Could The Electric Car Save Us?

One Expert Says It's The Only Good Alternative To Gasoline-Powered Autos

(CBS)  Let's face it: Gasoline-powered cars are a gigantic problem. They pollute, they keep us dependent on foreign oil, and when gas prices go up, they cost a fortune to drive. But what's the alternative?

The problem is, oil is found only where on earth God put it, and He happened to put a lot of it in the Middle East.

Vijay Vaitheeswaran is a correspondent for The Economist and coauthor of "Zoom: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future." He’s heard the sales pitches for every solution under the sun - like ethanol derived from corn.

"I like the idea that farmers are growing energy that powers our cars," President George W. Bush said in a speech last March.

But Vaitheeswaran says that it actually requires more fossil fuels to create enough ethanol to take the place of a gallon of gasoline than the gasoline itself would need.

He has also heard about hydrogen, but says it is expensive to make and difficult to distribute.

"You can't just pull up at the Exxon station and say, 'Fill her up with hydrogen,'" he told CBS News correspondent David Pogue.

But a better solution might be ready to roll sooner than you think:

"Electric cars could be a game changer," Vaitheeswaran said.

Toyota's Prius is a half-electric car and cracked the top ten cars sold in America this summer. It's a hybrid, so it has both an electric motor and a gas engine. At low speeds, the electric motor provides all the power, you're not using any gas. When you need more power, the gas engine kicks in as well, and then when you're slowing down and braking, the power from the wheels is reclaimed and stored in the battery. All told, the Prius gets 45 to 50 miles per gallon of gas, but it is still using gas.

But the public's perception of the electric car is about to get a big makeover, and it's going to start with the Tesla electric roadster. It goes from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds. You plug it at night, and the next day it can go 200 miles on a charge. There's no gas tank, no tailpipe, no oil changes and certainly no boredom.

Not bad for a car company that's based in Silicon Valley.

Martin Eberhard co-founded Tesla Motors with a bunch of software and engineering experts who had no car-design experience. As a result, Eberhard says they weren't held back by conventional wisdom.

"I thought we should build a car that's actually better than those gasoline cars, a car that people want to drive," he said. "So that it doesn't require some great leap of altruism on the part of everybody suddenly to break our addiction to oil."

Electric cars don't produce any pollution or greenhouse gases, but some worry that they will shift the pollution to the power plants that burn coal when making electricity.

"If you do the math, you'll find that an electric car, even if you use coal to make the electricity, produces less pollution per mile than burning gasoline in the best gasoline-powered car," Eberhard said.

But if you do a little more math, you might get a little electric-car sticker shock. This radical innovation doesn't come cheap. The Tesla starts at $98,000. At this price it compares comparably favorably with sports cars that have this kind of performance.

Actually, the Tesla handles like a sports car and can go quite fast.

It's selling fast, too. The first 570 Tesla roadsters have already sold out, and there's a one-year waiting list. Fortunately, not all Tesla Motors cars will cost so much; the roadster is just an opening move.

"With that progress, then we consider the next car," Eberhard said. "Then we look for a car that's in the $50,000 range that can seat, you know, five adults, as our next model."

So why does it take a Silicon Valley startup to reinvent the electric car? Why can't Detroit do it? Actually, it can. Bob Lutz is vice chairman for Product Development at General Motors. The Chevy Volt electric is his baby and it won't cost $100,000.

"My personal target still is to bring this car into the market at, you know, nicely below $30,000," Lutz said.

The Volt can run for 40 miles on a battery charge, which GM says is enough daily range for 82 percent of the population. But for longer trips, the Volt also has a tiny engine (either gas or ethanol, or hydrogen) that recharges the battery as you drive.

"That engine never drives the car," Lutz said. "It's not hooked up to the wheels. Think of it as a portable generator that gets your battery back up."

The car is almost an inside-out traditional hybrid. Instead of a battery helping out the gas engine, the gas engine helps out the battery.

But skeptics like Vijay Vaitheeswaran may have a hard time believing that these cars are the solutions.

