Sleep in World's 1st Tesla Hotel

An entrepreneurial Tesla owner in Phoenix has put his Model S on Airbnb. According to his listing you can "camp" in his Tesla as your private room and you get access to a kitchen, TV room, & bathroom/shower in the house. He'll even pick you up and drop you off at the airport in your would-be bedroom.

You can use the car's 17" touchscreen to browse the web and listen to Pandora as to drift off to sleep by the flicker of two battery powered LED candles.

So if you are in the Phoenix area and you ever wanted to sleep in a Model S, for just $85 a night, this is your chance.

Oh, if you are just looking for a ride and not a night's stay, the car is listed on Uber too.

Candlelit Tesla "Hotel"

More Than Smokestack vs Tailpipe - Full Cost Accounting

There have been various studies that compare the environmental impacts of electric cars to gasoline-powered cars. Depending on who is doing the study, their agenda, thoroughness, and the factors they consider, either side can "win".

The Tailpipe vs. the Smokestack

In the studies where gas cars come out on top, there are generally several relevant factors that are left out. These "EVs Are Just As Dirty" studies generally have a "coal powered" EV compared to a gas car's tailpipe emissions. These studies often ignore all the emissions related to the production of gasoline. They ignore that EVs have high adoption rates in regions and households that generally support and use renewable energy. They don't consider the significant amount of energy that is used to refine crude oil into gasoline. They don't consider the environmental damage of oil spills that happen every month. They don't consider that new wind turbines and solar panels are being installed, while the cost to operate and fuel coal plants means they are not as profitable as they once were compared to renewables. A grid-powered EV put on the road today, will be running cleaner 5 years from now. They don't consider the military and political costs related to our involvement oil regions. They don't consider the urban air quality and the related health concerns. They don't consider the cancer hot zones that surround refineries.

To be fair, a grid-powered EV must be burdened to some degree with coal mining related damage, mountaintop removal, and natural gas fracking. Whereas gasoline is used almost exclusively for transportation, electricity has many uses. This burden on EVs will have to be amortized with every porchlight, air-conditioner, and refrigerator, but it cannot be ignored. The time of day that EVs generally charge needs to be considered too. Most EVs charge overnight and because of the way many cogeneration plants operate and since wind speeds are often strongest at night, this means that EVs use electricity that would often be dumped to ground.

It would be nice to see a study that thoroughly examines all of these aspects and gives a full accounting. Today, the most comprehensive study that I am aware of is the one by The Union of Concerned Scientists. Their study was first conducted in 2012 and updated in 2014. They found that in all regions of the US, EVs are comprehensively better for the environment than gas cars. The 2014 update shows that EVs had improved significantly in just these 2 short years since the initial study as more wind and solar came online.

Chevy Bolt: Real Car or Marketing Ploy?

2017 Chevy Bolt Concept Car

The 2015 Detroit Auto Show is currently underway. One of the big stories from the show is the Chevy Bolt. Yes, that is Bolt with a B.  GM announced that the all-electric concept car will be available in 2017. They say it will have a range of 200 miles and a base price of only $30,000.

You can find dozens of stories about the Bolt. They say things from that is the worst name ever, to this will be the best selling car ever made.

While I hope that GM really does make this car (and that they rename it), I am wondering why they are announcing it now. The new 2016 Volt (with a V) is also being announced at the same auto show. Compared with the old Volt, the new Volt has an increased electric range and better gas mileage in range extended mode. I don't think these Bolt & Volt announcements at the same auto show are a coincidence.

Despite being different technologies, the Volt and the Nissan Leaf have been in competition since they both came out in late 2010. Despite the 2017 model year, this 100% electric, 200 mile range, Bolt announcement (with a price range similar to the Leaf's) will likely reduce sales of the current ~80 mile Leaf.

It is completely understandable that someone may think "Why would I buy a short range EV today, when I can get a 200 mile range car in just a couple of years. I'll just keep driving the car I have until then." Or they may follow it with "I'll lease a PHEV like the Volt for two years and then get a Bolt."

So regardless of whether or not GM ever actually makes the Bolt, just announcing it could put a dent in all sub-100 mile EV sales including GM's own Chevy Spark EV.

Slowing the growth of the 100% electric car market could be just what GM needs to do to help get Volt sales to surpass the Nissan Leaf.

I mean... just look at the car's color; the answer is right there! :)

Rolling Resistance

As you drive down the road, there are two primary forces that slow your car: aerodynamic drag & rolling resistance (assuming flat ground and you are not breaking).

What is rolling resistance?

Rolling resistance is the energy lost to tire deformation as you drive. Reducing rolling resistance is one of the reasons that trains have steel wheels. Depending on the weight of the vehicle, up to 25% of the vehicle's power is used to push the tires down the road.

Rolling resistance applied to EVs

The rolling resistance has a big impact on the range of an EV. The wrong tires (or under-inflated tires) can significantly reduce the range. This can then impact how deeply the battery pack is discharged. Excessively cycling causes wear on the batteries and this too will (eventually) reduce the range and battery lifespan. So you see tires (and properly inflating them) really matters both for the range of any given trip and for the longevity of an EV.

How do you measure rolling resistance?

I recently needed new tires for my car. Since I drive an EV, I wanted low rolling resistance tires. I started shopping for them, and all I could find was imprecise marketing terms. They had names like fuel-saver or eco tire and they said things like 20% better than a standard tire. These vague terms gave me no way to compare one low rolling resistance (LRR) tire to another.

I called my local tire store and asked if they had rolling resistance data for the tires they sold or knew where I could find it. They said that they didn't have it or know of anywhere that it was available to the public.

A little more digging and I found that there are standard metrics for rolling resistance. It is defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

Let's take a look at the above formula (F=CW/r). The weight of the car (W) is fixed and so is the radius of the tires (r) that will fit it. So that leaves only C, the coefficient of rolling resistance.

The coefficient of rolling resistance  (C_rr) for most new passenger tires ranges from 7 kg/ton to 14 kg/ton.

I Want Low Rolling Resistance Tires! 

OK, so now we know there is an actual unit of measure that we can compare and what range of values to expect, but where can I find the data?

Googling for Low Rolling Resistance Tire Lists, I found a list of tires from 2003 that were LRR with their Crr values. But that list is nearly 12 years old and LRR tires have made a lot of improvements since then.

Checking Consumer Reports was no help. They recommend that rolling resistance only be used as a tiebreaker and that other performance characteristics like handling and braking distance should be the first things that you consider. That is probably good advice, but this just for my "around town" EV, so I am going to ignore it. For me, this is not just about saving 3% on my fuel bill, it directly impacts how far I can drive and how useful my EV is for my transport needs.

This left me with nothing but the marketing terms and sifting through anecdotal data on various car forums. I could just buy the same model of tire that came on the car when I bought it, but they wore out after less than 30,000 miles.

Tesla Knows This Matters

Tesla recently announced the Roadster 2020. This updated Roadster is expected to have over 400 miles of range. In this upgrade they improved the batteries, the aerodynamics, and the tires. The new tires have a rolling resistance coefficient (Crr) of 8.9 kg/ton. This is a 20% improvement from the older Roadster tires that had a Crr value of 11.0 kg/ton.

So Tesla can get this information. I am sure it is not too hard to find if you are in the auto industry and know where to look. If so, maybe you can help the EV driving world out.

If you know of a source where I can find Crr data for tires on the market today, please let me know in the comments below. 

Solar Powered EV Driving 2014

Tree filtered sunshine via Clark's Oregon Wildflower Blog

2014 was the seventh year that I've been "fueling" my driving with solar panels. Yes, it is possible, even here in the rainy NW corner of Oregon.

Our little 4kW solar system generated 3,800 kWh in 2014. Here is a chart of the production since we installed our panels:

Seven years of energy solar energy production

2014's production was enough to drive my electric car about 11,000 miles. During the year, I only drove about 7,400 miles.

2014 Solar Powered EV Driving

This left us with about 1,700 kWh of energy that were not used by our EV driving. This reduced our home energy bill. This is especially helpful in the summer when the home AC is on.

Our home is in rainy Oregon, our PV system is a small (4kW) system, and it is facing-west (rather than the more optimal south). If solar powered driving can work here, it can work in a lot of places on the globe.

Oregon Sunshine (Eriophyllum lanatum) flower by Arboreal Boids

Giant Lithium Spill

Do you remember when all that Lithium spilled into Prudhoe Bay? Or the massive Lithium leak in the Gulf of Mexico? Dead birds and sea life washing onto the shore for weeks.

Or the train car full of Lithium that exploded in a Canadian town and killed several people?

Of course you don't. None of these headlines ever happened. Well, not with Lithium any way.

From Charged EV Magazine:

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has published a guide for the safe handling of lithium batteries on aircraft. The IATA estimates that each year, over a billion lithium batteries are transported by air as mail, cargo or in passenger/crew baggage. 

Kevin Hiatt of IATA said “This guide was developed with the input of leading industry groups specialized in the area of handling potentially dangerous goods. Whether on passenger or cargo aircraft, operators can now rely on this guide...”

So now there are even better regulations for the transportation of Lithium.

