EV subsidies, fantasies and realities

Electric vehicles are trendy but not very Earth-friendly, affordable or emission-free

Paul Driessen

Tesla may be synonymous with electric vehicles right now. But within a few years, GM, Volvo and many other manufacturers will be making mostly or only EVs, because they’re emission-free, climate-friendly, socially and ecologically responsible, and more affordable every year. Which explains why we need subsidies to persuade people to buy them, and mandates to force people to buy them.

President Biden wants all new light/medium-duty vehicles sold by 2035 to be EVs. Vice President Harris wants only ZEVs (zero emission vehicles) on America’s roads by 2045. Various states are considering or have already passed similar laws; some would even ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2030. Climate Czar John Kerry will likely be happy to buy EVs to expand his fleet of twelve cars, two yachts, six houses, and the private jet he flies in to accept climate crusader awards.

AOC would use her Green New Deal to “massively” expand electric vehicle manufacturing and use. She herself now drives an EV, most likely a $48,000 Tesla Model 3 Long Range (350 miles per charge).

Mini AOC also has an EV, pink and suitably sized for a 10-year-old. She launched her GND and bought her mini-car after viewing, “like, the most important documentary on climate change. It’s called Ice Age 2: The Meltdown. That’s not me saying it. That’s science!” she explained. “My Green New Deal will cost, like, 93 trillion dollars. Do you know how much that is? Me neither. Because it’s totally worth it. If sea levels keep rising, we won’t be able to drive to Hawaii anymore!” (Not even in her EV!)

For some people EVs are an easy choice. But why the hefty subsidies? Why do the rest of us need mandates and diktats – and a new Henry Ford dictum, letting consumers have any kind of car they want, as long as it’s electric. Regardless of needs or preferences. (But at least we can choose the color.)

More important, who’s actually getting the subsidies? and who’s paying for them? What other costs and unintended consequences are Big Green, Big Government, Big Media and Big Tech keeping quiet about?

A 2021 Tesla Model S Long Range can go 412 miles on a multi-hour charge; its MSRP is $80,000. The Model Y all-wheel-drive is $58,000. A Nissan Leaf is “only” $34,000 but only goes 149 miles. Mileage of course assumes temperatures are moderate and drivers aren’t using the cars’ heater or AC. Similar sticker-shock prices apply to other EV makes and models, putting them out of reach for most families.

To soften the blows to budgets and liberties, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants to spend $454 billion to install 500,000 new EV charging stations, replace US government vehicles with EVs, and finance “cash for clunkers” rebates to help at least some families navigate this transportation transformation.

Politicians are being pressured to retain the $7,500 per car federal tax credit (and sweet state tax rebates) now scheduled to lapse once a manufacturer’s cumulative vehicle sales since 2009 reach 200,000. EV drivers also want other incentives perpetuated: free charging stations, access to HOV lanes for plug-ins with only the driver, and not having to pay fees that substitute for gasoline taxes to finance the construction, maintenance and repair of highways they drive on.

A 2015 study found that the richest 20% of Americans received 90% of these generous EV subsidies. No surprise there. Clearly, lobbyists are more valuable than engineers for EV manufacturers and drivers.

This perverse reverse-Robin-Hood system also means subsidies are financed by taxpayers – including millions of working class and minority families, most of which will never be able to afford an EV.

Any cash for clunkers program will exacerbate the problem. By enabling sufficiently wealthy families to trade fossil-fuel cars for EVs, it will result in millions of perfectly drivable cars and trucks that would have ended up in used car lots getting crushed and melted instead. Basic supply and demand laws mean the average cost of pre-owned ICE vehicles will soar by thousands of dollars, pricing even them out of reach for millions of lower-income families. They’ll be forced to buy pieces of junk or ride buses and subways jammed with people they hope won’t be carrying next-generation COVID.

The United States will begin to look like Cuba, which still boasts legions of classic 1960s and ‘70s cars that are cared for and kept on the road with engines, brakes and other parts cannibalized from wrecks and even old Soviet cars. Once the states and federales ban gasoline sales, even that will end.

Perhaps even more ironic and perverse, the “zero emissions vehicle” moniker refers only to emissions in the USA – and only if the electricity required to manufacture and charge ZEVs comes from non-fossil-fuel power plants. Texans now know how well wind turbines and solar panels work when “runaway global warming” turns to record cold and snow. Californians have to dodge future rolling blackouts.

For several years now, production engineers have been pondering how to retool plants from ICE to EV engines. They better start thinking about how to retool and power their entire factories – and our planet.

With many politicians and environmentalists equally repulsed by nuclear and hydroelectric power, having any electricity source will soon be a recurrent challenge. Having reliable, affordable electricity will be a pipe dream. Simply having enough electricity to replace all of today’s coal and gas power generation, internal combustion vehicle fuels, natural gas for cooking, heating and emergency power, coal and gas for smelters and factories, and countless other now-fossil-fuel uses, will be a miracle.

Every home, neighborhood and city will also have to replace existing gas and electric systems to handle the extra loads. More trillions of dollars. There’s also the matter of nasty, toxic, impossible-to-extinguish lithium battery fires – in cars now, and soon in homes, parking garages and backup battery facilities.

We’re talking millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules, thousands of miles of new transmission lines. They’ll kill birds and bats, disrupt or destroy sensitive habitats, and impair or eradicate hundreds of plant and animal species. As electricity prices rise, US factories won’t be able to compete against China and other nations that don’t have to and will not stop using fossil fuels.

Zero emission fantasies also ignore the essential role of fossil fuels in manufacturing ZEVs (and pretend-renewable energy systems). From mining and processing the myriad metals and minerals for EV battery modules, wiring, drivetrains and bodies, to actually making the components and finished vehicles, every step requires oil, natural gas or coal. Not in California or America perhaps, but elsewhere on Planet Earth, especially Africa, Asia and South America, most often with Chinese companies in leading roles.

A single EV battery module needs some 30 pounds of lithium, plus many other metals and materials totaling at least 1,000 pounds: from commonplace iron, copper, aluminum and petroleum-based plastics, to “exotics” like cobalt and multiple rare earth elements. An EV requires three times more copper than its ICE counterpart; a single wind turbine needs some 3.5 tons of copper per megawatt of electricity.

And every 1,000 tons of finished copper involves mining, crushing, refining and smelting some 125,000 tons of ore – and removing thousands of tons of overburden and surrounding rock just to reach the ore. The same is true for all these other materials, especially rare earths. Try to imagine the cumulative global impacts from all this mining and fossil fuel use – so that AOC, Al Gore, Leo Di Caprio and other wealthy, saintly people can drive “clean, green, climate-friendly” electric cars. (That’s OK. Mini AOC can’t either.)

Even worse, many of these materials are dug up and turned into “virtuous” EVs, wind turbines and solar panels – in China, Congo, Bolivia and other places – with little regard for child labor, fair wages, workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, endangered species and mined land reclamation. It’s all far away, out of sight and out of mind, and thus irrelevant. And amid all this is the touchy issue of Uighur genocide and their people being sent to re-education/slave labor camps, to help meet China’s mineral, EV and other export markets.  

How long will we let real social, environmental and climate justice take a back seat to EV mythology?

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books, reports and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

4.7 39 votes
Article Rating
337 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
March 9, 2021 2:24 am

Good report, Paul. I can imagine a place for EV’s, like for urban commuters in large metropolitan areas susceptible to pollution. But for the real world, like driving over the Andes Mountains or across Nevada, or up the Alaska Highway, no way even a “long range” EV will make the trip. The problem is that the distance capability is for flat road without additional drain, like heater or air conditioner (mentioned in the report). Add mountains, wait times for traffic, heater, lights, and you get about half the stated distance.

The other negative aspects, mentioned by Paul, is the hidden costs of producing everything associated with conversion to EV’s as well as the destruction of our flying friends. How an environmentalist can virtue-signal by buying a n EV and turn a blind eye to the carnage wind turbines and solar reflector generators produce, is beyond my comprehension.

michel
Reply to  Ron Long
March 9, 2021 3:07 am

“I can imagine a place for EV’s, like for urban commuters in large metropolitan areas susceptible to pollution.”

Indeed yes. There are people who claim that ICE air pollution is not to be taken seriously – they don’t live or work in heavy traffic areas. There is a real case to be made for only allowing electric vehicles, along with foot and cycle traffic, in densely populated city areas. And for restructuring the road environment so as to make walking and cycling safe and pleasant.

But there is no case to be made for converting whole countries to electric cars and trucks while leaving everything else the same in the mad attempt to lower global CO2 emissions. Its not going to happen and if it did would not materially reduce emissions.

Whereas banning the most unpleasantly polluting vehicles from cities where there is a real problem is both possible and desirable, as long as we make the corresponding changes to roads and walkways and public transport.

The priority is pollution, its not CO2 emissions or electricity. In fact, if we could lower particulate and NO2 pollution by raising CO2 emissions, we should.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 3:56 am

A modern ( last 15 years) petrol car has a cleaner exhaust than city air. They burn off existing pollutants. Get your facts straight.

RelPerm
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
March 9, 2021 4:43 am

petrol car has a cleaner exhaust than city air. They burn off existing pollutants

???
Where are your straight facts!?! New cars are certainly less polluting than old cars, but cleaner exhaust than city air? You must be living in a very dirty air polluted city, Michel.

Reply to  RelPerm
March 9, 2021 7:15 am

That’s true for some diesel cars with particulate filter, and an air strongy polluted with partuclates
.
Cleaning the Air We Breathe – Controlling Diesel Particulate Emissions from Passenger Cars
and Newest diesel engines clean the air

MarkW
Reply to  RelPerm
March 9, 2021 8:37 am

Chaswarnertoo has his facts straight. Thanks to the catalytic converter, the air coming out the tail pipe for modern cars (anything built in the last 10 years or so) is cleaner than ambient air.

