EVs and Climate Change

EVs and Climate Change


Thanks very much Yantao. And thank you all for coming out this afternoon. As Yantao said my research is in microbial
genetics and since this is kind of an unusual topic I wanted to share some of my thoughts
and experiences with regard to these issues: Zero emission vehicles’ impact on climate
change. Some of you have seen our electric vehicle
downstairs, a Mercedes B class, and several of you have stopped me in the hallway and
asked me about it. And so I thought that I would make a presentation
so that we could all discuss the topic and this could be the beginning of a longer discussion
on this important topic. And I wanted to mention I know that we are
going through strategic planning for the institute. As Yantao said, it was the institute that
was the Center of Marine Biotechnology when I joined 15 years ago. Its name now is of courses broader Environmental
Technology, and is certainly an important area for us to acknowledge now. So actually I have been reading about and
noticing climate change for some time at the age that I am. But in 2007 there was an event which peaked
my interest further: the publication of a cover feature of American Scientist on extreme
organisms which my lab published. However, in that same issue there was also
a report from Sigma Xi “Confronting Climate Change” and it was a very sensible report. The Committee that was chaired by Peter Raven
said things like we need to “Avoid the unmanageable”. We never want to get to a place that is unmanageable. We need to “manage the unavoidable” “integrate
adaptation and mitigation”, and then they also had a roadmap. An in the roadmap, one of the points that
I noticed was that they wanted to have an “increase in efficiency of transportation”. And I thought that this was an area where
I could make a personal contribution. That is kind of what sent me in the direction
of the EV. So my talk today is going to be divided into
4 topics: initially I want to start with a historic perspective on transportation on
automobiles. This will be a very general presentation. So please feel free to interject. Then I am going to go a little bit into climate
change issues and in particular I am going to talk about some of the United Nations predictions
and some of the reality of climate change that we have been experiencing this past summer. And then, I am going to talk a little bit
about the current electric vehicles that are available and the batteries that they use
and electricity generation that is currently prevalent not just in this country but all
over the world. And then finally, I’ll finish with a sort
of future perspective on the future of zero emission vehicles. Another book I recently read was written by
Tony Seba and is called “Clean disruption of energy and transportation” which was published
in 2014 and in that book, being an economist, he talks about disruptive forces and in particular
he chose these two pictures. The one from 1900, the Easter Parade in New
York City, and you can see I think that essentially all the vehicles are horse drawn carriages
except for one automobile. So in 1900 essentially everybody used horse
drawn carriages. And here is the same event 13 years later. As you can see there has been a disruptive
change or radical change. I don’t know whether there are any horse drawn
carriages left? I don’t know that is one carriage behind an
automobile-I think there may be one left. So within a matter of 12 or 13 years the type
of vehicles that were used at least in New York City had changed. Now fast forward 100 years. This is a picture from Oslo Norway where electric
vehicles are if not the majority, pretty close to it. So are we going through another disruptive
change in vehicle transportation now? And so that is a topic that I would like to
discuss. So the history of electric vehicles is really
quite, quite lengthy. And they were originally developed in the
middle of the 1800’s in the 19th century and in fact at the turn of the last century electric
vehicles represented a larger number of automobiles than gas powered vehicles. There were about 38 % electric vehicles and
22% gas powered vehicles. And the reason for this was that they were
simpler. They just required a simpler motor with a
few moving parts. They were quiet, smooth to drive, and they
were very easy to start. Those who know about gasoline powered vehicles
know that they required a crank start, so you had to go out to turn the crank to get
the engine to turn over. That is where the term turn-over comes from. And the range even in those days was not too
bad. Here’s an article from the New York Times
1906: “electric car record makes 100 mile run” and apparently killed a dog on the journey
unfortunately. It ran the 100 miles on a single charge, went
at 14 miles per hour. Of course of 1906 aren’t the roads of today. So that’s a pretty impressive feat even back
then. However, we all know that electric vehicles
in the early part of the 20th century lost out to gasoline powered vehicles. ICE: internal combustion engine powered cars. So what happened? Well they were both readily available in the
early part of the 20th century. But by 1916 something electric happened to
the gasoline powered cars: that was ignition! A battery could then be used to turn the motor,
turn the engine, and start the car. And that was the single most important improvement
to the gasoline car that allowed it to beat out the electric vehicle. So no longer did people have to go out and
turn the crank-just sit in their car and turn the key and it would start. Of course, there was the other reason why
people preferred gasoline powered cars, and that’s the fuel cost. So back in the early part of the 20th century,
it was about 5c per gallon for gas and for electricity, it was about 20c per kilowatt-hour. So it turns out that the cost of electricity
in the last 100 years has actually gone down to say about 12c per kWh. And you all know what a gallon of gas costs…whatever
you pay at the pump, 2 or 3 dollars a gallon to do that. So partly as a result of the low cost of gasoline,
gasoline distribution networks were greatly expanded into the rural areas so that you
could actually go distances, whereas the electric infrastructure was pretty much restricted
to the cities where it was cost effective to put the power grids up. So if you are interested in this topic, I
would there are a number of books. I would encourage you to look at this one. It is called “Car Wars, the rise the fall
and the resurgence of the electric car”, by John Fialka. It was published last year. So we all know that over the last half century
that everybody wanted an automobile and everyone wanted a car, so at the moment there are over
a billion cars on a planet that has 7.4 billion people. And the other 6.4 billion people who don’t
have a car all want a car. So it is likely that the number is going to
grow. Now this looks like a very smooth curve the
way I have drawn it here. But in fact there have been a number of hiccups
along the way. And if you look at it in terms of oil consumption,
this is what you see. So the increase in oil consumption was pretty
smooth up to 1973. In 1973 there was a major hiccup. And there are a few of us in this room who
will remember this event in 1973. It was an oil embargo, based on Middle Eastern
politics, believe it or not, it was an issue as well long ago. So most of our oil, a fairly large fraction
of our oil was coming from the Middle East and there was an embargo, and so all of a
sudden, the price of gas went way up. And supply went way down. And you had people standing in line to fill
up their cars with gas and their lawnmowers. And so that brought people back to earth,
and made economists think about the price of oil, and made petroleum scientist think
about how much oil was actually present. And at that time, consumption was about 20
billion barrels per year. Currently, it is about 30 billion barrels
a year. And so there were predictions about how much
oil was actually in the ground. How much hydrocarbon? So in 1975 a pretty reasonable estimate was
about 700 billion barrels of oil that could be recoverable so that would last at that
rate for about 35 years. Well 35 years from 1975 is long past. There was some consternation when these types
of calculations were done way back then, but the time has passed. Well it turns out that by 2005 the US department
of energy predicted that there is still 1.65 trillion barrels, and at the current rate
of consumption, that’s another 55 years. And that would take us through the mid-century
and we should be able to go beyond that. And in fact if you hunt around there are other
predictions like last summer in an article in Forbes magazine “How much oil does the
world have left?” In this case, the prediction is 2-5 trillion
barrels of oil, so may be, may be several centuries’ worth. So maybe we won’t run out of oil after all. May be we can use gasoline powered cars for
the next 1000 years, who knows? But there is also another problem that was
recognized with gasoline and petroleum products that is an environmental problem. And in particular people noted that there
is noise, smog, toxic emissions, and carcinogens. So these were recognized in the early part
of the 20th century, certainly by the middle of the 20th century. And in particular people were concerned about
carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons considered to be carcinogenic, sulfur and nitrogen oxides. These were a number of governmental responses
– so for example we passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 and 1990 and that targeted acid rain,
air pollution, toxic emissions, and in particular it mandated reduction in hydrocarbon emissions. So in 1975, the cars were limited to 3.1 grams
per mile gpm of hydrocarbon. By 2004, that number was reduced to 0.07 gpm. So in these 30 years or so, there was a substantial
reduction in the pollutants that were allowed to be expelled from burning of gasoline. And then there was also CAFE standards to