As 2014 draws to a close, here are some headlines to consider:

• 5 million liters of crude oil spilled in Arava leak
• Oil Spill in Black Sea after Russian Pipeline Leak
• Diesel leak behind latest 'oil spill'
• Southern oil spill clean-up to cost country NIS 17 million
• Bangladesh oil spill 'threatens rare dolphins'
• Constant oil spills devastate Russia
• Nigerian communities reeling from massive Shell oil spill
• 1350 barrels of oil spill at Enbridge pumping station
• New oil leak in Guaracara River
• Agencies working to contain fuel leak from boat that sank
• Russian oil pipeline leaks into Black Sea
• Oil Spill Will Take Years to Clean, Cost $7.6 Million
• Fire crews respond to morning oil spill
• Semi-tanker crude oil spill blocks ramp on I-25
• Oil leak source found at old Getty station
• Oil spill closes oyster farms in Coromandel
• Fuel leaks into Ohio River
• Sea Cucumber Farmers Demand Compensation For Oil Spill
• DEP Continues Oversight Of Jay Oil Spill
• 2000 gallon of oil leaks into Lake Michigan

By the way, all of these headlines are just from December 2014.

Mental "Glitches" Are Slowing EV Sales (Part 6) - Anger Response

Welcome to part 6 of the cognitive biases and logical fallacies series. We are examining the mental glitches that all of us humans share and how they could be impacting the mass adoption of plug-in vehicles. We have looked at Cognitive Dissonance, Status Quo Bias, Confirmation Bias, Ingroup Bias, and the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon. In this post, we'll be looking at Anger Response.

When we are confronted, stressed, or otherwise feeling anxiety, our brains have many defense mechanisms. These defenses protect our self-esteem, ego, our cherished beliefs, or our comforting mental models of the world. One of the many tools in this bag of defensive tricks is hostility or the Anger Response.

Angry Comedian Lewis Black. Photograph by Cla McBride

During anger arousal two of the hormones we secrete are the amphetamine-like epinephrine and the analgesic-like norepinephrine. Together these two provide an adrenaline rush feeling as well as pain relief from emotional or physical pain.

Flame Wars

Flame Wars are nothing new on the Internet and many of these raging rants are great examples of the Anger Response. You can find flame wars in the comments section of nearly any popular story about a wedge issue (politics, religion...). What could be a rational debate about the problems, policies, and solutions often devolves into name-calling and mudslinging.

I have often wondered why this is the case. If someone states something that you believe to be false, you can make a counterpoint, ask for sources, or maybe even think about it, read more, and learn something. If you have done these things, you have stated your case, and you still don't agree, then agree to disagree and walk away. You might not have convinced that one person, but if you have stated a good case, it may help all the other people that will read it later. Name-calling or (even worse) threats are never going to convince someone that you are right and might even dissuade others from your side; and yet it happens over and over again.

Why does this occur? This must serve another purpose.

Is it simply a lack of emotional and social intelligence? These may be contributing factors to the behavior, but I think there is more to it. Another contributing factor, is that in a face-to-face conversation, we generally limit ourselves to avoid a physical confrontation. Online forums remove the inhibition that the fear of being punched in the face provides. So the forum medium may remove the inhibition, but that still does not explain why anyone would select such an ineffective debate technique.

           

Anger can be used to substitute nearly any emotion that causes us anxiety. 

Googling on this topic, I was surprised that I could not quickly find an answer. I found some 2007 online anonymity research and a couple other papers, but online flaming behavior seems to be an area that is not well researched.

Given this, I will submit my own baseless hypothesis. Anger can be used to substitute for nearly any emotion that causes us anxiety. When we are confronted with something that disrupts our status quo, challenges a deeply held belief or our self-perception, confuses us, frustrates us, or creates cognitive dissonance, one of the defence mechanisms at our brain's disposal is the Anger Response.

Ironically, despite outward appearances, anger creates a self-soothing sense of control. If the only options available to our brain are confusion, frustration, loss of self-perception or anger, then anger is the knee-jerk reaction that is going to often win. In many situations, your ego has the option of a display of weakness (confusion, self-questioning...), or a display of strength (anger). Regardless the rational choice, the emotional response is usually to avoid showing weakness. Here is how this particular mental glitch might play out: If you are in an argument with someone and you are starting to feel emotional about it, the welling emotions become difficult to deal with. This emotional vulnerability is painted over with a coat of red. The unsettling emotions are masked with anger. You have been "amygdala hijacked". Now a rational discussion is impossible, this is a war zone and they are the enemy. In such a battle, shouting louder than the other side is a victory. In this state, the technical merits of the discussion are no longer relevant, only the emotional ones matter now. We want to "win" and, once in this state, we will burn bridges and insult your mother to do it. If we win, then we were not wrong, or inconsiderate. Victory means that our self-esteem is justified, whatever self-doubts we might have had were unfounded.

