Electric vehicles won't rule the road until at least 2040, says US government

By on December 23, 2013, 8:30 AM
department of energy, electric cars, energy consumption, automotive industry, electric

According to the Department of Energy, gasoline powered vehicles will still make up for the vast majority of vehicles on the road even in the year 2040. The department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) is forecasting in its 2014 Annual Energy Outlook that the market share of gasoline powered cars and trucks will witness a mere 4 percent downfall, from today's 82 percent to 78 percent, by 2040.

While full hybrids will account for 5 percent, plug-in hybrids and full electric vehicles will collectively constitute only 2 percent of the market share. Micro hybrids and other advanced fuel technologies will feature in 42 percent of the gasoline powered vehicles in that year.

The Agency predicts a rise in the fuel efficiency of the country's cars and trucks, which is expected to jump from 21.5 mpg in 2012 to 37.2 mpg by 2040. While the forecast is green, the government expects even better. According to the new rules set by the Obama administration in 2012, the fuel efficiency figures should touch 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025.

The overall energy consumption by the American transport sector is expected to fall by 4 percent. Diesel vehicles will double from today's 2 percent to 4 percent. The agency also predicts that the price of gasoline 25 years from now will be $3.90 and that of diesel will be $4.73. These price figures are adjusted for inflation.




User Comments: 30

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | VitalyT VitalyT said:

It sounds like most of that EIA are heavily invested into the gasoline market, to make forecasts as ridiculous, or just as short-sighted as that Russian proverbial hedgehog in the mist...

Those ****** are looking at bare statistics, without understanding where the technology is at the moment or where it will be in the near future.

The same type of ****** who predict wide 4K U-HDTV adaptation for 2020, and the end of the world in 2012...

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

37 mpg is about 6.3 l/100 km. It doesn't sound all that great considering a lot of small cars get that and less at 100km/h right now. As for the price, a lot can happen to affect that between now and then and the way the price of electricity is soaring, maybe hydrogen power is a better alternative.

1 person liked this | MilwaukeeMike said:

According to the new rules set by the Obama administration in 2012, the fuel efficiency figures should touch 54.5 mpg for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025.*

There, I added the required 'government asterisk' that every statement from the govt should have. This will help explain up front the bogus logic in a hope that they won't be called liars down the line. Here's what the asterisk should say.

*Subject to a few caveats. source (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/29/545-miles-pe
-gallon-for-all-cars-by-2025-not-exactly)

1) The government measures MPG differently than what you'd see on a car's window sticker. They use a non-standard test that leaves out things like accelerating and the occasional hill. We say 54, but it'll really be closer around 36 MPG.

2) Auto-manufacturers are not really required to have all their cars be capable of 54 MPG, they just have to offer an average of 54 MPG across their whole fleet.

3) The target of 54 MPG will be adjusted at the end of every year because it's unconstitutional for the US Govt to tell the auto makers what they have to make. Therefore if gas prices drop to like $2 a gallon and people demand more powerful cars, the standards will be adjusted.

4) Auto makers can earn credits for selling electric vehicles and hybrids which they can use to offset higher mileage models like trucks and SUVs.

Don't underestimate the fine print on these regulations. The last time they passed one of these, they made cars exempt from MPG regs that ran on E85 (85% ethanol, called FlexFuel vehicles). So basically auto makers could make what they want so long as drivers had the choice to fill up with extra expensive/hard to find/fast burning E85. The end result of those MPG regulations was that pretty much no one had to follow them.

Just like everything else, auto makers are going to make what the consumers want no matter what the govt tries to do to guide them otherwise. Consumers get what they want, auto-makers can make what the consumers want, and the govt gets to look like they're important and doing something great. Everyone wins, hooray!

davislane1 davislane1 said:

Any forecast of anything that reaches out more than a year is increasingly dubious. Full EVs will not capture a significant market share over gasoline/diesel and hybrids until they become as convenient and versatile as the competition. This might not happen for decades or it might happen tomorrow; trying to nail down a specific date doesn't accomplish much beyond making noise.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

We will follow the money trail, where ever that may lead. We will move forward in this direction, regardless of what is in our best interest.

Guest said:

I don't want an electric vehicle and hope that I will never be forced to buy one, so they can say 2100 and it'll be too soon for me. Getting 54 mpg from a V8 is gonna be interesting.

1 person liked this | MilwaukeeMike said:

To get an idea of how bass-akwards the govt is on this stuff... here's something I found on abcnews.com on the story...

