TNR BLOGS

November 20, 2008 | 3:55 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:45 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:06 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

November 20, 2008 | 2:15 PM
November 20, 2008 | 1:52 PM
November 20, 2008 | 11:06 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
25.08.2008
The Future of the Electric Car

And the award for most intriguing energy story of the month goes to... well, August isn't over, but I'm nominating Wired's long profile of Shai Agassi, who's not quite the household name T. Boone Pickens is, but has an even more radical plan to end the planet's oil addiction. Agassi believes the future of transport revolves around electric cars—with a twist:

But oil, in the end, supplanted volts on American highways because of one perennial problem: batteries. Car batteries, then and now, are heavy and expensive, don't last long, and take forever to recharge. In five minutes you can fill a car with enough gas to go 300 miles, but five minutes of charging at home gets you only about 8 miles in an electric car. Clever tricks, like adding "range extenders"—gas engines that kick in when a battery dies—end up making the cars too expensive.

Agassi dealt with the battery issue by simply swatting it away. Previous approaches relied on a traditional manufacturing formula: We make the cars, you buy them. Agassi reimagined the entire automotive ecosystem by proposing a new concept he called the Electric Recharge Grid Operator. It was an unorthodox mashup of the automotive and mobile phone industries. Instead of gas stations on every corner, the ERGO would blanket a country with a network of "smart" charge spots. Drivers could plug in anywhere, anytime, and would subscribe to a specific plan—unlimited miles, a maximum number of miles each month, or pay as you go—all for less than the equivalent cost for gas. They'd buy their car from the operator, who would offer steep discounts, perhaps even give the cars away. The profit would come from selling electricity—the minutes.

There would be plugs in homes, offices, shopping malls. And when customers couldn't wait to "fill up," they'd go to battery exchange stations where they would pull into car-wash-like sheds, and in a few minutes, a hydraulic lift would swap the depleted battery with a fresh one. Drivers wouldn't pay a penny extra: The ERGO would own the battery.

The notion that car-owners would essentially rent their batteries is clever, but also radical: Auto companies would move out of the business of simply selling cars and into the business of selling entire transportation networks. Drivers might benefit, though: If a typical car-owner gets 20 miles per gallon and drives 15,000 miles per year, she'd pay $3,000 a year at the gas pump with $4 gas, compared with just $1,050 for the cost of electricity plus battery depreciation under Aggasi's plan. Obviously this network makes most sense for people with relatively short commutes—long road trips would pose a challenge—but then again, short trips make up a hefty chunk of all car travel.

Would it even work? Israel's the country to watch here: Shimon Peres is sold on Agassi's plan, the legislature is sharply reducing its 78 percent car tax for electric vehicles, Agassi has raised $200 million to build a national grid, and Renault is rolling out vehicles as early as next year, hoping to have 100,000 electric cars on the road by 2011. It's not surprising that Israel's leading the way—no country needs less lecturing about the dangers of oil dependency—but it's also a natural site to test out the idea, since most cars don't travel large distances anyway (the round-trip commute from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv is just 99 miles). 

Denmark, too, is looking closely at the plan, also with good reason—after all, the country's largest utility gets 18 percent of its energy from wind, but has nowhere to store the excess electricity. Car batteries are one tantalizing solution, since the cars would charge at night, when demand is lowest but wind is often blowing the hardest. Last year, the Department of Energy released a report suggesting that the United States could in theory replace 84 percent of all cars and light trucks with plug-in hybrids without building a single new power plant. If Agassi's plan does catch hold—and it's still very, very early—one side benefit could be an expanded market for intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. But apart from some stirring up interest in Hawaii, Agassi hasn't managed to sway American policymakers yet.

--Bradford Plumer

Posted: Monday, August 25, 2008 6:35 PM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

sdemuth said:

The business model here seems to be independent of the technology required.  If trickle charging everywhere you park you car works, then electric utilities can wire the parking lots of the country with pay-per-watthour chargers regardless of the ERGO idea.

And I'm deeply skeptical of the swap-a-battery plan.  This requires the complete commodification of battery technology - form factors, response characteristics, etc - over the entire country, and over long time spans.  Feasible in Israel, maybe - although the multi-decode commitment could cause it to fail even there.  In the US?  I wouldn't bet my retirement on it.

August 25, 2008 2:53 PM

dylanposer said:

The notion that the vehicle and the transportation network can be merged and sold in one package must be tantalizing to Detroit.  Do we know their take on this, or can they even afford a PR guy at this point?

August 25, 2008 6:20 PM

r-ennis said:

Swapping batteries makes a lot of sense. Similar to swapping propane tanks in principle. But, I think  

the plug-in hybrid will be the electric car of choice.  

