35

According to some (e.g. the documentary film Who Killed the Electric Car?), car and oil companies have actively tried to suppress electric cars' development.

Electric cars seem to have technological benefits so indeed I wonder why they're virtually nonexistent. Is it due to a market conspiracy, normal "honest" competition, technical reasons or something else?

Sklivvz
  • 78,654
  • 29
  • 323
  • 429
  • 3
    Please avoid tags like conspiracy, conspiracy-theory, urban-legend... Thanks. :-) – Sklivvz May 08 '11 at 09:23
  • 1
    At the moment the question feels too broad. I think it would be better to post questions about the truth of the specific claims that the documentary "Who killed the electric car makes". – Christian May 08 '11 at 12:09
  • @Christian: Maybe so. Currently this is a bit like the moon landing question, which many people seem to find a good one. I do agree broad questions are difficult to answer. – StackExchange saddens dancek May 09 '11 at 06:35
  • 2
    "Did X happen?" allows for a yes/no answer. "Why did X happen"? is more vague. – Christian May 09 '11 at 11:33
  • 6
    The historical answer is "range and recharging time". Each generation of new batteries gets a little better on this, but even now they are not competitive with gasoline or diesel IC. – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Jun 10 '11 at 18:44
  • Its not so uncommon in Bangalore, India. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REVA – pramodc84 Jun 12 '11 at 16:52
  • It's a simple question, but nothing to be sceptical about. @cmckee has most of it in the comment; what is missing is costs (new accumulator after 2-3 years). – user unknown Aug 14 '11 at 05:13
  • It can't have been a very good conspiracy. Exxon spent a lot of money to develop electric battery technology in the 1970s and 1980s and did make the first viable Li-based batteries (see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/192/4244/1126). And they are still doing it even according to the greens: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1180/ – matt_black May 07 '12 at 22:45

3 Answers3

34

It comes down to a few factors. I'll answer from a US perspective.

  1. Lack of infrastructure1. Could the US power grid sustain the charging of millions of electric cars? One article says so3, but this paper disagrees. Also, individual home electric systems simply aren't built to charge electric cars, which require massive currents (80 to 100 amps) to do so. Also, consider what incentive is there for a fuel station to provide a charging point which would directly compete with their own product. The answer is little to none.

  2. Battery technology is still behind the times. The average EV battery pack costs around $500/kWh2, typically more. The GM Volt has a 16 kWh battery pack, and that only goes 40 miles per charge; $8,000 for that isn't really much. Also, battery packs are almost always lithium ion, but this only has an energy density of 0.9 MJ/kg, compared to 44.4 MJ/kg for petrol/gasoline. (It's important to note though that electric motors are about 2-3x more efficient than internal combustion engines, but that still doesn't account for the massive shortfall in energy density.)

  3. Is it really good for the environment? It's debatable. About 55% of the power in the US is derived from coal; and burning coal puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Although it's likely to result in a reduction of CO2, it's still going to be putting a substantial amount into the atmosphere. One article cites only a 5% reduction3 from 180 million EVs being on the road.

Sources:

  1. A Discussion Paper from Scuderi Group July 2010 Electric Cars - see section "Impact of EVs on the US electric power grid", pages 4-5