Anger Response Applied to Plug-in Cars

Plug-in vehicles are a disruptive technology. They rock the boat on several fronts. Many people are happy with things the way they are today. So when they hear things like plug-in cars are part of the solution to foreign oil dependency, CO2 emissions, or air quality... for some, they don't even want to hear that there is a problem. Problems would disrupt their status quo. Denial of the problem is much simpler. Once these are denied, all the post-rationalization methods that our brains are so good at can be utilized.

If these rationalizations are threatened in any way, then the anger response can be invoked to shutdown the messenger. The more fragile the rationalization, the more likely that defensiveness will emerge and anger response is to be deployed.

There are plenty of people online that can rationally discuss the pros and cons of plug-in driving. If you encounter an anti-EV rager, now you have some understanding of the underlying mentality, even if they do not.

Can Tesla Power Its Gigafactory with Renewables Alone?

Elon Musk has said that all the energy that the Tesla Gigafactory uses will be from onsite solar, wind, and geothermal renewable sources.

Engineering.com recently pulled out their calculator to run the numbers. They wanted to see if it penciled out. Could the entire Gigafactory run exclusively from onsite renewables sources.

Being both a renewable energy advocate and an electric vehicle advocate, I found this to be a fascinating question.

Since the factory is not yet built, they had to make some assumptions based on the announced plans and the size of the plot. I'll spare you the math (which they did in detail) and cover just the highlights.

Assuming the factory roof is covered in solar panels and considering the regions solar capacity, solar photovoltaic would generate an estimated 850 MWh each day. Additional solar panels could be ground mounted if needed and they could be even more efficient if they have sun tracking mounts. But we'll assume just rooftop solar for now.

The image has 85 wind turbines according to their count. Given the regions average wind speed, this would generate roughly 1836 MWh of wind energy per day.

Nevada has several geothermal energy plants in operation today. The newest of these is a 20 MW plant. They assumed that Tesla would build one that is only half this size. This would produce 240 MWh of electricity each day.

Adding these up:
  850 MWh of Solar
1836 MWh of Wind
  240 MWh of Geothermal
-------
Totals up to 2926 MWh per day.

For perspective, this is enough to power about 97,000 homes.

How Much Does the Factory Need? 

Navigant Research estimates that for all the factory's activities, it will consume approximately 2400 MWh per day (about 80,000 homes worth).

Net Zero? Yes. Even Better, Energy Positive!

Given these assumptions, 2900 MWh are produced and only 2400 MWh are used per day. So it is possible for Tesla's Gigafactory to be powered by 100% onsite renewable energy. The additional capacity will allow the factory to feed the local grid with surplus renewable energy during peak generation times. This will allow for net-metering or "running the meter backwards" during sunny and/or windy days.

Additionally, this is a battery plant. One of their products (in addition to vehicle batteries) will be grid-level energy storage systems. One of these systems would both showcase their product and allow the factory to store surplus energy when it is generated and then draw from it as needed. This would smooth out any intermittence caused from the sun and wind.

Via Engineering.com

Fuel Cell Advocate Strikes Back

Fuel Cell cars are on full parade at the LA Auto Show this week and they are getting significant media attention.

In preparation for the show, Green Car Reports collected fuel cell vehicle (FCV) questions from their readers to pose to the automakers that are promoting the tech (Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai). As you might imagine the 10 questions were critical of fuel cells as most of GCR readers are plug-in vehicle fans.

One of the readers, Jason Lancaster, however, is a fuel cell fan and he didn't like questions that cast his favored future fuel in a poor light. In response Lancaster called "a lot of this FCV criticisms coming from BEV advocates are completely and totally irrelevant." Lancaster then wrote 10 questions of his own for plug-in car advocates like myself to answer.

As you'll see, his questions are occasionally leading and obviously biased. For example, his first question is "Why do BEV advocates cling to a highly irrelevant electricity efficiency argument?" As you can see, the question assumes that efficiency is irrelevant. With each question Lancaster has a brief commentary explaining the flaw in BEV advocates thinking, what he thinks the real questions should be, and how he thinks FCV are an important part of our transportation future.

As requested, as a plug-in vehicle advocate (although I only speak for myself), here are my replies to Jason Lancaster's 10 questions:

1. Why do BEV advocates cling to a highly irrelevant electricity efficiency argument? The argument goes like this:

• Separating hydrogen from water is a great way to drive without contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, but it “wastes” electricity 
• Therefore, making hydrogen isn’t a “good use” of electricity…that energy should be stored in a battery pack instead.