At a forum on the new CAFE Standards, David Strickland of the National Highway Transportation Administration called them "one of the greatest accomplishments in transportation in three decades."

Now... you'd think maybe actually ACCOMPLISHING the MPG standards would be the big deal, and this guy would say something like 'This is the first step to a greener future', but no, just passing the law is the great accomplishment. Results are for suckers, right?

1 person liked this | TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

We'll see what happens when Tesla comes out with their $40k sedan and they start selling like hot cakes. If it's one thing automakers hate, it's competition. They'll be forced to join in the affordable and quality electric manufacturing business or lose a considerable share to others.

GeforcerFX GeforcerFX said:

Well I never saw electric cars taking over the market, if by electric car they mean only electric running off battery style. Some people need to be able to drive hundreds of miles at any time, gasoline hybrids or ethanol/bio-diesal hybrids are there solutions, still electric but using those fuels to create the electricity. I see there being a lot of different kinds of cars on the road by 2040 not just electric but by 2040 our battery tech will be better and hopefully nuclear fussion will have come along.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

37 mpg is about 6.3 l/100 km. It doesn't sound all that great considering a lot of small cars get that and less at 100km/h right now. As for the price, a lot can happen to affect that between now and then and the way the price of electricity is soaring, maybe hydrogen power is a better alternative.
Isn't the quickest way to generate hydrogen, (& oxygen), through hydrolysis? You would need lots of electricity to accomplish that.

I mean, it could turn into the same fiasco as methanol, with subsidies contributing to producing it a net loss.

Then too, there's the issue of pressure containment. The bottles used for welding gases are thick walled, heavy, and need to be pressure tested every 5 years. (At least in my area).

There's also the issue of how sophisticated the handling equipment needs to be for high pressure , potentially explosive mixes. Remember the space shuttle Challenger? That's the result of hydrogen and oxygen propellants. So, when you pull into a gas station and see a plastic bag over a pump nozzle that says, "out of order", think how much more risky squirting hydrogen at high pressure might have been.

Disclaimer, I didn't do any research here. I could be talking out my a**! (Face it though, that's part of my charm).

GeforcerFX GeforcerFX said:

Isn't the quickest way to generate hydrogen, (& oxygen), through hydrolysis? You would need lots of electricity to accomplish that.

I mean, it could turn into the same fiasco as methanol, with subsidies contributing to producing it a net loss.

Then too, there's the issue of pressure containment. The bottles used for welding gases are thick walled, heavy, and need to be pressure tested every 5 years. (At least in my area).

There's also the issue of how sophisticated the handling equipment needs to be for high pressure , potentially explosive mixes. Remember the space shuttle. That's the result of hydrogen ans oxygen propellants. So, when you pull into a gas station and see a plastic bag over a pump nozzle that says, "out of order", think how much more risky squirting hydrogen at high pressure might have been.

Disclaimer, I didn't do any research here. I could be talking out my a**! (Face it though, that's part of my charm).

Well one of the by products of nuclear power is massive amounts of hydrogen. Yes its not the safest fuel to power cars, but its by far the cleanest.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Well one of the by products of nuclear power is massive amounts of hydrogen. Yes its not the safest fuel to power cars, but its by far the cleanest.

Right! And since everybody wants to get rid of nukes, all you're doing is talking in circles.

Besides give the time and precautions necessary to fuel with hydrogen, you aren't going to be able to pop into the corner gas station for five bucks worth on a whim.

Notice I'm not disputing the cleanliness of it. I'm just saying that it might be impracticably clean.

Note too, that forklifts that are required to run indoors, for decades have been using propane. But yeah, with those, ya gotta open a window..

GeforcerFX GeforcerFX said:

Right! And since everybody wants to get rid of nukes, all you're doing is talking in circles.

Besides give the time and precautions necessary to fuel with hydrogen, you aren't going to be able to pop into the corner gas station for five bucks worth on a whim.

Notice I'm not disputing the cleanliness of it. I'm just saying that it might be impracticably clean.

Note too, thet forklifts that are required to run indoors, for decades have been using propane. But yeah, with those, ya gotta open a window..

