Electric Cars vs Fuel Cell Cars: One Clear Loser

It may not seem like cars are going through their most radical change since Henry Ford’s assembly line, but they are. Electric vehicles (EVs) are a small but growing fraction of vehicle sales in the U.S., and this is with limited public knowledge, short range among affordable EVs, relatively few charging stations, and high price tags.

Early electric car

You may be amazed to learn, as I was, that electric cars were widely popular from the dawn of the automobile until the electric starter replaced the hand crank and made gas-powered cars less of a pain in the neck.

But the 2016 model year brings at least two strides forward: the Chevy Volt has improved gas mileage, lowered price, and increased electric range from 38 to 53 miles, while the 2016 Leaf’s range expands from 84 to 107 miles. With used EVs becoming available plus the likelihood of more battery innovations and dropping battery costs, EV’s are crossing the line to becoming a cheaper than gas cars, on top of their many other advantages, like powerful acceleration, quietness, and greatly reduced maintenance costs.

By the way, if you’re concerned that EVs might not be a good choice for the climate in some parts of the country, you’ve probably heard the comparison of oil to coal-generated electricity. There’s a fundamental error in this, because it’s comparing “tailpipe” emissions for the gas car to “lifecycle” emissions for the EV. Lifecycle emissions are the total climate impact of obtaining, processing, and using something. When we calculate lifecycle emissions for gas cars and compare apples to apples, gas cars are a clear and universal loser: see “Wait, Gas-Powered Cars Do WHAT?!?“.

But EVs aren’t the only climate-friendly car revolution in progress: fuel cell cars (FCVs), which run electric motors by producing electricity from combining hydrogen from the fuel tank with oxygen in the air to produce water, are also becoming progressively more efficient and less expensive. Having electric engines, they have most of the advantages of EVs, too, and while in recent years they’ve been widely written off as being impractical, their technology has advanced to the point where they’re now a reality, including Toyota’s Mirai, currently being sold in Japan, as well as a number of other models, some of which are affordable and being sold in the U.S..

Toyota Mirai

Toyota Mirai – photo by Turbo-myu-z

“Affordable” is a relative term, of course. EVs and FCVs are mainly available new, and the only way they currently compete with ICE (internal combustion engine) cars in the U.S. is because of government subsidies.

However, unlike ICE cars, EVs and FCVs are experiencing an ongoing burst of innovation in batteries, fuel cells, and electric engines that shows no sign of slowing. With every improvement, these cars become a better value proposition compared to ICE cars, and when we calculate in the cost to the climate, they are arguably a much better value already.

All of this is without any increase of gas prices–and if there is one thing we know about gas prices, it’s that they never stay steady for long–and without a carbon tax. If carbon taxes become widespread, as for all our sakes I hope they will in the near future, suddenly EVs and FCVs will become much more economically attractive, which will fuel larger-scale manufacture and more innovation, which will make them cheaper in a virtuous cycle that could continue for many years.

So which will win, the EV or the FCV? To answer that question, we should start by realizing that these are just two varieties of the same thing: a car with an electric engine and a way to store electrical energy. EVs store that energy in batteries; fuel cells require electricity to generate hydrogen from water, and the hydrogen is then pumped into the car to return most of that electricity when it’s converted back.

Hydrogen filling station

Hydrogen filling station in Iceland – photo by Jóhann Heiðar Árnason

In the near term, it seems unlikely either will gain a decisive upper hand unless it experiences a sudden and outsize technological leap. Some car companies are putting their weight and huge amounts of funding behind EVs, while others are doing the same thing with fuel cells. Both technologies have widespread uses apart from automobiles, including local grid electricity storage, mass transit, and industry, and both are likely to benefit from outside advances.

In the long term, if one technology pulls well ahead of the other in terms of how well it stores energy compared to size, weight, and cost, that technology may eventually take over. If I had to bet on one, I’d bet on EVs, which have wider early adoption, are easier to understand, and can easily be charged at home. One of the great advantages of owning an EV is that you never have to go to a gas station, and even when you do fuel up away from home, the energy is often free, at least these days. That said, fuel cells take only minutes to refuel, compared to much longer battery charging times, and a big enough breakthrough in fuel cell efficiency could wipe EVs off the map.

Still, there is one clear loser in this game: ICE cars, our familiar gas guzzlers. The only real advantage of ICE cars is that they’re established. We’re familiar with them, there’s a huge supply and a wide variety of ICE cars, and gas stations are everywhere. True, they also fuel up faster than EVs, but they don’t have that advantage over FCVs, and EVs can be charged at home, overnight or during the work day. As electric ranges increase, the need to fuel up away from home will only apply for long trips, and when fast charging stations are more widely available, it won’t be difficult to charge your car while you stop for a break or meal every few hours.

So ICE cars are louder, perform less well, smell worse, are terrible for the environment, will become less convenient, and soon will be more expensive than both EVs and FCVs. Will the force of habit be enough to make us stick with them as this equation becomes more and more unbalanced? History suggests that it won’t: no matter how used to the horse and buggy we were, no matter how unusual microwaves seemed at first, or how much of a change it was to start streaming video rather than simply watching TV, we Americans–and most other people in the world–have proved we are always ready to change our habits if something strikingly better comes along. Now not one, but two things have.

