Electric Vehicle Summit in Los Angeles
My presentation at the Electric Vehicle Summit in Los Angeles this morning went very well – though I’m always happy when gigs like this are over.
To the degree to which I have a strength as a presenter, it’s the distance I go to try to make the content engaging. I know I’m not Barack Obama behind the microphone, so I try to make up for that shortcoming with material that will hold the attention of the audience.
Here, I started with:
“One of the great thinkers of the 20th Century said, ‘Life is either a thrilling adventure, or it’s nothing at all.’ And GOSH I love that!”
I went on to talk about why I thought that EV adoption is, in fact, a thrilling adventure, which I summarized as follows:
“I’m not sure mankind is actually very much the better for its dealings with the most profitable industries in America. Fast food sells low-nutrition garbage that leaves our kids fat and unhealthy. The most profitable sectors of the entertainment industry promote violence, drug abuse, promiscuity and criminality. Defense contractors build bombs. The pharma companies have no fewer than 8 million school children on Ritalin, and sell cures to diseases that don’t really exist. Ask your doctor if you could have restless fingernail syndrome. By the way, we’re one of only two countries on Earth that allows the drug companies to promote directly to gullible and uninformed/misinformed consumers.
“And the oil companies? We’ll get to them in a second.
“So along comes the EV industry, with cars that go 500,000 miles before they need so much as a tune-up, and, more importantly, offer the opportunity for truly clean transportation. No borrowing $1 billion each day for foreign crude, no acidified oceans, no $250 billion in annual costs to treat the lung disease caused by the aromatics of burning fossil fuels, no wars over oil.
“I just have to think that maybe this once the good guys can win. And now I’m going to tell you exactly how I think it’s going to happen…”
Here’s my full presentation if you’re interested — 35 slides that I paced to present at roughly a minute apiece. I like to keep ’em moving.
45 minutes later, after a fairly vigorous Q&A session, I sat down. The whole thing went over quite well, lots of positive comments at lunch, but again, I’m glad it’s behind me.
Really liked this piece – sorry I didn’t know about your presentation this morning. Congrats on having it (successfully) behind you!
Regards….
Jim Jenal
Founder & CEO – Run on Sun
Thanks, Jim — and keep up the good work at Run on Solar; I like your site there: http://www.RunOnSun.com.
Excellent slide show, Craig, I should like to see the presentation in its entirety – did you record it or transcribe it? I like all the great estimations about future adoption and – given the waiting lists for EV’s in the past – I have no doubt that ‘if they build them they will come’. Of particular interest is the way you conclude by acknowledging the ‘elephant in the room’ that bars the way to every rational solution for the human population – namely bribery. That is absolutely step one, without which this nation will never take step two.
I’m curious about your take on the mass media’s role (or lack thereof) in EV adoption and how that might change going foward.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t recorded. I think I’ll just do it again right here in my office and make a seat-of-pants video.
As usual, the media hasn’t done a good job reporting this story, as suggested by my slide in which the Wall Street Journal predicts sluggist/inconsequential EV sales. I think there’s a bit more to it than that, to say the least.
Craig,
Until the grid changes dynamically, it is far worse to drive an EV than it is to drive a similarly sized ICE vehicle. FAR FAR FAR worse.
It will be at least 2 decades before the above statement is no longer true for most of the country….
And currently the federal government is bribing people $7500 to try to encourage them to switch from oil to coal for their transportation – again very bad for the environment.
I know you believe this, Glenn, and I believe you’re sincere, but this flies in the teeth of every study that’s been published on the subject, one of which is here: http://images.pluginamerica.org/EmissionsSummary.pdf.
What we need is a level playing field where EV’s get the same benefits that Big Oil and the conventional car industries get – the same subsidies that anything that has to do with oil gets. This of course would be no different than the massive free land that was given to railroads back in the 19th century, and has been the traditional way that new businesses in America get off the ground.
Hello Mr. Shields,
thank you for the presentation. Very thoughtstimulating.
Unfortunately, electric mobility is a strongly disruptive technology, which is the sole reason, why none of the big players wants to jump on the wagon. There is so much capital tied in the production lines of ICE’s and the associated products, that if they would start a new vehicle platform it would make shareholders nervous at the the least, but more likely would seriously threaten the global economic viability of the entire industrie with all involved major players – and that sounds pretty serious, since a good part of revenue comes out of that industry.
