Aziz Pathan Writing 39C 29 May 2009 Emily Liu Electrification is a Solution Americans today rely heavily on transportation

in their daily lives. In 1908, of the 4,192 vehicles produced in the United States, 28 percent [were] powered by electricity (Timeline). However today, Americans refuse to buy electric vehicles. A principal reason is that both the cost and maintenance of an electric vehicle are too expensive for the amount of money and energy that consumers save compared to gasoline vehicles. The most prominent problem is the inefficient batteries electric vehicles are equipped with. In 1990, many states, including California, issued the Clean Air Acts, which forced automobile industries to sell a specific amount of zero emission vehicles. Therefore research in electric batteries began in 1990. This research concluded that nickel-metal hydride batteries were not sufficient. Unfortunately, automobile industries, even with United States governmental acts, were busy promoting consumers to purchase gasoline powered vehicles; they did not care to increase sales of electric vehicles passed the 2% quota, which resulted a halt in electric battery research. During that time, the research that was done resulted in the evolution of old nickelmetal hydride battery into a newer, more efficient lithium-ion battery. Unfortunately, even with the creation of the lithium-ion battery, electric cars were still unappealing towards American consumers. By 1998 after the Zero-Emission Mandate was passed the big American automobile industries, General Motors, gave up on the electric vehicle. This

caused a great problem for innovations in electric battery. Since no money was coming from selling electric vehicles, no research was being done to improve them. Governmental policies need to take affect if Americans ever hope to consume electric vehicles. Since 1982, American urban cities continually exceeded the permissible air quality standards. During the 1990 Clean Air Acts Amendments, California designed to go by stages to lower emission levels. In order to reduce both emissions from transportation and energy use, Californian policy makers employed two approaches: changing technology and changing behavior. The strategies contained vehicle control machinery to include cleaner fuels and fuel economy. In 1990, automobile industries started to shift towards research on electric transportation, mainly electric vehicle batteries (EVB). Although it seemed that Americans in California were interested in improving automobile emissions, the industries had other plans. In 1990, a Federal Power Commission report, which was sent to the Senate, exclaimed, [satisfactory] technology for short distance electrically powered vehicles is available today (Electric Cars). This was in response to General Motorss (GM) introduction to their first electric vehicle, the EV1, with a poorly designed and inefficient lead-acid battery at the Los Angeles Auto show. Ironically, it was never released for public sale. In December 1999, General Motors reintroduced an improved EV1 with nickel metal hydride battery, but that project was cancelled in 2003. The American automobile companies found more profit in selling gasoline powered vehicles then electric powered ones, which caused the research in electric car batteries to dwindle.

Currently, there is researching in batteries, however most Americans cannot afford vehicles with these newly researched batteries. According to the article written in 2007, French battery company, Saft; claim the most promising [electric] source is the lithium-ion battery (Gergely). However the research in electric batteries is still not enough for mass production to American consumers. No Americans will buy an electric car because of its price. The price is in direct correlation with the weight of the electric car battery. Increasing performance in the battery increases the weight of the battery, which results in prices three times greater then if it was the original battery. Research in electric car batteries seemed to dwindle during the late 1990s. In 1998 California and Northeastern states passed laws that mandated electric vehicles within their respective states. These laws required that 2% of model year 1998 cars must be zero emissions vehicles so, electric cars. However, in 1998, flexibility was introduced through partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) credits. Californias Low-Emissions Vehicle Program and the Zero Emissions Mandate used that same credit trading scheme. Automobile industries, such as General Motors, believed that the ZeroEmission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate would [focus] on reducing clean vehicles (Shaheen). This then ultimately resulted in abandonment in research in electric batteries. It seems that although foreign companies like Toyota and Honda pushed for electric vehicles, American automobile companies spent their time advertising and innovating large gas guzzling vehicles. On March 26, 2009, United States Representative from Californias 14th district, Anna Eshoo, sponsored Bill H.R. 1742, the Large-Scale Vehicle Electrification Program. This bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to establish a program to deploy and

