Conventional Cars no-haters-allowed

Published on October 2nd, 2011 | by Tyler Massie

18

Op-Ed: Why EV Haters Are Wrong

Anyone who has read any of my past work knows that I’m bullish on electric vehicles. Over the course of various postings I’ve dropped hints here and there as to why I think EV’s  are the future—and on occasion I’ve gotten some backlash in the comments from some fellow Americans who are less enthusiastic than I about EVs.

To each his own, but for my part I’d like to cobble together my pro-EV case in one cohesive post.  Below are some of the current issues surrounding EVs, and my analysis:

1)       Technophobia

This is one reason why there are still so many EV-haters out there, though I don’t think it’s the biggest reason anymore. More people are warming to EVs these days, especially while gas prices remain high.  Though every radical new technology has skeptics, it’s the technology’s die-hard detractors who seize upon any flaw in the technology (real or perceived) and demagogue it to death by recklessly exaggerating the flaws in an attempt to keep the unwanted technology at bay. With a loud enough voice, they can succeed for awhile—and they have.

Over time, however, the technology improves and begins to speak for itself. The clamor of those who resist grows quieter as the public begins to embrace the new technology. This is the cycle that every new technology must go through.

For EVs, the most common current criticisms I’ve encountered entail range, charging time, cost, replacing the battery, lack of infrastructure, and concerns about just how “green” EVs really are. I will address each of these in turn:

2)      Range, Charging Time, Cost, Replacing the Battery

I’ve lumped these together because these issues are all resolved by Father Time. As of right now, this very minute, I’m prepared to concede that EVs cost too much, their range is limited, they take too long to charge, and the batteries are expensive to replace. They’re not yet practical for a plurality of American consumers. I get it. Really.

But as the technology advances, so will the specs. The range will go up, the charging time will go down. Battery efficiency will go up, and the cost of replacing it will go down. This is how it always works with technology. Already we’ve got a charger which can figuratively “fill your tank” in the time it takes to pump gas. In fact technology such as wireless in-road charging could make the whole range issue moot. Plus, we can use EVs as backup home generators!

3)      Are EVs really green?

A major argument of the anti-EV lobby states that because much of the energy used to charge the vehicles comes from coal, EVs are hypocritical. This argument is partially true, but it misses several important technicalities.

For one thing, a significant portion of our energy comes from non-coal sources. The data from 2010 (Thanks DaveD) suggests that under 50%, in fact about 45%, of the total electricity produced in the U.S. comes from coal. Note: this is not to be confused with total energy; I am just looking at sources used to produce electricity. When we take out the small percentage of electricity which is produced by oil (because oil is generally used to power vehicles, not produce electricity) a good 50% of the remaining  electricity is produced by much greener means such as natural gas, hydro/solar/wind, and nuclear.

(As an aside: yes, I did include nuclear in the “green” category. It is a loose definition of “green,” for sure, but here’s my reasoning: while nuclear reactors do produce radioactive waste, that waste is not released into the environment to pollute the way coal does. On the contrary, nuclear waste can be contained and disposed of properly without harming the environment. Only in the exceedingly rare instances of a meltdown does nuclear radiation escape and poison the environment).

From this data it is clear that despite our coal use, EVs are in fact much greener than traditional gasoline cars, because plenty of that electricity is NOT coal-powered. Another thing EV haters fail to realize: when we plug our cars into the electrical grid there’s always room for those percentages to improve as we improve our renewable technology. One hundred percent of gasoline engines burn gasoline, but the EV which is powered on coal today could be powered by hydro, wind, or solar tomorrow.

Looked at in this way, to say EVs are just as polluting as gasoline engines is nothing short of disingenuous, and that’s not even factoring in my next point:

4)      Why import oil when you can make your own energy?

If you surveyed Americans about their views on outsourcing, almost nobody outside of corporate executives would agree that outsourcing jobs is a great idea. Yet, in a breathtaking display of doublethink, many of those same people who understand why outsourcing is bad for America see nothing wrong with outsourcing their energy needs to foreign countries.

