Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Plug-in electric cars may constitute 22 pct of US auto sales by 2020, says report

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 04:43 PM
Original message
Plug-in electric cars may constitute 22 pct of US auto sales by 2020, says report
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/77951/20101102/bloomberg-new-energy-finance-nissan-leaf-electric-cars.htm

Plug-in electric vehicles, including plug-in hybrids, and battery-powered electric vehicles, have the potential to constitute up to 9 percent of total auto sales in US by 2020 and 22 percent by 2030 (1.6 million and 4 million vehicle sales respectively), according to a new study.

"Achieving these growth levels will largely depend on two key factors - aggressive reduction in battery costs and rising gasoline prices," a study conducted by Bloomberg New Energy said.

In the near-term, price will be a significant limitation to the uptake of both plug-in hybrid vehicles like the GM Volt and fully electric vehicles such as the Nissan Leaf, the study said.

Nissan has priced its all electric car Leaf at $32,780 and Chevrolet Volt electric car at $41,000 when it goes on sale in the US in November. As an all-electric vehicle, both cars qualify for a $7,500 federal tax credit, which brings down the price to $25,280 for Nissan Leaf and $33,500 for Volt.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Of course, in 1990, California car CULTists passed a law stating that by 2003 10% of California's
cars had to be ZEV vehicles.

http://rechargeit.blogspot.com/2008/03/californias-zev-program.html

We all know how that worked out.

There isn't enough neodymium on the planet to execute this bizarre car CULTist fantasy, but you would need to know something called "science" to grasp that.

Maybe we can encourage the deal though by defunding our national park system and giving big giant tax breaks to useless people living on trust funds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Umm - electric cars use *lithium* ion batteries - not Nd batteries- what kind ot car do *you* drive?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Heh, the motors and regenerative brakes use neodymium magnets.
As yet there exist no alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. That may be just around the corner
"New clues to make magnets more powerful"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x15157
(make them more powerful so you need to use less to get the same work done)

"Programmable Magnets that are printed."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x263271
(possible solution here, need more info on what material they start with before printing the magnetic patterns)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Indeed, if we can find alternatives, as David Sandalow says is needed, it is definitely possible.
I even have pointed out that wind turbines don't even need Nd (you put the generator on the ground, saves on maintenance too).

But so far there exist no alternative to Nd for lightweight powerful and durable magnets as far as I know, and when I'd made that statement today I'd spent some time researching. No advances. :/

I have a small Nd magnet that was in a pair of expensive headphones someone had thrown away. It's smaller than ones iris, but it connects to my iron desk with an iron rod, holding another lb of magnets on said rod. Very cool little magnets. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Read the linked articles
The first linked article talks about ways to boost the strength of the magnetic field of Neodymium magnets, thus allowing you to use less Nd in your end product while losing none of the effectiveness/efficiency.

The second article talks about a radical new approach to creating magnets, using a printing technique. Per my feeble understanding of the process, instead of a print head that spits out ink it uses an electrical current (or lack of) to create alternating and/or complex patterns of magnetic force in a source material, and a complimentary pattern in a second piece. The amazing part is that changing the pattern of North and South poles on the finished part changes the magnetic properties, some patterns attract very strongly and others oppose. The researchers go on to note that their process makes very powerful magnets out of cheap material but (frustratingly) I cannot find out what material they start out with.

Being able to print strong but cheap magnets will have an impact on electric motors and also on magnetically levitated vehicles such as the Monorail at DisneyWorld/Disneyland. We may be able to get to that network of high speed trains here in the US on the cheap because of this technology. The equilibrium distance can be programmed (different pattern of N/S) so that they strongly attract until the two halves of the magnet are within (whatever distance) 1/10th inch say but get them any closer and they strongly repel each other. That is the advance that could make maglev trains cheap. It could also be used in a maglev space launch system to vastly reduce the costs of building such a device (bringing the cost per pound to orbit from $4000 per pound down to $500 to $700 initially and eventually down to $100 per pound!).

Third point, there is another method for enhancing the power of magnets: by arranging them in a Hallbach Array. Check out the following for a much better explanation than I could attempt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallbach_array
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAGu9ja3FQk&p=0ED03D3A8BA82F57&playnext=1&index=50

A couple of interesting videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR_8f0DYK5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-9IAj_YnI

Why is a hallbach array interesting? Because the magnetic field is very strong one one side of the magnet but practically non-existent on the other. I don't know if you remember the big concern over MagLev trains but some feared the strong magnetic fields may interfere with pacemakers, cellphones, or what-have-you. The hallbach array negates this worry, as do the printed magnets mentioned above.