"I would watch very carefully what GM actually does," he said. "The country saw a small moment of hope, you know, for electric cars for zero emission vehicles in the '90s, when California saw GM produce the most aerodynamic production car ever made. It was called the EV1. And it was very popular amongst those who could get their hands on it."

You can see the end of that sad story in the documentary, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Filmmaker Chris Paine was the director.

"In the 1990s, California told car companies that they had to put electric cars on the road," he said. "It took about eight years for a variety of industry interests to kill these mandates. And as soon as they killed them, the car companies took the cars back and destroyed them. And people were very upset about it. In General Motors' case, they took the cars out to Arizona and they secretly crushed them all."

Today, Bob Lutz admits that crushing the EV-1s may not have been the best way to conclude that experiment.

"Now, it turns out that from a PR standpoint probably the dumbest move we ever made," Lutz said. "It was done for all the right legal reasons, but PR-wise it was dumb. So, now I'm getting e-mails saying, 'I hope you rot in hell.'"

But Lutz says that this time, GM is dead serious about the electric car.

"I mean, this car means more to me than anything else I've had anything to do with in the 42 years that I've been in the business," he said. "I think this is because it's transformational. It's all new, which is why it just truly excites us."

Tesla and GM both face the same technological roadblock: coming up with a safe, powerful, long-life battery.

"This is what the battery box looks like if you pulled it out of the car," Eberhard said. "And what's inside here is a system built around standard lithium ion batteries. So if you broke open the battery pack on your laptop computer, you'd find a set of these inside - 6,831 of these."

Scrappy little Tesla Motors may hope to save money and development time by adapting off-the-shelf battery parts. General Motors, though, has the mass market to think about, so they're developing a new lithium-ion battery for the Volt from the ground up - a huge, international, multimillion-dollar effort in labs like GM's battery testing lab, where Denis Gray is the director. The lab tests prototypes from the two engineering firms that are working on the Volt battery.

"Some of us replace our cell phones, our Blackberries, every year because a new model comes out or we've gotta change the battery," Gray said. "I can't do that when it comes to vehicles. Customers won't be very happy with me if I change it after six months."

The entire Chevy Volt project hinges on Gray's ability to lick the battery problem.

"Bob Lutz, Rick Wagoner, they're constantly asking how are we doing? Are we making the progress that we need?" Gray said.

In other words, if Gray's team doesn't come through, then there will be no Volt.

"The problem is nobody has done a lithium ion battery pack this big," Lutz said. "And we say it's the big unknown because it is. But our battery suppliers say, 'Hey. Stop saying that. We're telling you the battery's gonna be okay.'"

So who killed the electric car? Nobody, yet. In fact, just about everyone's excited by the possibilities - even Vijay Vaitheeswaran.

"I think it's a real grassroots revolution," he said. "Could be the next big grassroots revolution in American politics. What I call the great awakening of America to climate change and oil addiction."

Chris Paine is excited; in fact, he's making a sequel to his movie.

"The next film is, 'Who Saved the Electric Car?'" he said.

The first Teslas will hit the streets this fall. And if the battery gods smile on GM, Bob Lutz's Chevy Volt will be joining it in two years.

"Will it live up to its promise of 40-plus mile electric range?" Lutz said. "Will the battery last ten years? Can we bring it in at a price that most people could afford? If the answer is 'yes' to all that, then I think the future for electrics is absolutely unlimited."

[socrates392]

That Tesla Roadster looks sweet!!! If only I had enough money to afford it. Looks like I''ll have to wait for the Volt. :(

[chevyvolt]

To join with us on the grass roots approach to getting the Chevy Volt on the road, go to:
http://www.gm-volt.com

[sparks224]

I don''t trust GM. They sell pickup trucks with electric windows (Suburbans, Escalades, Tahoes, etc.). That''s the business the''re in. That''s what they''re committed to. I don''t here them talking about the new nano battery technology or super capacitors. They are NOT serious about changing the game.

[toolmangler-2009]

Make it cheap enough for the under $50K per year crowd and you''ll sell out every time. They cannot afford a car ''and'' gas at the same time.

[sparks224]

GM and Big Oil will not be forgiven for their sins.

We don''t just need a new car, we need a new car company.