The trouble with this argument is that it doesn’t acknowledge a fundamental economic reality: battery packs are expensive, but electricity is cheap. The relative efficiency of using hydrogen as a transportation fuel vs. electricity as a transportation fuel can’t be discussed in a vacuum. If wind energy costs less than 4 cents per kW, it’s likely cheaper to “waste” that electricity separating hydrogen than it is to buy expensive battery packs.
In other words, “waste” has nothing to do with it. Economics is the only concern.

You make the point that it really should be about economics. Efficiency is the first order measure of a mature technology’s economics. Today, both fuel cells and batteries are expensive. As these technologies mature, their prices will drop. Then the total cost of ownership economics will be driven primarily by fuel cost. As you stated, electricity is cheap. Your own H2 FAQ says a kilo of H2 will cost $5-$6 ($0.07 - $0.09 per mile). I charge my car up at off-peak rates, here this rate is $0.047 per kWh (1.3 cents per mile). I would rather pay 1 cent per mile than 7. 

Your comments around this question also seems to indicate that you think most H2 will be generated from electrolysis; however, it is well understood that 95% of H2 is currently is (and will continue to be) derived from natural gas. The energy and electrode costs for electrolysis cannot compete with Methane Reforming. So this makes FCEVs yet another fossil fuel powered car. 

My BEV can be powered by the solar panels on my roof. A FCV would never be able to do that. And if it could, it would require an array at least twice as big to generate and compress the H2. 

2. Why do BEV advocates insist on contrasting the Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S, etc. with FCVs? Don’t they know that 97% of the vehicles on the road today are powered by gasoline or diesel? Doesn’t it make more sense to compare both FCVs and BEVs to the market leader than to one another?

If someone were sitting at home and thinking “I’m tired of buying gas. For my next car I want to get something else”, then the alternatives offered from major auto companies are a plug-in car or a FC car. Like it or not, plug-in cars and fuel cell cars are in competition for market share, infrastructure funding, and mindshare as the next personal transportation platform. So there has been and will continue to be criticism from both sides as they try to advance their solution of choice. 

I agree that the real goal is to give more people a viable alternative to gas cars, I just don't think that promoting FCVs achieves this goal. In fact, I think it detracts from it. More on this in answer #10 below.

3. Why assume that refueling time is the only advantage FCVs have over BEVs? We created a nice little FAQ here that explained fuel cell stack costs are expected to be cost-comparable to gas-powered hybrids in just a few years (2018). FCVs aren’t just going to be fast and easy to refuel. They’re going to have lower up-front costs than BEVs too.

Both FCVs and BEVs are driven by electric motors, so they will have similar (great) performance. Refueling IS the biggest difference. You go on to say that cost will be the biggest difference. When this is true (if ever) then you’ll have something else to talk about other than a prediction. I read the FAQ you linked to, predictions about fuel cell prices are easy to make and hard to deliver. Batteries prices are dropping and performance is improving every year driven primarily by the consumer electronics industry’s demand for longer battery life. 

If you want to talk about refueling, the real winner technology is plug-in hybrids. They can plug-in overnight cheaply and they can fuel up in just minutes at more than 100,000 gas stations in the US. 

4. Why do FCV critics ignore all the investment in (and excitement for) fuel cell technology outside of transportation? Fuel cells aren’t just for cars – they’re being used to create grid-sized power stations, industrial power generation, fork lifts, buses, etc., and the technology is being pursued by industrial heavyweights like GE, Microsoft, and (ahem) Toyota.

In the post on GreenCarReports.com, you wrote:

A small but strong and vocal lobby of owners, supporters, and advocates has advocated for electric cars for 20 years now. Where is the similar groundswell of fuel-cell advocates?

Shouldn’t you walk that back a bit? Or perhaps acknowledge that a “groundswell” of support is irrelevant when evaluating the efficacy of a particular technology?

Because we are talking about transportation solutions. Excitement does not get me to work. If you want to look at technologies outside of transportation, then mobile consumer electronics are driving battery tech with far more research dollars than forklift research is advancing fuel cells. 

4a. … acknowledge that a “groundswell” of support is irrelevant when evaluating the efficacy of a particular technology? 

When looking at efficacy, sure. When trying to sell a product, it is very relevant. You might make the Henry Ford faster horse argument here and say that people just don’t know what they want yet. But FCVs would have to deliver something great that PHVs or BEVs cannot. Currently they don’t.

5. Why don’t BEV advocates understand that fuel cells are the only workable technology for trucks and large SUVs? The energy density of battery packs makes their use in large vehicles unlikely – this is why fuel cell powered buses a better option than battery electric buses (according to the US DOE). Even unabashed BEV advocates acknowledge that fuel cells are best for larger vehicles.

Can’t we have FCVs in the mix, if for no other reason than to use them in big vehicles?

Because Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai keep showing FC passenger cars at the major auto-shows and claiming battery cars are pointless and that FCVs are the future. This answer also applies to question #2 also. There very well may be a place for large FCVs. There are electric buses that get 30-second over-head quick charges at every stop, FC buses will need to compete with this. For long haul applications, the real question is which is cheaper to install, a coast-to-coast quick-charge infrastructure or H2 infrastructure. At $10,000 per station, quick charging is way cheaper than the $1M per station for H2 pumps.

6. Why don’t BEV advocates acknowledge that battery chemistry has stagnated? The CEO LG Chem – one of the largest battery manufacturers in the world – says that “we’ll have lithium ion for at least the next 10 to 15 years“, suggesting that today’s lithium ion battery technology is in no danger of taking a giant leap forward anytime soon. Yet BEV advocates assume that Tesla, Nissan, etc. will somehow significantly increase BEV range and decrease cost over the next 3-5 years.

How are BEV manufacturers going to accomplish significant improvements with the same old battery chemistry? And why is the CEO of LG Chem soft-pedaling the possibility of future advances?

Because the tech hasn’t stagnated. Lithium-ion batteries have been getting 7-8% better per year for two decades and it shows no sign of slowing down. It is not doubling every year, it does not have to be big leaps and bounds. Slow and steady improvements yield vast improvements over time. Nearly every week there is some lab breakthrough announced. Many of these will eventually work their way into improving final production batteries. Looking forward, there are solid state batteries, Lithium-air batteries, ultracapacitors, and things yet to be discovered that will continue to advance battery tech.

P.S. You have taken the LG Chem quote out of context. He said the Lithium-ion will be the battery chemistry of choice for the next 10-15 years, not that it will not improve. In fact later he goes on to talk about how much it has improved since 2010 and how much more it will improve by 2016.

7. Why are BEV advocates so willing to overlook battery range problems? Most BEVs that have been sold in the last few years struggle to live up to their published range – one need only read GreenCarReports.com to see that. Why don’t BEV advocates acknowledge that BEVs might not ever be feasible for climates with wide temperature variations (aka most of the planet), and/or that they may have long-term degradation problems?

No one is overlooking this. BEVs (with the range limits they have today) have some of the best owner satisfaction scores of any vehicle type. A person should buy a car that fits their needs. If you need to drive hundreds of miles per day, a BEV is probably not the right choice. Most people don’t drive that much. If you need something for around town commuting and errands, BEVs are great. If your region has fast charge infrastructure like the West Coast Electric Highway in Oregon and Washington, then a BEV can do even more. If you want a plug-in car with long range then a PHEV or a Tesla Model S might work.

           

Range: It is not a matter of ignoring it. It is a matter of understanding it. 

8. Why do BEV advocates talk so much about the lack of hydrogen infrastructure? We’re in the earliest stages of FCV use. Saying that FCVs are “doomed” because of a lack of fueling points is like saying that the very first gasoline powered cars should never have succeeded. Infrastructure isn’t an insurmountable obstacle. No one had ever heard of a gas station in 1900.

The gas cars of 1900 had limited refueling infrastructure, but they were only competing with horses. FCVs today have to compete with gas, PHEV, and BEV options. A car is only as valuable as the utility it can provide. Today, there are more than 100,000 places to fill up a gas car and any outlet can be used for an EV. I can drive coast to coast with the Tesla supercharger network for free (with the purchase of an 85kWh Model S). I can drive a Nissan Leaf all over western Oregon because the area is blanketed in CHAdeMO charging stations.

If you search, you’ll find hundreds of articles from 2011 and 2012 that said that EVs would flop because of the chicken and egg problem of charging infrastructure. The difference is that BEVs can be plugged into any outlet (albeit slow) and for less than $1000 you can get a get a charging station in your garage. With FCVs, 'where to fill up?' really is a concern. No one is willing to go back to 1900.

           

No one is willing to suffer 1900 level of infrastructure. 

You have to have the freedom to drive wherever you want to go. FCVs can never be more than a niche product without a vast refueling infrastructure. BEVs have the advantage here because we already have a vast electricity network.

9. Why does Elon Musk criticize FCVs so regularly? If Musk is right and FCVs are “fool cells,” than he wouldn’t give them a second thought, right? Musk doth protest too much, don’t you think?

I'll speculate: Elon Musk has done his own research and reasoning and determined that if you look at the whole picture of energy needs, infrastructure, batteries, fuel cells… that for passenger vehicles, BEVs are the most likely long-term winner. Tesla Motors’ entire business plan is based on the success and growth of battery electric cars. If it turns out that FCVs are the technology winner, then Tesla will cease to exist as we know it.

10. Why can’t Tesla and Nissan Leaf fans just relax? What’s with all the hate? Even *if* battery packs become the best option for most cars, it’s likely that fuel cells will power pickup trucks, large SUVs, and probably even some cars too.
Can’t we all just get along?