improve the average fuel economy. So there were a lot of steps taken to limit
the damage to the environment from gasoline powered cars. Q: Was this due to catalytic converters. A: It is more than the catalytic converters. The actual combustion of gasoline was much
cleaner. They took lead out. There were a very large number of steps taken,
and the more I researched for this presentation the more I thought that this really should
be course rather than a lecture. It is such a complex series of things. If you look at the atmospheric chemistry,
the environmental, the legal aspects of it, there are many different perspectives that
one sees. But the one point that people didn’t address
at least in the national debate was the issue of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas – everyone
knew that. But is also a gas that we exhale and it is
part of the normal composition of the atmosphere. However the United National formed the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC. And they came out with a number of reports. The first one was in 1990, the last one in
2013. And even in 1990, this is what they wrote:
We are certain of the following. There is a natural greenhouse effect which
already keeps the earth warmer than it would otherwise be.” Everybody knows that without that the earth
would be freezing cold. So it is very important. But emissions resulting from human activities
are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases – Carbon
dioxide, methane, CFCs, and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse
effect resulting on average in additional warming of earth’s surface. And interestingly, they go on to say that
the main greenhouse gas, water vapor, will increase in response to global warming and
further enhance it. This was a very interesting observation and
so now to connect it to the electric vehicle story are greenhouse gasses something that
can be used reduced by the use of electric vehicles? Well currently electric vehicles account for
less than 1% of automobiles that are used. And o if you think about it from the current
status transportation accounts for about 1/3 of the US energy use and about a similar percentage
of greenhouse gas emissions. And of the greenhouse gasses on the left here,
and carbon dioxide is about 80% so if electric vehicles could be made to run without increasing
carbon emissions or decreasing carbon emissions, I should say, then they could make an impact. Meanwhile while we were having these debates
since 1990, people were still driving gas cars and carbon dioxide was still being released
and carbon dioxide levels whereas till going up. So in the pre-industrial era, carbon dioxide
concentration was below 300 ppm between about 200 and 200 ppm. So by 1960, it had gone up above 300 ppm and
just this past year it went above 400 ppm and a just the back of the envelope calculation
from the last 12 years, there has been about 25% increase, so if you extrapolate, for the
next 100 years, that would be about 200 ppm so we would increase the CO2 content of the
atmosphere by about 50 percent. Well there are some very smart people who
are doing this type of analysis, and not just on the back of the envelope, and particular,
the IPCC has made a projection – a series of projections, called representative concentration
pathways, RCPs, and this is looking at radiative forcing which is in Watts per meter squared,
which is basically looking at how much heat is going to be absorbed. They have different scenarios and this is
over the next 100 years. If you look at this the highest emissions
pathway, which is pretty much what we are doing right now, business as usual is going
to result in – in this case it is CO2 equivalence, it is not just carbon dioxide, but some other
greenhouse gasses as well. It is going to be above 1000 ppm by the end
of this century. Now if we were to put on the brakes immediately,
then the best case scenario would be the red line, which would be an RCP around 2.6, in
that case, the greenhouse gas CO2 concentrations would go up a little bit about the middle
of the century and then come back down. So what would happen in terms of temperature
in either of these cases? So if you look at the projections from the
recent averages, 1986-2005, the low emission scenario would limit temperature increase
to about 1 degree Celsius. But with business as usual the result would
be 2 degrees increase by the middle of the century and 4 degrees increase by the end
of the century. So what does that mean in terms of the planet? The temperatures are likely to increase unless
we do something immediately, which I do not see really happening. The temperatures probably increase by 2-4-5
degrees, the polar icecaps will melt by the middle of the 21st century. And in fact, the Arctic already is melting
and has melted, and probably in the next decade, in the next two decades there won’t be any
polar icecaps in the summer. Ocean acidification, most of the CO2 in the