I wouldn't say anyone is abandoning nuclear energy, except Europe, the United States and China aren't. America just aprroved 5 reactor replacements that will be done by 2015 as well as another 15 by 2020. At the moment everyone (chine, USA, Russia) are working on generation IV reactors that can use "spent" fuel basically eliminating a lot of the costs associated with nuclear energy in the disposal of nuclear waste. I could see hydrogen being practical but only near coast lines. Like I said before I think the roads are going to be very diverse in 2040 not just gas and diesel like they are now.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I wouldn't say anyone is abandoning nuclear energy, except Europe, the United States and China aren't. America just aprroved 5 reactor replacements that will be done by 2015 as well as another 15 by 2020. At the moment everyone (chine, USA, Russia) are working on generation IV reactors that can use "spent" fuel basically eliminating a lot of the costs associated with nuclear energy in the disposal of nuclear waste. I could see hydrogen being practical but only near coast lines. Like I said before I think the roads are going to be very diverse in 2040 not just gas and diesel like they are now.
Wow! Don't let Jackson Browne hear you say any of that.....:eek:

1 person liked this | Guest said:

The 2016 arrival of grapheme electrode lithium ion batteries will double the range of all electric cars, pushing the top Tesla model S over 500 miles and most EV over 200miles. The only gasoline that will be used in cars past 2028 would be for the onboard generator/ range extender. A kilowatt costs 10cents and gets you 3 miles, so that's 30 miles to the dollar, or about 90 miles for the price of a gallon of gas at $3.

The piston engine is obsolete, and the technology to replace it is finally coming on stream, accelerated by the high price of oil.

The only place you will find a V8 in 2040 will be a museum. :-)

JC713 JC713 said:

What about Hydrogen? Once we take away the need for precious metals, the cost will go way down. Also, natural gas can be an option, especially for trucks.

2 people like this | GeforcerFX GeforcerFX said:

I wouldn't say anyone is abandoning nuclear energy, except Europe, the United States and China aren't. America just aprroved 5 reactor replacements that will be done by 2015 as well as another 15 by 2020. At the moment everyone (chine, USA, Russia) are working on generation IV reactors that can use "spent" fuel basically eliminating a lot of the costs associated with nuclear energy in the disposal of nuclear waste. I could see hydrogen being practical but only near coast lines. Like I said before I think the roads are going to be very diverse in 2040 not just gas and diesel like they are now.
Wow! Don't let Jackson Browne hear you say any of that.....:eek:

shows you how young I am when I had to google him to see what your talking about

What about Hydrogen? Once we take away the need for precious metals, the cost will go way down. Also, natural gas can be an option, especially for trucks.

True I think hydrogen would be good (if you havn't read my earlier posts), but would remain relatively expensive in certain places(away from sea or nuclear power). I think natural gas(including propane) and diesel powered electric trucks would be there future. The torque they get from electric motors is to good to pass up, but they need on board power generation units, batteries just won't cut it for them.

Guest said:

Invading all those countries to steal their oil would all be for nothing if electric vehicles took over. There are videos of teenages on Youtube converting their fifteen year old cars to electric for less than nothing. Our government is controlled by corporations. There is just too much money in gasoline to allow electric vehicles to rule the road.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

...[ ]....A kilowatt costs 10cents and gets you 3 miles, so that's 30 miles to the dollar, or about 90 miles for the price of a gallon of gas at $3.
Dude, you must be huffing too much adhesive off the back of energy efficiency rating stickers in Best Buy's showroom. C'mon over to my place, it's about 16 cents @KwH.

(Charges for the electricity itself, is about .10c a KwH, But with distribution, delivery, and what they used to call, "intangible charges", the price is bumped to closer to my number.

You're not assuming electric companies are going to forgo the delivery charges, tax, and whatnot either, just because you're "green", are you? We've had "energy from renewable resources", pushing two decades, and that electricity, costs even more.

(They just say 10 cents @KwH,, so they can get that crap out the door).

Invading all those countries to steal their oil would all be for nothing if electric vehicles took over....[ ]....
Nah. We invade countries to steal oil, so we to run our now built in China Hum-Vees, to lend to Blackwater, for use in killing their civilians. Don't you know anything?

BMfan BMfan said:

Hopefully by then there is something a lot better than battery power.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

shows you how young I am when I had to google him to see what your talking about

True I think hydrogen would be good (if you havn't read my earlier posts), but would remain relatively expensive in certain places(away from sea or nuclear power). I think natural gas(including propane) and diesel powered electric trucks would be there future. The torque they get from electric motors is to good to pass up, but they need on board power generation units, batteries just won't cut it for them.

BTW, Wow diesel electric? you just reinvented the locomotive. No, really.

Hopefully by then there is something a lot better than battery power.
Actually there is, Overhead power lines! Just Google, "PRR GG1".

