The EV Debate,part 3

EV-250c

This course is presented as part of Evannex Universitya free, open learning environment that presents concise, video-based mini-courses for those who have interest in electric vehicles (EVs)

EVs vs. ICE VehiclesThe Debate

>> Theres an ongoing debate about the future of the automobile.

EVs vs. ICE VehiclesThe Debate

In this third part of our EVU mini-course, we continue our discussion of the ongoing debate about the future of the automobile.

In this part, well consider the debate about the grid, the environment, and the future.

EVs move pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant assumes all power generation is dirtythe use of alt-energy is growingeven dirty generation is getting cleanerICE vehicles are 20 - 30% efficient. Power plants are 60% efficient and the grid is 95 % efficient

When each of the earlier debate arguments is shown to be tenuous, those who argue against EVs rely on what is sometime referred to as the long tailpipe argument It goes like this EVs move pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant

This argument is extremely weak. In fact, its counter-factual. >> It assumes that all electrical generation capability is dirty, and thats not true. About half of the power generated in the US comes from hydro, nuclear, and natural gas generation capability, relatively clean and improving every year.

>> The use of clean alternative energy sourcessolar and wind is small but growing, and will continue to grow each year

>>even so-called dirty power generation, exemplified by coal power plants, is getting cleaner each year

>> ICE vehicles are 20 - 30% efficient. Power plants are 60% efficient and the grid is 95 % efficient. What that means is that power plants and the grid are far more efficient in transforming input into energy output, less energy is wasted and more is consumed.

Heres the thing as our power generation gets cleaner nationwide, every EV gets cleaner as well, automatically and without any modification to the vehicle.

The grid cant support tens of millions of EVs Most people charge their EVs at night, when rates are low and grid capacity is highThe number of EVs will grow slowly, giving utilities time to upgrade capacity using existing tech

New disruptive tech, including the possibility of fusionenergy may make this argument moot

When the long tailpipe argument falls apart, those who argue against EVs rely on this:The grid cant support millions and millions of EVs

To be frank, thats a stretch First,

>> Most people charge their EVs at night, when rates are low and grid capacity nationwide is is high

In addition,

>>The number of EVs will grow slowly, giving utilities time to upgrade capacity using existing tech, for example, natural gas powered generating capability

Finally,

>>New disruptive technologies, including the possibility (in 20 or 30 years) of inexpensive and safe fusion energy may make this argument moot.

Its also worth noting that building additional infrastructure capacity using alternative sources, such as solar or wind energy, would cost about $1.5 - 2.0 million per megawatt. So an expenditure of $40 billion would produce enough grid capacity to power 20 million EVs. Those EVs replace 20 million ICE cars, whose drivers currently spend billions EVERY YEAR on gasoline.

Alt-energy is too expensive and has potential side affectsAlt-energy is expensive today, but in the futurenot so muchEnvironmental impact of wind and solar power are minimal and insignificant when compared to the burning of fossil fuelsReality checkevery method for generating energy has negative consequence,

But when we discuss upgrading the grid, youll sometimes hear

Alternative-energy (such as wind and solar power) is too expensive and has potential side affects

>>Alt-energy is expensive today, but in the futurenot so much! For example, the cost of an installed solar panels is expected to decline by between 30 and 50 percent over the next five years

>> The environmental impact of wind and solar power are insignificant when compared to the burning of fossil fuels and any suggestion to the contrary is highly questionable.

>> its also time for a reality checkevery method for generating energy has negative consequences, so the real issue is which negative consequences can we live with and afford.

EVs only work because of government subsidies corollary: taxpayers who dont want or like EVs are paying to have them on the roadtaxpayer subsidize many thingshome mortgages, charitable contributions, not to mention hundreds of tax credits for businesses of all kindsChina, India, Japan, all of the EU, and other countries all have established subsidies for EVs

Then, theres the argument that is heard when politics get involved:

"EV's only work because of government subsidies or its corollary:

>> Taxpayers who don't want or like EVs are paying taxes to have them on the road.

>> In reality, taxpayers subsidize many thingshome mortgages and charitable contributions are well known examples, not to mention hundreds of tax credits for businesses of all kinds.

It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that government subsidies for a new technology like EV's are somehow off-limits, while existing subsidies and tax credits for a broad spectrum of personal and business issues are okay.

>>Its also worth noting that China, India, Japan, all of the EU, and other countries all have established subsidies for EVs.

The future is fuel cell vehicles Fuel cell vehicles are EVsthe difference is that electricity is generated from hydrogen stored in high pressure tanks in your vehiclethe fuel cell then produces electricity fuel cell vehicles are more complex, but do offer an alternative to BEVs and PHEVs

Some major automotive manufacturers have decided that the road forward may involve fuel-cell vehicles. The media has picked up on this and suggested that the fuel cell will be an EV killer.

>> First fuel cell vehicles are EVs>> the difference is that electricity is generated from hydrogen stored in high pressure tanks on-board your vehicle>> the fuel cell then produces electricity that charges an on-board battery or drives the electric motor directly>> fuel cell vehicles are more complex, but do offer an alternative to BEVs and PHEVs

Well do a head-to-head comparison of fuel cell vehicles and BEVs in another advanced EVU mini-course, so I wont discuss any of the underlying tech here.

SummaryThere are many anti-EV arguments proposedAlthough some have elements of truth, the majority are bogus and easily refutedBottom lineEVs are safe, clean, and cost effective

To summarize this three-part mini-course on the EV Debate:

>> There are many anti-EV arguments that have been proposed>> Although some have elements of truth, the majority are tenuous at best and are easily refuted>> Bottom lineEVs are safe, clean, and cost effective, and will become even more so in the years ahead.

a free study guide for all EVU mini-courses is available for download from our website For a complete list of mini-courses and the study guide, visit: www.evannex.com

OlharesRouletBeats d'Amor, track 12014-05-18T14:02:41118051.055OlharesRouletBeats d'Amor, track 12014-05-18T14:02:41118051.055