Switching Gears: The Petroleum-Powered Electric Car

Published by River Grove Books

Austin, Texas

www.rivergrovebooks.com

Copyright ©2020 Dan K. Eberhart

All rights reserved.

Thank you for purchasing an authorized edition of this book and for complying with copyright law. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the copyright holder.

Distributed by River Grove Books

For ordering information or special discounts for bulk purchases, please contact Greenleaf Book Group at PO Box 91869, Austin, TX 78709, 512.891.6100.

Design and composition by Greenleaf Book Group

Cover design by Greenleaf Book Group

Cover image ©Angelatriks. Used under license from Shutterstock.com.

For permission to reproduce copyrighted material, grateful acknowledgments is made to the following sources:

From That Tesla Battery Emissions Study Making the Rounds? It’s Bunk by Ezra Dyer, from Popular Mechanics, June 22, 2017. Copyright © 2017 by Hearst Publications. Reproduced by permission of Hearst Publications. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/

From Bad Karma: Fisker’s Government-Funded Failure from Consumer Reports, March 8, 2012. Copyright © 2012 by Consumer Reports. Reproduced by permission of the copyright holder. https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2012/03/bad-karma-our-fisker-karma-plug-in-hybrid-breaks-down/index.htm

Map Registration and Title Fees by State. Copyright © 2018 by National Conference of State Legislatures. Reproduced by permission of the copyright holder.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/registration-and-title-fees-by-state.aspx

Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication data is available.

Print ISBN: 978-1-63299-323-6

eBook ISBN: 978-1-63299-324-3

First Edition

CONTENTS

Introduction

Part I: The Debate: Cars, Carbons, and Climate

Chapter 1: Climate Change Wars: EV versus O&G

Chapter 2: Carbon à la Carte: The Transportation Smorgasbord

Chapter 3: Energy In/Energy Out: EV’s Carbon Footprint

Chapter 4: It’s Complicated: Climate Change, CO2, and Cost

Chapter 5: The King Is Dead. Long Live the King

Chapter 6: Are Subsidies Ludicrous?

Chapter 7: China in the Driver’s Seat —or Not

Part II: The Cars: EV Options and Ownership

Chapter 8: EV Automakers: Making It or Breaking It

Chapter 9: What Consumers Don’t Like (or Think They Don’t)

Chapter 10: Costs and Savings: Hype versus Reality

Part III: The Details: Charging Batteries, Roads, and . . . Plastics?

Chapter 11: Infrastructure: If You Build It, They Will Come

Chapter 12: Conflict Chemistry: Rare Earth Mining and Range Anxiety

Chapter 13: Roads: Hey, Are You Going to Pay for That?

Chapter 14: Plastics and Friends: The Marriage of EVs and O&G

Part IV: The Future: The World in 2040

Chapter 15: Forecast Troubles: The Number Kerfuffle

Chapter 16: Let’s Make (Up) a Date

Chapter 17: The Future Is Coming

Conclusion

Notes

INTRODUCTION

On a Midwestern morning in 1890, a young chemist by the name of William Morrison rolled the first successful electric car out of his shop in Des Moines, Iowa. Little more than a six-passenger electrified wagon, this vehicle could cruise at a top speed of 14 miles per hour.

At the time, motorists in the United States had essentially three options if they wanted to upgrade from their old nag: steam, gasoline, or electricity. Steam, the energy source that had been powering factories and propelling trains for years, was foraying into self-propelled vehicles. Gasoline had gained popularity as the technology of internal combustion engines improved. And electricity was becoming easier for average consumers to access.

Electricity soon became the energy source of choice for many new drivers, who either didn’t feel like waiting the long time required to start up a steam engine or had a hard time hand-cranking the gasoline engine. (Here’s where the roadster’s nickname runabout came from: The driver had to crank the handle to start the car, then run about the car while avoiding the puff of smoke emanating from the engine.)

The four-horsepower 1890 Morrison Electric was powered by twenty-four storage battery cells, which Morrison had designed himself. The batteries, mounted under the front seat, could produce 112 amperes at 58 volts. The whole setup took ten hours to recharge.¹ And it’s reported that the Morrison could run up to one hundred miles without recharging.

Soon, demand for electric vehicles (EVs) grew—especially among city dwellers, whose access to electricity was growing. Just before the turn of the century, New York City pedestrians could hail more than 60 electric taxis. And by 1900, electric cars made up a third of all vehicles on the road across the nation.