Earth is actually dissolved in the oceans, probably 40 times more is dissolved in the
oceans than is present in the atmosphere. The more CO2 goes into the ocean the more
the ocean will get. That’s going to be felt again, most strongly
in the Polar Regions. There is going to be a lot of changes in precipitation
from desertification of places to stronger tropical storms and perhaps most concerning
is that there is movement in the production of agricultural yields in temperate to tropical
regions. There may be an increase in the higher latitudes,
but in the regions where most people live, production depends on temperature and the
word population is predicted to increase from 7.4 billion, to 11 plus billion. I can remember in 1966 when it was 3.5 billion. So during my lifetime, it has tripled, quadrupled. Now there was also a report that was issued
here in Maryland. There was a Maryland Scientific and Technical
Working Group, Maryland Climate Change Commission, and they issued a report in 2013. And there was an article in the Washington
Post which showed the different scenarios again, very similar to the report by the IPCC. They changed meters to feet but they had 4
different scenarios: historic rate – it will go up about 2 feet; mitigation with significant
efforts – it is 4 feet; business, with no significant effort – about 6 feet, and worst
case scenario, which would involve melting of icecaps – 8 feet. So what does this mean in terms of where we
are? So there is this online tool – at NOAA – that
actually shows you what the effect of sea level rise (SLR) will be. So if it went up 2 feet, you know, not too
bad – Thames Street, is that Temes or Thames? At this point is still one of the streets
down by the Inner Harbor – so that doesn’t look too bad. So this is 3 feet – that is 4 feet. At 4 feet, so you can see that the Aquarium
area is under and you can also see that the Thames street is flooded and at 6 feet, comes
up to the Columbus Center. So you can maybe put walls up and prevent
that from happening – but what if there was a storm? We have seen that happen from time to time. The storm surge might be few feet more. So that doesn’t look good any more. And in fact, when Hurricane Isabel hit in
2003, this is a view of Pratt Street. And actually at that time, a student was defending
a thesis, a few days after – and who was having one of his committee members fly in from Massachusetts,
was quite concerned he would not be able to attend his defense. But this was a good 13 years ago, there was
a recent article in the Washington Post predicting how many homes would be under water by the
year 2100. And you can see the number is over a million
homes, nationally, and including Florida -the most, Maryland with 3000 miles of coast – 65000
homes might be flooded. So it would have pretty serious consequences
although this would be unfolding over time. The question is – how much time? So this is the average temperature anomaly
over the last 140 years or so. And you can see that most of the warm ones
have been in the 21st century. And in fact – look at the very top one: that
is this year. This year has been the hottest on record,
but then again, last year was the hottest on record, the year before that was the hottest
on record, so what I am concerned about is, whether maybe climate models are not – are
being a little too conservative – it could very well be that it is the other opposite. Right now, the Earth has warmed about 1.5
degrees Fahrenheit since the pre-industrial era. And so we could warm maybe another 2-4 or
5 degrees by at least the end of the century. So where does that fit in sort of the geologic
timescale? We know that there are periodic ice ages,
and it is possible that in 12000 years much of human history, but most of human history,
since the last glacial period and in fact it looked like these temperatures were fairly
moderate, fairly high and then moderate and going down, then suddenly, since industrial
times it has gone up. And the question becomes – is the global warming
that we are seeing, directly related to Carbon dioxide levels? And that’s a very important question to answer. If you talk with geologists, and you look
at geological records, there is a pretty good correlation but a tremendous scary correlation,
in a sense that you see that the temperature and CO2 have very strict correlation. And that is not just over 10000 years, but
that is over almost a half million years. And if you notice, CO2
concentration has never been over 300 ppm. This is kind of, in my mind, kind of letting
the genie out of the bottle. We are going to have to try to put the genie
back in. Return back to where it was. This is not a question to be taken lightly. So the question that I really want to address
here is – can we limit carbon emissions using electric vehicles such as hybrids and pluggins
and battery operated vehicles (BEVs)? So the acronyms – the PHEV: Plugin hybrid
EV, the BEVs – the battery EVs, and so I just want to talk about a few of the vehicles that
have been introduced in the past 0 the very recent past as well as possibilities of the
future as well. I will just talk a little about the GM EV-1,
the Toyota Prius, which was of course the first gas-electric hybrid, briefly about the
Tesla Roadster, the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf, the Tesla Model S, and maybe we can
talk a little about the future cars that are due out. So in the 20th century there was really a
single electric vehicle that was made commercially by General Motors called the EV1. It wasn’t really sold – it was only leased
from 1996 to 1999. There were about a 1000 of these EV cars – 1100
made. They were two-seaters with 98 mile range and
took about 4 hours to charge. Actually this is quite similar to the specs
on the current EVs. However in 2003, GM took back – ended all
of the leases – all of the cars back, and destroyed all of them. And there is actually a movie called Who killed
the Electric Car? You might want to see that. It is a fairly balanced presentation, narrated
by – Who was the narrator for that? Sheen – Martin Sheen. It was really quite well done. OK, so a truly battery-operated electric vehicle
that first appeared commercially, the Tesla Roadster came around 2003 or so, and I think
that 2008 is when one could get a hold of one. These were pretty expensive little sports
cars. Again – a two-seater. There are about 2200 of these on the road. They can go 0 to 60 in three and a half seconds
– not bad! I haven’t driven one. The more common electric vehicles are the
Toyota Prius, the Nissan Leaf, the Chevy Volt and the Tesla Model S. And you can see most
of them have sold around 100000 or so. All of these are using lithium-ion batteries. They seem to be pretty much the standard for
the industry. So I am not going to say too much about batteries,
but obviously there are some desirable characteristics of batteries: having a higher power capacity,
which is pretty much what this plot is showing. Where power plotted in Kilowatt-hours versus
energy Watt hours. You want a fast charge rate and a low discharge
rate. You want a long life-expectancy, and you can
see for the EV1, which had a lead-acetate battery, is pretty much at the start of the
chart and is pretty much what we used in all of our gas cars. The lead acid battery is cheaper but for instance
the EV1 has about 1200 pounds of battery, so for instance if you wanted a lithium battery
with the same magnitude of power, it would be one-quarter the weight. So very recently there was an article in the
Business Insider. All of the companies are coming out of Electric
Vehicles Now. Ford Focus, BMWi3, Volkswagen E-Golf, Fiat
500e, Kia Sol, and Mercedes B-Class, which is the kind that we drive. The Nissan Leaf, and then there are several
new ones that are coming out – the Chevy Bolt, Tesla Model 3 and there are several other
Tesla Models coming out. You can sort of see here, the kind of division
– there are those that go more than 200 miles and there are those that go 75-100 miles on
a charge. But these cars are pretty much for commuting. If you want to go long distance, you have
to look at the ones that have a larger range. That is one of the goals of EV design at this
point. If you look at sales of EVs they are doing
pretty well. You can see that again, the Volt, the Leaf,
the Prius and the Model S, the Tesla, are the primary ones that have been sold over
the last 5 or so years. But there are all these other cars that are
on the market. The question is how much higher will that
go? If you look globally, the United Sates is
not the only market and you can see that actually the market in China is quite significant and
growing, and western Europe as well as Canada. So there is a significant t growth in sales
of these vehicles. So can these vehicles really make a change
in the carbon emissions? I wanted to show you that there is a lot of
different information out there and this is just one of them, and is sort of typical – if
you look at the effect of driving on carbon emissions, a large car driving that goes 15
miles per gallon, may be spewing out 500 grams of CO2, half a kilogram per every kilometer. Remember that there are about a billion cars
on the road at one time. A medium car might be only 300 grams or so,
a small car may be 200 and a hybrid car like a Toyota Prius may be 190. And that would be a significant improvement. Of course motor bikes and scooters would be
even less. But an electric car that was running on renewable
energy would be only 69 grams per kilometer. And this includes just fuel production, direct
emissions, but also the vehicle construction. This is frequently something that people mention. Because otherwise this would be zero running
on solar power, wind power, but it is not zero, because of fuel used during construction,
at least at the present time, if you are driving an electric car using coal energy, such as
in West Virginia, I’ll show you in a minute – almost all the energy is generated from
coal, you might as well be driving a hybrid car. This is an important point. If you look at electric production worldwide,
it is pretty much on average of about two thirds fossil fuel and one third non-carbon
based fuel. In these cases it’s primarily hydro or wind
energy. And if you look at specific countries, one
thing that occurs to me is that there are two giant energy consumers – China and the
United States. The united States may not be growing that
much, the population of China, however, even if it is not growing, is 4 times larger than
our population. If they are going to bring their standards
up to our levels, that will result in increased electricity consumption. Although they do have a lot of hydroelectric
compared to the United States, which uses a lot of natural gas. So we can look at electric production in the
US in more detail. So the electricity production in the United
States is about one third from coal, one third from natural gas, one third from non-carbon-emission
sources. But there is quite a lot of difference depending
on where you live. I wanted to share with you this online tool
that the Department of Energy has that considers the variability of the source of energy from
state to state. So the pie chart shows the source of electricity
from the state of Maryland. And on the right hand side, you can see per
pound annual emission per vehicle. Down here is the national average. So you can see that it is actually not that
different in terms of the emissions. Below 5000 pounds of CO2 per all electric
car as opposed to about 10000 to 12000 per gasoline vehicle. So in Maryland, here, where we have some nuclear
and we have a lot of coal, as well as natural gas. Where do they have a better source of electricity
with respect to carbon emissions? Well, California is a little bit better. Primarily because their main electricity source
is gas. So about two and a half thousand pounds of
CO2 emissions per electric vehicle. Oregon is even better – they have a lot of
hydroelectric power. And an electric car emits about 2K. And Washington state is even better. It has hydroelectric power. West Virginia, as I mentioned, 95 percent
coal, so there is no advantage, driving an all-electric vehicle, in fact you would be
better off driving a hybrid. And our nation’s capital, all from gas. I wonder if that has any signuficance. In the Northeast, there is a lot of nuclear
power, so this is New Hampshire and Vermont, none at all – all nuclear, hydro, biomass,
wind. This is the only state where you can be driving
an electric vehicle and feel that you are not contributing to the overall carbon footprint. Maine is also pretty good it has a lot of
biomass use. Anyway, I suggest that you go to this website
if you are interested. And there is also this website, where you
can plug in your vehicle and brand, and calculate your average grams emission. So basically a gasoline-only vehicle has more
than double that of a fully electric vehicle and has a significant effect on the environment. So I think one can conclude that driving the
all-electric, plug-in electric or even a hybrid, is going to have a positive benefit from the
standpoint of the carbon footprint. And in the future, that actually the EPA has
handed over our future to California’s air resource board, CARB. Which runs the Zero Emissions Vehicle, ZEV,
program, and it is very complicated, complicated to explain, but in the early days, it was
really quite simple: it said 2 percent of the sales of ZEVs by 1998, and 10% ZEVs by
2003. But in 1996 to 1998, they dropped the requirement. And then they instituted a partial requirement. So for hybrids, because at the time in the
1990s they did not anticipate the Prius, so they had credit allowed for hybrid vehicles. So then in 2001, there were three new vehicle
categories introduced – a set of 3 more complex set of categories. I’d like to show this picture because you
know that this is what’s happening in the present, but in future, this is what is anticipated,
considerable growth in ZEVs in the projection if the trend stays the same. But you are talking about from somewhere from
5 to 22 to 25 percent by 2025 vehicles should be zero emission vehicles and there are a
lot of other states that are following California’s programs, including Maryland. So we have Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. And three other states, Washington, Delaware
and Pennsylvania, that are following a part of California’s program. So what about world-wide – what does it look
like? Well this shows both on the right hand side
of the center – electric vehicles that make up the market share on the left – the total
number of cars and you can see that China and the United states together make the dominant
players in the market. China seems to be going up, the United Sates
in 2015 hit a plateau presumably temporarily The percentage here is not much different
– barely 1 percent. However, there are smaller countries that
have made a much stronger commitment – the Netherlands and Norway, for example, and we
can see that in the Netherlands – it is already 10 percent and Norway 25 percent. Both of these countries have announced that
by 2025, they will be selling 100 percent electric vehicles. Of course, the value of this from the carbon
emissions standpoint is dependent on the electricity generation. There are a lot of countries, especially in
Europe – Scandinavia, that have made a much stronger commitment – for example, Iceland,
Switzerland, Norway, Sweden have essentially 100 percent carbon neutral generation – much
of this is from hydroelectric, some of this is nuclear and in the case of Iceland, a lot
of hydrothermal. However there are some other interesting points
here – for instance, Denmark, in Green – is wind – about two thirds, and a third is biomass. Ireland also uses about one third wind. Here is the Unites States, down here. Two thirds of it is nuclear, and there is
a mix of hydrothermal, wind, etc. However, in the United States we do have energy
deregulation so it may not be familiar with this audience, and if not, I recommend, that
you go to this website. In the past, you had no choice – you had a
power plant, you had the utility and your power plant sold power from only this plant. Well now most power companies offer power
from many different power plants – it’s not just a single source you can choose from many
different electric suppliers. Our home is powered by wind this allows us
to purchase at market rates 9.8 cents per kilowatt hour, and so you can log in and you
can use the online tools and say what kind of electricity you want. It is only when we plug in downstairs, we
use any fossil fuel. So in summary, I just want to say that the
characteristics of electric vehicles and ICE cars are quite different – efficiency of an
electric motor is 19 percent. Even with 100 years of evolution, the efficiency
of ICE is only 21 percent. So in other words, there is no way that ICE
can compete. Simplicity of the electric vehicle motor has
about 18 moving parts, so it does not have most of the really complicated parts of the
ICE engine. Carbon emissions just using the standard Maryland
electricity is less than one half the amount of the ICE car. Fuel cost is also about one quarter. The one thing you do give up is range. Although this is also starting to change with
he new generation of EVs. So for instance, as the technology marches
on, the progressively longer-range vehicles such as the Tesla EV, for about 100000 dollars,
you can go 380 miles. Using the same batteries, batteries are slightly
higher capacity. But of course Tesla and other companies in
China and the Tesla Gigafactory, the second-largest building in the world, they are more than
likely to result in decreasing the cost of manufacturing the batteries. So even if you don’t have a tremendous technological
change in batteries, costs are likely to drop. Volt – which has a 60 kilowatt-hour battery,
as well as a gasoline-powered generator. The batteries are not that expensive, but
it might be that when they build the larger factories, prices will drop substantially. There is also likely to be an increase in
the numbers of charging stations. There are about 2 Million worldwide currently. There are also a number of wireless charging
stations especially for busses which follow a regular route. You can also get these in a garage if you
don’t want to plug it in. And there is of course the autonomous self-driving
car. So it won’t be long before it is likely that
these electric vehicles will let you sit back and enjoy the ride. And so that is pretty much it. I want to conclude by saying that I think
the use of EVs does slow down the carbon dioxide emission and as a result slows down the rate
of climate change. In the United States, two thirds of the electricity
is still produced from fossil fuels, although there are some states such as Washington State,
Oregon, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire that have a larger fraction of carbon-free electricity. And California and CARB is leading the legislation
for mandating ZEV standards, and there are many states that are following, including
Maryland. Norway and Netherlands have the highest EV
adoption rates – 10 to 25 percent and they are planning to reach 100 percent by 2025. And there are some countries in Scandinavia,
and Switzerland and France that have nearly 100 percent carbon free electricity generation,
currently. So I think that the ultimate impact of electric
vehicles on climate change will depend on the rate at which the whole world moves toward
renewable energy. So I hope I have given you some things to
think about and I would love for there to be a continued discussion. This is not my area of research – this is
my sort of personal passion, and I appreciate the opportunity to present this to you and
clearly if there is a chance to continue this discussion, I would welcome it.

Posts created 37610

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

Back To Top