Remember kiddies: Neodymium magnets are STRONG magnets. If you get any part of your body between two of them you will probably get broken bones or at least wish you hadn't! Be smart and be careful when playing with magnets.
/end soapbox
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. Fair enough, and thanks.
I did read the articles but I also looked for followups to no avail. I tend to be wary of revolutionary technical claims like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Followups?
I presume you are looking for followups to the printed magnets and, perhaps, more info on what "revolutionary" uses they can be used for. If so, I agree. But with any new technology it will take time for them to figure all that out.

Printed magnets are such an amazingly (no other word for it) revolutionary achievement it will take decades to fully explore all their applications. MagLev (high speed trains) and electric cars should, in my opinion, be the very first things they focus on. Those two are the best place to begin commercializing the technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. There's more than enough Nd in seawater - extract away
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Here are the numbers:
8.5 million cars were manufactured in the United States in 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/automobiles/21intro.html

1 kg of Nd is used in, eg, a Prius: http://www.infosysblogs.com/supply-chain/2010/08/neodymium_toyotas_pain_and_chi.html

The entire world produces 7000 tonnes or so of Nd every year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium

22% of 8.5 million is 1.87 million. So we'd have to produce 1870 tonnes more of Nd to make 22% of our fleet electric. Or 26% the entire worlds production of Nd.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The S..., it burns....
Statement of
David Sandalow
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy and International Affairs
Before the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy
United States Senate

“Examining the Role of Strategic Minerals in
Clean Energy Technologies and Other Applications”

Washington, D.C.
September 30, 2010

Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Risch, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for the opportunity to testify today.

I am here today to speak about rare earth metals, their importance to clean energy technologies,
and the Department of Energy’s recent work on this topic. This is an important issue – one that
needs priority attention in the months and years ahead. The Administration has been focused on
this issue for some time. The Department is working to develop a strategy on rare earths that I
announced earlier this year and the Administration is continuing to review S. 3521. We share the
goal of establishing a secure supply of rare earth metals, and we look forward to discussions with
the Congress on ways to address this issue as we move forward.

Rare earth metals have many desirable properties, including the ability to form unusually strong,
lightweight magnetic materials. They also have valuable optical properties including
fluorescence and emission of coherent light. These properties and others have made rare earth
metals valuable in a number of clean energy technologies, among other important applications.
For example, lanthanum is used in batteries for hybrid cars. Neodymium is used in magnets for
electric generators found in wind turbines, and europium is used in colored phosphors for
energy-efficient lighting.

Ironically, “rare earth” metals are not in fact rare. They are found in many places on Earth,
including the United States, Canada and Australia. In fact, the United States was the world leader
in production of rare earth metals as recently as the late 1980s. However, rare earth metals are
often difficult to extract in profitable quantities. This and other factors have led to geographically
concentrated production. Today, more than 95 percent of global production of rare earths comes
from China. This concentration of production creates serious concerns. While China holds 37
percent of known reserves and the United States holds 13 percent, and there are significant
reserves in other countries, development of new rare earth mines will require significant
investment, and it can take years before new sources yield significant production.

It goes without saying that diversified sources of supply are important for any valuable material.
Development of substitute materials and policies for re-use, recycling and more efficient use are
also important. If rare earth metals are going to play an increasing role in a clean energy
economy, we need to pursue such strategies. The recent maritime dispute between China and
Japan, in which there were unconfirmed reports that China threatened or adopted a de facto ban
on such exports to Japan, underscores the geopolitical risks associated with these issues.

GLOBAL CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY
This transition to a clean energy economy is already well underway. The world is on the cusp of
a clean energy revolution. Other countries are seizing this opportunity, and the market for clean
energy technologies is growing rapidly all over the world.

Today, the Chinese government is launching programs to deploy electric cars in over 20 major
cities. They are connecting urban centers with high-speed rail and building huge wind farms,
ultrasupercritical advanced coal plants and ultra-high-voltage long-distance transmission lines.

India has launched an ambitious National Solar Mission, with the goal of reaching 20 gigawatts
of installed solar capacity by 2020.