Curious George
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 10:38 am

Don’t lock yourself in a garage with the engine running.

ATheoK
Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2021 11:31 am

Why?

Modern ICE engines with catalytic converters produce CO₂ and water.
No carbon monoxide!

The only thing that will happen in that garage is eventual suffocation. Likely, for the engine first with insufficient oxygen for internal combustion.

MarkW
Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2021 11:43 am

Other than potentially running out of oxygen, what problems do you anticipate?

Jake J
Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2021 5:18 pm

In fact, as the result of research on behalf of a terminal cancer patient who wants to hasten his own death, I looked into carbon monoxide.

If you want to kill yourself with CO, I told him, you’d better have an old car without a catalytic converter, or a couple of kerosene space heaters and well-sealed garage doors and windows, because your car won’t do the trick.

Reply to  Jake J
March 11, 2021 2:55 pm

If you want to kill yourself with CO, I told him, you’d better have an old car without a catalytic converter, or a couple of kerosene space heaters and well-sealed garage doors and windows, because your car won’t do the trick.

In fact, people do inadvertently die from CO poisoning by leaving their keyless-ignition cars running in their garages…even though they have left the garage:

It’s possible to die from CO poisoning from a car running in your garage even if you aren’t in your garage

Jake J
Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 13, 2021 11:01 am

Well yes, I suppose that 29 hours would do it.

BobM
Reply to  Curious George
March 10, 2021 6:04 am

Nor should you put a plastic bag over your head. Same thing.

LdB
Reply to  Curious George
March 10, 2021 2:42 pm

Don’t hold you head under the clean pure natural stream water.

Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 11:16 am

Thanks to the catalytic converter, the air coming out the tail pipe for modern cars (anything built in the last 10 years or so) is cleaner than ambient air.

Absolute nonsense. While modern gasoline-burning vehicles emit far less pollution than cars of the 1970s and 1980s, a 2021 gasoline vehicle emits carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons far in excess of levels typical of ambient air. A 2021 gasoline vehicle (for example, with gasoline direct injection, or GDI) also emits nanoparticulate material (particles less than 100 nanometers in size) far in excess of levels in ambient air.

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/light-duty-vehicle-emissions

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/421/4/042027/pdf

MarkW
Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 9, 2021 11:44 am

The comment was about ambient air in cities, not average ambient.

Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 7:47 am

The comment was about ambient air in cities, not average ambient.

It doesn’t make any difference. Gasoline engine cars with catalytic converters do not “clean” city air.

Take carbon monoxide (CO), for example. The CO concentration in the worst cities in the U.S. on the worst days of the year are less than 3 ppm. The CO concentration coming out of a new car exhaust pipe is well over 100 ppm.

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/carbon-monoxide-trends

https://www.abe.iastate.edu/extension-and-outreach/carbon-monoxide-poisoning-vehicles-aen-208/

Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 10, 2021 8:25 am

I know it is hard to believe, and I would not believe it if I were not deeply involved in emission testing vehicles for 30 years. But for one example, diesel PM emissions are 99.9% (CARB’s own values used) lower than 1990 diesels as measured in the laboratory with perfectly clean test air. When these vehicles are operated on the road where there is pollution and wind blown dust and pollen etc, during air violation days (the only days that count for health effects benefits) the diesel reduces PM pollution, similarly true for HC, and CO pollutants. These PM air violation days are only 2-4% of the year in Los Angeles for example. So the 98-96% of the year, air is clean and the diesel does emit pollutants – but the air is clean and there is no harm (because ambient air PM is below ambient health-based standards). I have prepared 7 articles on this topic that can be seen at Stillwater Associates. Here are a few. enjoy!

How Do ZEV Emissions Stack Up Against Super-Clean Gasoline and Diesel Engines?

Is it time for CARB & EPA to revise vehicle emission and emission-reduction estimates?

How does Hydrogen compare to Biomass-Based Diesel on GHG, PM, and petroleum reduction?

Reply to  Gary Yowell
March 11, 2021 2:43 pm

Hi Gary,

You provide interesting and useful data, but I think you misunderstand the data you supply.

First of all, you say that, “So the 98-96% of the year, air is clean and the diesel does emit pollutants – but the air is clean and there is no harm (because ambient air PM is below ambient health-based standards).”

That’s simply wrong. The fact that there are ambient air limits for PM10 and PM2.5 does not mean that there is no harm to polluting the air with P10 and PM2.5, as long as the levels are below the current ambient air limits. (An additional important fact: The fact that there are *no* limits on nanoparticulate matter–PM less than 0.1 micrometers in size–does not mean that emitting those particles don’t have adverse effects on human health.)

There is not some sort of “step function,” where at a particular level of PM10 or PM2.5 there are adverse health effects, but below that level, there are no adverse health effects. So your claim that:

So the 98-96% of the year, air is clean and the diesel does emit pollutants – but the air is clean and there is no harm…

…is simply wrong.

Your analysis also *exclusively* focuses on PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter. You totally ignore NOx emissions. You also ignore hydrocarbon and CO emissions. (Finally, you ignore nanoparticulate emissions…PM less than 0.1 micrometer in size. This is a reasonable thing to do, as long as a caveat is provided to acknowledge that both gasoline and diesel vehicles have nanoparticulate emissions in their exhausts…with human health consequences that are not clear at this time.)

NOx emissions are particularly important, because they contribute to ozone formation, and also form “secondary particulate”…nitrate particles that form when the hot NOx coming out of the diesel exhaust is exposed to cool ambient air.

Source Apportionment of Secondary Airborne Particulate Matter in a Polluted Atmosphere

From that source:

Calculations performed for a typical air quality episode in Southern California show that NOx released from diesel engines and catalyst-equipped gasoline engines account for the majority of the secondary particulate nitrate aerosol measured at inland locations.

I’ll probably have more comments if I have additional time in the coming days, but my original point stands: internal combustion engine vehicles do not clean the air in U.S. cities…although recent model year internal combustion engine vehicles unquestionably have far lower criteria pollutant emissions than vehicles of a few decades ago.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 11:24 am

Make it up Mark
Thanks to the catalytic converter, the air coming out the tail pipe for modern cars (anything built in the last 10 years or so) is cleaner than ambient air.”
You just make stuff up don’t you. Let’s see a credible reference for that statement.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2021 11:43 am

Now that’s funny, Simon whining that others don’t document all of their claims.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 3:48 pm

Name a claim I have made I couldn’t back up. And I take it from your comment you just “made it up” again. At least if you are going to try to mislead make it slightly believable.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2021 6:52 pm

All of them

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 7:49 pm

I claimed you make things up. Seems I got that right.

ATheoK
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 8:48 pm

Knew his birds of a feather ilk were around when bahner got upvoted… Hyenas come to mind.

Last edited 4 months ago by ATheoK
Reply to  ATheoK
March 13, 2021 8:03 am

Knew his birds of a feather ilk were around when bahner got upvoted… Hyenas come to mind.

Yeah, upvoted…because God forbid that someone who actually knows something about transportation emissions comments on the subject on WUWT.

And it’s ironic that you should mention hyenas. I routinely perform air pollution analyses, such as transportation emissions analyses, that you have no more chance than a hyena of performing.

For example, go to this paper and translate the CO (that’s carbon monoxide, for clueless amateurs like you) values in Table 1 from grams per mile to ppm.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0037-5/tables/1

Until then, go back to your search for rotting antelope flesh (or your “Paper or plastic?” job).

Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2021 1:36 pm
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 10, 2021 8:14 am

Look here

And in particular, look at this very important caveat:

Emissions Analytics clarifies, that it would be a broad stroke to say that diesel engines clean the air. This is purely a measurement of particulates, and ignores nitrogen oxides and other gaseous emissions.

They did not measure nitrogen oxides…which form secondary particulate in the atmosphere. Also, they did not measure nanoparticulate matter (particulate matter less than 100 nanometers in size).

ATheoK
Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 10, 2021 8:54 pm

Also, they did not measure nanoparticulate matter (particulate matter less than 100 nanometers in size)”

No one does.
EPA fouled their own research when they had volunteers inhale pm2.5 without their knowledge…
All in the hope people would get sick from particulate matter. So, EPA could expand their authority.

As it is it is so hard to capture PM2.5 and smaller particulate matter that EPA uses statistics when estimating quantities… Meaning, they make up the numbers.

Reply to  ATheoK
March 13, 2021 8:47 am

“Also, they did not measure nanoparticulate matter (particulate matter less than 100 nanometers in size)”

No one does.

Nonsense. Presently, there are no regulations in the U.S. for particle count, but there are regulations for particle count in Europe, and therefore particles down to the nanoparticulate size are routinely measured (e.g., with condensation particle counters):

Measuring Low Particulate Emissions from Mobile Sources: A Review of Particle Number Legislations

As it is it is so hard to capture PM2.5 and smaller particulate matter that EPA uses statistics when estimating quantities… Meaning, they make up the numbers.

You know absolutely nothing about this subject. It is not “hard to capture PM2.5 and smaller particulate matter.” More than 1000 ambient PM2.5 measuring stations exist throughout the U.S.:

Ambient PM2.5 monitoring stations in the U.S.

RelPerm
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 8:59 am

Oh gosh, you guys are loony. Catalytic converters have done a lot to clean up car emissions (98-99% compared to 1970’s), but cleaner than ambient?