[emma915]

What a shock! The suggestion that an electric car could save us from big oil? Tell that to the people who were manufacturing them for the Department of Energy in the 1980s. . . . . . That is, of course, until big business convinced Ronald Reagan to shut it down. Your tax dollars WASTED!

[woodelf5]

This is NOT a solution. It is the same basic technology as a steam locomotive! Only with long power lines and expensive batteries! It would cause the burning of immense quantities of coal and simply transfer pollution to the area around power plants.


We need to think NON-combustion. It is time for humankind to move beyond the fire stage of development.

[radiob-2009]

What about the electric generating wheels ?

[jowand]

What are you going to plug them into for the electrical source? Electricity produced from what? There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

[radiob-2009]

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php

Read the article Jowand. And remember Clintons famous campaign promise to convert all vehicles to natural gas in 92?

[feelfree1]

Re: "Could The Electric Car Save Us?"

This is an interesting idea. Zero to 60 in 4 seconds, with a 200 mile range?

One could certainly run over a lot of neo-fascists with such a machine.

[kesac4650]

What happens when Daddy comes home from work to a suburb of a major city that has teetered on the edge of a brownout for years, and then he and thousands more just like him all plug in their battery chargers, about the same time the go inside and turn down the thermistat to the airconditioning, and begin the evening surge in power useage?
It will not be pretty.

[cfin5]

All of this "Save the Earth" stuff will never be allowed to happen. At around 46 cents per gallon tax at the pump the government would go broke before first break monday morning if they lost even half of that. We have had folks come up with excellent fuel conservation ideas that work.......And POOOOF! They''re gone.

[feelfree1]

USAyesterday,

I knew that I could find something to disagree with you on;-)

Nuclear power is very expensive, takes a lot of energy input to produce, is dangerous to operate, provides a feedstock for nuclear bombs, (plutonium), and we have no idea how to handle the waste, which is piling up, and which remains extremely dangerous for thousands and thousands of years.

Nuclear power is the desired alternative of the corporatists, because there is a lot of money in it for them. I am opposed to it.

[feelfree1]

Here is another relevant video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F_Q7Z4L21E

[Snerdguy]

I recently read about a company which just patented a technology to produce a electrical storage device that will allow for a truly practical electric car. They are teaming up with a small manufacturer that already produces electric vehicles to develop an affordable car that goes five hundred miles on a charge. It will also recharge in about five minutes. The device is not a chemical battery and should be long lasting. If this works, I believe it will make the internal combustion driven car obsolete.

You could have been the one GM. But, you dropped the ball and you are becoming a dinosaur. You and the other big car companies that suppressed energy conserving technologies may not have such a sunny future.

[lawyertom1]

While there is no question that an electric, or electric hybrid [small engine to charge batteries when batteries begin to run low], cars would be a major step forward, a key question is going to be the source of the electricity. If we expand our reliance on coal, we will come out ahead, but not nearly as much than if we begin to move to a more environmentally friendly generation source.

[lawyertom1]

The problem with nuc''s is that they are unfortunately susceptible to terrorist attack, with the nasty effect of causing a chemical explosion of the nuclear fuel [think big dirty bomb like effect]. Despite the so-called increased security since 911, nuc''s are still way too vulnerable. When I worked on this issue in a classified project many decades ago, I was appalled at the vulnerability of our nuc''s. Until all current nuc''s are replaced by the more fail-safe designs that are unfortunately only on the drawing board at this point, reliance on nuc''s is foolish in the extreme.

[billdale]

It''s satisfying to see your comments, socrates, chevyvolt, sparks224, ToolMangler, emma915, and the others that realize the huge potential of EVs.

But woodelf5, kesac4650: who do you work for? Big oil, perhaps? Or maybe you''re mechanics that depend on all the expensive maintenance on ICE cars? There is no reputable data to back up your misinformation-- the exact opposite is true, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proven that EVs reduce pollution-- you''re busted, bad boys, so stop with the lies.

As for the idea that EVs would cause blackouts, you obviously have not done your homework, or you are just grabbing at straws to attack EVs. Blackouts happen in the early afternoon due to excessive use of air conditioners, not EVs that are typically charged at night when there is a surplus of power.

