There sure is a lot of excitement percolating around plug-in hybrid and electric cars these days. Chevrolet’s Volt and Nissan’s Leaf are the talk of the car world, city governments are installing battery chargers, and the Obama administration has promoted them. Even the TV commercials for the battery chargers are cool.

There are some skeptics, however. And on Thursday I caught up with one of them, William M. Colton, ExxonMobil’s vice president for corporate strategic planning, who is definitely not a fan. A reverse skeptic could say, sure, why would ExxonMobil say nice things about a car that would displace gasoline? That’s certainly true, although Exxon Mobil is getting more and more invested in natural gas, which would indirectly help fuel electric and hybrid cars because it is an important fuel stock for the electric utilities that ultimately charge the car batteries.

For Mr. Colton, the argument against the electric car is purely economic. “One word tells you the whole picture, and its starts with the letter B: batteries are not ready for prime time,” he said, noting that the last time he looked, the battery in the Leaf cost $17,000.

By his calculation, batteries cost $800 to $1,000 per kilowatt-hour, and that has to be reduced to $300 to $500 for electric cars to make sense. And the comparison with the internal combustion engine is a no-brainer, at least for him.

“A conventional car uses only about 100 pounds of gasoline to go 400 miles,” he said. “You go 60 miles an hour, 400 miles. You can run the air conditioner and the radio, and refuel in five minutes. Compare that with a battery, a very heavy and very expensive battery that will only take you 100 miles on a good day and it takes 12 hours or 8 hours to refuel. It’s a very problematic purchase.”

What is needed is a breakthrough in battery technology, he said, but he does not see that happening in the next 10 years at least.

So what alternative does Mr. Colton offer to reduce emissions, especially carbon dioxide, which is linked to climate change?

He says that a lot can be done to improve existing technology in transmissions, engines and electronics to improve the internal combustion engine’s performance. He says hybrids like the Prius will make more sense in the future as technologies improve. And there are other more cost-effective ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, he says.

“When you look at mitigation costs for CO2 in electric vehicles, you are talking about hundreds of dollars per ton of CO2. Its very, very expensive because the batteries are so expensive,” he said. “So we say instead of doing that, if you take natural gas and just displace coal at an electric power plant, you can do it for just $20 a ton. Why wouldn’t you do that first?

Since ExxonMobil is the No. 1 natural gas producer in the country, company shareholders would probably agree with him.

Editor’s Note: So how long before we see all the Prius cars in California being turned in for the Cash for Clunkers program? The only people who want them and can afford electric status symbols are rich liberals.

Some say electric cars will save the planet from man-made climate change. Others see a need to clean up the exhausts of an increasing number of cars clogging up city centers across the globe. Most agree that oil will run out one day, and some manufacturers have bet the farm that battery-only electric cars will be able to rise to the occasion and provide us with viable personal mobility.

The evidence is mounting that this won’t happen.

According to a new report from Trend Tracker, an automotive research company based in Wiltshire, England, electric cars are unlikely to be able to raise their game to bail out the world’s need for mobility as the oil runs out by, say, 2050. Trend Tracker says car manufacturers’ expensive scramble to produce electric cars with limited ability would be better spent on long-term research to produce electric cars good enough to compete with regular ones.

Business strategy consultancy Roland Berger reckons electric cars will face a crisis by around 2015, when the limited demand created by early adopters becomes more like a mass market, and electric cars have to compete with internal combustion engines and plug-in hybrids on level terms. This will mean manufacturers will have to offer compelling packages of services to make up for the electric cars’ limitations.

With battery-only cars unable to meet range and cost demands that would make them popular among buyers without government subsidy, and fuel cells failing to beat the cost barriers, the possibility of the world running out of oil before a viable replacement for the internal combustion engine emerges is a possibility, says Trend Tracker director Toby Procter.

The planned production of electric cars indicates they will still be a peripheral choice by 2050, with the global market rising to about two billion, with only about 30 million electric vehicles, the report said.

Not ready for prime time

“EV production would need to increase by an average two million units a year over 23 years to effectively electrify the global car market by 2050 when the ‘peak oil’ scenario may have played out. In the medium term, EVs will continue to suffer adverse comparison in terms of price and utility with conventional cars and plug-in hybrids. Suppliers will need to develop more enticing value propositions,” the report said.