You can park your car in your living room idling (with bottle of O2 to keep that up to outside levels) and pretend it is cleaning your air more than my house without car. Cars still emit some CO, NOX, HC, VOC, particulates… higher than clean air. My house will have cleaner air than your house.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  RelPerm
March 9, 2021 11:29 pm

Getting facts straight?
Sit on any jet aircraft, the cabin air is indeed recycled out of the engine, which is why if there is an oil leak, the air can become quite toxic.

the last compressor section of the engine, commonly called P3 air”.
When it starts up, there’s often plenty of kerosene lurking around, which is why it often smells quite a bit.
As for auto catalytic convertors,- I dunno what numpty is talking about hi CO levels. Some of the last non catalytic cars produced such low levels of CO, they could often pass for catalytic cars (lean burn technology which was a great idea, was thrown under a bus).

Once you have put a petrol car exhaust thru a catalytic convertor however, because it has such low CO emissions to start with, and the convertor has reached operating temps, then basically what comes out of the exhaust is just water vapour.

Diesel cars are far more dangerous because the extremely high combustion temps of modern HDi systems means they tend to produce high levels of NOx.
It was once again our numpty politicians that dictated so, and kept moving all freight to the roads to drag tax out of the lorry freight park. (that results in NOx emissions surrounding big cities like Leeds and Manchester well in excess of safety limits.

Fuel excise tax is a VAST contributor to the exchequer, which I doubt they can do without + well done trying to do farming without the combine harvester and tractors running on red diesel!

Someone is telling lots of porkies!
I can guess who.

Reply to  pigs_in_space
March 12, 2021 9:13 am

Getting facts straight?

Sit on any jet aircraft, the cabin air is indeed recycled out of the engine,

Do you actually think it’s coming from the jet engine exhaust? It’s not, as you yourself should know from your latter comments. So how jet engines use compressed air for cabins is completely irrelevant to this discussion, because it’s not jet engine exhaust that is used. (If jet engine exhaust was used, the passengers would sicken and/or die.)

Once you have put a petrol car exhaust thru a catalytic convertor however, because it has such low CO emissions to start with, and the convertor has reached operating temps, then basically what comes out of the exhaust is just water vapour.

Simply not true. People have actually *died* from CO poisoning, by leaving their cars running in their garages, even when they were not even in their garages, but instead were in other parts of the house.

It’s possible to die from CO poisoning from a modern car running in a garage, even if a person is not in the garage at the time

Someone is telling lots of porkies!

I can guess who.

Did you guess yourself as being the one telling lots of porkies?

Rich Lambert
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
March 9, 2021 5:09 am

Years ago I was at a meeting where there was discussion about requirements for replacement air for operator cabs of earthmoving equipment. I joked that the exhaust from the diesel engine could be used.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
March 9, 2021 5:14 pm

This depends on what you label as a “pollutant”. It also depends on the fuel, conditional of the engine and converter.

At the very least the exhaust contains a higher level of CO2, CO (even after the catalytic converter coverts much of it) and particulate matter (mainly diesel). If you use a 3-way converter than most NOx pollutants are eliminated.

MarkW
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 8:36 am

While there is a lot of pollution in areas where there are a lot of people. However very little of it is coming from ICE cars. In fact, with modern pollution controls, the air coming out of an ICE tail pipe is cleaner than the air being pulled into the engine.

Most of that pollution is coming from things like restaurants and coffee shops.

michel
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 8:52 am

You cannot ever have experienced it. Stand near the Peripherique in Paris. Or walk down Oxford St in London. Or stand by the A12 coming into London. Live in one of the houses that border the North Circular Road in London.

Restaurants and coffee shops? You’re in denial. If you mix ICE vehicles on that scale with people the result will be terrible quality of life, no coffee shops, and very high levels of breathing problems.

And low priced real estate, because no-one wants to live there.

ATheoK
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 11:36 am

That’s because of noise.
A common problem along highways everywhere.

Though, Europe has problems with their huge preponderance of diesels with doctored software to pretend to pass emissions.

You do not have scientific evidence to back up your air quality claims. Just alleged anecdotal claims while waving around buzz words…

kzb
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 1:21 pm

Funnily enough London is one of the most expensive real-estate cities on Earth. The longest life expectancy in the UK is a borough in inner London. London has three of the top-ten longest life expectancy boroughs in the UK. The shortest life expectancy in England is in Blackpool, on the coast, with copious fresh air blowing in off the Irish Sea (so much fresh air it can sometimes knock you off your feet).

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 6:02 pm

You can thank the euro push for diesel for that. In the formerly sane US of old most traffic in cities is gas powered and clean. LA was far worse than that and the air has cleaned dramatically after the introduction of catalytic converters. Hardly a “terrible quality of life” due to the vehicles. Living as densely as rodents, on the other hand…

Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 8:59 am

Not so clean air with East German “Trabant” 2cyclescontrolmode, 1990, Fall of the Wall – monetaryunion

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 11:47 am

First off, I specified modern cars.
The Trabant was never a modern car, even when it was first produced.

ATheoK
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 11:26 am

The priority is pollution, its not CO2 emissions or electricity. In fact, if we could lower particulate and NO2 pollution by raising CO2 emissions, we should.”

Why!?
Alleged particulates and nitrous oxide emissions are not any danger.
And that is in spite of EPA endangering people’s health desperately seeking small particulates health hazards.

Vehicle emissions have been relegated safe for decades. Yet, the left have zero tolerance, because they hate fossil fuels and freedom.

“There is a real case to be made for only allowing electric vehicles, along with foot and cycle traffic, in densely populated city areas.”

Sounds like an attempt to ban anyone who isn’t from a densely populated city areas from visiting the alleged culture centers.

Just another reason to mandate moving museums and government employment out to rural areas where people have free and easy access.

Let the dwellers of densely populated areas deal with their overpriced overpopulated real estate.

michel
Reply to  ATheoK
March 9, 2021 2:15 pm

I find myself in the curious position of taking a view that will be infuriating both to left and right.

Simple experience of standing on a busy European city street, or at the side of one of the multi-lane roads leading into European cities tells you that the idea that car exhausts now are devoid of real pollutants is a fantasy. You can smell it, you can feel it in the air you breathe.

The idea that this is not so can only be plausible to people who have never been on these streets and roads. Maybe they are the ones driving through them to get to someplace else.

On the other hand, the idea that we can simply replace all the ICE engined vehicles we use today with electric engined ones is also a total fantasy. The idea that even if we could do that and did do it, it would make any difference to global temperatures is also completely mad.

The madness is happening because people refuse to think about what is really important. Some think the most important thing is their ability to drive through other people’s neighborhoods to get wherever they are going.

It is not. The important thing is the quality of life in those areas for the people who live work and play there. The universal experience is that if you get rid of cars driving through them at speed to get someplace else, life in these places is enormously improved. Go to a relatively car free city or section and see for yourself.

We have improved quality of life with cars in one respect, when we are driving we can travel at will wherever we want. We have wrecked quality of life in another respect, the results of everyone doing this on the way through our neighborhoods is disastrous.

People going around claiming that there is nothing wrong with subordinating everything to making places where people live work and play easy to drive through on the way to somewhere else are part of the problem.

Idiots who think making everyone drive electric vehicles because of supposed global warming are part of a different problem.

Stop thinking ideologically and think practically about making cities pleasant and safe places to live, walk, shop and play. That means getting rid of cars in them. Or at least reducing their numbers and as a compromise going electric, which are quieter and put out less noxious fumes.

But equally, stop ideologically insisting on electric cars where they don’t fit the purpose. its mad to try and replace vehicles used for longer distance trips in rural areas where air quality is not a problem. There is absolutely no need to do that. They are just far more expensive than what we have now, they are range and refuel limited (especially in the cold and in hot summers).

The issue is not cars and engines and ideology. The issue is what kind of neighborhoods we want, and what kind of transport we want, and what fits with what. The place to start is not with car worship or hatred, its with what makes places pleasant and safe to live and work and play in. Then fit cars into that. Or not. They are just means to an end. The whole crazed mystique people feel for them has to go.

MarkW
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 3:20 pm

I think the key is what kind of neighborhoods you want, and how much authority you are going to need to force your vision of heaven on everyone else.

michel
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 11:58 pm

Yes to the first point. That is indeed the most important question.

The answer to the second question is no more authority than regulates daily living now. We currently have stringent regulation of the use of cars. Its just that we regulate in a way that produces everyone driving through other peoples neighborhoods in order to get somewhere else. We don’t need any more authority, we just need better priorities.

Is it my personal vision of heaven which I wish to impose on everyone else? No, not at all. I think people given the power will choose lower through traffic. So I think the solution is to give them the power.

There is a flip side of the issue, as follows. I have argued that the result of prioritizing through traffic is that we all destroy each others neighborhoods. The flip side of the issue is that if we give local communities power to stop through traffic, the result will be that we will lose the power to get in a car and drive through them to wherever we are going.

You cannot have both, this is the problem. You cannot have unlimited driving and through traffic AND pleasant, safe, clean-air, quiet neighborhoods where people can walk and bike and play. We have mostly got the balance wrong in cities in the 20c and early 21c because of car worship. If you want a place which has got it right, or righter, look at Holland.

Go tell the people living in woonerfen that what they really want is fewer bike paths, more through traffic. They’ll think you mad.

Also, get a focus group. Tell them scientists have come up with a new means of transportation and the government is wondering whether to legalize it.

The good thing about it is it lets everyone travel wherever and whenever they want with no physical exercise.

The bad thing is that we know for sure that it will lead to accidents which kill 1.35 million people a year worldwide, of whom over half will be walkers cyclists or motorcyclists. And there will be some multiple of this number seriously injured. And in addition it will make local roads unusable for cyclists and walkers or children to play in.

Do you really think you could get enough people to vote for doing it generally? Do you really think you could get enough people to vote to do what it implies to their own neigborhoods?

