Good for you, Chris Paine! Paine, if you remember, was the filmmaker who produced “Who Killed the Electric Car?” His recent opinion piece in The Washington Post took on the supposed mythologies about the demise or slow progress of electric cars. For the most part, his analysis, except for some unnecessary embellishments and a bit of irrational exuberance here and there, seemed right on target.
Paine suggests that the electric car, despite the financial and battery-supply problems faced by Fisker Automotive, is still alive and ready to kick butt. He quotes a new report from the IEE, a part of the Edison Foundation, that projects “between 5 million and 30 million electric cars will be on the road by 2035.”
In a similar vein, Paine debunks “range anxiety” or the fear that drivers will run out of power far from their destination and a power station. He notes that the technology is improving and that, on a normal day, the Tesla Model S can travel up to 265 miles on a single charge. He also calls attention to hybrids, like the Chevy Volt, the Toyota Prius and the Ford C-MAX, which all use electric power for the first 20-50 miles, and then are able to switch to gasoline for the relatively infrequent longer trip.
Paine seems to understand that consumers are hesitant to endorse electric car charges that take a long time, including anything between 8 and 24 hours. He points out that charging docks sold with plug-in vehicles can cut the time to 4-8 hours, and that public charging stations can power electric cars even faster.
Paine cites the Union of Concerned Scientists 2012 Report that electric cars powered by coal-generated electricity may not be much better for the environment than small gas-powered vehicles. But he also highlights the comment in the report that states that less than 40% of the U.S. electricity now comes from coal and that this percentage is likely to go down in the future as natural gas and renewables are substituted for coal. Owners of electric cars or plug-ins can feel good that, over time, they will earn their environmental laurels and that they will do their part in reducing GHG emissions.
Paine agrees that the Fisker Karma and Tesla Model S were, and remain, nice baubles for the more affluent. At the same time, he describes the efforts by several car companies to bring down the costs of electric cars. With the tax benefits, for example, the Nissan Leaf costs only about $20,000, and with $1,999 down, it leases for only $199 a month.
Chris Paine’s optimism is infectious. However, it needs a dose of reality. For example, even if the IEE estimate, described above, concerning total electric cars on the road by 2035 is correct, they will constitute only a relatively small number of existing vehicles. IEE’s broad range projection of 5 to 30 million electric cars indicates that the factors governing production and sales are still guesstimates. Similarly, while it is likely that charging stations will multiply, they will still be relatively few and far between when compared to gas stations. “Road anxiety” will remain a factor until technology and investment for infrastructure to power cars catches up with consumer desires.
Major cost reductions will be related to consumer demand and consumer demand will be predicated, in part, on reasonably priced batteries able to power automobiles much farther than 100 miles (now prevalent) and power stations conveniently located along highways. Detroit will continue to produce electric cars, but their decisions to enter into the market in a big way will be tempered by their already fixed investment in the internal combustion engine and the desire of their partner oil companies to restrict the fuel market to gasoline. Don’t expect a big leap forward immediately unless required or subsidized (even higher than they are now) by government—both highly unlikely in the current, and likely future, political environment.
Paine’s article deserves discussion. It suggests that electric car advocates and flex-fuel as well as replacement fuel supporters should join forces. There will be an interim or transition period, while we are waiting for electric cars to catch up with policy needs. It may last a decade or more. During this period, individuals and groups sharing environmental objectives and concerned about global warming should work together to open up the now almost monopolistic fuel markets to cleaner, cheaper, environmentally safer replacement fuels and flex-fuel vehicles. As soon as electric vehicles are really ready for prime time, that is, when their costs are low enough to appeal to a broad market, when road anxiety is eliminated because of battery innovation and when infrastructure is readily available and accessible, they will find a broad market. Their ability to produce zero or almost zero emissions at reasonable fuel costs will make them very competitive in an open fuel market. America will benefit when this time comes; America will benefit if, until this time comes, we open up the gasoline market to competition from replacement fuels.