In Europe, strong public policies are driving sustained investments in clean energy. Denmark is
the world’s leading producer of wind turbines, earning more than $4 billion each year in that
industry. Germany and Spain are the world’s top installers of solar photovoltaic panels,
accounting for nearly three-quarters of a global market worth $37 billion last year. Around the
world, investments in clean energy technologies are growing, helping create jobs, promote
economic growth and fight climate change. These technologies will be a key part of the
transition to a clean energy future and a pillar of global economic growth.

Here in the United States, we are making historic investments in clean energy. The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the largest one-time investment in clean energy in our
nation’s history – more than $90 billion. At the Department of Energy (DOE), we’re investing
$35 billion in Recovery funds in electric vehicles; batteries and advanced energy storage; a
smarter and more reliable electric grid; and wind and solar technologies, among many other
areas. We aim to double our renewable energy generation and manufacturing capacities by
2012. We will also deploy hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure
to power them, weatherize at least half a million homes, and help modernize our grid.

DOE STRATEGY
In recognition of the importance of rare earth elements in the transition to clean energy, DOE is
developing a strategic plan for addressing the role of rare earth metals and other materials in
clean energy components, products and processes. As a first step in the development of the plan,
we released a public Request for Information (RFI) this past May soliciting information from
stakeholders on rare earth metals and other materials used in the energy sector. The request
focused not only on rare earths, but also on other elements including lithium, cobalt, indium, and
tellurium.

We received over 1,000 pages from about 35 organizations, including Original Equipment
Manufacturers (OEMs), mining companies, industrial associations, and national labs. Responses
addressed supply, demand, technology applications, costs, substitutes, recycling, intellectual
property, and research needs. Many organizations shared proprietary data on material usage that
have helped us develop a clearer picture of current and future demand.

Based on these responses and analyses being conducted throughout the Department, the strategy
is nearing completion. It focuses on four core technologies that will be crucial to our transition to
a clean energy economy: permanent magnets, batteries, photovoltaic thin films, and phosphors.
A public draft of the strategy is expected to be available later this fall.

I can broadly outline the approach we are taking to proactively address the availability of rare
earths and other important materials required to support and expand clean energy development.

First, we must globalize supply chains for these materials. To manage supply risk, we need
multiple, distributed sources of clean energy materials in the years ahead. This means taking
steps to facilitate extraction, refining and manufacturing here in the United States, as well as
encouraging our trading partners to expedite the environmentally-sound creation of alternative
supplies.

Second, we must develop substitutes for these materials. Doing so will improve our flexibility as
we address the materials demands of the clean energy economy. In order to meet this objective,
we will need to invest in R&D to develop transformational magnet, battery electrodes and other
technologies that reduce our dependence on rare earths. DOE’s Office of Science, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the ARPA-E program are currently conducting
research along these tracks.

Third, we must explore opportunities to promote recycling, re-use and more efficient use of
strategic materials in order to gain more economic value out of each ton of ore extracted and
refined. Widespread recycling and re-use could significantly lower world demand for newly
extracted rare earths and other materials of interest. For example, we could develop a process to
recycle terbium and europium in the phosphors of compact and conventional fluorescent light
bulbs. Neodymium could be recycled from hybrid and electric vehicles. Additionally, recycling
and re-use could reduce the lifecycle environmental footprint of these materials, another critical
priority.

With all three of these approaches, we must consider all stages of the supply chain: from
environmentally-sound material extraction to purification and processing, the manufacture of
chemicals and components, and ultimately end uses.

Managing supply chain risks is by no means simple for a company, much less a country. At
DOE, we focus on the research and development angle. From our perspective, we must think
broadly about addressing the supply chain in our R&D investments, from extraction of materials
through product manufacture and eventual recycling. It is also important to think about multiple
technology options, rather than picking winners and losers. We work with other federal agencies
to address other issues, such as trade, labor and workforce, and environmental impacts. We are
already closely working with our interagency partners to address these important issues.

CONCLUSION
One lesson we have learned through experience is that supply constraints aren’t static. As a
society, we have dealt with these types of issues before, mainly through smart policy and R&D
investments that reinforced efficient market mechanisms. We can and will do so again. Strategies
for addressing shortages of strategic resources are available, if we act wisely. Not every one of
these strategies will work every time. But taken together, they offer a set of approaches we
should consider, as appropriate, whenever potential shortages of natural resources loom on the
horizon.