V2G, (vehicle to grid... google it) is a program that power companies use to make use of EVs to AVOID blackouts. When EVs are plugged into the grid when there is a danger of blackouts, the power company can stop the charging and REVERSE the flow of energy, using EVs to help avert such power crises. So, no, EVs will not CAUSE blackouts... they will help PREVENT them. (In exchange, EV owners are paid for the charge their cars provide in such emergencies. It''s totally win-win.) (to be continued)

[hypnotoad72]

I''m rather hopeful. But that''s just my opinion.

It can be done, it''s just a matter of wanting to.

[libsluvsuvs]

we need to tap all alternative sources we have..we have the technology to expand. But we need to take out the politicians..the environmentalists..the activists out of the picture to make this work.

[three-o-six]

The only problem with electric cars is that we still have to generate the electricity some how. Hydro-electricity is about the cleanest but the environmentalist don''t want us damning the rivers. Natural Gas works but the environmentalists don''t want us opening up more land to drill for it. Coal works but it is dirty. Nuclear works but the what do you do with the waste??? We will have to generate much more electricity than what we are now -- look at California during a heat wave -- the load just to keep cool isn''t there -- let alone using it to power all of those cars.

Also electricity prices are not all that stable -- our''s just took a 140% hike.

Materials in batteries polute big time. Also the best range on these electric cars is around 200 miles -- then you have to set for hours waiting on them to recharge

Another thing that is kind of related -- no one is talking about the fact that when you burn alcohol in a internal conbustion engine, one of the major waste products is formaldehyde -- not a real healthy thing to be spewing into the atmosphere.

Environmentally hydrogen is the best bet -- but the power used to create hydrogen would need to be enviromentally clean (ie solar)as well and we would need massive investments into the distribution system.

We need to be very careful about what we use to replace gasoline. Otherwise we will end up with a bigger mess than what we have now.

[billdale]

(continued)
There is no rationale for attacking EVs other than conflict of interest-- EVs are cheaper to operate, very low maintenance, very reliable, very powerful, have only between one and a dozen moving parts rather than the thousands in a regular car, and they are nearly silent. Even their brakes last longer since they use regen, which helps to recharge the car batteries during braking... and state-of-the-art batteries such as the NanoSafe and A123 Systems will last for decades without problems and can be recharged in minutes.

EVs don''t idle at stop signs and stop lights, they don''t waste energy like most cars when they are not moving at "cruising speeds", they never need smog tests and you don''t have to stop at smelly gas stations to refuel-- you can recharge at home.

EVs are not only far more efficient (typically over 150 mpg equivalent or better) and zero polluting, but the average EV owner typically installs solar panels on the roof of his house to generate his own electricity rather than relying on power companies.

EVs are the best solution we have to many problems, including paying for oil from countries that use our money to finance terrorism. I will never again buy another vehicle that uses gasoline.

[three-o-six]

wp dale

how big is your roof -- do you realize how much power your EV''s use. You need to do a little research. It would take a very sizable solar array to feed th EV.

[three-o-six]

wpdale
The typical solar system puts out 1.5 to 5kv at between 15 and 20 amps. Motors us a lot more power than that (That is why mist solar home use gas refrigs). A typical starter motor for most cars usim a 12v syste draw in the neighborhood of between 400 and 600 amps. To power a car you would need an even lager motor -- just to feed a car for a driving time of a couple of hours a day you would need a solar system the equialent of about 50 of the large solar systems that power houses.

Again how larg is your roof????

[billdale]

three-o-six, you''re making groundless criticisms of EVs.

The lead-acid battery you use in your car today (that I don''t see you complaining about!) is not like the batteries used in EVs.

The NanoSafe battery, for instance, is made of titanium, which is a cheap, plentiful component used in nearly all paints to make them more durable. Titanium is non-toxic. It can be recharged in less than 10 minutes, will last for decades, will not explode even when overcharged, if baked in an oven at 400 degrees, if you crush it, or if you drive nails through it. The battery just shorts out... it will not burn its passengers to death like gasoline cars do after a collision.