integrate plug-in electric drive vehicles in multiple regions. This bill will allow state and local governments to apply to the Secretary of Energy for financial aid in increasing the regional utilization of electric vehicles (United States, Large-Scale). The bill will further the regional deployment of plug-in electric vehicles. The applications of the financial aid can be jointly sponsored by a number of many groups including electric utilities, automobile manufacturers, and technology providers (United States, Large-Scale). This bill ultimately causes an increase in the production of plug-in electric cars, a root cause for the limited research in electric batteries. It will then increase the funding in electric battery, and ultimately lead America into becoming a country independent of oil. The Large Scale Vehicle Electrification Program also gives states and local government to borrow funding in order to decrease energy use. It calls for aid which will be taken from taxes; however after increasing the research in the electric grid the benefits will out weigh the cost of the aid. One of the goals of this bill is to investigate differences in regions and regulatory environment regarding best practices in implementing vehicle electrification (United States, Large). This means that the bill involves heavy research to find feasible solutions for different cities and states so that they can all partake in implementing plug-in electric vehicles. Compared to the Vehicles for the Future Act, H.R. 1730, which only advocates supporting infrastructures for hybrid and plug-in vehicles like a recharging station, Bill H.R. 1742 gives the Secretary of Energy money to fund to local and state governments in order to increase overall deployment of plug-in electric vehicles. However, the Vehicles for the Future Act does plan for a cost recovery plan, which calls for authorities to consider whether, and to what extent to allow cost for plans and implementation. In the Bill H.R. 1742, it states local and state

governments to investigate cost for programs that involve electric vehicles. Therefore, cost will already be estimated beforehand and aid will be given by the Secretary of Energy based on the investigation. The low production and no hardly any research in electric batteries is mainly an effect from lack of interest and more seriously from oil companies that have hog-tied Americans into an oil addiction. Supporting this bill, which increases the likely hood of consumer consumption of electric based transport, will definitely help to drastically decrease the dependency on oil. The United States growing dependence on foreign oil is widely recognized as the nations Achilles heel (Dye). The Large-Scale Vehicle Electrification Program contains one goal that states it will demonstrate the viability of a vehicle-based transportation system that is not overly dependent on petroleum as a fuel and contributes to lower carbon emissions (United States House, Large-Scale). In order to do this the bill requires local and state governments to submit requests for financial aid to the Secretary of Energy. The Secretary of Energy will then review all forms and grant aid accordingly. Giving the Secretary of Energy a greater role in automobile production especially in electric transport will lead to many things. First it will stop automobile companies from spending research money on gasoline-powered vehicles. Oil companies have a hold almost half of the American tax dollars (Dye). Another reason is that this bill allows Americans car companies will be able to join joint companies and local government to ask aid from the Secretary of Energy. This will cause more companies working together and increasing funds for the overall research for electric car batteries. Most opposition will say that the energy, electric power, required for the large-scale production will be much more then previous years. It can be assumed that after innovations

in electric vehicles the energy need will be increasing further. In Paul Krugers article in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, there will be an annual growth in electricity power demand ranging from 1.7 to 3.4 percent. This means that although emissions will decrease, if Americans switch to electric vehicles, the cost, labor and pollution from energy plants will definitely increase, and it means that there might be a worse energy shortage then Americans see today. The Large-Scale Vehicle Electrification Program contains a goal to demonstrate protocols and standards that facilitate vehicle integration into the [the electric] grid. This requires that the plug-in electric vehicles will be under official review at all times even while at a recharging station, and therefore, energy conservation can be regulated. This will stop consumers to overuse the electricity and help maintain proper stability in the electric grid. Utilization of this electric grid will create another industry for energy. When General Motorss Chevy Volt, along with other plug-in electric vehicles began to appear in the automobile market, they will contain piezoelectric devices. These devices use the friction force used in the brakes to feed electricity into the electric battery (Pizoelectric Transducer). In other words there is a device found in the new electric plug-in vehicles that help recharge the battery. With the utilization of the electric grid that this bill focuses on, an American consumer can plug-in the electric vehicle, and the extra electricity create within the battery, after use, will be sent into the grid, and the consumer will be subsidized for it. Therefore the cost of the electric car with its expensive battery will not be such a hindrance for Americans after this bill. The newly elected 111th Congress is pushing forward with newer and more feasible methods to reduce carbon emissions. However, some solutions that were proposed in the past caused more harm. For example lead-acid batteries that were previously used in the early

electric vehicles emitted high concentrations of lead (Allen). In the Large-scale Vehicle Electrification Program bill, one of the goals is to demonstrate the potential of co-ordinate investments in vehicle electrification. It is understood in this bill that as [new] technologies should not be embraced without systematic economic and environmental analysis a statement which was concluded in Carnegie Mellon Universitys study on lead-acid batteries (Allen). The researchers state that in complicated environmental problems, like carbon emission, the obvious solutions often turn out to be much less beneficial then first appearances suggest (Allen). This bill focuses on the research then an obvious solution, based on that financial aid is awarded to an organization by the Secretary of Energy, whether it is a state government or a joint industry working on vehicle electrification like Saft, the battery manufacture. Although the Large-Scale Vehicle Electrification Bill gives authority to the Secretary of Energy to provide financial aid to states, cities, and companies, it does not specify where the aid should go and therefore some lobbyist can take advantage of it. There is another bill, which was purposed House of Representatives, Jerry McNerney. Bill H.R. 1730: Vehicles for the Future Act also a policy with respect to electric vehicles. It is a plan to support the use of plug- in hybrid electric vehicles and electric vehicles (United States, Vehicles). The plan although not indefinite provides the deployment of electrical charging stations in public or private locations. Therefore, it can include fast charging infrastructures. This bill also addresses appropriate protocols and standards for assimilating plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric vehicles in the electric grid system.

With the current problem that the American automobile industry faces, bill H.R. 1730: Vehicles for the Future Act is not sufficient to increase the production of electric vehicles. Although it does offer a solution for electric vehicle owners to charge their plug-in electric vehicle by means of increasing charging infrastructures, and enables consumers respective plug-in electric vehicles to be recognized into the electric grid system, it does not aid any state or cities with any means of deployment of the plug-in electric vehicles. Therefore there still will not be enough American consumers to purchase electric vehicles. On the other hand, H.R 1742: Large-Scale Vehicle Electrification Bill provides aid to problems recognized by the Secretary of Energy that corresponds to the economics of electric vehicles. Unlike the Vehicles for the Future Act, this act can provide financial aid to automobile manufactures, electric utility groups, and other industries, that directly influence the inefficient batteries in electric vehicles. The Large-Scale Vehicle Electrification Bill can provide companies to improve batteries, where Vehicles for the Future Act will only provide charging stations for these batteries. This means that the problem will still exist because a charged battery can only travel short distances on electricity. CONCLUSION PARAGRAPH Not sure how to concluded

Work Cited "Electric Cars: They're Cleaner, but... ." Science News 91.10 11 March (1967): 232-. Jstor, Langston Library, April 25, 2007.<http://www.jstor.org/stable/395185>. Gergely, Andras. "Lithium batteries power hybrid cars of future: Saft." Rueters. Reuters. 21 June 2007. 3 May 2009 <http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2055095620070621?s =true>. Kruger, Paul. "Electric power required in the world by 2050 with hydrogen fuel Revised." International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 30.15 (Dec. 1522. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], abbreviation]. 28 May 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx? direct=true&db=a9h&AN=18950569&site=ehost-live> Shaheen, Susan . "Californias Zero-Emission Vehicle." Transportation (2005): 113-120. Jstor, Langston Library, May 8, 2009. <http://repositories.cdlib.org/itsdavis/UCD-ITS-RP-04-14>. "Timeline: History of the Electric Car . NOW |." PBS. 4 May 2009 <http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html>.
United States. Cong. House. Large-Scale Vehicle Electrification Program. 26 Mar. 2009. 111th Cong. House Bill 1742. 21 Mar. 2009. United States. Cong. House. Vehicles for the Future Act. 26 Mar. 2009. 111th Cong. House Bill 1730. 21 Mar. 2009.

production

2005): 1515[State

Record September

http://www.ndted.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Ultrasonics/EquipmentTrans/piezotransduce rs.htm http://www.energybulletin.net/node/1253