Some additional food for thought: [link]

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

Isn't the quickest way to generate hydrogen, (& oxygen), through hydrolysis? You would need lots of electricity to accomplish that.

I mean, it could turn into the same fiasco as methanol, with subsidies contributing to producing it a net loss.

Then too, there's the issue of pressure containment. The bottles used for welding gases are thick walled, heavy, and need to be pressure tested every 5 years. (At least in my area).

There's also the issue of how sophisticated the handling equipment needs to be for high pressure , potentially explosive mixes. Remember the space shuttle Challenger? That's the result of hydrogen and oxygen propellants. So, when you pull into a gas station and see a plastic bag over a pump nozzle that says, "out of order", think how much more risky squirting hydrogen at high pressure might have been.

Disclaimer, I didn't do any research here. I could be talking out my a**! (Face it though, that's part of my charm).

Yeah, Safe containment in a motor vehicle will be a major hurdle to overcome. Remember the shuttle used 80's technology and we (or at least I) don't know how often new technologies were incorporated into it but there's only so much you can do before you have to start over with a clean sheet.

Maybe hydrogen powered cars will never become mainstream but there's still a lot of research going on and could be some big breakthroughs (if motor vehicle industry doesn't take their safety cues from the Hindenberg).

JC713 JC713 said:

True I think hydrogen would be good (if you havn't read my earlier posts), but would remain relatively expensive in certain places(away from sea or nuclear power). I think natural gas(including propane) and diesel powered electric trucks would be there future. The torque they get from electric motors is to good to pass up, but they need on board power generation units, batteries just won't cut it for them.

Yes, but that high cost comes from the precious metals used. They use platinum and gold in the fuel cell (I think in either the anode or cathode or PEM).

1 person liked this | cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Yes, but that high cost comes from the precious metals used. They use platinum and gold in the fuel cell (I think in either the anode or cathode or PEM).
I wish the value of platinum and gold would disappear. We don't need them to maintain ones value. The use of Bitcoins is proof of that. It is not the gold/platinum that holds value. It is the exchange rate between peoples desires that hold value.

We might as well release all materials that hold great value to be used elsewhere. Such as innovation that normally wouldn't be feasible because of material cost. But yet here we are with hordes of gold locked away for safe keeping, when it could be used for future benefits.

JC713 JC713 said:

I wish the value of platinum and gold would disappear. We don't need them to maintain ones value. The use of Bitcoins is proof of that. It is not the gold/platinum that holds value. It is the exchange rate between peoples desires that hold value.

We might as well release all materials that hold great value to be used elsewhere. Such as innovation that normally wouldn't be feasible because of material cost. But yet here we are with hordes of gold locked away for safe keeping, when it could be used for future benefits.

I agree. Well said.

ekg84 said:

The 2016 arrival of grapheme electrode lithium ion batteries will double the range of all electric cars, pushing the top Tesla model S over 500 miles and most EV over 200miles. The only gasoline that will be used in cars past 2028 would be for the onboard generator/ range extender. A kilowatt costs 10cents and gets you 3 miles, so that's 30 miles to the dollar, or about 90 miles for the price of a gallon of gas at $3.

The piston engine is obsolete, and the technology to replace it is finally coming on stream, accelerated by the high price of oil.

The only place you will find a V8 in 2040 will be a museum. :-)

Exactly my thoughts, no matter how packed with technology new car is, if there is a tank full of explosive liquid in there - that car obsolete. As much as I love v8 rumble I believe that its time to move forward. Internal combustion engines have been with us for over century and its time for them to go. If small Californian company in 2013 is capable of designing and producing an electric car with 300 mile range - one can only imagine what will be possible by 2040. No matter how much people resist the change - its gonna happen. Its called progress, baby. Batteries will become better and cheaper in next 10 years. Even existing Lithium ion technology can be improved on producing cheaper battery that lasts twice as long.

And I'm having hard time believing that gasoline will cost $4 a gallon in 2040. That notion is just ludicrous.

Guest said:

"electric vehicles won't rule the road until at least 2040"

I doubt before 2040 there's still gasoline left for us to buy.. :D

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I doubt before 2040 there's still gasoline left for us to buy..

The US doesn't need to buy oil, they are sitting on major deposits waiting for everyone else to dry up.

[link]

[link]

After all it is not possible for the US to keep secrets. I wonder if they label this as national security.</sarcasm>

Guest said:

@Clifford

so in the end, US will be the last when everyone else depleted their oil..

omg, Clifford, you've just leaked US' most top secret, your information violating US national security!! (joking) hahaha

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.