Around the same time, the new Ford Motor Company introduced the assembly line, an efficient innovation that streamlined automobile production and lowered costs. By 1912, average car costs had really begun to diverge: The average internal combustion engine (ICE) car cost $650, while the average electric roadster price tag was more than twice as much at $1,750.²

That wasn’t the only thing to diverge. While roadways continued to improve, connecting urban centers and winding through sparsely populated small-town U.S.A, gasoline filling stations sprang up like weeds along newly paved highway systems. Meanwhile, access to electricity outside major urban centers remained limited, with no significant growth expected.

And at this metaphorical fork in the road, ICEs sped into the lead, leaving their electric counterparts in the dust and without a charge in sight. Production of EVs stalled out as consumers opted in increasing numbers for the more affordable and reliable ICEs. By 1935, William Morrison and the earliest EVs had faded into obscurity.

The EV story was over. Or so we thought.

In 1997, as worldwide concerns about emissions grew, Japan rolled out the Toyota Prius hybrid. Two years later, in 1999, the Prius came to the United States. Other vehicle manufacturers at home and abroad followed suit. And then the 2006 San Francisco International Auto Show saw a young Silicon Valley–based company called Tesla Motors unveil the Roadster, the first commercially produced automobile powered by a lithium-ion battery.³

Of course, one vehicle does not a revolution make—especially given the high cost of entry: The first Roadster was priced at nearly $100,000— well beyond reach of the average American. By 2009, though, most major car manufacturers had leapt into the fray, spending billions on designing more energy- and battery-efficient EVs in anticipation of big market demand. Companies like Nissan, Chevy, and Honda released EVs aimed at middle-class buyers.

Soon after that, the first EV battery wars began, pitting the hydrogen fuel cell against the superconducting lithium battery, and the aluminum-air battery against the new graphene battery, all vying to be the prominent technology for new vehicles. The still-experimental graphene technology uses coatings of very fine carbon on battery poles to boost electrical conductivity, which could potentially increase power production for electric vehicles, as will heavy-duty aluminum-air batteries that utilize aluminum-coated anodes.

Today, EVs are slowly gaining acceptance. They evoke promises of new energy sources and cleaner vehicles. They are the holy grail of energy solutions: power without fossil fuel—or so it appears.

The transportation industry’s new rock stars are radical entrepreneurs with visions that could change the landscape of energy as radically as computers have changed the landscape of communication.

The future has never seemed more like science fiction. We’ve seen hydrogen fuel-cell-powered trains (hydrail), autonomous drones, and the first prototypes and working models of electric jets and vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicles. The people’s taxi company, Uber, vows that its Elevate program will lift intercity EVs to the sky,⁴ and smaller startups have demonstrated ingenious contraptions for human-powered flight.

The world is on a precipice of energy innovation. Which way will the cards fall? As we strive toward cleaner fuels, which technologies will rise to prominence, leaving competitors as mere sidenote filler for Wikipedia stubs and trivia questions? Will the Tesla Roadster and the Nissan Leaf go the way of the Morrison Electric? Will EVs find themselves as the losing tech once again, akin to Beta to VHS or Sega Dreamcast to Sony PlayStation?

Or are EVs back for real, this time?

Certainly, Bloomberg New Energy Finance believes in the EV revolution. It predicts that a whopping 530 million EVs will be hitting the highways by 2040, up from about 2 million EVs today. Morgan Stanley’s analysts say EVs will account for 50 to 60 percent of global light-vehicle sales by 2040. Those EVs could displace millions of barrels of fossil fuels.

Yet, even as we continue our journey to our new and improved energy mix, the path forward is complex.

Global GDP will nearly double between 2018 and 2040, as consumption and population grow.⁵ The earth is expected to add the equivalent of another China—1.3 billion people—by 2050, making an all-EV world harder to attain. Population growth produces unprecedented levels of trade, commerce, and traffic, adding hugely to the numbers and movement of people and goods around the planet.

Worldwide, petroleum demand is expected to grow by an average of 1.2 million barrels per day each year until 2022. Furthermore, the United States is projected to dominate oil and gas markets for years to come as the shale boom virtually guarantees the biggest supply surge in history.⁶

As the demand for energy grows, many people are turning to EVs to provide cleaner energy options for transportation. However, EV battery technology requires invasive mining of rare earths. These are seventeen elements so classified in the periodic table:

The rare earths are much in demand for magnetic and electronic components in cars, laptops, cell phones, power tools, and all manner of precision digital equipment. The rare earth mining process, as has been amply demonstrated in China, can damage local environments with toxic chemicals (specifically ammonium sulfates and acid baths pumped into wells) as much as or more than digging for coal or fracking oil or natural gas.⁷

In addition, an emissions-free EV can never truly be emissions-free, partially because of emissions created through the manufacturing process and certainly if the electricity used to charge it is produced by coal or other conventional sources. What’s more, traditional gasoline-powered cars and trucks are becoming much more energy-efficient. Even today, smaller smart cars and clean diesel vehicles already offer 40 miles per gallon (mpg) and higher, as do 4 million hybrid electric-gas vehicles operating in the United States.