FCVs are held up as the next great thing. The promise is that they have all the performance of an EV with none of the range concerns or recharge time hassles. But that is not the whole story. Rather FCVs are used as a “spoiler” to EVs. FCVs are the promise of tomorrow, that never delivers. Even the FCVs that are coming out now, they will only have a handful of deliveries, enough to make some press hype and not much more. The message is “just keep driving gas cars until FCVs are ready”. We don’t have time to wait any longer. PHEV/BEV solutions are here today. Five years from now, FC advocates will still be making promises about growing the infrastructure and the coming price drops just like they have been since 1960. If Lucy keeps moving the football, eventually Charlie Brown will just go play soccer instead. The public money that will soon be spent building-out H2 infrastructure could build 10X the amount of fast charge EV infrastructure. An “all of the above” policy means that neither EVs nor FCVs will receive the funding that they need to become a serious threat to the incumbent, reigning champion, gasoline. If you want a real solution to driving with lower emissions today, then plug-in vehicles are the way to go and any empty promise that delays that needs to be swept aside.

EVs The Oregon Way: Selling Cars Without State Incentives

Oregon's Chief EV Officer recently laid out the plan that her state has been using to make EVs successful there and (spoiler alert) it is not big cash incentives.

This presentation was given at Canada's largest EV conference, the EV2014VÉ Conference & Trade Show, in Vancouver, BC. Canada currently has aboot 10,000 plug-in cars registered today and a nice projected growth curve shown below:

Back to "EVs The Oregon Way". At the conference Oregon's very own Chief EV Officer, my friend, Ashley Horvat from the Oregon Department Of Transportation, gave an overview of strategies that she's using to promote EVs in the state. Below is my paraphrasing and elaboration of the presentation. I'd like to clarify that this is in no way a dictation of her presentation, it is, rather, ideas that she inspired or my interpretation of what she said. So if you find something insightful or clever below, it is something she said. If you find something erroneous or disagreeable, I get credit for that.

Ashley Horvat,
Oregon's Chief EV Officer

Point 1 - Infrastructure Increases the Utility (and Therefore the Value) of EVs

A recent study by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that there are five states with EV sales which are 2-4 times higher than the national average. The states are Washington, California, Hawaii, Georgia, Oregon, and Colorado. The high EV sales can generally be correlated to state EV incentives. Washington waives a 6.5% sales tax (about $2000 on a $30,000 car), California has a $2500 incentive (plus HOV lane access), Hawai'i has a $4500 incentive, and Georgia has a whopping $5000 incentive for EVs.

It doesn't take a study to know that reducing the price of something by thousands of dollars will increase sales. The one outlier state on this top-5 list, however, is Oregon. Oregon does not have a tax rebate for buying an EV*. All that Oregon has today is a small 25% incentive for a residential charging station (and you can skip the DEQ test).

Based on 2013 electric vehicle registration data provided by IHS Automotive

* Oregon had a $750 EV incentive in 2011 and 2012, but this was discontinued in 2013.

How does Oregon make it on a list with states that offer $2000+ incentives? The state's green ethos helps, but the real reason is because of the EV charging infrastructure that's in-place in Oregon today. This infrastructure makes EVs *more valuable* here.

Oregon (at least western Oregon, where most of the state's population lives) is swimming in EV charging stations:

Oregon EV Charging Infrastructure, November 2014, via PlugShare

Having a vast EV charging infrastructure network, specifically a fast charge, means that EVs can go more places. They are not restricted to just what they can do with overnight charging. This makes them appeal to a larger segment of the car-buying population.

Incentives alone cannot increase the market size for EVs. Without an infrastructure to support them, EVs are only useful within a radius of 50% of their range. In such infrastructure barren areas battery electric EVs, even long range EVs, will only appeal to diehard few.

Tesla Motors understands this. That is why they are building a charging network across the US and in countries around the world to support their vehicles.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying EVs are worthless without infrastructure; just that they are more valuable with it. I drove an EV from 2007 until 2011 using home charging almost exclusively. It was great for commuting and errands and most of my annual miles were logged in my electric Chevy truck. Road trips, however, were out the the question. In 2011, when a Nissan Leaf replaced the electric truck, fast charge infrastructure allowed my to start taking trips like this one or this one.

           

EVs are not worthless without infrastructure. 
They are just more valuable with it.

Think about it this way, if you were interested in buying something, and you were on the fence about it, there are two primary ways to convince you make the purchase: one, reduce the cost; two, increase the value. State incentives are the first method, deploying EV infrastructure is the second method.