When we run our cars off the electrical grid, we’re using energy produced at home. Even if EVs ultimately polluted as much as gasoline vehicles—the argument I just refuted above—EVs would still be preferable because their energy is derived from American power plants employing American workers. Honestly, what could be more patriotic than that?

This situation becomes more ironic when the countries which sell us the most oil are concentrated in the Middle East, a volatile area where America has many enemies. America may have the most bloated military budget in the modern world, but our reliance on foreign oil is a giant, gaping, ugly national security issue that no budget increase can alleviate. To say that America’s oil addiction is its glass jaw would be an understatement. Saudi Arabia alone could bring America to its knees in a hot second, with the flick of an oil spigot.

Ultimately, the less oil America uses, the safer she is. It’s as simple as that. Then there’s this Inconvenient Truth:

5)      Oil Is finite

The mother of all facts. Fossil fuels are just that—fossils which took millions of years of pressure under the Earth’s crust to materialize. Oil is nothing more than highly condensed bio-matter. For those who believe oil is a magical, naturally occurring substance which springs forth in divinely infinite abundance from the teat of the Earth, we have a seat for you at the children’s table.

Experts have been attempting to predict what’s called “peak oil”—the point at which half of the Earth’s endowment of oil has been extracted—for a long time (First in the 1890’s when it was declared no oil could be found West of the Mississippi, and about every 15-20 years hence- Ed.). The public is getting tired of all the doom-and-gloom predictions, and I don’t entirely blame them.

Still, just because we don’t have an exact date when, that doesn’t mean peak oil isn’t coming. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is actually looking back at 2006 as the year peak oil occurred; more optimistic projections peg Peak Oil around 2014 or around 2017-2020, and the oil companies—who always prefer feel-good news to keep speculators and shareholders happy—tend to throw out rosy dates like 2025 or 2030, even though they know better. If the 2006 speculation is correct, we may have already reached peak oil, and high gas prices could very well be a reflection of that. For what it’s worth, the U.S. military expects significant oil shortages by 2015 (suggesting peak oil occurred years earlier).

What should be obvious is this: the ride down that oily bell curve, also known as the Hubbert curve, will be excruciating if we ignore alternative energy. It may have taken over 200 years to extract half of the Earth’s oil, but with global demand high and rising, the second half will run out much, much faster than the first—and it will be much harder to get at. Unconventional oil sources such as shale will undoubtedly be utilized, but they are much more expensive.

Any way we slice it, the price of oil will skyrocket. We don’t want to be caught with our pants down when it does. Plenty of countries are awakening to this reality, and Sweden in particular takes peak oil very seriously–so seriously that it plans to be virtually oil-free by 2020!

Unfortunately, I’m not betting on a coherent, intelligent energy policy crystallizing in America anytime soon. Not in this administration, not in the next. Not until a crisis forces us to act, whenever that is. Even if public opinion shifts to acknowledge peak oil, the oil lobby is so pervasive in the U.S. that it is doubtful any meaningful energy legislation can get passed in a timely manner.

6)        Conclusion

Ultimately, with world oil supplies dwindling, we don’t have a choice but to embrace EVs. Whether EV cars can ever outperform traditional gasoline engines may be entirely moot. Personally, I think they can be better. I envision solar panels on every roof, powering every home and every car. Meanwhile, like so many fads, the oil will dry up and be remembered only as an ugly, haunting dinosaur from our jaded past.

The sooner we acknowledge that reality, the better prepared we can be for a post-oil, green-energy world.



MAKE SOLAR WORK FOR YOU!





Next, use your Solar Report to get the best quote!

