment? Heck no. While the hybrid and EV do offer some return, I seriously doubt that is the reasoning behind most people's purchase.

Clip from the start of the article :

Will plug-in cars be a success?

If by success, we mean “sell lots of vehicles” the answer is probably “no” unless the price comes down a lot–say 50% from today’s prices, so that price is in line with what common people can afford. People don’t pay more for a car than the loan officer will approve for a loan, plus their available down payment. Today’s high price puts plug-ins out of the price range for most people unless there are huge government subsidies–subsidies that governments cannot afford. The cars have other drawbacks–like limited range and the possible need for expensive battery replacement long after the warranty has expired–further cutting back on the marketability of the cars.

The high cost of plug in vehicles is not just the batteries–it is the cost of the cars themselves. Unless these costs can be brought down, the use of batteries with lower capacity to recapture braking energy and to provide an acceleration boost, similar to the way today’s Prius does today, may be a better choice, and is likely to produce a car which is salable to a wider range of potential buyers.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-Rocky-Road-Ahead-The-Problems-with-Plug-in-Cars.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: Note the this is an article that references the Peterson article from Seeking Alpha that was referenced by Herm . This demonstrates how an narrow point of view and flawed analysis propagates and gets more distorted along the way.