The Nissan Leaf, the first of the new EV or battery-only cars, is going on sale now. Range: a claimed 100 miles. The Chevrolet Volt range-extended electric vehicle is also hitting showrooms. Range with gas engine backup: at least 350 miles. Toyota’s Prius gas-electric plug-in hybrid will appear next year. Range: ditto.

All of the important automakers are spending big money readying battery-only and plug-in hybrid cars without any real conviction for which cars will be successful long-term.

The all-electric car falls short of being ready for prime time on many fronts. Range needs to be improved by at least 100 percent. Battery prices need to be shaved at least in half. The problem of depreciation — batteries are unlikely to last much more than eight years — will destroy the value of the first electric vehicles. If battery technology does make a big, unexpected lurch forward, that will be even worse for the economics of the early adopters.

“Cars that look pretty much like ordinary cars, cost twice as much and go a third of the distance, don’t look like cracking the problem,” said Procter in an interview.

Max Blanchet, a partner at Roland Berger’s Paris office, said limitations won’t be a problem until about 2015, because early adopters won’t pay attention to the electric cars’ disadvantages.

“Between 2011-2015, there are huge expectations for electric cars with many players, many fleets, and customers looking for electric cars. In the meantime the (electric car) production of car manufacturers will be slowly ramping up, so for the next three or four years there will be under-capacity and a scarcity of vehicles. The problem comes when manufacturers want to sell EVs as an alternative to thermal (internal combustion engine) vehicles. These buyers will want to see a clear advantage,” Blanchet said.

Compelling packages required

Because the advantage won’t be there, manufacturers will have to offer compelling packages to make up for the fact that they will be too expensive to be sold as products in their own right.

“To be able to compete, the offer (from battery-only manufacturers) must be for complete mobility,” Blanchet said.

This will include what he calls a mobility “ecosystem” combining specific use, targeted customers, tailored products and services like recharging batteries and intelligent navigation. There will be electric taxi fleets with battery replacement stations, last mile-delivery firms, and car-sharing schemes, he said.

An early example of this idea comes from BMW. The German luxury car manufacturer announced that it will unveil its new “BMW i” sub-brand at the Geneva Motor Show next month. The first vehicle will be the i3, known until now as the Megacity, and will be a four-seat electric-only city car. To make this car more appealing, BMW said it will sell a package of “premium mobility” services including Smartphone applications that provide traffic, parking and other real-time information. The i3 will go on sale in 2013.

No shortage of negatives

How soon will battery-only cars be able to compete in the market place on their own qualities?

“2020 is too soon to make EVs competitive. This will be 2030 at the earliest,” said Blanchet.

There are other negatives.

Lithium-ion batteries, which are used in most battery-only cars, are prone to catching fire from overheating or sudden impact. Fast charging is said to be able to get around the problem of short range and the many hours needed to replenish, but this will quickly weaken the battery.

“The use of such fast charging systems has potentially severe negative impacts on battery life, and is not compatible with the capacity of domestic power outlets,” the report said.

Attempts to get around the battery range problem by setting up exchanges for spent batteries have been suggested by Better Place of Palo Alto, Calif., in conjunction with GE of the U.S. and Renault-Nissan. The report believes the case for battery swapping is “economically fragile.”

The Franco-Japanese Renault-Nissan alliance has allocated about $5.5 billion for the development of battery-only cars. The alliance reckons battery-only vehicles will account for 10 percent of global sales by 2020, about twice as much as many other automotive organizations estimate. Roland Berger sees a five percent market share for battery-only vehicles. Other manufacturers expect two percent or less.

Devastating conclusion

The report concludes that the move to battery cars has got ahead of itself, by going to the market before it was ready. It quotes Peter Wells of the Centre of Automotive Industry Research at the Cardiff Business School in England with this devastating conclusion.

“For electric-vehicle sales to grow significantly several things need to happen. Vehicles need to be much lighter, battery technology needs to be cheaper and offer greater performance, urban authorities have to promote zero emission zones, industrial capacity to support the technologies needs to be created, petroleum prices have to rise, renewable energy prices have to fall and consumers have to be re-educated in terms of how they think about personal mobility.

“In the latter regard, we have to break the culture of ‘just in case’ purchasing whereby consumers buy a car for the maximum application, and instead encourage a culture of ‘minimalism’ or ‘just enough’ purchasing where consumers buy a car for their normal everyday needs,” Wells said.

Good luck to manufacturers who try to encourage “minimalism” or “just enough.”

Not too late

It is not too late for car manufacturers to change course and go for a much simpler, cheaper and less ambitious solution. Why not produce a little vehicle that doesn’t attempt to emulate the car with its speed, range and comfort? Why not make something utilitarian which would go about 30 mph down to the shops or around campus, where limited range would make no difference, and which many families could afford. Why not apply the new electric technology to the golf cart? This would be an affordable, unpretentious little utilitarian second car which didn’t attempt to reinvent the wheel.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

“The technology would be very suited for a golf cart,” said Roland Berger’s Blanchet, “but the car manufacturers are not in that market today. They are selling volume and they will hope that short range mobility will be more than a niche market. They aren’t going to make a car that isn’t a car.”

Neil Winton, European columnist for Autos Insider, is based in Sussex, England. E-mail him at neil.winton@btinternet.com.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110223/OPINION03/102230301/Battery-electric-cars-will-struggle-after-normal-buyers-replace-early-adopters#ixzz1FOCXMJ25

We face numerous energy policy challenges as a nation, but perhaps none looms larger right now than energy security. The recent and ongoing instability in the Middle East is yet another reminder that the United States remains heavily dependent on foreign nations–not all of them friendly–to meet much of our energy needs. In my view, energy security, along with the move towards cleaner energy, is the number one policy challenge facing the United States.

Can we “kick the oil habit?” That’s been a popular topic in Washington, as well as an elusive goal, for many years. In reality, oil will continue to have an important place in our energy mix. But we do need to dramatically expand efforts to harness our domestic energy resources. The transformation of the nation’s transportation fleet to one fueled in large part by domestically-produced electricity can gradually help wean the United States from its dependence on foreign energy sources.

As one of 15 Consumer Advisory Board members for the Chevy Volt, I’ve had the good fortune to test out one of the cars that will change the way America drives–and where it gets its fuel. The first wave of PEVs already is hitting major US markets, as car manufacturers join utilities in embracing electricity as a significant transportation fuel.

So, what happens next? There is bipartisan support for EVs in Congress, as well as support from the national security community. President Obama has set a goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. How close can we get? What are the biggest hurdles, and what do you see as the biggest potential benefits?

Editor’s Note: I am a citizen not being paid by anyone except those who hire me for IT consulting. The comments section of this article found at: http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2011/02/can-electric-vehicles-change-t.php?comments=expandall#comments are all officers of corporations or organizations to promote electric vehicles. Where will the energy come from? If we can’t burn coal, dam up rivers, build nuclear plants or drill for natural gas and oil how the hell are we supposed to fuel our energy lives? Do I sound mad? You’re damn right I am. While all these people are getting fat on government grants from my tax dollars, I am struggling to make enough money to pay my electric bill. And I can’t even leave this post on their website because I haven’t paid to become a member!!!

From the desk of T. Boone Pickens

The U.S. House of Representatives is going to vote on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (which we all know as the “Stimulus Package”) next week. Probably Wednesday.

The Bill has a great deal of the Pickens Plan in it. It’s not everything we need, but it’s a strong start in the area of wind energy. Wind energy has been one of the few winners over the past 12 months and it was a record year for installations and for new jobs. The Stimulus Package will build on this success and keep moving wind energy forward in the face of this economic crisis.

The Stimulus Package has to get over the finish line – which means the U.S. Senate must pass a bill and both the House and the Senate have to work out any differences.

I need you to call your Member of Congress, as well as the Leadership in the U.S. House, to tell them this is a good first step, but more needs to be done. Implementing wind and solar aspects of the Pickens Plan will provide significant environmental benefits long term, but if we are to seriously reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and the national and economic threats it poses), then we have to get serious about replacing foreign oil, gasoline and diesel with domestic fuels, particularly natural gas.

We need incentives to promote natural gas trucks if we are to make a real dent in our foreign oil imports. We’ll keep working with them and I need you to tell them how much the New Energy Army supports what they’re doing and hopes they’ll keep doing more.

Please call Congress today.  Visit your District Group page to coordinate with others in your Congressional District and to let us know about your efforts to contact your Member of Congress about this important piece of legislation.

-Boone

Today we received an e-mail from “Pickens Plan” saying that he had met with both Obama and McCain and again pushed his agenda to end our “addiction to foreign oil”. As you may know, we oppose this depiction of our situation.

We are only using foreign oil because liberal Democrats have taken over the energy debate and pushed their agenda on us. Not because we are “addicted” to foreign oil. What other choice have they left us? If Republicans push drilling they are in with the big oil. Of we don’t drill, we are dependent on foreign oil. And whose fault is that???

Wind will NEVER replace gasoline as long as we have internal combustion engines. Oil is still the best source of energy for travel AND all the plastic products we use everyday. And we need to start drilling NOW!!!

Windmills create electricity and so far no cars run on electricity only. Hybrids generate their own electricity so they wouldn’t use energy from his product anyway. In fact, the ones that do use only a battery can travel a very short distance. Imagine how much produce would cost for truckers to get across country with an electric engine that only gets 30-50 miles per charge! Besides, the food would spoil. But the blurb on his website reads, “How can we reduce our dependence on foreign oil?” The answer is DOMESTIC DRILLING, not wind turbines!

While we support alternative sources like wind and solar, it will not help lower gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil as his promo promises. Right now coal and hydroelectric produce most of our electricity, not oil! And did you know that wind power is subsidized by the government because it costs more to produce than it earns in the market place? That’s our money, folks. Our taxes go to subsidize his business. How many of you get government grants to run your business? Look, if he’s a rich Texas oil man, let him use his own money, not money paid in taxes by POOR people!

I decided we need to start this today and that’s what we’ve done. Across the country. And now we’re approaching 70% of the American public who support offshore production of energy and only 18% oppose and 15% are undecided. And I predict that when the rest of that 15% listen to the facts, we’re going to be close to 85% support of energy offshore. Because Americans, you know, what America doesn’t know yet is that natural gas yesterday was $12.93. That’s approaching $13. If that continues to climb in the next month or two, we’ll have a doubling of natural gas costs to heat homes this winter. We’re putting that $12.93 gas in the ground to heat homes because we start in the summer and then we burn it in the winter when it’s cold. And last year at this time it was $6.50 to $7. It wouldn’t take long to figure out we’re soon going to be doubling natural gas prices and when that happens, I don’t know how the middle class and poor in this country are going to drive their car and heat their homes.

This guy is a hero. Read the rest of the transcript here.

Glenn Beck interviewed Congressman Chris Cannon from Utah today about his proposal to develop oil shale as a means of increasing oil supply and thereby lowering gas prices. Read the story here. To quote Congressman Cannon:

You know, if we’re going to bring down the price of gas, you have to have three things.  You have to have a big reserve, you have to have the ability to develop oil out of that reserve quickly, and you have to be able to produce oil at a relatively low cost.  And that’s oil shale. 

In Utah and Colorado and to some degree in Wyoming we have an amazing amount of oil.  If you compare the size of our reserves of Saudi Arabia and the whole Middle East, it’s like three times as much as all of that combined and that’s just the easily, readily available 1800 billion barrels and there are probably 3 billion barrels that are commercially just under that, available.  And long term if we change the technology, perhaps as many as 4 trillion, with a T, 4 trillion barrels of oil.  There’s enough, marginally if we just supplied all of our use in America instead of importing oil, it would be enough for 100 years or so. 

There’s just no energy crisis in the world.  There’s a regulatory crisis.  So what I’ve done is I’ve introduced a bill that would give the President the authority to draw people together that can understand these issues in government and to sit down with people that want to develop that shale and say, okay, let’s figure out what you need to do to do it in an appropriate, careful, environmental manner and then let’s go forward with it.  And that would mean fairly quick production of oil and that would have a big impact on the price of gas at the pump.

Go to Glenn Beck’s website to read the rest of the interview.

In a Reuters, UK article today,

Honda kicked off production on Monday of its newest fuel-cell car, as the car-maker gears up for the battle to dominate the market for next-generation vehicles.

Honda’s FCX Clarity, a sporty-looking fuel-cell saloon, came off the production line in Tochigi, north of Tokyo. The assembly line is Honda’s first to be dedicated to building fuel-cell vehicles.

The FCX Clarity will be sold through a newly established fuel-cell vehicle dealership network in the United States from July, Honda said. In Japan, sales are slated to start in autumn.

Supposedly it produces no carbond dioxide, but I can’t wait to see what complaint the environmentalists come up with to oppose this one!