With the introduction of the Tesla Roadster, the Mitsubishi iMiEV and the Nissan Leaf this year, we are beginning to see the introduction of EV’s to the mass consumer market.
The question is how will these vehicles be received by consumers?
The answer depends on what the expectation is for the customer experience.
The challenge for the electric vehicle industry here is that there is a brief window of opportunity to potentially win over large numbers of consumers to electric drive vehicles, or to potentially resign EV’s to a niche market.
The case presented here is that the outcome at this crossroads has more to do with our own operating assumptions, and decisions made now, than any mysterious market forces we can’t anticipate or control.
We have to ask, what does the consumer expect?
The benchmark for consumer choices here is the ICE vehicle. Given that the range of the Nissan Leaf for example is up to 100 miles, we can expect under present circumstances that this first affordable mass production EV will be a vehicle primarily used by urban dwellers for commuting.
The present approach in the US will likely relegate EV’s to the niche market -the percentage of drivers who can afford a second car for a more limited use (range extended hybrids notwithstanding) such as commuting back and forth to work and running local errands- due to the lack of an integrated system of charging available for EV’s in the US market.
The
rate of adoption for electric vehicles is critical to determining their success. The question considered briefly here is: "What level of market share will be necessary for EV’s to be considered a success?"
One has to ask what is the business case for developing consumer scale production of EV’s, spending billions on developing sufficient battery technology, and building a nationwide charging infrastructure with the operating assumption that market share will be 2% by 2015, and 5% by 2020?
Where is the Sense of Urgency?
The following excerpt is quoted from an article by Alan S. Drake from
Light Rail Now orignally published November, 2005.
In 2005 DOE commissioned a study on the prospect of peaking oil production, particularly with a view to evaluating possible responses and effects. This study resulted in a report, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management, by Robert L. Hirsch (Project Leader), Roger Bezdek, and Robert Wendling, published in February 2005.
As the DOE study authors note,
The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.
The DOE study authors make a number of very cogent points.
For example,
Oil Peaking Could Cost the U.S. Economy Dearly Over the past century the development of the U.S. economy and lifestyle has been fundamentally shaped by the availability of abundant, low-cost oil. Oil scarcity and several-fold oil price increases due to world oil production peaking could have dramatic impacts. The decade after the onset of world oil peaking may resemble the period after the 1973-74 oil embargo, and the economic loss to the United States could be measured on a trillion-dollar scale. Aggressive, appropriately timed fuel efficiency and substitute fuel production could provide substantial mitigation. Oil Peaking Presents a Unique Challenge The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.
However, the authors' conclusions with respect to energy alternatives for transportation seem quite narrow and limited.
For example, they emphasize that "The Problem is Liquid Fuels" and point out that "Under business-as-usual conditions, world oil demand will continue to grow, increasing approximately two percent per year for the next few decades. This growth will be driven primarily by the transportation sector."
Yet they also note that, because "The economic and physical lifetimes of existing transportation equipment are measured on decade time-scales", the "turnover rates" are low, and, therefore, "rapid changeover in transportation end-use equipment is inherently impossible." Thus, "Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains, and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. Non-hydrocarbon based energy sources, such as solar, wind, photovoltaics, nuclear power, geothermal, fusion, etc. produce electricity, not liquid fuels, so their widespread use in transportation is at best decades away."
In other words, the report gives short shrift to the possibility of electrifying transportation and no consideration at all is given to the effects of building more urban rail.
(end quote)
The question here is: Are we operating under the assumption that EV’s are destined to be a niche vehicle, or is this the beginning of a transition to a new paradigm for transit dominated by electric drive vehicles?
The problem with assuming that most people will want to use EV’s exclusively for local commuting is that this may be a self fulfilling prophecy. The outcome of the niche v.s. transitional technology question will be determined more by leadership decisions made now, than by hoping for a grass roots movement to be led by consumers.
For example, if consumers find that “up to 100 miles” means more like 50 to 70 miles with the AC or heat on, and discover that “fast” charging means driving 20 miles out of your way, waiting in line for an attendant to plug in your vehicle and then waiting an additional half hour to go another 60 to 70 miles; then their customer experience will be negative. If it takes months to get an electrical permit, and costs several thousand dollars to get a home charging unit connected, many consumers will be deterred from the EV market.
The challenge for electric vehicle technology from a consumer standpoint is that it must offer some advantage over the existing technology with respect to cost, efficiency, practicality, and ease of use.
If the immediate economic cost to consumers continues to be a premium, the advantages in mechanical and environmental efficiency continue to be undercut by huge government subsidies to the oil industry, and an integrated charging infrastructure is not already in place to enable a practical advantage in fueling when electric vehicles come to market, then there will be no compelling reason for large numbers of consumers to switch to electric drive.
Some industry insiders argue that an organic approach is the best way to develop infrastructure for EV’s. I would argue that this approach, as an answer to infrastructure development depends more on what question you are asking. What is the operant assumption here with regard to scale for electric drive vehicles?
For example, in this instance GM’s position is " to have a very broad approach to bringing in alternative fuel programs" - electric drive is seen as on the menu, but at least for now, it’s not the main course.