Politically, as well, the road to EV adoption is rocky. While those who believe EVs are a clear answer to climate change push for government subsidies, others argue that the government should leave consumers in the driver’s seat and let the free market decide. Those against government spending on EVs also point out that although most experts agree lifetime EV emissions are currently lower than their ICE counterparts, the jury is still out as to whether EVs are a cost-efficient means for emissions reduction.⁸

Sometimes decisions seem to be more about image than science. No one wants to be seen as a climate enemy, and so countries are swept forward by political tides, often without pausing to carefully consider whether using taxpayer money to fund EVs is a reasonable way to meet emissions goals. Consider that one recent study actually found EV subsidies to cause increases in carbon emissions.⁹

Unfortunately, as countries swarm to set dates for banning ICE sales (Norway in 2025; Scotland by 2032; France and the United Kingdom by 2040, to name a few¹⁰), they seem to be doing so with little regard as to whether these dates are realistic or, in fact, even necessary. And it’s interesting to note that, in the face of all these ambitious proposals, none of this passionate drive (pun intended) has yet amounted to official legislation. There is literally not a single ban on the books in regulatory language that is enforceable in any auto market in the world, Nic Lutsey, director of the International Council on Clean Transportation, pointed out in August 2018.¹¹

Free market advocates suggest we let the market choose the winning technologies. Successful low-emissions technologies will be those that are innovated in the true spirit of American capitalism: We should not let the government choose for us which technologies we need, but rather let the entrepreneurs pitch us the best solutions. The market will decide, and it will be good. Just as cell phones did not need government subsidies despite huge infrastructure and habit-changing barriers, the winning automobile solutions will not need subsidies to become popular.

On the other hand, EV subsidy supporters argue that climate change is coming too fast, and because the EV tech is not yet cost competitive with ICEs (EVs are still much more expensive), only government intervention can move us quickly toward an adoption that is necessary to save the planet from ecological catastrophe.

For a successful energy revolution, we must learn from our mistakes, solve our puzzles, and carefully consider our results, as we work toward a future that allows us to be conscientious, powerful, and energy-savvy all at the same time.

Jules Verne said, Science, my lad, has been built upon many errors; but they are errors which it was good to fall into, for they led to the truth.¹²

Like any new technology, EVs come with a learning curve. There will be mistakes, miscalculations, and missteps along the way. There will be hyperbole from EV supporters and detractors and from across the political spectrum.

This book is an attempt to sort fact from fiction, to examine the mistakes, as well as the amazing steps forward.

The EV story is not over.

Let us begin.

PART I

THE DEBATE

CARS, CARBONS, AND CLIMATE

CHAPTER 1

CLIMATE CHANGE WARS:

EV VERSUS O&G

It is arguably one of the most memorable scenes in American film history. Howard Beale, fictional TV anchor in the Academy Award–winning movie Network, learns that he’s being let go, just minutes before what turns out to be his final evening broadcast. With cameras rolling, he devolves from unsettled to unhinged. His epic, on-camera meltdown ends with what became a semi-farcical mantra in the late 1970s:

I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!

Some 40 years later, not only is that catchphrase still around, but it’s also been adapted to modern times. Whatever anger was brewing in America late last century has percolated into full-blown fury. While Beale railed specifically against inflation, the Russians, and crime in the streets, in today’s politically charged atmosphere, we’re now outraged about nearly everything.

We are an agitated people.

It should surprise no one that the debate over climate change—Is it real? Is it man-made? How bad is it? Who’s to blame?—has turned into a cultural touchstone. If you don’t believe in the idea that climate change is man-made, well, off with your head! The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement further stoked the fire.

From coffee hour at the local doughnut shop to full-chamber debates on the Senate floor, discussions about climate change too often move quickly from polite conversation to full-throated cries: My side is right and your side is stupid. We’ve gone from asking, Why do you think that way? to "How can you possibly think that way!" This reaction does more than shut down open, honest conversation. It feeds the ire and inspires left-right conflict and science motivated by politics instead of truth.

It wasn’t always this way. Before the term climate change had even entered the public consciousness, presidential candidate George H. W. Bush, making a stump speech in Michigan, discussed the importance of treating land, water, and air with care, saying, These issues know no ideology, no political boundaries. It’s not a liberal or conservative thing we’re talking about.¹

What happened? How did environmental issues become politicized? And is there any way back?

Seeing the World Through Different Lenses

It’s not easy to winnow out exactly how, why, or when climate change became an intractably divisive issue, but it does clearly cut across party lines.

An April 2018 Pew Research study indicated wide political divides over the effects of climate policy. That includes how they view one of the key climate quarrels: whether oil and gas have a place in an ostensibly zero-emission future. For one thing, Pew found that 66 percent of liberals said policies aimed at reducing climate change are beneficial for the environment, compared with 27 percent of conservatives. On the flip side, conservatives see more risk to the economy: Fifty-seven percent responded that such policies are economically detrimental, while only 14 percent of liberals expressed these opinions.

But before they can agree on that topic, they have to reach détente on the science behind the debate. And that seems unlikely, especially given that partisanship is a stronger factor in people’s beliefs about climate change than is their level of knowledge and understanding about science.²

When the Green New Deal (GND), a campaign spearheaded by Democrats to eliminate carbon emissions, hit the congressional floor, the result was expectedly contentious. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced a fourteen-page resolution in February 2019 calling for the United States to transition to 100 percent renewable, zero-emission energy sources within ten years. Support—and backlash—followed party lines: Congressional Democrats and liberal environmental groups jumped on the bandwagon, while President Donald Trump and other Republicans deemed it impossible at best. Mark Mills, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, went so far as to call the measures immoral.³

Clearly, beliefs regarding the impact of fossil fuel emissions—something individual choices can influence through, say, driving habits—are disparate. Here, more than half of liberal Democrats say if more people drive hybrid and electric vehicles, it will make a difference. As for conservative Republicans, less than a quarter think it matters at all.

It doesn’t take a research team to verify that maybe, just maybe, opinions on the value of electric versus gasoline-powered cars have something to do with how the respondent views America’s oil and natural gas industry.

Granted, not every liberal shares fracktivist Bernie Sanders’s vituperative desire to shut down the entire industry. One only has to read the balanced April 11, 2016, New York Times op-ed by Gary Sernovitz, a managing director of Lime Rock Management, to understand how a self-identified liberal can nonetheless appreciate the industry in general and fracking in particular. Sernovitz goes so far as to say that the American shale revolution advanced causes dear to most liberals’ hearts⁴—boosting employment, reducing poverty, keeping billions out of human rights–denying petro states, and reducing toxic greenhouse gases. In fact, because the natural gas unleashed by fracking can produce the same amount of electricity as coal with half the carbon dioxide emitted, coal has been increasingly displaced for use in electricity generation. The United States now leads the world in carbon-emissions reduction.

Even President Obama commended the contributions of domestic oil and gas production during his years in office. In his 2013 State of the Union address, for example, he said, in part, After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in fifteen years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas . . . [and] we produce more natural gas than ever before—and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.⁴

Still, whether their beliefs are accurate or not, one need only look to the headlines to see that liberals often view the energy industry as backward, resistant to change, and more likely to cause environmental problems. The alternative energy industry? It’s populated by altruists who have Earth’s best interests at heart, they say. Republicans see oil and gas companies as an engine for economic growth and believe that abundant and affordable energy is the key to national security and prosperity.

The fact is the issue isn’t black or white . . . but many shades of green.

Bulls, Beasts, and False Promises

Let’s take a closer look at some of the assertions in support of electric vehicles (EVs), which are being hailed as the solution to everything from air quality—particularly in urban areas where pollution belching vehicles poison the lungs of humans forced to share the streets with them⁵—to economic growth.

New Jersey, a state more often associated with the smog over Newark than the verdant farmland worthy of the name Garden State, has an awful lot to gain by tapping into the EV market. At least that’s the promise of an analysis presented at a December 2017 roundtable reported on—and sponsored by—NJ Spotlight.⁶

The research suggests that the emerging EV market in New Jersey could result in more than $2 billion in net economic benefits by 2035, even when the cost of installing the infrastructure and enhancing the electric power grid are taken into account. Mark Warner, whose company conducted the study, said that the widespread adoption of EVs will profoundly alter the electric-power market—and that’s where the savings will accrue.

EVs are going to flatten out the energy load of the entire grid, largely because most people will charge their cars at night, when the demand drops dramatically, Warner said. When you change the load curve, you change the cost of energy.

In a piece