Discounts can only get you so far. For example, if I offer to sell you dog food but you don't have a dog, you are not likely to buy it, even if I offer it at half price. The product has to meet your needs. If you want people to spend their own money on a car, it has to be able to meet their transportation needs. Fast charge infrastructure enables EVs to meet many more transportation needs or scenarios.

Point 2 - Where You Put The Infrastructure Matters

Horvat told the story of the West Coast Electric Highway (WCEH) collaborative. Oregon, Washington, and California agreed to create the West Coast Electric Highway on Interstate 5 (I-5). I-5 is the major artery of the US west coast. On the ~1500 miles of I-5, you can drive from San Diego to Seattle while passing through all the major population centers of the West Coast. Making this a fast charge corridor enables much of the West Coast population to make EV roadtrips.

Oregon jumped into the WCEH project with both feet. Fast charge stations were installed every 30 to 40 miles along I-5 in Oregon. On July 4th 2012, Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley set off on an all-electric border to border drive across Oregon.

Horvat didn't stop there. Next she worked with Travel Oregon to find day trips to electrify. These scenic loops can be strung together to make longer drives. This effort put fast charging in the Columbia Gorge, the Oregon coastline, Mt. Hood, and Oregon Wine Country. This enabled EV tourism in the state without concerns about running out of charge.

Horvat pointed out that you need a deployment plan, “Don’t just give a charging station to the first place to raise their hand.”. In haste to deploy stations to spend grants or budgets by given deadlines, this happens all too often. A smattering of stations is not as useful as a well planned network.

Point 3 - Err on the Side of Action

There is no clear blueprint for mass deployment of EV infrastructure. Even when you do make detailed plans, there will be complications. It is important that you keep moving forward. One example in Oregon is the town of Elsie. This little town is between Portland and Seaside. It would be the perfect place for a fast charge station. However, they don't have the needed electrical service. Routes to other beach towns: Astoria, Tillamook, and Lincoln City were established from Portland. Once you are on the coastline, there are charging station all along the coast as far south as Port Orford.

This makes Seaside accessible from Portland, not ideal, but still possible. Elsie would still be a good spot for a charging station and maybe one will eventually be installed there. We have not given up. Until then, there’s no point in complaining about it. It’s much better to make the most of the resources you've got. Make a plan and err on the side of action.

Point 4 - Have a Dedicated Mission Control

Achieving something like this is very involved. Doing it right is a fulltime job. There are permits, electrical service considerations, signs, site hosts, partners, grants, contractors, vendors, parts ordering, government agencies, money management... You need someone with project management skills. You need someone with people skills that site hosts can talk to when they have questions. You need someone to drive consistency. You need single point of contact, a single voice of direction. In Oregon's case, that voice is Ashley Horvat, the EV Chief Officer at the Oregon Department of Transportation.

You also have to document things. Procedures need to be written down and lessons learned need to be applied the next time a charging station is planted. Horvat has published white-papers explaining the methods that Oregon has used and she gives presentations at conferences like this one in Canada.

Jerome Kersey and Ashley Horvat
on the Plug & Pinot Tour 

Point 5 - Create a Brand & a Consistent Experience

Horvat and team created an appealing West Coast Electric Highway (WCEH) brand. They defined the experience for a WCEH charging locations. EV drivers should immediately recognize the signage, colors, and station design at every location. The procedures for charging is the same at every location. The charging stations themselves must stand out. There is always at least one CHAdeMO and one Level 2 station. Think Starbucks or McDonalds in terms of consistency. There are variations from location to location, but the standard menu items are always there.

Point 6 - Create Buzz

She wrapped a presentation with a video about an Oregon marketing initiative: the Plug and Pinot Tour starring former Trail Blazer star Jerome Kersey. Horvat persuaded this towering 6'7" athlete to take a Nissan Leaf on an electrified Oregon wine tasting tour. The routes were published and the wineries offered free charging. A small herd of EVs caravanned from one winery to the next, sipping pinot while they charged and reporters snapped pictures. The effort was supported and promoted by several wineries and the story showed up in several local news outlets announcing that EV tourism had come to Oregon.

Jerome Kersey plugging in on the Plug & Pinot Tour
with solar panels and grape fields in the background

In Summary

More than just cash incentives can be used to increase EV sales. In fact, direct incentives may not even be the best use of public funds if mass adoption is the goal. A robust, reliable EV charging network increases the number of car buyers that will consider buying an EV.

If you want EVs to be popular in your region/state, then that local government has to take EV-policy seriously from the Governor down to the local administrator. You need focused EV leadership that can establish direction and drive consistency.

Err on the Side of Action. A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow. Get something done and talk about it. Create a brand and buzz. EVs are an exciting new technology that offer a new way to power personal transportation. This is a once-in-a-lifetime transformation. Tell the story.