  2. Plug-in Hybrid and Battery-Electric Vehicles... - page 12

  3. Report: U.S. Power Grid Can Fuel 180 Million Electric Cars

Thomas O
  • 11,904
  • 7
  • 53
  • 72
  • 4
    Nicely done. Some thoughts: 1. In the US, auto fuel is subsidized. 2. Battery or hydrogen power has the potential advantage of flexible energy sources, not limited to petroleum. 3. Limited-range vehicles might still be competitive for commuting-style use. – Mike Dunlavey May 08 '11 at 03:04
  • 15
    Also, consider what incentive is there for a fuel station to provide a charging point which would directly compete with their own product. The answer is money, a fuel station can sell charging points $x for y amps/joules, and that would be the incentive. What incentive do you think a fuel station had to sell fuel? – Lie Ryan May 08 '11 at 06:33
  • 1
    @Thomas O: nice points, though both Mike and Lie make some quite valid observations. Basically I can see the chicken-egg problem with infrastructure here, and certainly electric cars aren't the silver bullet. This just doesn't entirely explain why they've been so slow to take off. – StackExchange saddens dancek May 08 '11 at 08:00
  • @Lie - Whilst money may be a reason electricity is significantly cheaper than petrol per unit of energy, so it would be competing with their main product. – Thomas O May 08 '11 at 09:34
  • @Mike 1. Isn't it heavily taxed? 2. I'm not sure about this - where did I mention hydrogen? I'm talking mostly about full electric vehicles, not hybrids. 3. Agreed; but a lot of people still like long range vehicles. – Thomas O May 08 '11 at 09:37
  • 1
    @dancek: I agree with dancek; the reason alternative energy fuel is slow to take off is a chicken and egg problem. Unlike buying your lunch, buying an electric car is an expensive purchase for a "secondary need", not many people would buy an electric car if they have the perception that finding a recharge station would be difficult. On the other hand, energy companies does not see immediate profit from investing on a recharging station because practically nobody owned electric car. This is a failure of economy system to find the "best" path for humanity. – Lie Ryan May 08 '11 at 14:21
  • Classifying CO2 as a pollutant is somewhat controversial. And the benefits from centralizing (and thus controlling) pollution sources are almost always ignored. – crasic May 08 '11 at 19:08
  • 1
    @crasic CO2 isn't the best greenhouse gas, but it's the one most people worry about. ICEs produce other harmful gases, including carbon monoxide and sulfur - and without ICEs, there would be less of these gases coming from ICEs. But coal produces similar harmful gases, and the fact is, most electricity is generated from coal. – Thomas O May 08 '11 at 19:15
  • @Thomas CO2 at present levels is hardly a greenhouse gas - the major worry is how water vapor responds to increased CO2 levels, but this is besides the point, which is that even though coal is a rather dirty energy source, the fact that production is centralized means that any pollution control measures will be orders of magnitude more effective. As opposed to automotive fuel efficiency and pollution standards that take decades to take full effect. – crasic May 08 '11 at 19:21
  • @crasic - My understanding of AGW is poor, at best. But, a good point. Production would be more centralised, but I do not know of any more papers suggesting how more centralised it would be. For example, how many more power plants would need to be built? Would there still be an issue with CO2 levels with the number of plants increasing, or could pollution be managed? – Thomas O May 08 '11 at 19:36
  • Yes, but not enough. 2) I only mention hydrogen as an alternative to battery, because (except for getting it from methane) its energy still comes from electricity. IMO, it's just a different battery.
  • – Mike Dunlavey May 08 '11 at 19:49
  • @Thomas, coming back to competing - Yes, there is chicken an egg, but there is also an incentive to be the first to support electric cars; if someone is going to have an electric car anyway (based on their home power), you may as well salvage what you can of the lost money by offering them a service. Once there is one such provider, the second one needs to offer the service too to stop losing their customers - especially for the high-profit-margin junk drivers buy when they stop to refuel. – Oddthinking May 30 '11 at 04:00
  • 1
    Another issue you might like to fold in, is how long it takes to charge an battery, making it unsuitable for quick fuel stops (unless you replace the entire battery pack or go for fuel cells.) – Oddthinking May 30 '11 at 04:01
  • I completely disagree with both points 1 and 3. To say that the infrastructure for electricity doesn't exist is laughable at best. There might be a small shortfall for generation, but off-peak generation capacity (it could easily be set as the default at the factory) is well within what is required to charge everyone's car. Even so, additional capacity can be built. Point 3 might only be valid if 100% of your electricty comes from coal. Even so, total pollution output is less due to efficiency in electric motors over IC engines, even when you count transmission losses. – Ernie Jun 13 '11 at 16:16
  • Couldn't bullet point 2 be the result of car and oil companies trying to suppress electric cars' development? – Golden Cuy Sep 05 '13 at 03:19
  • 3
    Re #2: Nissan Leaf had a 24 kWh battery. The Tesla Roadster had a 53 kWh battery, and the Tesla Model S (and the Model X scheduled for Q3 2015) has a 60 or 85 kWh battery. There are other examples that surpass the Volt, including cars available at the time this answer was posted, but comments have limited space. :) – Brian S Dec 12 '14 at 15:43
  • I'm not sure fuel for power plants should be considered as those can change without impacting the infrastructure needed for electric cars. – Andy Dec 13 '14 at 17:30
  • I think this answer requires an update, especially under point 2. The Chevy Volt is hardly worth comparison when Tesla's models are doing much better. –  Dec 26 '16 at 21:48