Editor's note: High Gear Media wants you to write for us. Here's what happens when you do--you get published alongside the pros, if your post is smart, well-written, and (for GreenCarReports.com) has the goods on the greenest of wheels. Want to be our next contributor? Check us out, sign up, and join us on more than 40 sites in the auto world's fast lane.
With the 2011 Chevrolet Volt and the Toyota Prius Plug-In Hybrid coming to the market within the next two years, how soon can we expect plug-in hybrids to deliver on their social and ecological benefits? A new study by the National Academy of Sciences projects significant fuel savings and emissions reductions by 2030.
Is this soon enough? Some say this is a pessimistic, though realistic scenario. I believe, however, that the study makes some flawed assumptions and that it is still too early to predict market acceptance behavior.
According to the study, the main reason why we should not expect significant penetration of plug-in hybrid vehicles before 2030 is because of the price differential. A plug-in hybrid with a 10-mile electric range, such as the Toyota Prius Plug-In, is expected to add $6,000 to the sticker price. A plug-in hybrid with a 40-mile electric range, such as the 2011 Chevrolet Volt, is expected to add $18,000 to the sticker price.
Given current fuel prices and government support, the study projects 13 million plug-in hybrids by 2030 (out of 300 million vehicles on U.S. roads by then).
There are some fundamental assumptions in this study, however, that I believe detract from the validity of this prediction. First, the study assumes that the price of oil will remain below $4 a gallon in the United States up to 2030. This is highly unlikely, considering the recent volatile oil price hike to more than $4 a gallon in 2008.
The study also assumes that government support for plug-in vehicles will remain the same until 2030. Again, this is highly unlikely considering that government support has increased considerably for plug-in vehicles even within the last year.
We should also keep in mind that current subsidies for the oil industry total $10 billion a year. Given the need for domestic energy security now and in the future, it is reasonable to foresee more of the oil subsidy funding going towards technologies that increase renewable electric generation and usage here in the United States.
So what is the more likely scenario for plug-in hybrids? To be honest, I believe that the price of oil (which is affected by global demand) will be the key determinant for market behavior towards plug-in hybrids. We have seen this to be the case with hybrid electric vehicles in the past. Within the past five years, Toyota has experienced demand for the Prius exceed supply during times of high oil prices.
It should also be noted that the authors of this study are also strong supporters of hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles. They argue that a portfolio approach, which includes biofuels, hydrogen fuel, and plug-in vehicles, offer the most potential for achieving fuel and emission savings. But if this is the case, then the same obstacles for plug-in vehicles, sticker price and the need for more government support, also exist for biofuel and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles.
Rather than single out one technology out for not having more near-term potential, it would have been wiser to look at the alternative vehicle technology sector as a whole.
We have a new future ahead of us. We have a new generation of drivers who want more than just cheap mobility from a dirty energy source. This is the first time in automotive history that we have options to the highly inefficient internal combustion engine.
Even if we have "only" 13,000,000 plug-in vehicles by 2030, I believe that is a remarkable achievement. It is the beginning of a more significant future for the automobile's place in our society.
------------------------------
High Gear Media has partnered with Tesla Motors on a new writing contest where YOU can win a tour and road test of the 2010 Tesla Roadster Sport. You can submit as many articles as you like and enter multiple times. Enter now!
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!
By Shannon Arvizu Posted: 12/15/2009 3:43pm PST
By NRC is Always Wrong Posted: 12/15/2009 5:46pm PST
By jjpro Posted: 12/16/2009 9:59am PST
Batteries have many limitations and are currently available only to the rich, apparently. Why should the government keep sponsoring only a technology that has such limits? Let batteries succeed or fail in the marketplace just like every other technology.
Batteries' energy density is terrible, their performance degrades over time, and they are only as clean as the generation source of the electricity used to charge them. I, for one, am not going to wait 8-10 hours to "recharge" just to be able to travel under 100 miles.
The authors of the report work in all fields of alternative transportation technologies, and if some of them are supporters of fuel-cell electric vehicles, well hats off to them for supporting a technology that works, is clean, is extremely efficient, provides "recharging" times of less than 5 minutes, and is transparent to the end user. Hydrogen needs to be supported just as much or more as battery technologies are being supported.
It is not a "winner take all" scenario at this early stage, but all clean technologies need to be, and should be, given a chance to show their true colors.
By Spec Posted: 12/17/2009 11:05am PST
By JTak Posted: 12/21/2009 8:29am PST
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!