The A123 Systems battery is likewise made of cheap, plentiful, non-toxic material-- phoshpate, which is used in common laundry soap. It can be recharged in ten minutes, is also very safe to use, and is inexpensive.

How many people do you know that drive more than 50 miles in a day? And how many people do you think will get around that problem if they know it will cost them
less than a penny per mile for electricity?

There are already dozens of public EV charging stations all over southern California, and Costco, Starbucks and other progressive businesses will be installing them in their parking lots. A charging station is far easier and cheaper to install than a gasoline station.

I only see you talking about barriers, without even looking to see if there are already solutions.

[rvh3]

Someone earlier wrote: "I recently read about a company which just patented a technology to produce a electrical storage device that will allow for a truly practical electric car. They are teaming up with a small manufacturer that already produces electric vehicles to develop an affordable car that goes five hundred miles on a charge. It will also recharge in about five minutes. The device is not a chemical battery and should be long lasting. If this works, I believe it will make the internal combustion driven car obsolete."

That "someone" is a private Texas company called EEStor, which claims to have developed a supercapacitor which they hope can power an electric vehicle.

A publicly-traded company in Toronto called Zenn Motors (which trades on the Vancouver Exchange as ZNN.V), provided much of the R&D money to develop the supercapacitor, and in exchange received an exclusive license to the technology.

(I haven''t seen the agreement; I don''t know that it''s exclusive, but that''s what I''ve read.)

Ian Clifford is the public face of Zenn Motors; he''s given several interviews with business news sites. At least that''s what I think I remember his anme being. Google is your friend.

[billdale]

three-o-six: you''re trying so hard to make EVs sound like a problem, but there are already thousands of them in California-- if Detroit wants to pretend EVs won''t work and won''t sell, that''s not going to stop progress-- there are lots of guys that are converting gasoline cars to EVs every day-- I know several of them-- and I know of no one that has an EV that is anything but ecstatic at how cheap it is for them to get from point A to point B.

People ARE putting solar panels on their roofs, and they ARE using them to power their cars. Did you notice all the people on YOuTube that did videos of their cars being converted to EVs? Did you notice that there''s not a single video of anyone that says they regret having done so?

Grumble and grouse all you want... EVs are the successor of the ICE car-- even Bob Lutz begrudgingly admits that. We''re runnning out of oil, gas prices are skyrocketing, terrorists are funded with your money, and all I see you do is point fingers. Shame on you.

[billdale]

libsluvsuvs

"we need to tap all alternative sources we have..we have the technology to expand. But we need to take out the politicians..the environmentalists..the activists out of the picture to make this work."

LOL! You''ve gotta be kidding! If there are no environmentalists and activists to push EVs into the mainstream, how do you think it''s gonna happen?! You think ARCO is going to deliver clean, efficient transportation? Or, maybe the car industry, that makes billions a year off all the oil filters, air filters, fan belts, tune-ups, transmission service, mufflers, catalytic converters, fuel pumps and other parts and services your car needs in its service life-- parts and services that EVs don''t need?! If you ever drive an EV, it will not be without the efforts of tree huggers and eco-geeks.

[v_1618]

INSANE .. NOW EVERYBODY HAS TO BUY EXPENSIVE CARS FOR THE POLLUTE OIL.. COME ON.. I''VE A BETTER IDEA GET DOWN OF THE STUPID CARS ALL OVER THE WORLD HOW SOUNDS THAT... NO MORE CARS IN THIS WORLD ...

[albizzia]

Great show by CBS and David Pogue. Congrats.

It''s ironic that "three-o-six" would put down electrics, yet thinks "Hydrogen is the best bet". The cheapest source of H2 is from steam reformed natural gas, which would use more natural gas and produces more CO2 per mile than burning compressed natural gas in a car!

As for water electrolysis from "environmentally clean" sources, the combination of electrolysis and fuel cells is at best 30% efficient, less if you subtract the energy needed to compress or liquify bulky H2 gas. Compare that to 85% efficiency for charger and batteries. We now have a limited supply of clean electricity, and would need 2 to 3 times as much electricity, and 2 to 3 times as many expensive environmentally clean power plants, if we chose H2 by electrolysis over the battery electric option.