Without demonstrated leadership from Government and the Utility industry to build the infrastructure for electric drive vehicles GM has chosen an interim solution that may work well for commuters, but is problematic for distance travel in the sense that using gasoline to run a generator to charge your batteries is not the most
efficient way to travel cross country. Producing
10,000 Chevrolet Volt’s for 2011 compared to global total annual production of
27 million vehicles is not a game changer.
The diverse answers that vehicle manufacturers are coming up with to solving the challenges of sustainable transport are a direct result of the lack of a coherent, long term national, or global energy policy and transit plan. In the US at least, everyone’s operating on differing assumptions as to what can be achieved technologically, socially, and politically and most importantly economically, with respect to providing alternatives to ICE vehicles.
There is an existing economic inclination to preserve the infrastructure of gasoline as a fuel, as with hybrids, or on the part of oil companies at least, an attermpt to maintain a commodity control of fuel as is the case with ongoing attempts to develop
hydrogen as a fuel (whether for storage in fuel cells or as a combustible for use in converted ICE engines).
For this reason, in spite of considerable safety issues, hydrogen continues in the US to be "under development" because the Department of Energy partners are energy companies such as BP America, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobile Corporation, and Shell Hydrogen.
The problem with the menu approach to fuels is that with respect to providing infrastructure support it is simply impractical to assume that multiple fuels; gasoline, diesel, ethanol, biofuels, cng, hydrogen, and various forms of electric vehicle charging infrastructure can all be accommodated on a large scale in the marketplace over time.
We already have a well developed electric grid, what is lacking is simple and streamlined connectivity for electric vehicles.
The US administration supports plans to spend up to $6 billion more to support plug-in cars.
In fact DOE is hosting Plug-in Vehicle and Infrastructure workshop on July 22nd which includes a
live webcast.
Pre-registration is required.
At this point the US DOE goal is to collect information on community readiness in the select regional municipalities participating in pilot charging infrastructure installations.
Most people will agree that plug-in charging infrastructure is fine for home charging, (assuming you have a garage), and that opportunity charging will be necessary and useful for times when a vehicle is parked anyway such as at stores, parking ramps, and street side municipal facilities.
Infrastructure investments are capital intensive, long-term bets on the future. If we are truly embarking on the development of a national infrastructure for charging electric vehicles in the US, our thinking must extend beyond the municipal level and address the challenge of making distance travel in electric vehicles a practical reality.
The technology for wireless charging of electric vehicles is already in development in several places around the world. The present acronym is IPT or inductive power transfer. When most people hear the word inductive they think of the early charging systems for vehicles such as the inductive power paddles for the GM EV1. Conductive charging systems are what is utilized in plug-in charging systems today. I personally prefer the term wireless charging to IPT.
IPT has already been in use for many years in industrial applications.
Here is a video demonstration of how inductive power transfer technology for electric vehicles works.
The
Korean Institute of Science and Technology is one of several groups who have successfully demonstrated inductive power transfer technology for electric vehicles. With IPT there is no need to establish massive charging stations or to set aside much time for recharging. If the underground power lines installed on road curbs, bus stops, parking lots, and intersections, the power system could support a substantial portion of public transportation: For example, KAIST estimates that by establishing 20% of the road infrastructure for a bus route in Seoul City, the city could offer its citizens the online electric buses.
The University of Auckland's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering led by Profesor John Boys has been developing IPT for 20 years, and Auckland Uniservices is now offering licensing opportunitities for it's inductive power transfer technology for electric vehicles.
A February 2010 Report by
SupplierBusiness titled
Induction Charging For Electric Vehicles concludes: For example, cable connections are vulnerable both to vandalism and those having ‘fun’ with charging stations in public places. Given the high voltages involved, the issue of safety comes to the fore. Then there is the issue that human nature will always push consumers towards the solution requiring the least effort. This is borne out by consumer research from Nissan which suggests that 61% of potential EV customers worry about the inconvenience of plugging in to recharge. Consequently, there is a growing opinion in the industry that a cabled approach to EV charging may only be an interim solution which will eventually be overtaken by the convenience and safety of cable free or induction charging.
Nissan and Hino Motors in Japan are already exploring development of IPT for passenger vehicle applications.
Although the size of investment required to create inductive charging infrastructure on a national scale will be substantial, it is now technologically feasible, and is technology available today that already overcomes the range limitations inherent in today's battery electric vehicles. Thus, if adopted IPT can eliminate major barriers to mass adoption of EV's by consumers.
Investment in IPT infrastucture can also be integrated with efforts to develop Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) components such as collision avoidance systems. Such a system could be financed in a similar way to how the US paid for development of the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System.
Wireless power transfer has the potential to solve the range, cost, and charging issues with today's batteries, and has the added promise to create a seamless customer experience for consumers.
When consumers can drive their electric cars virtually anywhere by means of a combination of home charging, workplace connectivity, and wireless IPT for distance travel, without ever having to stop to fill up, then electric drive vehicles will become the dominant choice for personal transit.
The electrification of personal transit, regional and national mass transit is critical to preparing for the consequences of peak oil. A systematic approach to creating an integrated National charging infrastructure is the key to making transit electrification a success.
