Slashdot Mirror
Electric Vehicles Can Meet Drivers' Needs Enough To Replace 90 Percent of Vehicles Now On The Road (phys.org)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Phys.Org: Researchers at MIT have just completed the most comprehensive study yet to address whether or not existing electric vehicles could bring about a meaningful reduction in the greenhouse-gas emissions that are causing global climate change. Yes, they can. The study was published today in the journal Nature Energy. Phys.Org reports: "'Roughly 90 percent of the personal vehicles on the road daily could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle available on the market today, even if the cars can only charge overnight,' Trancik says, 'which would more than meet near-term U.S. climate targets for personal vehicle travel.' Overall, when accounting for the emissions today from the power plants that provide the electricity, this would lead to an approximately 30 percent reduction in emissions from transportation. The team spent four years on the project, which included developing a way of integrating two huge datasets: one highly detailed set of second-by-second driving behavior based on GPS data, and another broader, more comprehensive set of national data based on travel surveys. Together, the two datasets encompass millions of trips made by drivers all around the country. By working out formulas to integrate the different sets of information and thereby track one-second-resolution drive cycles, the MIT researchers were able to demonstrate that the daily energy requirements of some 90 percent of personal cars on the road in the U.S. could be met by today's EVs, with their current ranges, at an overall cost to their owners -- including both purchase and operating costs -- that would be no greater than that of conventional internal-combustion vehicles."
People don't have gas stations at home either. Building up infrastructure at home, work, and shopping centers can solve that issue. Every powered kiosk for street parking in urban areas can become a paid charging station. I know plenty of workplaces that offer charging during the day. As for people in dense urban areas like NYC, they largely don't have cars.
We have two 240v charging stations in the garage, for our two super-cheap EVs (Chevy Spark EV and Fiat 500e). Our rooftop solar power production offsets approximately 100% of the power we use, including the cars and electric water heating. We have two other cars that rarely get used.
Rock and roll.
I routinely rent cars for the weekend for less than $30 per day. For that once-every-4-months trip where an electric wouldn't cut it, this seems like a viable solution.
A couple years ago Elon stated that he was focusing on decreasing cost instead of increasing range, precisely because of this sort of thing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It sounds like they analyzed in terms of vehicle-days, not in terms of owned vehicles. The press "helpfully" converted this into "90% of vehicles" which is inaccurate. Yes, probably 90% of vehicles driven on any given day could be replaced by current EV ranges. But I'd guess probably 95% of vehicles can't be replaced by current EV ranges. See, the vast majority of cars are driven short distances nearly all days. But a few times a year they're called on to drive 200-500 miles in a day, for things like that drive to Grandma's for Thanksgiving, weekend trip to Vegas, etc.
If you applied the same type of analysis to car safety, you'd find that 99.99% of vehicle-days, seat belts don't protect you. And therefore it'd be ok to get rid of seat belts in cars.
The flip side of this is that vehicle-days is a valid metric if you can convince people to rent an ICE car for their few trips a year which exceed an EV's range. People erroneously think they've paid a lump sum for the car when they bought it, so driving it for that one long trip is "free" while they have to pay "extra" money if they rent a car. I've been trying for years to convince people that the cost of a car (as well as most other things) is a rate, not an amount. The cost of fuel, maintenance, and depreciation to operate a car is usually in the ballpark of 40-50 cents/mile (insurance drops out since it's mostly based on time).
So driving 500 miles (round trip) to Grandma's for Thanksgiving actually costs you about $200-$250 of expenses and depreciation. Renting an ICE car for those few long trips is very competitive. And you can use your EV as for the other 95% of days.
So you're the one hogging the charger when I want some juice so I can travel.
Why don't you pick your fat ass up and actually waddle the 100 feet over to the inside of the building?
How dumb are you that you think that the time you spend charging an EV and the time you spend filling a car are comparable, when the EV can be charged overnight at home, or at work, while you are in your office?
Perhaps this: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' — Upton Sinclair
Seriously, when I see someone being so wilfully obtuse, I really start to suspect that their motivations are not really towards understanding the truth. It is well documented that wealthy parties such as the Koch brothers are putting a fair amount amount of money towards anti-electric car propaganda campaigns. Is it really a stretch to imagine that some posters (and moderators) are either getting paid, or are mindlessly acting on propaganda paid by oil industries?
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
I've noticed that when people compare two technologies, one they are comfortable (Tech A) with and one they fear (Tech B). They look for the first instance where Tech B is worse than Tech A and declare Tech B to be totally worthless, hopeless, this argument is finished. All the while studiously ignoring any and all advantages. So 'electric car takes an hour to recharge' is treated as a fatal flaw and 'usually never have to drive to a gas station' is ignored.
One might ask, what technologies are people fearful of? Answer as far as I can tell is any that requires someone to rethink how they do things. That's enough enough to induce rage.
People are already using electric cars.
Not very many, the number is a rounding error...
People also own their own airplanes and helicopters, yet that doesn't mean those are going to take off as everyone's means of travel either...
EVs have a long way to go...
No, you're just trying to use a fringe case to favour your bias..
People buy stuff FOR the fringe cases.
The cooler that can keep stuff frozen for 48 hours is a fringe case.
The video card that can do 60 FPS on the latest game is the fringe case.
The stereo, laser printer, TV, and microwave are all tools used in small parameters but the fringe cases is what separates them from others of their kind.
Ask any tradesman that does anything physical or with their hands about tools and they'll say "buy once cry once" essentially saying "buy for the fringe case"
Insurance is fringe case all around.
Travel and getting the car prepared for a 400 mile non-stop drive from "empty" in 15 minutes on the way out of town is a fringe case.
You are completely delusional if you think the case of the average is what motivates people, and what makes a tool useful.
So no, you are not right. You are just to narrow minded to think about the non-asbergers point of view when you think of all the little numbers in your head.
This is true right now because electricity use overnight is low, so the power companies charge lower rates. So if you're one of the few people with an EV, charging it overnight means you're paying discounted electricity prices. That's going to change if everyone gets an EV.
Current U.S. household electricity use is about 900 kWh per month. A Nissan Leaf is rated at 30 kWh/100 miles. Average vehicle miles traveled per household has been inching towards 60 miles (it dipped to 54 in 2009 - page 10). So driving those miles in EVs like the Leaf would result in about 550 kWh/mo of additional electricity consumption. Factor in charging efficiency (about 75%-80% from the numbers I've seen from Tesla and plug-in Prius owners), and it works out to closer to 700 kWh/mo. So adding an EV to the house will nearly double it's electricity use, with all of that additional consumption falling in the overnight period.
Currently, power consumption ramps up around 8 AM and peaks around 8 PM. An EV in every garage would invert that so the peak would occur overnight between 8 PM and 8 AM (certain industrial use which runs 24/7 keeps current overnight use around 67% that of day use). Consequently, electricity prices would go from being lowest overnight, to highest overnight. (This is also why the idea of using the battery in your EV to store up cheap overnight power for use during the day is never going to go anywhere.)
An EV is still cheaper to operate per mile than an ICE vehicle (because per Joule, gasoline is about 10x more expensive than coal). But instead of 70%-80% less cost per mile than an ICE, you're probably going to be in the neighborhood of 50%-60% less.