August 26, 2008 9:00 AM

JRBehrman said:

This is, indeed, the sort of scheme that would work in Finland, Denmark, Israel, and other very small countries where <i>public utilities</i> are "well regulated", in effect, by a competent and patriotic militia-type army, not "de-regulated" by a predatory regime of bond-lawyers, paper-hangers, and their political protectorate.

Battery-centric transportation makes sense even there, though, if and only if there are industrial policies reflecting the realities of global competition in capital, commodity, and industrial goods, not a mix of cowboy capitalism and Anglo-Austrian navalism. This political constraint may be a problem for Israel, for instance, so long as it remains an Anglo-American client-state.

In Anglo-America, we have debt-ridden WWII-vintage and "Cold War" electric grids that make no sense at all today<i>plus</i> a mish-mash of transportation modalities all based on WWI-vintage assumptions of "cheap oil". These are now reinforced by the corporate entitlement to government subsidiy for future "growth" designed to become government liability for financial institutions' past improvidence.

So, how do we do anything in Anglo-America on the margin of public or private enterprise by extending "hold harmless" protection to all of that and by focusing "creative destruction" on devastation of household budgets and savings? Do we have any patriotic institutions of national economic security or development?

The best hope I see right now is a kind of "arbitrage" where clever mechanics operating outside the scope of <a HREF="texaskaos.com/showDiary.do TARGET="_blank>The Predator State<a> at least begin to implement alternative fuel strategies using hybrid drive-trains and HVAC systems based on direct absorbtion refrigeration, co-generation of direct-current, and micro-grid regulation. This entails fine-scale and robust integration of complementary technologies.

Where is the lobby for that today?

I recall some of it from my experience as a young man in obscure parts of the Cold War ordnance sector where, say, Admiral Rickover, Admiral Hopper, Colonel Boyd, and a few others were able to work outside the "convergence" of "military Keynesianism" and Soviet planning. But, they are all dead, replaced by a cult of civil-military management, a virtual nobility of chichenhawk policy peddlers and financial engineers. These have been annointed by a clerical estate esconsed on the SCOTUS, the envy of both political parties, not really an alternative on any ballot.

August 26, 2008 10:31 AM

jhildner said:

I don't quite understand this.  He's proposing pure electric cars but with widely available charging stations.  Okay, fine.  But I don't think the American public will buy pure electric cars in large volumes because they still have limited range before needing a lengthy charge.  I doubt swapping out the battery will be an easy alternative to filling a gas tank in the foreseeable future.  (Won't faster charging technologies come first anyway?)  People want a car with the range and flexibility of cars today, and not very many will accept a downgrade on that score.  What's wrong with plug-in series hybvrids?  They're too expensive, says this guy.  Yes, for now.  Good pure electric cars without the engine aren't cheap either.  (The expensive bit is the battery.)  In any case, the plug-ins aren't on the road yet, and the application is new.  Is there any reason to think that the usual effect of time -- more volume, further tech advancement -- won't bring down that cost?  As consumers get used to electric cars -- which plug-in series hybrids are -- and an infrasturcture starts to get built up to accommodate their plugs away from one's house, perhaps there'll be room for downmarket electric cars without the gas-powered on-board generator, but the Chevy Volt-type concept strikes me as the near-term winner.  Costs will be pretty high in the early going, but if the product is a good one, tax incentives bring the cost down, GM can do good volume on it perhaps by selling it as a loss-leader to start with, we'll see more of this type, perhaps some that don't quite go as far as the Volt on a charge but offer commensurate savings.  (The goal is 40 miles for the Volt, probably a bit less at highway speeds.  Many, many commutes are significantly shorter than this both ways.  But selling the wow product first, even if it's more expensive, strikes me as good sense.)

What's more, I don't quite get the business model.  The ERGO buys or manufactures cars and batteries, and it buys or generates the electricity, and it builds and maintains the infrastructure.  Where is the profit in this equation that allows them to "give the cars away" except by selling the electricity (or miles or whatever the unit is) at ridiculous-seeming prices?  Cell phones are given away because the profit is in the contract, but, crucially, the cell phone -- especially the ones that are given away -- are cheap releative to the cost of building and running the network.  (Similarly, Ma Bell's phones, which were owned by the Bell System, were relative trifles.)  Here, we're talking about something that costs *a lot* to design, manufacture and support.  It sounds all future-y, but I'm not sure tying the car to the service provider, and paying as you go for usage in a cell phone like way, will seem attractive to the consumer.  People don't really like that model, even for their cell phones, which they typically don't like either.

August 26, 2008 2:36 PM

Environment and Energy said:

&gt;Carbon taxes are useless! Okay, not really, but that might be one takeaway of a great piece by Leila

October 1, 2008 11:30 AM