So in conclusion, there’s no reason to panic, but every reason to be smart and serious as we plan
for growing global demand for products that contain rare earth metals. Recent events underscore
this. The United States intends to be a world leader in clean energy technologies. Toward that
end, we are shaping the policies and approaches to help prevent disruptions in supply of the
materials needed for those technologies. This will involve careful and collaborative policy
development. We will rely on the creative genius and entrepreneurial ingenuity of the business
community to meet an emerging market demand in a competitive fashion. With focused
attention, working together we can meet these challenges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. David Sandalow's statement does not dispute my numbers. Sorry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yeah well...
I wasn't trying to "dispute" your numbers. You have shown time and again you do not have the competency to perform even basic reasoned analysis that can accurately represent the world and problems we face, and your post above was no different.

I posted the DOE testimony because it realistically discusses the ACTUAL role of materials constraints in our effort to transition to a noncarbon energy infrastructure. Something your histrionics utterly fails to accomplish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I never made any statement that it wasn't possible.
Merely suggested that the likelihood of it happening is remote given the constraints faced by the global markets.

The statement by David only supports my position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. No you didn't. No, he doesn't.
Edited on Fri Nov-05-10 09:06 PM by kristopher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. There are issues to be resolved with Nd supplies.
First, we must globalize supply chains for these materials. To manage supply risk, we need
multiple, distributed sources of clean energy materials in the years ahead. This means taking
steps to facilitate extraction, refining and manufacturing here in the United States, as well as
encouraging our trading partners to expedite the environmentally-sound creation of alternative
supplies.

Second, we must develop substitutes for these materials. Doing so will improve our flexibility as
we address the materials demands of the clean energy economy. In order to meet this objective,
we will need to invest in R&D to develop transformational magnet, battery electrodes and other
technologies that reduce our dependence on rare earths. DOE’s Office of Science, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the ARPA-E program are currently conducting
research along these tracks.

Third, we must explore opportunities to promote recycling, re-use and more efficient use of
strategic materials in order to gain more economic value out of each ton of ore extracted and
refined. Widespread recycling and re-use could significantly lower world demand for newly
extracted rare earths and other materials of interest. For example, we could develop a process to
recycle terbium and europium in the phosphors of compact and conventional fluorescent light
bulbs. Neodymium could be recycled from hybrid and electric vehicles. Additionally, recycling
and re-use could reduce the lifecycle environmental footprint of these materials, another critical
priority.

With all three of these approaches, we must consider all stages of the supply chain: from
environmentally-sound material extraction to purification and processing, the manufacture of
chemicals and components, and ultimately end uses.

Managing supply chain risks is by no means simple for a company, much less a country. At
DOE, we focus on the research and development angle. From our perspective, we must think
broadly about addressing the supply chain in our R&D investments, from extraction of materials
through product manufacture and eventual recycling. It is also important to think about multiple
technology options, rather than picking winners and losers. We work with other federal agencies
to address other issues, such as trade, labor and workforce, and environmental impacts. We are
already closely working with our interagency partners to address these important issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Sorry that I lack the deluded hubris that you have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. So, a 1.2% increase per year in global production would cover that
Note that, despite the thread title, the 22% figure is for 2030, not 2020. 1.2% growth for 20 years gets you 26.9%, compound. I think mining and manufacturing capacity can cope with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. The Mountain Pass mine in CA can ramp up world production 10% and are expected to.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/clean-energy-apos-s-dirty-little-secret/7377/

Alternatives to Nd magnets are the solution, though. Wind turbines use more than 300 kg of the stuff, until we stop making turbines that use it we'll not be able to have a significant wind buildout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
14. ROFL
"New Energy Finance said its "base case" scenario assumed retail gasoline prices per gallon of $3.34 in 2020 and $3.68 in 2030."

Is that put in for comic relief or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duchess Donating Member (121 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
17. I thinks it's much more feasible now.
I'll be buying an electric car once charging stations are more widespread. I'd buy a hybrid right now if they could get the the same 700+ miles/tank that my 2000 VW gets, were about $3000 cheaper, and had a plug in system similar to the Volt. They are getting close. Hopefully, 2012 will be the year that they meet my needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. I've said before, but I'll be getting a Tesla when their third generation consumer...
...model comes out (they had a top of the line, working on a middle line, and then they'll have a more consumer line model that's actually affordable).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-07-10 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
23. For the sake of argument, let's assume that there will be cars in 2020
On second thought, why in the heck would we want to do that?

:hippie:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:00 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC