I recently discovered this interesting two-part moderated discussion/debate (originally broadcast October 2023). The show is called "Energy Switch" (produced in Austin, Texas) and is seen on the PBS (public TV) network.
Panelists were Dr. Beia Spiller (previously with the Environmental Defense Fund and now Director of the Transportation Program at Resources for the Future) and Dr. David Rapson (Economic Policy Advisor for the FED and Professor of Economics at Univ. Cal. at Davis). Both panelists can be categorized as experts on energy and economics. But they clearly come at electric car issues from different perspectives. Their insights exposed what may be a widespread dichotomy in thinking behind any possible sea-change in global personal vehicle transportation.
vs.
Spiller is admittedly concerned about economic impacts to disadvantaged and low-income global communities. She freely touts the advantages of battery-powered electric cars (EVs) and advocates for rapid investment in EVs and the related infrastructure. In contrast, Rapson acknowledges a likely eventual growth of EVs within the personal-vehicle marketplace, but thinks the current focus should be instead on removal of ICE vehicles with a more cautious reliance on a mixture of alternatives (hybrid, hydrogen, CNG, and battery) giving the electrical grid time to de-carbonize.
If you get a chance, take a look at the discussion. Here are some points made by each participant (apologies in advance for any mistakes/misinterpretations):
Dr. Beia Spiller
Postscript
While both participants were eloquent and informative, I found myself agreeing most often with Dr. Spiller. However, I disagreed with her on the battery-range issue. Here is an outline of my thinking.
Clearly, there will always be (and probably should be) a range of prices among EV models, so that people from all walks of life can afford to go electric. And since the size of onboard batteries greatly affects maximum range, that probably means that EVs will continue to exhibit a diversity in maximum ranges. However, I continue to hope that range will increase at all new-car price levels--i.e., that the average maximum range will continue to rise as new battery technologies are discovered and implemented.
Panelists were Dr. Beia Spiller (previously with the Environmental Defense Fund and now Director of the Transportation Program at Resources for the Future) and Dr. David Rapson (Economic Policy Advisor for the FED and Professor of Economics at Univ. Cal. at Davis). Both panelists can be categorized as experts on energy and economics. But they clearly come at electric car issues from different perspectives. Their insights exposed what may be a widespread dichotomy in thinking behind any possible sea-change in global personal vehicle transportation.
Spiller is admittedly concerned about economic impacts to disadvantaged and low-income global communities. She freely touts the advantages of battery-powered electric cars (EVs) and advocates for rapid investment in EVs and the related infrastructure. In contrast, Rapson acknowledges a likely eventual growth of EVs within the personal-vehicle marketplace, but thinks the current focus should be instead on removal of ICE vehicles with a more cautious reliance on a mixture of alternatives (hybrid, hydrogen, CNG, and battery) giving the electrical grid time to de-carbonize.
If you get a chance, take a look at the discussion. Here are some points made by each participant (apologies in advance for any mistakes/misinterpretations):
Dr. Beia Spiller
- Key goals:
- Increase in numbers of EVs.
- Less expensive EV models available to customers with moderate and low incomes.
- Reduction of transportation impacts to disadvantaged communities.
- EVs are expensive, but their advantages will eventually lead to more and more consumers making the switch.
- EVs are in general a much better car. They are more fun, quieter, and cleaner with better performance and features.
- We can't afford the delay (to take time to de-carbonize the grid). For one thing, buyers need that time to learn (about EVs) and adapt.
- Hydrogen fuel cell technology is too complicated and expensive (for small vehicles) and (like gasoline) would require another huge and inefficient infrastructure. It's a poor alternative (to EVs).
- Part of any "carbon-tax" could be used for the electrical grid/infrastructure. But part should be returned to low-income households.
- Feels that EV battery problems can and will be overcome.
- If new-car EV sales mandates are applied, we'll see lower income people stuck driving (and being disproportionately impacted by) ICE cars.
- Current (USEPA) emission standards are not properly targeted. To maximize pollution reduction we need to improve the least efficient vehicles on the road. For example, raising fuel efficiency (in very low mileage cars) from 10 mpg to 15 mpg is much better than raising it (in moderate mileage cars) from 25 mpg to 100 mpg.
- If we are going to rely on hybrid vehicles they should be plug-in and come with longer electrical ranges (bigger batteries) and shorter gasoline ranges (smaller fuel tanks). Right now we have the opposite of that.
- However, she would like to see more EVs with lower ranges (i.e., smaller batteries) to make them less expensive. (Federal requirements may be pushing manufacturers in the opposite direction.)
- The charging network needs to grow and improve asap.
- In the Increase Numbers of Chargers or EVs First Debate: Favors increasing numbers of chargers first to encourage new car sales.
- Key goals:
- Address climate change.
- De-carbonize the electricity grid.
- From a global perspective, EVs are mostly purchased by the (relatively) "wealthy" and are not currently available to the majority of consumers (e.g., in 3rd-world countries).
- It's not about getting EVs on the road; it's about getting ICE cars off the road.
- One way to reduce numbers of ICE vehicles might be a "carbon tax" (though politically unpopular).
- A too rapid economic shift (e.g., from gasoline to electricity) could have drastic impacts. (Example: When Russia shut off CNG supplies to Europe for political reasons.)
