OECD Analysis Suggests That Electric Cars Are Not Ready For Prime Time

[The Dude]

OECD Analysis Suggests That Electric Cars Are Not Ready For Prime Time
June 21, 2012 *|* includes: F, GM, HMC, TM, TSLA
On June 14th the International Transport Forum of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released a Policy Brief that asks the rhetorical question "Electric Cars: Ready for prime time?" I was very surprised that the OECD, an organization of 34 democratic, industrialized and overwhelmingly western nations, would even ask the question. I was even more surprised by their conclusions that most claimed benefits of electric passenger cars are illusory while the societal costs range from $9,000 to $15,000 per vehicle compared with conventional automobiles. No matter how you "feel" about electric cars, the OECD Policy Brief and the related discussion paper, "Electric Vehicles Revisited – Costs, Subsidies and Prospects" suggest that global thought leaders are rapidly distancing themselves from the idea that electric drive is a sensible solution.

The discussion paper begins with an introduction that explains,

The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 53 member countries. It acts as a strategic think tank with the objective of helping shape the transport policy agenda on a global level and ensuring that it contributes to economic growth, environmental protection, social inclusion and the preservation of human life and well-being."

These guys aren't oil industry puppets and they don't evaluate macroeconomic issues from the perspective of an individual consumer who's trying to make a car buying decision. Instead they focus on the broader questions of whether individual consumption decisions are productive or counterproductive for society and humanity as a whole. When the OECD starts openly questioning the fundamental economic and environmental value of electric drive, you know the geopolitical winds are shifting rapidly. When the first graph in an OECD discussion paper is a simplified version of the Gartner Group's Hype Cycle, it's a clear indication that evolving attitudes of policymakers are bad news for investors in companies like Tesla Motors (TSLA) that want to drive the auto industry in directions that don't serve the best interests of society or humanity.

As a staunch critic of electric drive, I was particularly pleased with the OECD's admission that electric cars are “displaced emission” rather than zero emission vehicles, that the environmental benefits of electric drive are wholly contingent on the marginal electricity production used to charge the vehicles, and that where electricity generation is relatively polluting, the air quality-related health impacts of electric vehicles are worse than gasoline ICEs but better than diesel ICEs. It's nice to finally see an honest acknowledgement that moving pollution from a tail pipe to a power plant doesn't solve the problem. It merely shifts the suffering from the polluter to somebody else.

Since I'm weary of juvenile arguments with EVangelicals who cleave to eco-religious dogma without exercising their power of independent thought, I'll refrain from providing a detailed analysis of the OECD policy brief and discussion paper. I will, however, suggest that both documents are Must Reads for prudent investors who want to understand the likely future of government support for the fatally flawed proposition that battery-powered electric vehicles can overcome the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, physics and

 

[Rune]

Link?

 

[Rune]

Virtuous circle; Electric Cars, Residential Solar and the Smart Grid

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/12/...ircle-emerges/

San Diegans drive an average 12,000 miles per year, leaving them an annual gasoline or fuel bill of $2,220 alone to operate their petrol-powered vehicles. Driving a Nissan Leaf EV for a year, by contrast, will result in annual fuel costs of just $343 a year, or $6.60 a week, an annual savings of nearly $1900, Solare Energy’s Jose Contreras explains in a Sept. 10 Ramona Herald blog post.

“Combining an electric vehicle and a home solar power system “is the best way to reap maximum savings,” Contreras explains.
​

San Diego Gas & Electric (SG&E) has equipped area homes with smart grid-based demand response capabilities that enable customers with residential solar power systems to sell electricity to the grid operator according to a rate schedule that pays them more to do so during the day when electric power demand is high than at night, when demand is low.
Electric vehicle owners, on the other hand, pay lower rates to recharge their vehicles overnight during off-peak hours. The particulars wind up meaning that home solar power and EV owners “only need a solar system that creates half the electricity required by their vehicle to offset its total charging cost…. A small, 1.2-kilowatt solar system priced at around $4,000 will cover charging costs for an electric vehicle for up to 40 years,” according to Contreras
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/13eyl)





​

 

[Canceled.2014.1]

If we are generating electricity from coal-fired power plants, yes the electric car is just adding distance between the consumer and the pollution.

But in the southeast, most of our power is hydroelectric.

 

[Rune]

Coal accounts for about 40% of the electricity generated in the US, and is dropping constantly. It's not that simple though; electric car motors are over 90% efficient. With coal-electric generation at about 50% efficient, an electric car is still responsible for far less carbon output (and resource use) than a gas ICE at 20% efficiency, even when factoring in transmission line losses of about 7%.

 

[RockX]

It's tempting to call the shameful taxpayer subsidy for electric cars — vehicles that are unaffordable for all but a small number of wealthy Americans — this nation's costly little secret.

But it's no secret, and that's the real shame. It's obvious now that electric vehicles can't compete with gasoline-powered cars, even with generous government subsidies.

And for years automotive engineers have documented that the performance of electric vehicles — particularly their short range and battery uncertainty under real traffic conditions — falls short in virtually every aspect.

What's truly shameful is that such disparities have done nothing to change policy. Subsidizing electric vehicles has been a devil's bargain, making the development of other alternative technologies like conventional hybrids and advanced gasoline engines more difficult.

Since 2008, taxpayers have spent or provided loan guarantees of $6.5 billion for electric vehicles. That includes $2.4 billion for battery and electric drive component manufacturing, $3.1 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicle projects and $1 billion in tax credits for the vehicles.

The price that American taxpayers pay for commercializing electric vehicles is painfully evident in the billions spent on green projects that are driven by politics rather than performance.

Instead of letting plug-in vehicles like the Nissan Leaf, GM Volt and Ford Focus Electric compete on their own against fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars, the government has used subsidies to create an artificial market that otherwise would not exist.

Using taxpayer dollars to favor one automotive technology over another is contrary to the free-market principles that undergird our economy. Simply put, subsidizing electric vehicles doesn't make economic sense.

That's evident in the lackluster sales of the vehicles. Even with a $7,500 tax credit, GM sold a meager 7,671 electric-hybrid Volts in 2011, far fewer than its goal of 10,000. Nissan sold 9,674 all-electric Leafs.

We won't even come close to President Barack Obama's prediction a few years ago that 1 million electric cars would be on the road by 2015.

The production costs of electric cars have not dropped to make them competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles. The average American can't afford an electric car. Barring a huge run-up in gasoline prices, it would take more than a decade of driving to offset the Chevrolet Volt's $41,000 price tag or even the Nissan Leaf's still hefty window sticker of $33,000.

And the bills can pile up. Unless you're willing to wait eight hours to recharge your car, you'll want a high-speed recharger installed in your home, adding thousands of dollars to the cost. Maintaining an electric car is more expensive than a conventional car, because there are not many repair shops capable of doing the work.

And a battery that costs about $20,000 may last only eight years, leaving customers with a vehicle that has little resale value.

How does the government justify spending taxpayer money to subsidize wealthy Americans buying expensive cars?

Supposedly the price of electric cars will come down as volumes increase, making the vehicles more affordable. But even if the federal tax credit increases from $7,500 to $10,000, as Obama has proposed, and other states mimic California by adding an additional $1,500 tax credit, Americans may not buy electric vehicles because of their shortcomings in size, comfort and range.

The surest way to guarantee a product's failure is to subsidize it. Over time, cars that succeeded in the marketplace have been those that were developed and commercialized without government involvement.

If a technology isn't capable of succeeding on its own economic merits, there's no amount of taxpayer support that will ever make it a commercial success.

Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan in Flint, and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org) in Washington.

http://www.aei.org/article/energy-a...-give-american-taxpayers-high-voltage-shocks/

 

[Mott the Hoople]

OECD Analysis Suggests That Electric Cars Are Not Ready For Prime Time
June 21, 2012 *|* includes: F, GM, HMC, TM, TSLA
On June 14th the International Transport Forum of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released a Policy Brief that asks the rhetorical question "Electric Cars: Ready for prime time?" I was very surprised that the OECD, an organization of 34 democratic, industrialized and overwhelmingly western nations, would even ask the question. I was even more surprised by their conclusions that most claimed benefits of electric passenger cars are illusory while the societal costs range from $9,000 to $15,000 per vehicle compared with conventional automobiles. No matter how you "feel" about electric cars, the OECD Policy Brief and the related discussion paper, "Electric Vehicles Revisited – Costs, Subsidies and Prospects" suggest that global thought leaders are rapidly distancing themselves from the idea that electric drive is a sensible solution.

The discussion paper begins with an introduction that explains,

The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 53 member countries. It acts as a strategic think tank with the objective of helping shape the transport policy agenda on a global level and ensuring that it contributes to economic growth, environmental protection, social inclusion and the preservation of human life and well-being."

These guys aren't oil industry puppets and they don't evaluate macroeconomic issues from the perspective of an individual consumer who's trying to make a car buying decision. Instead they focus on the broader questions of whether individual consumption decisions are productive or counterproductive for society and humanity as a whole. When the OECD starts openly questioning the fundamental economic and environmental value of electric drive, you know the geopolitical winds are shifting rapidly. When the first graph in an OECD discussion paper is a simplified version of the Gartner Group's Hype Cycle, it's a clear indication that evolving attitudes of policymakers are bad news for investors in companies like Tesla Motors (TSLA) that want to drive the auto industry in directions that don't serve the best interests of society or humanity.

As a staunch critic of electric drive, I was particularly pleased with the OECD's admission that electric cars are “displaced emission” rather than zero emission vehicles, that the environmental benefits of electric drive are wholly contingent on the marginal electricity production used to charge the vehicles, and that where electricity generation is relatively polluting, the air quality-related health impacts of electric vehicles are worse than gasoline ICEs but better than diesel ICEs. It's nice to finally see an honest acknowledgement that moving pollution from a tail pipe to a power plant doesn't solve the problem. It merely shifts the suffering from the polluter to somebody else.

Since I'm weary of juvenile arguments with EVangelicals who cleave to eco-religious dogma without exercising their power of independent thought, I'll refrain from providing a detailed analysis of the OECD policy brief and discussion paper. I will, however, suggest that both documents are Must Reads for prudent investors who want to understand the likely future of government support for the fatally flawed proposition that battery-powered electric vehicles can overcome the laws of thermodynamics, chemistry, physics and

Excellent report. That is true. Electric cars are displaced emmissions vehicles and if they operate in some NAAQS non-attainment zones then the net emmissions are greater than some gas powered vehicles.

Now, what if the electric car is operated in a region where the electricity is supplied by hydroelectric power or nuclear? Then for all intents and purposes they would be zero emmision vehicles, wouldn't they?

For that reason electric cars do make more sense out west where most electricity is supplied mostly by sources other than coal.

The point being, is that this is a developing technology and because the net emmisions dont' balance out in some regions doesn't mean you want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If we are generating electricity from coal-fired power plants, yes the electric car is just adding distance between the consumer and the pollution.

But in the southeast, most of our power is hydroelectric.

and nuclear. Good point. I had forgotten that most of the southeast doesn't use coal for electricity.

 

[Onceler]

It's tempting to call the shameful taxpayer subsidy for electric cars — vehicles that are unaffordable for all but a small number of wealthy Americans — this nation's costly little secret.

But it's no secret, and that's the real shame. It's obvious now that electric vehicles can't compete with gasoline-powered cars, even with generous government subsidies.

And for years automotive engineers have documented that the performance of electric vehicles — particularly their short range and battery uncertainty under real traffic conditions — falls short in virtually every aspect.

What's truly shameful is that such disparities have done nothing to change policy. Subsidizing electric vehicles has been a devil's bargain, making the development of other alternative technologies like conventional hybrids and advanced gasoline engines more difficult.

Since 2008, taxpayers have spent or provided loan guarantees of $6.5 billion for electric vehicles. That includes $2.4 billion for battery and electric drive component manufacturing, $3.1 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicle projects and $1 billion in tax credits for the vehicles.

The price that American taxpayers pay for commercializing electric vehicles is painfully evident in the billions spent on green projects that are driven by politics rather than performance.

Instead of letting plug-in vehicles like the Nissan Leaf, GM Volt and Ford Focus Electric compete on their own against fuel-efficient gasoline-powered cars, the government has used subsidies to create an artificial market that otherwise would not exist.

Using taxpayer dollars to favor one automotive technology over another is contrary to the free-market principles that undergird our economy. Simply put, subsidizing electric vehicles doesn't make economic sense.

That's evident in the lackluster sales of the vehicles. Even with a $7,500 tax credit, GM sold a meager 7,671 electric-hybrid Volts in 2011, far fewer than its goal of 10,000. Nissan sold 9,674 all-electric Leafs.

We won't even come close to President Barack Obama's prediction a few years ago that 1 million electric cars would be on the road by 2015.

The production costs of electric cars have not dropped to make them competitive with gasoline-powered vehicles. The average American can't afford an electric car. Barring a huge run-up in gasoline prices, it would take more than a decade of driving to offset the Chevrolet Volt's $41,000 price tag or even the Nissan Leaf's still hefty window sticker of $33,000.

And the bills can pile up. Unless you're willing to wait eight hours to recharge your car, you'll want a high-speed recharger installed in your home, adding thousands of dollars to the cost. Maintaining an electric car is more expensive than a conventional car, because there are not many repair shops capable of doing the work.

And a battery that costs about $20,000 may last only eight years, leaving customers with a vehicle that has little resale value.

How does the government justify spending taxpayer money to subsidize wealthy Americans buying expensive cars?

Supposedly the price of electric cars will come down as volumes increase, making the vehicles more affordable. But even if the federal tax credit increases from $7,500 to $10,000, as Obama has proposed, and other states mimic California by adding an additional $1,500 tax credit, Americans may not buy electric vehicles because of their shortcomings in size, comfort and range.

The surest way to guarantee a product's failure is to subsidize it. Over time, cars that succeeded in the marketplace have been those that were developed and commercialized without government involvement.

If a technology isn't capable of succeeding on its own economic merits, there's no amount of taxpayer support that will ever make it a commercial success.

Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics at the University of Michigan in Flint, and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (www.aei.org) in Washington.

http://www.aei.org/article/energy-a...-give-american-taxpayers-high-voltage-shocks/

LOL

And how much do taxpayers pay to subsidize the oil industry & protect our oil interests in the Middle East?

 

[Phantasmal]

LOL

And how much do taxpayers pay to subsidize the oil industry & protect our oil interests in the Middle East?

Amen, I get so absolutely tired of how we give corporate welfare, and people don't complain, but get all red assed about aiding children and the elderly.