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


About the Author



  • http://Web George

    Forgive the nit-picking, but the author is mixing up people concerned with “oil depletion” and people concerned with “peak oil”. The first group tries to predict when we will run out of oil, that is, when annual production goes to zero. In contrast, the second group is trying to identify when production will reach its maximum level. They could hardly be more different in this regard. Peak oil begun with Hubbert in the 1940s. There was no peak oil theory in 1890, so the editor seems to be mistaken on that point.

    • Tyler Massie

      Peak oil and oil depletion are cousins and go hand in hand. Once you reach peak, oil depletion is not far behind, and the painful effects of dwindling oil reserves will be felt long before the last drop of oil is extracted.

      I think the editor was trying to say that the conventional wisdom of 1890 held that no oil could be found West – not that there was a Hubbert curve in 1890.

      • http://Web RS

        The earth is not an oil tank where the oil flows until the last drop is gone. Oil has a cost, and that cost is increasing.

        The $5/barrel oil is gone.
        We are now in the $25/barrel oil, and there is an INCREDIBLE amount of it.
        And when it’s gone, $50/barrel oil then $100/barrel will be there.

        And as oil increases in cost, it becomes less economic vs alternatives.

        No need to panic. Simple cost economics will decide when oil-from-the-ground is no longer the best fuel for transport.

  • Pingback: Op-Ed: Why EV Haters Are Wrong | PluginEurope.com()

  • http://solarchargeddriving.com Christof D-H

    Great piece Tyler. Well-written and well-argued. I’m sure you’ll get some anti-EV blather, but here’s saying 99.9% of it won’t come near your level of rationality or persuasiveness.

    –Christof Demont-Heinrich
    Founder & Editor, SolarChargedDriving.Com

  • Pingback: Drumbeat: October 3, 2011 | Environmental, Health and Safety News()

  • http://Web Nixon

    This is very good, logical, well reasoned stuff.

    If purchasing a car was purely an exercise in logical analysis, you would win. Since car buying is often just as much an emotional decision as a logical decision, don’t be too annoyed when all your awesome logical reasoning is ignored by all too many car buyers.

    EV’s are going to have to win all the same advertising battles that car manufactures have been engaged in for decades. like, What car makes you look/feel/think you are sexy/hip/smart/tough/bad ass/safe/stylish/family oriented when you drive it?

    It sucks, but this is where EV makers need to win the real battle for hearts, along with the battle for minds.

  • Pingback: Op-Ed: Why EV Haters Are Wrong | CoolCarBlog.com()

  • Pingback: Drumbeat: October 3, 2011 | Crude Oil News()

  • http://Web RS

    Those of us who believe that electric vehicles are at present non-economically viable are not haters. We are pragmatists who don’t buy the green-at-any-cost line.

    However, we do feel that borrowing money from China to give to electric car manufacturers and purchasers is a very bad idea that our children, who must repay that money, will regret.

    Electric cars will make sense and will require no money taken from others when they have a life-cycle cost advantage over gas… including paying back the interest on any cost differential without subsidies.

    After that, electric cars will dominate when 10 min or less recharge becomes a reality.

    But we aren’t there yet. Not even close.

    Not sharing blind love is not the same as hate.

    • http://Web Nixon

      OK, if you guys aren’t all just blind haters, then you must just be very bad at math.

      Because any long-term harm you perceive from the (relatively) small amount of money borrowed from China to spur the EV market is COMPLETELY DWARFED by the sum of:

      1) The money we borrow from China to subsidize oil and gasoline.

      2) The money we borrow from China (and out of our own pockets and lowered productivity) to pay for emissions-related health problems and deaths.

      3) The massive trade deficit caused by importing oil.

      4) Etc…

      The point of the gov’t subsidizing the EV industry at this critical point is to QUICKLY get the EV industry to the point where “they have a life-cycle cost advantage over gas” as you say.

      I think the point that most of us “greenies” make is that we’ve done the math that you characterize as “blind love”. And to us when we project this math well into the future, it isn’t “blind love”, it’s just irrefutable mathematics based upon known projections.

