GM Volt Forum banner

The battery performance deficit disorder

3.9K views 5 replies 5 participants last post by  Steverino  
#1 ·
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/the-battery-performance-deficit-disorder/

In "The battery performance deficit disorder" Tom Murphy (an associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego) attacks the viability of battery electric cars by knocking down straw men and employing red herrings (arguments which are intentionally misleading or distracting from the actual issue).

The article cites anecdotal stereotypes of battery failure, and provides some neat graphs and charts related to energy-power tradeoff.

Here are a few of Murphy's red herrings:

  • "Batteries fall pathetically short of our customary fossil fuel energy storage medium. When we wake up to a declining global availability of petroleum, we won’t just switch over to electric cars."
    Fact: We won't "wake up to a declining global availability of petroleum". Oil supplies will be readily available for at least another 100-years, but prices will continue to rise.

  • "To set the stage, the specific energy of gasoline — measured in kWh per kg, for instance — is about 400 times higher than that of a lead-acid battery, and about 200 times better than the Lithium-ion battery in the Chevrolet Volt. We should not expect batteries to rival the energy density delivered by our beloved fossil fuels — ever."
    Fact: Batteries need not ever rival the energy density of gasoline in order to be viable as a vehicle power source.

  • "Now figure in the estimated price of the Volt battery at $8,000 (a disputed number, but GM has not revealed the actual cost). If we get 62,000 miles of electric drive out of the battery, we will spend $1950 on electricity for charging, plus $8000 for the battery. That’s $9,950. The same distance on gasoline would cost $6500. Not an order-of-magnitude difference, but still gasoline currently wins."
    Fact: Battery costs continue their predictable decline over time, while gasoline prices will continue to increase.

Most revealing is Murphy's statement:
"And even though I might appear to be picking on the Chevy Volt by highlighting its deficiencies, I actually rather like the design point (electric vs. gasoline range hits the sweet spot, in my view). In fact, I was half way to buying one. By half way, I mean that if the price were cut in half, I would surely have one now."
So there it is laid bare: he'd like a Chevrolet Volt, but since he is not willing to spend for more than a cheap car, he trashes the technology. The man has the emotional maturity of a jealous child.
 
#2 ·
Physics professors are not know for their understanding of practicality, engineering or economics. Many faculty have the emotional maturity of a jealous child.. It all fallows from Sayer's "law" which states "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." By way of corollary, it adds: "That is why academic politics are so bitter"
 
#4 ·
Thanks Don. Yes, I was in a work meeting most of the day.

In the other thread. Mr. Energy Czar repeats
As a regular oil drum reader, the peaking of cheap easy oil changes everything from asphalt roads being removed from town budgets to where your food comes from. Electric cars indirectly benefit and exist right now to the masses from cheap oil so the end of it makes them only for the few wealthy in the future...same with air travel etc... mining the materials for batteries becomes expensive due to the peaking of cheap oil...it doesn't end..
The last time he said that there would not be roads in 10-15 years, etc., I posted the following photo and caption (to make a point with humor):
Image

Mr. Energy Czar Fights Off Marauders in the Dystopic Future

The argument that we can't survive without cheap oil sounds like all those 1970's fad predictions of the end of the world due to overpopulation. Of course, we all starved to death about 3 billion people ago... Further, one wonders if this argument is some sort of Exxon psywar op designed to herd everyone into supporting unregulated drilling in the Great Lakes, etc.
 

Attachments

#5 ·
Seems like there are purists on both sides that hate the Volt. There are the those that think EV's will never be practical so why try. And those EV'ers that hate the Volt because it has an ICE. I think the Volt is a practical (yet somewhat expensive) good step for the EV industry.
 
#6 ·
That energy density issue sounds very "sciency", as long as you don't mention that 60-70% of that energy density is wasted as heat in an ICE. The other day I traveled 50 some miles on battery at a cost of $1.30, and 11-ish ICE miles at $0.45. Regardless of its energy density, the gas leg was a lot more expensive per mile. An electric batter/motor is simply more efficient and therefor does not need as much energy density to travel the same distance.