Using electrolysis to produce H2 for internal combustion engine vehicles is even more foolish, as overall efficiency is under 10%, and driving range on a tank of bulky H2 fuel can be less than the per-charge range of a good battery electric car!

Oh, and if "three-o-six" thinks electric prices are "not all that stable", just compare it to gasoline prices...

[acampbell333]

There is more going on in the world of electric cars than just with GM and Tesla and you don''t have to wait. I work for ZAP who is selling electric cars and trucks today. These are 40 MPH vehicles for about $10,000 and we have other vehicles coming with more range and speeed. But we now have dealers with parts, service and financing. We also sell 15 models of EVs, from cars, trucks, scooters, motorcycles, bicycles, ATVs, dirt bikes... so there are many ways to work or play and not use gas. Since 1994, ZAP has delivered more than 100,000 EVs to 75 countries.

[billdale]

acampbell31:

I have mixed feelings on Zap. My greatest hope is that they''ll be able to produce the Zap-X Crossover soon, which I think is the best Zap has to offer... it''s criticized sometimes for hub motors, and I understand why, but there are great tradeoffs with hub motors-- huge weight and space savings, ultra simple, great redundancy, etc., but Zap needs to learn to answer email and calls.

I wish Zap would stop marketing those 3-wheelers. They are not popular, they look unstable (if you''re gonna make a 3-wheeler, the single wheel should be in the BACK for stability in braking and turns).

The problem with cars like the Xebra is that it creates the false impression that EVs are underpowered and compromising. If SUVs are the most popular cars sold today, it will be very difficult to sell a car the size of a bath tub no matter how efficient it is.

Another problem with Zap is that they need to get their priorities in order... if they have profits, they need to put it into their business rather than planting trees, which does not move the business forward.

I wish Zap well.

[eshloush]

I think the entire body of the car should consist of solar battery cells coupled with gas when there is no sunshine, and there should be an emergency battery to be able to carry the car 20 miles

[ksjeff-2009]

The oil companies will delay development of alternative energy cars until they squeeze the very last drop of oil out of the ground and screw the public out of it''s last 10 cents.

[acampbell333]

WP.... Thanks for your feedback on ZAP. Not only do I work for ZAP, but I am a XEBRA customer and can attest that I''ve never felt tippy and that the vehicle works perfectly for my commute, about 10 miles. Wouldn''t it be great to have another model with a single wheel in the rear... hmm? We actually have been studying the Corbin Sparrow and the Swatchmobile at our HQs. The XEBRA was a really simple idea to be quick and affordable to market now. I think it was a smart because today it is the only production vehicle available that can travel faster than 25 MPH. As far as the tree planting, all the trees planted have been done through hard labor and personal donations. Perhaps you would care to plant a tree for our campaign against global warming?

[jwhou]

What kind of alternative fuel expert wouldn't mention Fischer Tropsch synthetic fuels and other thrird and fourth generation bio-fuels?

Whole scale technology change such as a change to electric or to hydrogen cars accelerates the need for the manufacturing of new vehicles which dramatically increases the carbon footprint of such activities, the construction of supporting infrastructure also has an environmental impact.

The best alternatives do not increase the need for manufacturing or construction requirements hence should work with existing vehicles and infrastructure. FT synthesis can synthesize gasoline and diesel from carbon monoxide and hydrogen which can be acquired by gasifying just about anything that burns or even directly from CO2 and H2O as Sandia Labs has done with their CR5 program. Entire countries have run on FT synthesized fuels, countries like WWII Germany and embargoed South Africa. The US Airforce uses synthetic jet fuel and the oil companies are mixing synthetic diesel into the refined diesel in order to bring the sulfur levels down to federal requirements. The DoD awarded a contract to Diversified Energy and Velocys to provide biomass gasifiers and FT reactors for converting waste to diesel on military camps.

This fellow isn't an expert if all he's looked at is corn ethanol and electric vehicles. This article is absurdly limited in focus and essentially just presents a superficial point of view, most likely the uninformed opinion of the journalist with only incidental quotations to lend credence