      To us “greenies”, it becomes hard to understand why other people would either intentionally blind themselves to this math unless there is a blinding hate involved. If you don’t think you are that guy filled with blinding hate, please calculate the impact to those children 50 years from now of doing nothing and continuing to rely almost exclusively on oil for transportation.

      • Tyler Massie

        I could not have said this any better. This is EXACTLY where I’m coming from with this piece. There most certainly is a palpable sense of urgency from the green community – and that urgency exists for a very good reason.

  • http://Web Tobias Brox

    I’m not an EV-hater, but I’m definitively an EV-skeptic.

    You mentioned peak-oil … EVs are quite much dependent on rare-earth elements – we’ve already passed the REE-peak, China is the only producer of significance, and REEs are needed for any kind of renewable energy production.

    But that’s beside the point. I think that mass-transit by personal cars as we know them just isn’t sustainable – especially in urban settings. Fuel and exhaust pollution is just part of the problem with cars – road-building, parkings, traffic accidents, noise, traffic jams … none of those are really solved by going electrical.

    At my latitude, I consider the ground pollution in the winter time as one of the worst problems with the car traffic. The snow gets grey/black as soon as it hits the ground. This problem doesn’t come from the exhaust, it’s more related to road salting and usage of studded tires. The problem is so bad that we don’t know where to dump the snow when the roads are cleaned – the snow is even considered too toxic to dump it in the sea.

    Going electrical will improve energy efficiency, it will reduce noise problems a bit, and it will make it more possible to switch to “green” energy sources … and technology may eventually prove to solve some of all the problems mentioned above, but I’m not an optimist, far from it …

    • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

      I think you’re wrong about rare-earths, but otherwise you’re spot on. The ground-level pollution in the snow is disgusting, but ANYWHERE you live, that stuff is in the air, and (therefor) in your freakin’ LUNGS. That’s a bad sammich, no matter how you slice it (I just wrote that – like it? Hate it? I might try it again in a different context before I abandon it.)

  • http://Web Tobias Brox

    One thing I forgot to mention in my previous comment – Jevons paradox.

    There has been some research done locally – EVs have become somehow popular, particularly due to some local regulations (tax cuts, free parking, no road tax, free usage of lanes reserved for public transport, etc), but according to the research the usage of EVs DOES NOT replace ordinary car driving! The EVs are typically bought as a #2-car and is primarily replacing commutes that was previously done by public transport, walking or biking – so no “green” benefits, rather the opposite …

  • http://Web John David Galt

    It sticks out like a sore thumb that you haven’t even tried to address the major problem with EVs: the huge energy cost (above that of conventional cars) of manufacturing them — an amount that overwhelms the EV’s touted gas mileage savings during its lifetime. (What’s worse is that a lot of this energy goes into the battery pack, which means it has to be spent *again* every 20k miles when the pack has to be replaced.)

    Show us the real numbers — a side-by-side comparison of the whole life-cycle energy cost of an EV vs. a conventional car, including an average number of accidents and repairs (which also cost more for EVs) and how many miles each can be expected to last. Then if you can still say the EV is “green,” I’ll be suitably impressed.

    At any rate it is bad policy for government to try to predict winners by subsidizing a particular technology. Better to impose an increased flat tax on each joule of energy and let the market discover a thousand new ways to produce and/or conserve it.

    • http://importantmedia.org/members/joborras/ Jo Borras

      I agree, now let’s stop subsidizing oil to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars in tax credits, free security (courtesy of the US military), and foreign “aid”, and THEN we’ll see which is cheaper. Finally, this myth that EVs are more damaging to produce is just that: a MYTH. Enjoy some reading: http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth

      • http://Web John David Galt

        That “free security” argument is BS. The only reason the US goes overseas for oil at all is that the green movement has managed to place so much of our own oil (not just ANWR and Rocky Mountain shale but also major offshore sources on both coasts) off limits. I lay the costs of our Middle East wars at THEIR doorstep!

Back to Top ↑