Model for Success: How Vermont Towns Can Contribute to the State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio

This guest post is from Jamison Ervin, a member of Waterbury LEAP, the only Vermont town energy committee to become a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. You may have read my earlier post about Jamie and her family, What One Vermont Family Did to Massively Reduce Their Climate Change Impact. She lives in Duxbury and can be contacted at jervin@sover.net.

A solar installation in Waterbury, from suncommon.com

A solar installation in Waterbury; photo from suncommon.com

The towns of Waterbury and Duxbury are one rooftop away from achieving the goal they established last April: to double residential solar capacity. The increase to 338 residential kilowatts has moved Waterbury and Duxbury into fifth and second places, respectively, for residential solar per capita across all Vermont towns. At the same time, business solar installations have increased nearly 80 percent, to 363 kilowatts.

This means that Waterbury and Duxbury now rank among the top ten towns statewide for total per capita solar production.

What has driven this progress? As predicted by the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, four factors are critical — public outreach, technological advances, innovative financing options and favorable public policies.

To educate the public, Waterbury LEAP (Local Energy Action Partnership), the energy committee serving both towns, holds an energy fair that draws more than 600 people every April. This year, dubbed the  Waterbury/Duxbury Solar Year, we ramped up these efforts to include a summer solar fest with free music, pizza and ice cream; radio ads and newspaper articles; brochures, flyers and posters; window displays; farmers’ market booths; open houses; and direct outreach to businesses, select boards, school boards and schools.

You name it, we tried it.

We are not certain that we can claim credit for any of this year’s installations. But we do know that most residents in our town have heard about the benefits of installing solar panels — increased savings on electricity, decreased carbon emissions, more local jobs and greater energy independence.

The second critical factor is the improvement in technology. The efficiency of solar panels has increased dramatically. Some of today’s panels can generate twice as many watts compared to those of only a few years ago — and the price of solar panels has decreased by half. Solar installation companies and their customers both have benefitted from this improved technology.

The availability of innovative finance options is also a key factor driving the growth of solar capacity. For example, the Vermont State Employee Credit Union has a new low-interest solar loan allowing homeowners to finance the cost of solar at reasonable rates. And SunCommon, a new solar installer in Waterbury responsible for 23 of the 30 new installations in Waterbury and Duxbury, has a lease model wherein homeowners install solar panels with no money down, at monthly costs equivalent to or less than their electric bills.

Green Lantern, a Waterbury-based green investment company, has created a solar tax-equity fund that allowed the owners of Cold Hollow Cider Mill to install a 149-kilowatt array — saving them more than $2,000 annually in electric bills, without any up-front costs.

The fourth factor is a favorable policy environment. Virtually everyone who installed solar panels in 2012 took advantage, either directly or indirectly, of the 30 percent federal tax credit. Most businesses were also able to depreciate their solar investment over 5 years instead of 30, leading to a much faster payback period.

On top of this, most customers who installed solar panels received a state rebate of 55 cents per watt, as well as a sales tax exemption.

In addition, all Vermont electric companies are required to purchase up to 100 percent of the solar-generated power produced by their customers at 20 cents per kilowatt hour — even if they sell electricity at a lower rate, which most do.

How does this local success story fit into the broader context of local and state energy consumption and production? Since Waterbury consumes some 58,000 megawatt hours annually, the town’s 589 kilowatts of solar power provide less than 1 percent of Waterbury’s total electricity needs.

The state’s goal, as articulated in the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, is for Vermont to switch from its current use of 23 percent renewables to 90 percent by 2050.

Even with electricity companies adding renewable energy to their portfolio, towns will have to shoulder some of the burden of contributing to this goal. That means we must radically increase the number of residential, municipal and business solar installations statewide.

Four policy changes could make this happen. First, allow homeowners and businesses to sell back excess energy to the grid at wholesale rates, above and beyond their own electricity consumption. This step, which allowed Germany to become the global solar leader, encourages homeowners and businesses to add extra panels to their arrays because they are virtually guaranteed a modest but reliable return on investment.

Second, help subsidize the cost of upgrading outdated electric lines. South-facing roofs and open fields are in limited supply. Investors in large arrays of 150 kilowatts or more should not have to bear the burden of upgrading electricity lines, simply by accident of geography. Renewable energy should be considered a public good, and we should subsidize the full cost accordingly.

Third, simplify and streamline current permitting processes. Raise the residential permitting threshold of 10 kilowatts to allow larger residential arrays. Streamline the Section 248 process, which is triggered by arrays of 150 kilowatts and larger. Allow arrays of larger than 500 kilowatts to sell their excess energy back to the grid. And raise the cap of 4 percent for companies to purchase solar energy from their customers. These changes would help bring larger and more systems online faster.

Finally, towns should be proactive in identifying potential sites for large solar installations in their town plans and should encourage municipal, business, residential and school solar installations.

With these modest policy changes, Vermont’s role as a national leader in renewable energy would be secured — and we might even achieve our ambitious energy goals.