The grid is no problem. Many people argue, that once the market for EV’s is booming, loads of new powerstations will have to be built to satisfy those greedy little electron – eaters. Well – the opposite is the case: Production of one litre of petrol chews up 2kWh of energy in the refinery alone – more likely to be 4kWh from well to wheel. Small ICE cars need about 5 litres/100km – totalling 20kWh of energy just to produce the fuel for 100km. And how many ICE cars do you know, that need 5 litres/100km? Right! Not that many at all! Already available EVs operate at 10 to 15kWh/100km and these are not even optimized with respect to consumption. So, unless we start building EV’s with driving resistances like brickwalls and the weight of a battle tank, we will be able to reduce the overall installed grid capacities in the long run. Charging over night helps balancing the grid in most scenarios – and that is completely without vehicle to grid considerations.
According to recent studies from England, Germany and France, range anxiety is only an issue in the first two weeks of ownership of an EV. For more than 97% of the users taking part in the testing, range restrictions where not relevant at the end of the survey. Coming from Germany, the “Angst” issue is well understood, as is the reluctance to accept new things. However, market penetration of EV’s will be gouverned by different factors than other “lifechanging technologies” such as the lightbulb or computers.
There was a change from using electric cars to ICE driven cars in the beginning of last century. Well, that happened within a few years and the gas station infrastructure was not even there. Today most houses have a socket connected to the grid – infrastructure is there at your hands. To go back to the somewhat simpler technology we used before ICE cars should not really take longer than that. Once the show is on the road, we will be there faster than anybody anticipated.
Greetings from germany, Roland
“Once the show is on the road, we will be there faster than anybody anticipated.” Yes, that’s exactly what I believe. And thanks for the “well to wheels” data. More here: http://images.pluginamerica.org/EmissionsSummary.pdf.
Great presentation, Greg. Congratulations.
I also liked Roland’s comments.
I found this article very interesting too:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/07/what-cleantech-should-know-about-chasm-crossing?cmpid=WindNL-Thursday-July28-2011
Greetings from Ottawa, Canada
Congrats on the presentation. The slides allow one to infer quite a bit of where you went on this. As far as my own personal opinion goes, I believe this is a classic case of requisite government intervention. We are all aware that certain activities do not begin or survive in a pure free market environment, and I believe the future of energy is one of them. Much has been written on how these energy (and other) paradigm shifts occur, and one of the common errors, via straight projections of prior events, is that such shifts will happen on an evolutionary basis. In this particular case, neither evolution nor the free market is our friend. Glad you are out there calling the emperor out on his apparel.
“…calling the emperor out on his apparel.”
Wow, I like that. Yes, in essence, I think many of the industry analysts have simply gotten this wrong. I predict an super-rapid adoption curve when a few of these factors come together. What happens when you get battery storage (perhaps Eos’ Zn-air) at $165/kwh combined with a sociologic inflection point that says “it’s cool to be green?” My advice? Get out of the way!
I meant Craig, not Greg 🙂
Good morning Craig,
I’m really backed up this morning and won’t have time to look at your full presentation until later but I had to comment quickly on your self-deprecating comparison of your presentation skills versus those of the president. I sure that if you were able to get through it without the use of a teleprompter, you were light-years more compelling than he could ever be!
Have a great day!
Bill
Thanks to you, and to the others who made similar comments. Actually, I do fairly well in public speaking. I emphasize that: FAIRLY well….
Please let un know if you have this presentaion with your voice in addition to the slides? Eventhough I read through the entire slides, I do not beleive your message comes cross.
Thanks
Soraya
Good info. You mentioned V2G which is the next big thing for EVs and Renewable Energy. http://www.v2g-101.com
Low cost of operating an EV are also big, about $1 of USA made electricity to go as far as 2 gallons of gas.No oil or oil changes, no transmission, no brake wear to speak of with Regenerative braking, no muffles,tune ups, air filter, etc My LEAF is paying for itself.
Regarding Glenn Doty’s comment that driving electric pollutes more than gasoline: I signed up for my utility’s green generation program at 100% so all my electricity comes from renewables like wind and hydro. My Volt is not polluting at all when it is running on electricity. Clean electricity costs just a little bit more than dirty coal electricity. The extra cost on a $50 electric bill is only $5. That’s quite a bargain. If everyone signed up for their electric company’s green generation program the utilities would be forced to convert entirely to renewables. We can make it happen! Surely anyone who can afford electricity can afford another $5 a month.
Congratulations on your presentation, Craig.
Public speaking is never easy! However, it’s a little easier if you are addressing a conference of attendees who are at least receptive to your message.
Like you, I am also obliged to address various conferences. Unfortunately, most of my audiences are fairly sceptical and even hostile! However, I find no matter what the audience, it helps to not introduce extraneous issues. Despite the old maxim of establishing common ground with an audience, by stating mom and apple pie clichés, such irrelevant material does not sell your message. (Although it makes the speaker more likable).
I have been involved in the development and promotion of Electric vehicles for nearly twenty years. I have witnessed the failures of many enthusiastic projects, and listened to the endless excuses of alternate energy advocates.
Therefore it comes as no surprise to discover that the biggest enemy to the adoption of EV technology, is the overly enthusiastic advocate! The more extreme of these folk are wild-eyed cranks seeking to vindicate some personal conspiracy theory to satisfy their own personality defects.
Extraneous issues ranging from oil company conspiracies, to Utopian social reorganisation, alienates mainstream public opinion. Treating the adoption of EV’s as a moral cause, is not only counter-productive, but irritating. This phenomenon is more pronounced in the USA. Probably due to the American tendency to see moral issues in everything, and the US love affair with personal transport.
The facts are simple. The most efficient and economic form of transport energy for the last 150 years has been Fossil Fuel. This is not disputable. The discovery of products able to be refined from from oil, revolutionised human civilisation and accelerated progress dramatically. The discovery of the uses for fossil fuel, has contributed more to human well-being than any other technology since the agrarian revolution.
But like every era, the Age of OIL is drawing to an end. Economic depletion and undesirable emissions, are restricting the use of oil to non transport uses. Gas is still viable in some parts of the world, but coal, although still plentiful, is becoming increasingly less economically viable.
Since the world population is disinclined to give up the benefits of private road transport, the automobile industry is left with a challenge. How to replace the Internal Combustion Engine, efficiently and economically?
There is no sinister plot by oil companies, Arab Sheiks and evil auto tycoons. Getting rid of Gasoline sales would increase the profits of Oil Companies, and prolong the life of expensive assets!
The real problem facing Auto-manufacturers is how to provide an economic, reliable, source of energy to equal gasoline and diesel.
Here’s, where the whole thing gets crazy!
Technically, the solution seems simple! The first cars were designed to run on electricity or bio-fuel. So why can’t they run on these fuels again?
If the usual conspiracy theories are ignored, the problems become easily identified. Bio-fuels require too much land and resources for too little energy return. Like all agri-products from bio-fuels suffer from crop unreliability. (The same can be said of technologies like hydrogen etc) Natural gas, (LPG or compressed) is marginally viable in some areas, but is not a long term solution.
The most promising technology is ‘electric’. The infrastructure already exists in the form of nation grids (with some additions and modifications). The electric motor or propulsion system is superior to ICE. In everyway the EV is superior all it’s competitors, except the crucial problem of energy storage. Battery technology is very primitive and the EV suffers accordingly. To build an efficient EV that will rival ICE is technically possible, but the automobile becomes very expensive.
EV’s are being produced and selling with limited success. The market is largely restricted to those willing to accept limited performance and range, in return for fuel savings and ethical choice, or Hybrids.
Hybrid technology ranges from mild electric technology designed to improve fuel saving in ICE vehicles, to REEV’s which are basically EV’s with a small ICE motor to re-charge the batteries (or help with hills, high speed etc). Hybrids are proving to be a very useful motoring compromise, and with more than 5 million hybrids on the road, hybrids are really helping to educate consumers of the potential advantages of EV technology.
The development of EV technology, is not helped by enthusiasts ranting on about a revolution for a technology still in it’s infancy. Nor is designing absurdly unrealistic vehicles, ‘Battery Swapping” or any other “popular Mechanic’s’ type solutions.
The solution is in the development of an economic and efficient energy storage unit. Billions of dollars in R&D is being spent searching for viable solution. Much of this R&D funding comes from oil companies, particularly alternate energy R&D.
This single technical development, and this alone, will establish the EV as the mass transport vehicle of the 21st century.
“This single technical development, and this alone, will establish the EV as the mass transport vehicle of the 21st century.”
You said it all, marcopolo. Platforms including traction motors and controls are pretty well established and smaller manufacturers took the opportunity to refine them. The mobile power plant is still missing, in terms of cost-effectiveness. If auto makers would agree to standardize power connectors and battery (or any other power plant) space on their chassis for each vehicle category, then progress could be easier because upgrades could be done in minutes and early adopters of EVs would be more confident that their investment is not short lived. Maybe sell EVs without battery and let consumers to chose one from dedicated stores. It’s what is going on now – we buy cars without the source of energy and buy fuel from a variety of suppliers. Fuel tanks are standardized – why not EV batteries?
Another advantage of the above mentioned standardization would be to keep battery development away from the auto industry because it is a too big fish to swallow. They are different worlds with specific challenges.
Coming to the same conclusion as yourself, I created a concept that I presented in this blog, with Craig’s help:
http://2greenenergy.com/from-guest-blogger-mihai-grumazescu-re-zero-emission-vehicles/11985/
Mihai, Thank you for your reply.
In response, to the three issues you raise.
!) Standardisation of batteries. This would be very undesirable! The EV auto manufacturer of relies on the energy storage,BMS, computers and other linked technology, to establish the reliability and performance to establish a models superiority over competitors. If batteries were standardised, there would be no incentive to improve battery design and performance. The EV automaker must provide an overall warranty, including batteries. “Competition is the Father of invention!”
2) Billions of dollars have been invested in trying to get Hydrogen technology viable. The results, although tantalising, still remain uneconomic.
3)Many very large corporations have been developing Electric Liquid refuelling systems. The technology is well advanced and very promising. Especially when coupled with advances in Ultra-capacitors.
However, in contrast the development of solid state, zinc/air and other battery technologies is far more advanced and commercially more practical. Battery technology is already established, and vast networks of fast charging posts are being rolled out many already allowing for a new generation of small cheap batteries that have long range super energy storage capacity.
Currently, this technology shows the greatest potential for commercial adoption.
All these innovations are the result of colossal investment and the collaborative efforts of a thousands of bright scientific minds. I’m afraid the days of sole heroic back-yard inventors, of high tech engineering ,are long past.
I appreciate your thoughts, marcopolo.
I still think that battery standardization would bring huge benefits to EV. Look at AA or AAA batteries. Because their dimensions, electrical connection and voltage is standardized, myriads of products use them and manufacturers are making them better and cheaper because of the economy of scale. If warranty of the EV is separated from the warranty of the EV, that would free both auto makers and battery manufacturers. For many reasons, battery warranty should not exceed 5-7 years. After that, they can be used in stationary applications for another 5-7 years and then recycled. Other products like leisure electric boats and alike will be designed to accommodate and use EV standardized batteries. As a consumer, now I know that my light torch can be ON for 4 hours with NiMH AA batteries and 8 hours with Lithium AA batteries on one charge. As an EV buyer, I may learn that my car can go 200 miles with a VV battery in X technology and 400 miles with a VV battery in Y technology. Choice is all mine and I can trade in any time the battery I have for a better one. Or I can buy a new one and use the old one at home, for time shifting in smart metering.
All technical details like BMS are workable. Any car model can have in its computer a library of “drivers” for all batteries on the market.
A good example of commercial failure of non-standardized batteries is the cordless power tools’ industry. Every single model has a slightly different battery housing and receptacle to make you buy the same brand. That’s stupid because inside they have standardized AA batteries and provide standardized voltages (18V, 24V. etc.) When the battery fails, there is little chance to find a replacement and consumers are simply buying another product. What a waste!
Speaking of hydrogen – we all know that is dragged by hydrogen storage. My concept eliminates the need for hydrogen storage.
I fully agree that batteries and supercapacitors will be the first to power EV’s. However, there is still a chance for electric fuels as a complimentary technology.
There is a big difference between creating a concept and engineering it. A concept can be created by a backyard inventor while engineering it up to becoming a product requires big resources. There is still a place under the sun for everyone…Corporate America is not the best place to innovate. Scrapping bright scientific minds just because they retire is a huge mistake. The bright scientific minds of today cannot replicate Saturn V rocket because plans are missing and those who worked on it are long retired.