- To reduce risk, the electrical grid should be de-carbonized before we put too many EVs into the marketplace.
- EV subsidies are counter-productive, don't work, and make little overall sense (in terms of long-term goals).
- Mandates (e.g., requiring a certain number of EVs by a certain date) are not the way to go. (Norway is a successful example where mandates were not used.)
- Worries about the drawbacks of battery technology (e.g., rare materials, controlled by other countries, are required).
- Advocates for alternatives to EVs--e.g., hybrid cars, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, in-car carbon capture, CNG and certain proportion of remaining ICE vehicles.
- We’ve previously seen NEW rapidly replace OLD technologies when the NEW clearly "dominated" the (old) competition. EVs are not clealry better than ICE cars in all categories. Hence, he doubts that we'll see EVs make up 100% of the fleet.
- In the Increase Numbers of Chargers or EVs First Debate: Favors allowing numbers of EVs sold to determine necessary growth in the area's charging network. The market should govern if, when, and where the charging network expands.
- Electricity generation must include "dispatchible" sources (reliable/dependable natural gas, nuclear, batteries) as well as "intermittent" sources (e.g., wind, solar).
- Battery vehicles make the most sense for small- to mid-sized vehicles.
- EVs are expensive, but costs should eventually come down.
- There is a place for hybrid technology.
- The proportion of EVs in the overall personal vehicle fleet will remain relatively small (say by 2035). In actuality, it may take another 40 years to see EV dominance.
*****
Postscript
While both participants were eloquent and informative, I found myself agreeing most often with Dr. Spiller. However, I disagreed with her on the battery-range issue. Here is an outline of my thinking.
- There will continue to be significant growth in numbers of personal transportation vehicles (PTVs) worldwide, especially in new markets like China, India, and (eventually) parts of Africa.
- Existing and future numbers of PTVs have and will affect climate change, human health, and quality of life.
- To help alleviate deleterious PTV impacts, it will be advantageous to substitute EVs for as many existing and future ICE vehicles as possible.
| - While some ICE drivers are already well-educated and making the switch (encouraged by EV performance, features, and eco-advantages), the vast majority of ICE car users still are not.
- One factor that discourages the switch is so-called "range anxiety." (Another factor is, admittedly, higher costs. But I would argue that, over time, higher EV costs will unfortunately become the "new normal," as we have so often seen with new, desirable tech products like smart phones. Eventually, some of what we now regard as "luxury" functions and performance should hopefully drift down to less expensive car models.)
- However, the average (American) car apparently travels only 40 miles (or less) a day, and is probably fully charged every night at home. Nonetheless, American drivers psychologically want their cars to be able to travel much farther (median ICE car range was apparently ~413 miles).
| - There is another, valid reason for greater range--time saving. Though getting faster, DC fast charging still takes longer than pumping gasoline, I believe. And of course 240v AC charging can take up to several hours. So drivers naturally want to avoid any possibility of long delays from stops for charging (even if the majority of charging is performed overnight at home and even if charging stations have access to nearby food and shopping amenities).
| - Finally, as new EV owners have frequently discovered, there seem to be many factors that diminish maximum range (and, conversely, few that increase it). So (USEPA/manufacturer) promised maximum ranges are rarely, if ever, actually achieved (under normal driving). Such factors may include:
|- The fact that to extend battery life manufacturers often discourage charging above, say, 80-90% capacity for most day-to-day driving.
- Extreme ambient air temperatures.
- Certain ("Mario Andretti-like") driving styles (e.g., jackrabbit starts; high speeds).
- Car and battery aging. (In general, as an EV and its batteries age, maximum range shrinks.)
- Use of pretty much any power-hungry onboard standard and aftermarket accessories (heaters, air conditioners, fans, etc.).
- Number of passengers, cargo load, and towing (naturally).
- "Sentry" Mode and other security systems.
- Non-factory tire pressures.
- OEM performance wheels and tires.
- Aftermarket tires and non-stock tire sizes.
- Performance software settings.
- Terrain and elevation,...and so forth.
|
So right from the start EV customers wanting/needing the assurance of a certain maximum range have to take these factors into account and buy (up) accordingly in order to achieve close to the range they really expect. (With ICE cars gas mileage and maximum range claims could also be equally fictitious. But fewer people cared since gas was often relatively cheap [in the USA], gas tanks large, gas stations extremely plentiful, and fueling quick.)
The result of all this? One conservative rule-of-thumb might arguably be to knock off at least, say, 50 miles from any (overly-optimistic) promised maximum range. Vehicles with large touted maximum ranges are therefore positioned from the start to better handle inevitable power draw-downs and still provide relatively worry-free true maxim ranges. Manufacturers are going to have to find that sweet spot: affordable EVs with a range that will still entice ICE car drivers.
Clearly, there will always be (and probably should be) a range of prices among EV models, so that people from all walks of life can afford to go electric. And since the size of onboard batteries greatly affects maximum range, that probably means that EVs will continue to exhibit a diversity in maximum ranges. However, I continue to hope that range will increase at all new-car price levels--i.e., that the average maximum range will continue to rise as new battery technologies are discovered and implemented.
Last edited: