The BMW Megacity plug-in vehicle
Are there any foreign oil independence silver bullets?
I used to believe the best hybrid car was a plug-in hybrid. Today, I’m pretty sure the best hybrid doesn’t include a plug, at least for now.
While in theory plug-ins make phenomenal sense, today plug-ins seem more about greenwashing and politics rather than actual change – at least from an automaker perspective. Unfortunately, the technology still isn’t mature enough for mainstreaming. Even worse, plug-ins are almost a government-funded marketing diversion that enables gas guzzler sales at a time when we should be squashing guzzler sales.
Today, numerous battery studies and statements from top automotive executives demonstrate that volume is not yet the key to cost-effective plug-in vehicles. Instead, technological breakthroughs are the critical missing piece of the puzzle. And some battery researchers have suggested that it could take decades to both achieve these breakthroughs and then cost-effectively scale them into the auto industry.
So, is rushing into plug-in vehicles via billions in government tax incentives the key to these breakthroughs?
Maybe. The possibility that achieving 1 million plug-in vehicles by 2015, for instance, might lead to the kind of breakthroughs that push battery technologies to mainstreaming cost-effectiveness is somewhat logical, but highly unlikely according to the battery research – if we’re talking about a solution that could electrify all new vehicles, or even just a significant percent of them.
Of course, science is always full of surprises. Thus, a big focus on battery production and R&D in the US is not a bad idea, but should this production be driven by plug-in vehicles, is what I really wonder these days?
Ultimately, the legacy effect of the auto industry is the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to energy independence or emission’s reductions. Even if nothing but plug-in vehicles were built today, it would still take more than 2 decades to replace the current fleet of gas-guzzlers on American roads.
That makes every vehicle produced today vitally important. Not just today, but 20 years from now. That’s the danger of the legacy effect. Sadly, however, today huge gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs account for more than 50 percent of US auto sales.
Furthermore, even the most optimistic plug-in forecasts call for just 10 percent penetration by 2020, although almost every analyst and forecaster in the auto industry claims such a number is extremely improbable. JD Power for instance sees 1 -2 percent as a more realistic forecast. Either way, plug-ins offer little to counter the legacy effect anytime soon.
Consequently, should plug-ins be the centerpiece of US energy policy?
For instance, with the same amount of battery material to produce 1 million plug-ins by 2015, far more conventional hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion hybrid could be produced. By 2015 such a focus could offer a bigger and more immediate impact upon on reducing oil consumption and CO2 emissions than would 1 million plug-in vehicles – although still not big enough to really mean anything significant.
More important, if this rush into battery development – via hybrids – achieved a major technological breakthrough, all of these hybrids could easily be converted into plug-in vehicles, thereby reducing the impact of the legacy effect.
Likewise, the same amount of battery material could produce far more mild hybrid vehicles – a type of powertrain that GM has called its ‘future base powertrain’. Why not push companies like GM to integrate this battery technology into all gas-guzzlers today, or at least by 2015?
Doesn’t that offer more bang for the buck while also reducing the downside of investing into technologies not yet ripe?
Then again, maybe incentives would do little to increase hybrid penetration and, therefore, US battery production. Maybe a focus on plug-ins, as inefficient as it could end up, is really the only way to push battery technologies forward because it produces the most batteries but in the fewest amount of cars.
Then I start to wonder, should batteries even be the driver, or at least the main driver, of US energy policy?
For instance, recent research suggests that hydraulic and compressed air hybrids could achieve as good or even better fuel economy than battery hybrids, but at much less cost. Much less cost means much faster mainstreaming and much faster mainstreaming is the best weapon against the legacy effect.
Of course, such hybrids would still need some kind of liquid fuel. Is that really so bad in the interim? Isn’t the US going to need some kind of liquid fuel for decades? That’s why studies from Accenture, for instance, have strongly suggested that battery technologies are not the key to future US automotive success. Battery technologies are an important part of the formula, but so to are better ICE engine designs and biofuels.
Of course, a big focus on plug-in vehicles is better than nothing. But it seems obvious we could do far better.
Today there is no way one can logically argue that the US is on a trajectory to end foreign oil dependence before 2040, probably 2050 – at the earliest. Is 30 – 40 more years of oil dependence really possible without massive problems based on the latest few decades of foreign oil dependence?
Therefore, as simple as it sounds, isn’t the first step towards a real change in US energy policy a declaration of war against foreign oil dependence? Isn’t that the best path towards a comprehensive new energy policy – a new energy policy that wouldn’t just focus on plug-ins or even batteries, but instead focus on all foreign-oil fighting technologies?
Until then, aren’t we just tinkering around the edges and playing politics – as we have been for the last several decades?