What we need is not to totally abolish cars, nor to replace ICE with EV. What we need is to regulate them properly, and yes, this will lead to them having a much smaller role and smaller numbers, particularly in cities. But being used and permitted where the tradeoffs make it justifiable.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 6:05 pm

Again, you assume that the bad choices made in europe are somehow the only ones allowed. Just because they bought more into the CAGW cult and forced their populations to go to dirtier diesels doesn’t mean that all ICE vehicles have to operate that way.

And your bike paths have done as much damage to neighborhoods as any roads have.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  michel
March 19, 2021 5:29 am

It sounds to me like you want suburbia in a large city. You can’t have it both ways.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  ATheoK
March 19, 2021 5:23 am

And they can grow their own food and produce all the products they need to live their modern lives. With only electric vehicles the last mile cost of delivering goods would be prohibitive. The warehousing would take a good portion of the beautiful clean cities just like the batteries of a Tesla truck would use most of the trailer.

Catcracking
Reply to  michel
March 9, 2021 4:47 pm

Not sure many living facilities for those who live in urban areas are compatible with overnight charging of an electriv vehicle.
Also criminal activity might disrupt charging.

Pflashgordon
Reply to  Ron Long
March 9, 2021 4:51 am

There are only three metro areas in the U.S. with moderate (New York City; San Diego) or severe (Los Angeles) non-attainment of the 8-hr ozone standard, a good indicator air quality as affected by population density, geography (in the case of LA and SD), and seasonal climate. Almost all other U.S. cities are, at worst, marginal with respect to ozone. Yes, there are other pollutants, but ozone is a good indicator.

Nationwide, despite population growth, U.S. ambient air quality for all criteria pollutants (CO, Pb, NOx, VOCs, PM10, PM2.5, SOx) has been continuously improving (60-99% improvement) over the last 40 years.

So the argument is weak that EVs are needed in congested U.S. cities. If a wealthy city-dweller wants an EV for reasons of his own, let that person pay full price, no subsidies or perks.

Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 9, 2021 5:56 am

Interesting to observe the ozone concentrations over the days. Towards the evenings, the increasing ozone concetration was measured around the cities in forest because lack of f.e. NO, destructing ozone.

comment image
Green line is forest

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 9, 2021 7:05 am

Pflashgordon posted “Yes, there are other pollutants, but ozone is a good indicator.”

In April 2009, under the Obama administration, the EPA formally declared CO2 and five other gases (methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) to be pollutants.

Under that ruling all humans are polluters, just on account of living. Furthermore, swamps, rice paddies, cows and horses, termites and biowaste are big sources of pollution.

Heck, if a person ever uses a pressurized of whipped cream he/she becomes a polluter due to the release of nitrous oxide from such use.

RelPerm
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 10, 2021 5:10 pm

Charging EV produces ozone and NOx, no? Does going from ICE toEV just exchange one pollution for another, especially if CO2 is not considered pollution?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  RelPerm
March 11, 2021 8:32 am

I understand that most (all?) EVs use charging voltages less than 1000 Vdc (i.e., the highest voltage Level 3 “fast” charger I could find with Web search is currently 800 Vdc) . At these voltages, one would not expect to excite corona discharge in air, and thus not expect the production of ozone or NOX.

Generally, voltages above 2 kV and sharp points in the energized circuity are required to initiate corona discharge.

The pollution from using EVs is incurred in both the production of the vehicle itself, particularly its battery with relatively-exotic chemicals, and supplying electricity to re-charge it, which today predominately uses fossil fuel- and nuclear-generated electricity.

There are a few exceptions to the above . . . such as for those EV owners rich enough to install and use their solar panels as the only source for recharging . . . but then again, those solar panels and the required DC-AC-DC circuitry required to enable EV charging have their own initial pollution-during-production accounting.

MarkW
Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 9, 2021 8:39 am

The standard for ozone has been tightened a number of times over the last few decades. All of those cities would be in compliance with older, more realistic, standards.

Rick C
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 10:43 am

Having some direct experience in an EPA air quality standards update process, I was astonished when an EPA staffer admitted that there was not scientifically valid reason to reduce limits. But they had to because the optics of not tightening standards would not be acceptable politically. It was even admitted privately that some of the limits would not be realistically achievable.

Kemaris
Reply to  Rick C
March 9, 2021 5:18 pm

That is an argument the San Joaquin Valley APCD has been making for a while. Background ozone concentrations in the SJV air basin are 40-50 ppb, which doesnt leave much for human activity even before two major traffic arteries (I-5 and Hwy 99) pass through the valley.

Reply to  Rick C
March 10, 2021 8:34 am

That is shocking, but even with my similar experience in California not surprising.

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 9, 2021 9:14 am

It is no longer pollution which will drive the shift to electric drive, but the eventual depletion of oil and gas While these are likely available for over at least 1 more century, cost will crepe up till electric is much less expensive. Also, electric vehicles are basically simpler than fuel driven, so when quantity of production rises, cost will match or drop below fuel driven vehicles. The issues with electric is recharge stations and battery cost. Both are heading in the right direction.

Drake
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 9:42 am

Leonard,

What about the limited supply of the natural resources necessary for the production of all those batteries? Solar panels? Windmills?

Also, with a good source of constant (nuclear) electrical power, industry can make from their constituent parts all of the hydrocarbons needed for transportation fuel. We will never run out of the highly concentrated liquid energy source of hydrocarbons. It is only a matter of cost.

Can the same be said for all the batteries needed for these pie in the sky pipe dream scenarios?

Just asking.

Drake

MarkW
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 11:50 am

Closer to 400 years for oil.
Secondly, they keep claiming that the cost of batteries is falling, but it never seems to show up in show room models.
Yes, there are more moving parts in an ICE, however the ICE will still outlast the battery in your electric car and cost less to replace when they do wear out.
The cost of the charging station is the smallest portion of the cost of installing one. The big cost is beefing up the electrical grid all the way back to the power station.

ATheoK
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 11:53 am

cost will crepe up till electric is much less expensive”

Those fossil fuel creeping costs will greatly increase the price for electric, plastic, resin, fiberglass costs much faster than the costs for running ICE engines. Electricity costs will rise faster than fossil fuel costs.

Commercial production charge fuels/ source material costs at a multiple for goods made with/from fossil fuels.

Nor is there yet a rational future where renewable energy generators can supply high quality consistent electricity necessary to produce renewable energy products.
All, rely upon reliable consistent energy producers.

but the eventual depletion of oil and gas”

A) There are sufficient known reserves at current usage levels, for centuries.
B) There are unlimited supplies of fossil fuels spread through the asteroid belt, moons and our Solar System’s giant planets.

C) One thing is certain, renewables will not enable or support space travel or investigation.

H.R.
Reply to  ATheoK
March 9, 2021 4:17 pm

C’mon, man! Electric rockets are the next big thing.

I can get you in on the ground floor of a can’t-miss investment opportunity.

But if that falls through we can always buy the Brooklyn Bridge and charge a toll. I know a guy…
😜

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  H.R.
March 9, 2021 6:07 pm

Electric rockets are the next big thing. Once you’re in orbit.

David Blenkinsop
Reply to  ATheoK
March 9, 2021 8:00 pm

While there’s definitely lots of methane, ethane, hydrogen, etc. in outer space, it’s a bit misleading to think of that as an energy source, for anyone living out there, when the essential oxidizer, like free oxygen molecules, is so hard to come by in all unearthly locations that we know of. Also, it’s pretty unlikely to be economical to bring that potentially burnable stuff here to the earth, where all that great free O2 is.

Where you might really have a point is if either nuclear or really cheaply developed solar of some kind is used as the primary source of energy in some of those space localities, with lots of O2 as a industrial product thereby. *Then* you could burn those fuels, just bring your tank of LO2 along..

ATheoK
Reply to  David Blenkinsop
March 10, 2021 8:57 pm

Inventing caveats and assumed impossibilities does not prevent access to that mineral wealth.

Nor are people required to mine those resources.

sibeen
Reply to  ATheoK
March 9, 2021 8:07 pm

B) There are unlimited supplies of fossil fuels spread through the asteroid belt, moons and our Solar System’s giant planets.

Like, WTF. Fossil fuels, there may be a hint in the first word, just a slight hint.

ATheoK
Reply to  sibeen
March 10, 2021 9:01 pm

Fossil fuels include methane and higher carbon compounds. Whether from cooked fossil deposits or from cooked carbonates is immaterial.

Replacing those Earthbound fossil fuels is easy using methane and higher carbon compounds.

Try some Organic Chemistry! You might learn more about carbon compounds.

Lrp
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 4:23 pm

I don’t think so; demand of copper and lithium for batteries will ensure the costs of making electric cars will stay high.

czechlist
Reply to  Lrp
March 9, 2021 4:54 pm

When do we reach peak Li and Co? What about rare earth metals for magnets? Copper and aluminum for conductors? Common sand (silica) suitable for semiconductors or construction….?

ATheoK
Reply to  Pflashgordon
March 9, 2021 11:40 am

non-attainment of the 8-hr ozone standard, a good indicator air quality as affected by population density, geography”

Electric switches, motors and engines are the primary cause for ozone pollution. That is why densely populated areas packed with poorly maintained older structures have such ozone problems.

Making ozone a very poor air quality indicator. It is just an indicator for ozone levels.

Kemaris
Reply to  ATheoK
March 9, 2021 5:21 pm

Wow, you have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? Ozone is primarily produced by the interaction of oxides of nitrogen, volatile organic compounds, and sunlight. No one is worried about the direction emission of ozone, it is the interaction of those three elements that creates the problem.

ATheoK
Reply to  Kemaris
March 10, 2021 9:19 pm

Apparently, it isn’t my knowledge you should be questioning.

electrical generation (a major source of nitrogen oxides) increases in the morning as people get ready for work, and remains high on hot days in order to provide electricity to cool people’s homes and businesses.”

That odor that precedes and follows thunderstorms is ozone. Caused by the storms electrical discharges.

In 1785, the Dutch chemist Martinus van Marum was conducting experiments involving electrical sparking above water when he noticed an unusual smell, which he attributed to the electrical reactions, failing to realize that he had in fact created ozone.

A half century later, Christian Friedrich Schönbein noticed the same pungent odour and recognized it as the smell often following a bolt of lightning. In 1839, he succeeded in isolating the gaseous chemical and named it “ozone”, from the Greek word ozein (ὄζειν) meaning “to smell”

EPA is desperate to cause ozone to appear as solely a vehicular emission product. Yet, even EPA maps show ozone to be centered in urban locations or downwind.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  ATheoK
March 19, 2021 5:39 am

Yet they have fits about the ozone hole.

Dennis
Reply to  Ron Long
March 9, 2021 7:11 pm

I would consider EV if I lived in a city or suburbs, until I considered retail price of ICEV equivalent and how much petrol and maintenance servicing the price difference would buy.

Break even for EV a long term objective.

Ken Irwin
March 9, 2021 2:28 am

Subsidies should always be viewed as coercion by the government !

Someone is going to be bludgeoned with taxation so that some rent seeking woke pressure group can be subsidized.

It is always thus and therefore always bad !

No subsidies for anyone or anything ever should be the norm.

M Courtney
Reply to  Ken Irwin
March 9, 2021 4:04 am

Imagine an industry that is twice as productive as the established solution. But that requires a huge investment to start-up. And worse, one that all second entrants to that industry can piggy-back on without making that investment.
No-one would go first. And the country would be poorer because of it.
Hence subsidies would be required.

John Endicott
Reply to  M Courtney
March 9, 2021 6:36 am

Rather than play in imaginary la-la land. How about naming an real such example, if you can, that only came to fruition due to heavy government subsidies in an otherwise free market.

M Courtney
Reply to  John Endicott
March 10, 2021 12:03 am

Canals.
Bridges.
Nuclear Power.

I didn’t list the numerous examples as they were self-evident.
You must be living in a cave if you are using only products derived form private company’s infrastructure.

John Endicott
Reply to  M Courtney
March 10, 2021 2:10 am

There’s never, in the history of the world, been privately build bridges? really? What cave have you been living in.

Of course it hasn’t gone unnoticed that you moved the goal posts. Canals and Bridges are *NOT* industries. Nuclear isn’t an industry unto itself either, it’s a part of the energy industry and one of the reasons it requires government help is because of all the overburdensome government regulations and redtape that make it near impossible to build a nuclear power plant (so hardly a “free market”). GO on, try and get a new nuclear plant built in a reasonable timeframe and see how far you get.

Last edited 4 months ago by John Endicott
Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Endicott
March 10, 2021 2:37 pm

Don’t forget all the farm-to-market roads that criss-cross this nation. Unless you live in rural America you probably don’t even know what I’m talking about. Almost every one of those started out by being built by the farmers and ranchers to get their products to a town or railhead. Many of those had bridges which were *not* built by government.

M Courtney
Reply to  John Endicott
March 12, 2021 3:58 am

Canals were certainly an industry when they were starting up. And they are a text book example of what I was referring to.
You say that nuclear power is also not an industry – just a part of another industry. An original idea. But obviously meaningless in terms of policy.

Then people have picked out counter-examples of roads being built without subsidy. Logic test time .
-Some A can be without B.
-Therefore all A can be without B.
Is that right?
No.
That is not right.
You lose out on many As (profitable industries) because not every transport connection is viable before it is built.

And transport is just the most visual, simplest example. Consider the speculative research funded by Government defence and healthcare departments. Private companies do not do that. That start-up gap is never bridged without subsidy.
You want an example so… Bell Labs in the USA mid 20th Century.

John Endicott
Reply to  M Courtney
March 12, 2021 8:30 am

LOL, You fail your own logic test and don’t even realize it.

Just because somethings have been subsidized does not make subsidies the only way (or even the best way) to accomplish anything.

And again, calling something an industry doesn’t make it so. Canals aren’t an industry, construction is. Canals are merely one type of construction.

Also, define what you mean by a subsidy. Bell Labs was a private company that existed before it ever received any government contracts and did work outside of government contracts. Being contracted to do work isn’t a subsidy in any meaningful definition of the term. Otherwise you are subsidizing the person you contract to do your lawn, or the person you contract to repair the roof on your house, etc. Bell Labs did R&D, believe it or not government isn’t the only entity that ever spends money on R&D (hence why Bell labs existed prior to any government work it did, and why it did work outside of any government work it may have done and would have continued to exist even without any government work).

Or to put it another way, you are exhibiting a logic fall in equating all government spending as a subsidy. When the government buys computers is that a subsidy? But when an individual or a business buys computers, that’s not a subsidy? Even though all the above named entities are buying computers for the same basic reason (they’re useful tools for doing certain tasks).

(it also hasn’t gone unnoticed that you ignored the nuclear regulatory and redtape issue nor that you’ve moved from “twice as productive” to merely “as profitable”. keep on moving those goalposts, it’s the only thing socialist do better than everyone else)

Last edited 4 months ago by John Endicott
Kenji
Reply to  M Courtney
March 9, 2021 7:08 am

There are names for that … Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism

John Endicott
Reply to  Kenji
March 10, 2021 2:23 am

IIRC M Courtney is an admitted socialist/communist, so it’s no surprise that he’s all in on “Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism” (all those isms are just different facets of the same flawed “jewel”).

M Courtney
Reply to  John Endicott
March 12, 2021 4:04 am

Yes, I am a socialist.
No I not a Communist. Or a Fascist. Or any other “ism” you get confused about (Capitalism and Post-Modernism and Cubism too, maybe?)

Note, I gave examples and arguments for why the extreme view that all subsidies are wrong is itself wrong. That is an extreme view – all Governments of every colour everywhere have rejected it. But I don’t just point out that it is rejected by all the experts. I gave argument as to why the experts were right in this case.

Do not dismiss people with knowledge by simplistic name-calling.

John Endicott
Reply to  M Courtney
March 12, 2021 8:14 am

Deny it all you wish, but socialism, communism, and fascism are all minor degrees of difference for the same failed philosophy. Oh, but this time you’ll do it right. Sure you will.

BTW pointing out that you are an admitted socialist/communist isn’t name calling (simplistic or otherwise). It’s stating something that you yourself admit to (“yes, I am a socialist”) even if you continue to bury your head in the sand about the fact that socialists, communist, and fascists are all cut from the same cloth (differing only in degree in regards to who gets control – hint it’s never the individual being allowed to control their own lives)

Tim Gorman
Reply to  John Endicott
March 12, 2021 8:27 am

Fascism = govt control of business and capital
Socialism = govt ownership of business and control of capital
Communism = collective ownership of business and capital

There has *never* been an actual communist country. Either the dictator in control under Socialism or the Bureaucratic Hegemony developed under Socialism always prevent the actual progression to Communism.

The US is well into Fascism today, controlling business and capital. There simply isn’t much today that isn’t under control of the Federal government. You can’t even raise your own wheat and corn entirely for your own use today.

The Democrats are trying to quickly move to Socialism where the government will own all business. See the health care industry, the health insurance sector, the energy sector, and the communication sector. The feds have never given up their partial ownership of several of the auto companies that Obama forced them into in 2009.

TonyG
Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 12, 2021 9:29 am

Fascism as you state is the way I learned to understand the term in HS. Until fairly recently it was the accepted definition. But I looked recently and I had a difficult time finding that definition online, almost like there is a concerted effort to redefine it.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TonyG
March 12, 2021 1:02 pm

Fascism today is defined by the left as white supremacy. It’s because most of the left today, at least those younger than 55, have been taught that way. They couldn’t even tell you the difference between Fascist Germany and Fascist Italy their knowledge of history is so bad. Anyone that thinks our education system is only failing K-12 is woefully unaware of what passes for education in our colleges and universities today, at least as far as liberal arts goes.

Reply to  M Courtney
March 9, 2021 7:40 am

A good product or a good solution always find it’s way, go to the bank you prefer, ask for a credit, make a meaningfull presentation, get it or not.
And than it’s your turn to develop.
Asking the tax payer isn’t a solution, he never gets back the payed taxes, while you may swim in money once your product or solution runs well

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
March 9, 2021 8:41 am

You can imagine all you want, but no such industry exists.

It really amazes me the flights of fancy socialists are willing to go through in order to justify their desire to subsidize the stuff they like.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 2:18 am

Indeed, and it’s fun watching them move the goal posts around when called on it.

Lrp
Reply to  M Courtney
March 9, 2021 4:32 pm

Do you have any data to support you claims? Something twice as productive as the established technology does not need to convince investors.

John Endicott
Reply to  Lrp
March 10, 2021 2:19 am

He hasn’t even been able to name one *industry* let alone one that fits his imaginary “twice as productive” criteria.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Ken Irwin
March 9, 2021 6:03 am

Subsidies are also known as bounties, they are a classic tool used in the mercantile system. We don’t live in a free market capitalist society, we live in a socialist-mercantilist society moving towards Orwellian dystopia.

Notanacademic
Reply to  Ken Irwin
March 9, 2021 10:34 am

“It is folly that needs the help of government. The truth can stand by itself”.

I think I got that correct, president Truman if my memory is working, had several glasses of wine so it might not be.

March 9, 2021 2:30 am

Musk will setup a new city in Texas: “Starbase” 😀
Elon Musk is Apparently Building His Own City in Texas Called ‘Starbase’

Last edited 4 months ago by Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 2:53 am

If I remeber well the history of cars, the first have been EV, and I imagine there was a reason to change to fossil driven cars.
As I was child, we still got parcels with EV parcel-post cars:
comment image
© MKF/Bert Bostelmann
source

Last edited 4 months ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 4:46 am

The new postal street-scooter isn’t produced anymore by the postal service, to much economic losts, 12,000 scooter had to be recalled to garages because of technical problems Weak points in the area of the low-voltage charger and the insulation of a cable harness are the reason for the problem.

ATheoK
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 12:02 pm

Like other branches, agencies and departments of government, all contracts are to lowest bidder.

Though government purchase agents do use “sole source” contracts to avoid some of the “lowest bidder” contracts.

It’s those “sole source” contracts that enable $15,000 coffee pots and $5,000 hammers and multitudes of overpriced components leading to multi-billion jets and ships.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  ATheoK
March 9, 2021 2:08 pm

Contracts are to the lowest qualified bidder. Big difference. And sole source contracting is useful when, in fact, there is one and only one producer of the desired item. Want an Abrams M1A2 main battle tank? Chrysler is the only game in town. (Technically now General Dynamics Land Systems). No others need apply.

Last edited 4 months ago by D. J. Hawkins
ATheoK
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
March 10, 2021 9:57 pm

That word does not mean what you insinuate.

e.g., a local small airplane shop is not qualified to bid on supplying military jets. A question often answered by the purchasing agents reviewing bidders. And denied bidders frequently challenge the decision.

e.g. 2, For several decades the ubiquitous USPS jeep like vehicle was by American Motors…
AMC won the low bid and then built the jeeps by using leftover parts from their discontinued vehicle parts lines and what they bought from every other manufacturer’s parts lines. Usually the parts were being sold as surplus.

What followed for the USPS was a parts nightmare. Vehicles made in the same year, but in different months used different parts. As AMC ran out of parts, they modified attachment sites for a different part.

Was AMC qualified? Perhaps. Did “qualified” mean better vehicles for USPS, Hades no!

Sole Source contracts are too often used to prevent other bidders from seeking the contract. Sole Source contracts lock out potential bidders, quite often on specious grounds.

Large corporations frequently challenge Sole Source awards causing the governments to spend large amounts of money in defense of their choice and frequently to assign portions of the contract to multiple vendors as a solution.

Smaller bidders will usually find themselves disqualified by some other contract criteria, e.g. a patented item where the patent is held by the preferred sole source… That does not make the sole source legitimate!

Right now, the Federal government is locked into the GD Abrams tank. Never mind that other countries have equitable tank systems, America is currently stuck with the Abrams, whether it will serve against major military opponents instead of the small countries where Abrams has been fighting.
After four decades America’s allies and enemies have thoroughly analyzed Abrams strengths and weaknesses.

Recent award of $714million dollars to “upgrade” 174 Abrams tanks.
That is $4.103 million dollars per tank to upgrade components, nor rebuild the tank!

Morocco recently purchased into the Abrams system paying $1.25 billion dollars for 162 tanks. That is for the system, including control centers, maintenance and parts.

Sole Source? The word you should use is monopoly manufactured proprietary solution.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  ATheoK
March 22, 2021 3:13 pm

Your quibbles don’t negate my point. I whatever program, the specifications always require that the contract go to the lowest qualified bidder. If you want to kibbitz regarding whether the design meets program needs, or if the program needs were properly specified, that’s an entirely different discussion. And sure, bidders get disqualified and appeal. That’s what boards of review are for.

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 9:20 am

The early batteries were not as good as present ones, and no electronic controls were available then. Comparing the past with present is always suspect.

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 9:42 am

The so called street scooters mentioned above are newest generation.
The old parcel car had normal “state of the art” truck batteries, about ten or so.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 2:10 pm

The early batteries were not almost as good as present ones, 

There, fixed it for you.

Last edited 4 months ago by D. J. Hawkins
Lrp
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 4:37 pm

what’s good about a half a tonne battery?

Dennis
Reply to  Lrp
March 9, 2021 7:13 pm

If you removed it you would gain a half tonne payload?

Reply to  Dennis
March 10, 2021 4:39 am

But can’t drive with 😀

decnine
March 9, 2021 3:00 am

You left out a couple of other range reduction problems for EVs: having to climb hills; and carrying a full load of passengers with their baggage. Oh, and driving in the dark.

George Tetley
Reply to  decnine
March 9, 2021 3:40 am

The Mail on Sunday reports that 57 people in England have been run-over by EVs suggest that EVs should have noise like the reverse alarm Good idea mmmm better than good

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  George Tetley
March 9, 2021 3:57 am

If I am ever forced into a stupid EV it will have a V8 soundtrack added.

RickWill
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
March 9, 2021 4:31 am

That will seriously reduce its range.

Timo, not that one
Reply to  RickWill
March 9, 2021 6:41 am

We can always clothes-peg some hockey cards into the spokes to make sound while driving.

Mr.
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
March 9, 2021 9:42 am

That would turn heads.
Coming from a Fiat Bambino look alike. 🤣

Reply to  decnine
March 9, 2021 3:53 am

Strong reduction is cold weather, bus driver in Berlin couldn’t drive the busses because of empty batteries over half the necessary distances.

commieBob
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 4:39 am

1 – People from cold climates like the Yukon know that you have to keep the battery (and engine) warm if you’re going to be able to start in the morning.

2 – The old VWs, having air cooled engines, needed a gas burning heater to keep the cabin warm.

3 – So, the solution is to have gas burning heaters to keep the electric buses’ batteries warm.

Rich Lambert
Reply to  commieBob
March 9, 2021 5:12 am

4 – Add a gas powered generator to improve the range.

Reply to  commieBob
March 9, 2021 5:33 am
  1. What’s usual in f.e. northern Sweden are electric preheating solutions like this one
  2. The old VWs with air cooling as my first car I had had an heat exchange system for cabin heating, but often were defect. Park heating was possible with a separate gasoline heat system
  3. In general yes, but the targets are pollution free busses.
ATheoK
Reply to  commieBob
March 9, 2021 12:15 pm

1 – People from cold climates like the Yukon know that you have to keep the battery (and engine) warm if you’re going to be able to start in the morning.”

And the transmissions.

Rented the cheapest model car in Omaha one winter. Stored in a garage, the rental drove fine from the garage.

After one night at -11°F (-24°C), parked in the hotel’s exterior parking lot, it took half of the battery to turn over the engine enough for to start and run.

Then because of the engine delay I was in a hurry to get to my assignment, I put the car in gear and the engine died.
That few seconds of ICE heat enabled easier engine turnover. It was still hard on the battery.

It took twenty minutes running the engine at high idle before the engine had the strength to turn over the slightly warmed transmission. Front wheel drive…

I swapped the tiny car for a larger sedan later that day. The people I worked with that day had a good laugh on my account.
Polite country folk, they wouldn’t say anything negative directly, but I got the idea that they thought the urban idiot (me) learned something that day.

I also bought a new coat for that winter in Omaha. My coat for Mid-Atlantic weather wasn’t up to Midwestern standards.

And yes, some of the workers who lived outside of the city used electric blankets and core warmers to keep their vehicles ready to run.

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  decnine
March 9, 2021 9:25 am

EVs can have as good a range as gas driven vehicles. Use of AC, lights, and load effects change gas mileage as it does power draw on electric. The size of the fuel tank or battery pack are the only capability factors. Present batteries are getting less expensive and lighter, and break-even compared to fuel.

Curious George
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 10:44 am

I call it an immature technology. Keep your fingers crossed.

MarkW
Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2021 11:59 am

Both batteries and electric motors have been around for well over 100 years. if they aren’t mature by now, they will never be.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 9:37 pm

Wow. so insightful. Using that logic anything over a 100 years old is not worth trying to improve.

Dennis
Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2021 7:05 pm

I suspect that “immature” applies to many woke minds of EV wish listers.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 10:55 am

The difference is that EV range is usually quoted before use of AC, heating, lights, etc. whereas for ICEs it has already been included in most test drive reports. EV supporters repeatedly fudge the figures – just like the AGW alarmists.

Jake J
Reply to  Mike Lowe
March 10, 2021 8:43 am

EV accessories use a trivial amount of power. At least that’s the case with my stripped-down 2011 Think City. I will say this: That glorified golf cart has far and away the best heater of any car I’ve driven. Nothing else even comes close.

MarkW
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 11:58 am

A gas tank, the same size as a battery, will provide enough energy to go 10 times as far as the battery could. That’s true today, yesterday and will remain true forever.
Advocates claim that batteries are getting cheaper, yet somehow electric cars remain twice as expensive as ICE cars.
As to batteries getting lighter, maybe by a few ounces, not enough to matter.
Batteries only appear to be break even compared to gas and diesel because of all the road use taxes on gas and diesel.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 5:20 pm

But the true-believers will just mount small wind turbines on their EV hoods and recharge the batteries as they drive… (yes, sarcasm).

Doonman
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 12:00 pm

There is nothing more efficient than dragging a half ton load of depleted electrons with you everywhere and every time you go someplace. Add that to the increased time for refueling and you can see that efficiency of daily commerce is not part of your analysis.

But thats all OK because we are saving the earth. Or was there some other reason you forgot to mention?

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Doonman
March 9, 2021 10:20 pm

There is nothing more efficient than dragging a half ton load of depleted electrons with you everywhere and every time you go someplace.”

… and as ice cars deplete their fuel tanks, the cars become lighter in weight.

Dennis
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 7:04 pm

Please consider range – based on manufacturer’s theoretical maximum 400 Km with a fully charged brand new battery pack.

  • Recommended recharge level 80% roadside chargers so range 320 Km
  • Battery on board system stops discharge at 10% left so range 288 Km
  • Variable energy consumption factors of highway speeds, hills, people on board, luggage on board, air conditioning or heater on/off, other energy consuming devices and therefore for safe arrival at next charger station deduct 20% so real range on average 230 Km

To relieve stress caused by range anxiety best to use 50% of theoretical maximum.

Jake J
Reply to  Dennis
March 10, 2021 2:23 pm

More like 70%, unless you live in a place with severe winters.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  decnine
March 9, 2021 5:18 pm

Or using a decent stereo… As long as you drive with windows down, nothing turned on, on a flat road with no obstacles in the daylight on a warm day – you might actually get the stated miles before the batteries run out.

Dennis
Reply to  decnine
March 9, 2021 6:57 pm

For maximum EV range in Australia the recommended by long distance drivers speed is 80 KMH. The major highways are 110 KMH or 100 KMH and therefore an EV moving so far below the speed limit is a traffic hazard, especially for heavy transport vehicles.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  decnine
March 19, 2021 5:54 am

I saw a video on YouTube with a couple of idiots who drove a Tesla west in Colorado (uphill) and then drove back. According to them, the car completely recharged itself going downhill. Even Elon doesn’t claim perpetual motion.

griff
March 9, 2021 3:22 am

But why the hefty subsidies?’ Why? Because it is important to reduce CO2 and reduce the impact of climate change, that’s why. Anything which promotes early and widespread adoption of low CO2 transport is useful, perhaps even necessary.

Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 7:42 am

Nobody needs to reduce CO2, and it’s not necessary to low CO2 transport.
How often will we telling you that ?

mkelly
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 8:23 am

If you are correct Griff, why does it take twice as much energy to raise 1 mole of CO2 1 C than half a mole? I doubled the number of CO2 molecules should not it have required less than twice as much?

MarkW
Reply to  mkelly
March 9, 2021 8:56 am

Would you care to rephrase your question? As written it makes no sense.
It would take twice as much energy to heat 1 mole, vs 1/2 mole of anything. Solid, gas or liquid. (With the obvious assumption that you aren’t trying to heat through a phase change.)

Jake J
Reply to  mkelly
March 10, 2021 8:40 am

I shoot moles, if that helps.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 8:54 am

I’m still waiting for griff to provide some evidence to support his claims that CO2 is a problem.
Much less one that requires the impoverishment of billions.

As a second point, please provide some evidence that electric cars actually reduce the amount of CO2 being generated.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 10:03 am

You can google it for yourself: not my responsibility to provide personally the massive weight of scientific evidence. Or I could say I’m still waiting for YOU to provide (science based) evidence it isn’t warming and CO2 isn’t a problem

Redge
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 11:37 am

The onus is on the person making the claim to prove their beliefs

MarkW
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 12:02 pm

That it is warming has never been in doubt. What hasn’t been demonstrated is the claim that most of the warming is caused by CO2. Especially since most of the warming occurred long before the big run up in CO2.

Beyond that, CO2 levels have been nearly 20 times what we are enjoying today, with no increase in temperatures.
Also, temperatures have been as much as 3 to 5C warmer than today for most of the last 10,000 years, with CO2 levels well below what we are enjoying today.

Storms aren’t increasing.
Droughts aren’t increasing.
Rainfall isn’t increasing or decreasing.

In short, every prediction made by the sacred models, have failed.

David A
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 2:02 pm

Plus crops grown about plus 20 percent biomass, with zero additional land or water required, thanks to 400 plus PPM CO2.

Griff, what is your biggest concern about CO2, and your evidence for that concern?

Doonman
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 12:19 pm

Climate Science evidence comes from measuring global mean surface temperature. The process for that seems sketchy as different data sets yield different results. I’m still waiting for my global mean surface temperature thermometer to be sold on Amazon so I can verify your beliefs, but so far, no luck. But I am glad that your religious beliefs are important to you.

Last edited 4 months ago by Doonman
Reply to  Doonman
March 9, 2021 1:44 pm

Global mean temperature isn’t measured, as no mean is measured but calculated.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Doonman
March 19, 2021 6:02 am

Don’t forget, the results change over time. Somehow modern thermometers measure historical temperatures better than the old thermometers.

Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 1:42 pm

Some favorable not CO2 based warming is all we need. Science based evidence are often presented here, not that you are interested in.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 4:59 pm

It is your responsibility to justify any claims you make.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 10:13 am

Why does griff hate plants? The current level of CO2 is literally not far above the starvation point for plant life, so why does he want to reduce CO2?

fred250
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 9, 2021 10:56 am

griff just HATES all life.. especially his own.

He KNOWS that all life on Earth is TOTALLY DEPENDENT on CO2 for its very existence.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
March 9, 2021 12:04 pm

If griff is like most alarmists, it’s not so much his life that he hates. It’s his lifestyle that he hates. He has also been trained to believe that the reason why he has so little has nothing to do with his own multitudinous failures, but rather because someone else stole everything that he was entitled to.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 9, 2021 10:59 am

Indeed, as I keep insisting, we need MORE CO2, not less. All of these contortions to reduce CO2 are merely a means to enable us to approach the death of all life on Earth. Why can thickos like Attenborough, Charles, Mann, Griff, etc. not understand that?

Doonman
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 9, 2021 12:26 pm

Griff likes the cold and dark. His belief system demands it. Cold and dark will save the earth. Just ask him. Too bad for the plants.

Lrp
Reply to  Doonman
March 9, 2021 5:00 pm

griff is an angry teenager

Doonman
Reply to  Paul Penrose
March 9, 2021 12:39 pm

Griff never calls for the elimination of 10% of the worlds termites, which release 10 times the yearly CO2 of humans into the atmosphere. Plus, it would create worldwide jobs for humans. So it’s clear that Griff loves termites, but hates plants and humans.

pflashgordon
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 10:43 am

“Anything which promotes early and widespread adoption” What a nonsensical statement! First, Griff, there IS no climate emergency, crisis, etc. The slight warming the world has experienced over the last 1.5 centuries has been beneficial and witnessed a tremendous rise in prosperity, health, longevity, etc. Sea level is not threatening to inundate coastlines. Storms, droughts and fires are little changed from past decades, centuries or millenia. Looking to the future, only the most extreme, implausible and alarmist temperature projections would raise concern, but measurements, even after bastardization, do not comport with such lunatic fringe projections. We have been closely watching climate for a mere 30 years or so, a brief moment in time and too little to draw society-shaking conclusions.

In this context of continuous improvement in climate, global greening, etc., humanity will eventually phase out internal combustion engines for transport, but it should be a slow, decades-long process. Early, inappropriate action, for whatever reason, climate or otherwise, is unduly costly for no benefit. A well-equipped, reliable mid-size sedan or SUV in the U.S. costs about $24,000, while the long range Tesla Model 3 costs $48,000. We get about the same comparison when we look at coal/gas/nuclear versus solar or wind power. Sure, continue research, testing and marketing of innovative products, but prematurely and foolishly forcing this upon society will be demonstrably catastrophic. Griff, just read Lomborg.

If it weren’t for the Griffs, Manns, Gores of the world fomenting needless fear, we wouldn’t even need WUWT. Children could sleep peacefully at night. We could just get back to living and focusing on other, more important matters. Unfortunately, unknown to Griff, there is a culture war going on that risks the future of western civilization, and climate is a mere pawn on the chess board.

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 10:54 am

” Because it is important to reduce CO2 and reduce the impact of climate change, that’s why.”

griff talking LIES and GARBAGE as usual.

just regurgitating his little brain-washed FAIRY TALE.

griff KNOWS that there is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 has any affect whatsoever on climate.

Notanacademic
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 12:53 pm

You’ve yet to prove co2 is bad,why reduce it the plants seem to like it. Your comment makes no sense.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 4:42 pm

propaganda much?

Speed
March 9, 2021 3:28 am

“If sea levels keep rising, we won’t be able to drive to Hawaii anymore!”

It’s been a few years since we’ve been able to drive to Hawaii.

MarkW
Reply to  Speed
March 9, 2021 8:57 am

But what about trains?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 8:16 pm

AOC wants high-speed railroads to Europe to replace the evil kerosene-burning airplanes (seriously).

Peta of Newark
March 9, 2021 4:21 am

Seemingly, Gov wants to spend £1 Billion for 6 EV chargers at each of the 158 motorway service stations here in the UK
These will be rated at 150kW each

I get that to be 948 chargers =£1.05 Million each
Just wow. One Million Squid for a glorified battery charger!

Next:
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants to spend $454 billion to install 500,000 new EV charging stations at $454 Billion = $910,000 each

Isn’t that strange, almost the same price.

Onwards:
Do we say these things last for for 10 years?
=85,000 hours or that many one-hour charges

=$10 per charge before the cost of the electric
Assuming 100% 24/7/365 usage and no maintenance or interest charges

(Use the general rule-of-thumb applicable whenever ordinary punters/consumers are involved that one US$ is equal to one GBP)

Electric chargers now here in the UK are costing their users nearly 50 pence per kWh.
If normal inflation continues to be haha ‘carefully controlled’ that will be £1 per kWh in 15 years time

Thus a 1 hour charge will deliver 150kWh costing in toto: $160 or £160

For what?
400 miles of driving in ideal conditions or maybe 150 miles in cold, dark rain or snow
With no hills to climb or no headwinds
One quid/dollar per mile
Just. For. Fuel.

Compare: My 2.0 litre VW diesel costs me less than 10pence per mile in fuel charges.
If its little engine wasn’t cluttered up, bogged down and generally trashed with endless emission controls, it would cost less than 7 pence per mile.

words fail

Last edited 4 months ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 9, 2021 4:32 am

Long distance trails with EV shouldt be nerve-recking. Our trips to south of France, around 1,200 km, I had after starting full with gasoline just one stop to recharge not far from our target.

Steve E.
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 9, 2021 4:56 am

So how many of the serv ice stations already have electrical service that can handle an additional megawatt load? Adding electric service might explain some cost

In The Real World
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 9, 2021 6:33 am

Even if a motorway service area has its own electric substation , the max a standard transformer can handle , [ working on end user voltage ,] is 250KW.
There are specially built transformers which can handle higher loads but they cost upwards of £1 million .

So the idea of a large scale rollout of charging points is just fantasy , [ or unbelievable amounts of money ].
And as the total generation capacity of the UK is not capable of charging up more than a tiny percentage of the total vehicles on the road , the idea of large scale change to EVs is just more insanity .]

Redge
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 9, 2021 6:53 am

Ever stopped for fuel at a motorway service station?

A typical petrol pump can fully “charge” a car within 5 minutes, so let’s say the throughput is 12 cars per hour per pump.

A fast charger takes an hour, so throughput is 1 car per hour.

So in a 24 hour period, a single petrol pump can service 288 cars, an electric pump 24.

Gonna need a lot more than 6 electric chargers per station.

Maybe if we had a large clockwork key on the top of our cars we could do without petrol and electric stations.

Now there’s a thought 😉

MarkW
Reply to  Redge
March 9, 2021 9:00 am

The obvious solution is to make driving so expensive that only the self styled elite will be able to do it anymore.

Redge
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 9:34 am

And the rest of us can eat cake

griff
Reply to  Redge
March 9, 2021 10:01 am

Well yes, but I usually stop for a comfort break, have a coffee, take a look round the shop… usually there 30 minutes…

Redge
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 11:32 am

You can still do that with an ICE, but you won’t be preventing other cars from filling up, will you?

Last edited 4 months ago by Redge
Doonman
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 12:45 pm

It’s nice being free to have choices in life, isn’t it?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 1:12 pm

Well yes, but I usually stop for a comfort break, have a coffee, take a look round the shop… usually there 30 minutes…

After circling for 2 hours trying desperately to find a free charging station. It’s real, I’ve seen it. The same cars circling after I’ve finished my meal, coffee and filled up my car. You’ll need hundreds of chargers for each service station at peak travelling seasons.

B C
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 2:27 pm

And what is the cost in idle time as workers who are on the road wait for their batteries to charge?
Here’s some information on fast-charging and damage to batteries:
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2020/03/11/fast-charging-damages-electric-car-batteries

Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 2:56 pm

I like that comfort break at Montélimar on A7 “Autoroute du Soleil”
Btw, Montélimar is the home of Nougat 😀

Lrp
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 5:02 pm

you’re so full!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Redge
March 9, 2021 1:07 pm

Ever stopped for fuel at a motorway service station?

A typical petrol pump can fully “charge” a car within 5 minutes, so let’s say the throughput is 12 cars per hour per pump.

A fast charger takes an hour, so throughput is 1 car per hour.

So in a 24 hour period, a single petrol pump can service 288 cars, an electric pump 24.

Gonna need a lot more than 6 electric chargers per station.

Maybe if we had a large clockwork key on the top of our cars we could do without petrol and electric stations.

Now there’s a thought 😉

I travel across Europe most years (until recently), and I use the motorway service stations. Every time I come across one with EV charging, it’s absolutely chock full of EVs circling endlessly trying desperately to find a free charging station. It’s absolutely chaotic, and because of the idiot routes you are forced to take you get stuck in it just trying to find a place to park and grab a coffee before spending 2 minutes filling up with fuel.

I really hope they start putting signs on the entrance and on the approach to tell you it has EV charging so you can avoid these stuffed up service stations.

In an ICE I can get from southern Italy to Paris in a single day. In an EV it would probably take at least 3 days.

Last edited 4 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
March 9, 2021 7:26 pm

Like “No Vacancy” signs on motels!

Redge
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
March 9, 2021 11:11 pm

I always wondered about your name. Now I know 😉

Scissor
March 9, 2021 4:27 am

John Kerry is willing to sacrifice his frequent flyer miles to fly on private jets. You should weep for him, like you should weep for Harry and Meghan detesting the limelight so they go on a two hour television special with Oprah.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Scissor
March 9, 2021 1:13 pm

you should weep for Harry and Meghan detesting the limelight so they go on a two hour television special with Oprah.

Exactly!

March 9, 2021 4:27 am

Subsidies should always be viewed as coercion by the government !

Someone is going to be bludgeoned with taxation so that some rent seeking woke pressure group can be subsidized.

It is always thus and therefore always bad !

No subsidies for anyone or anything ever should be the norm.

MarkW
Reply to  Vicky
March 9, 2021 9:15 am

So nice, it had to be said twice.

RickWill
March 9, 2021 4:28 am

Its worth repeating – 2 decades to get 2% of energy from intermittent weather dependent generators. It is a serious challenge to wean off fossil fuels. Wasting money on behemoths like Teslas is plain stupid.

fretslider
March 9, 2021 4:33 am

In the UK there was one very successful EV. It had a specific purpose and it took over from the horse.

milk float is a battery electric vehicle specifically designed for delivering fresh milk, eggs etc to the door. They had a top speed of 12mph and were recharged overnight in a depot.

When people started to buy cheap milk from the supermarkets the dairy companies couldn’t compete.

It’s the only EV I know of that actually worked as intended (quiet early in the morning).

Last edited 4 months ago by fretslider
griff
Reply to  fretslider
March 9, 2021 10:00 am

They are still running: I get milk delivered from a dairy which uses them. Though tbh since I can see the dairy from my house, they don’t use the float when bringing milk to my neighbours and I!

michel
Reply to  fretslider
March 10, 2021 12:14 am

There are two other forms of electric vehicle which work exactly as intended. One is those little mobility scooters elderly or infirm people use where road conditions permit. They work perfectly, allow people to go shopping and for visits who would otherwise be housebound. If local roads were safer and freer from fast cars they would be more widely used.

The other is the electric bicycle or trike. They have a range which is adequate to most local trips, 30 miles+, and are faster and more flexible than the mobility scooter.

The reason they are not more widely used is the general perception that the roads, as presently regulated, are not felt to be safe or comfortable enough.

Every now and then someone publishes in the Comments or Opinion section in the Guardian a post or an article explaining how safe and beneficial cycling is under present conditions in London or Manchester. In the chorus of defenses of this view you find people endlessly laughing off a series of close encounters with death or serious injury which regularly happen to them when cycling.

So we should redress the balance away from the car. We should admit in doing this that areas with prolonged cold winters and summer temperatures in the nineties are going to be very problematic for any solution involving large amounts of unenclosed travel. That does not mean we cannot limit and control car use and subordinate it to managing neighborhoods better.

This does not make the current UK Government’s scheme for replacing all ICE cars with electric ones any less mad. Its not doable, it won’t lower UK CO2 emissions, and if it did, that would have no effect on global warming. The West is in the grip of two collective insanities, one is car worship, the other is CO2 phobia. We have to get over both of them.

Drew
March 9, 2021 4:36 am

“The United States will begin to look like Cuba”…. Ah, but the virtue signallers will tax petrol and diesel beyond the means of most. Bicycle or Shanks’s Pony for the 99%.

michel
Reply to  Drew
March 10, 2021 12:25 am

You and most here probably cannot remember the world of the early 1950s. I have UK friends, now in their late seventies or early eighties, who can, and have spoken to them at some length about how they grew up.

They recall a world where you could go for walks on a B minor road, and meet no more than a few cars an hour. One recalls being told to walk on the right side of the road when doing this, so you faced the oncoming cars. They recall cycling several miles to nearby villages enountering few or no cars as they did so.

There were accidents and fatalities, particularly children on bikes, and in the later fifties this started to be a serious concern. As traffic rose, people simply stopped walking and cycling and kept their children off the roads as the only defensive measure available. And so England ended up in the current position of subordinating everything to the car.

If you consider the Dutch experience, they started out with this same situation but reacted to it very differently. As car ownership rose and traffic increased there were rising accident and death rates, particularly among children. It was this that led them to their systematic program of making cycling, particularly cycling for children, safe, and to do this they implemented the well known cycle infrastructure we see today.

But that is only a part of the overall situation in Holland – the underlying concept is the approach to urban and neighborhood planning that the bikeways and walkways fit into. Its not primarily about cars, not about bikes, not about electric or ICE. Its about planning and regulating transport in the context of what kind of places people want to live and work in.

March 9, 2021 5:07 am

Paul,

What other costs and unintended consequences are Big Green, Big Government, Big Media and Big Tech keeping quiet about?

Democratic senators answered your question, more or less, about 2 years ago.
But first of all, AOC isn’t interested in American exceptionalism.
The IPCC states (AR5)

Climate change impacts and responses are closely linked to sustainable development which balances social well-being, economic prosperity and environmental protection. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, provide an established framework for assessing the links between global warming of 1.5°C or 2°C and development goals that include poverty eradication, reducing inequalities, and climate action

And that is not about restoring USA to her former glory, as some blogger wrote. It’s about saving the planet. And AOC does agree with that.

Now, 2 years ago McConnell, then majority leader, tabled a resolution to make the Green New Deal possible. Off course a political move. Election fever was running high, and McConnell wanted the Democratic Senators to publicly and authoritative declare that the Green New Deal was their choice – especially the presidential hopefuls.
Mike Lee, a Republican got into his stride:

The courage needed to solve climate change is nothing compared with the courage needed to start a family. […] The solution to climate change is not this unserious resolution, but the serious business of human flourishing – the solution to so many of our problems, at all times and in all places: fall in love, get married, and have some kids.

(okay, a bit pathetic)
The resolution was nayed: 57 – 0. The democrats didn’t dare to vote in favour of AOC’s GND.

I’m not sure they know the costs.
But I’m very sure they don’t dare to speak about it … not even to think about it.

Last edited 4 months ago by leonardo
MarkW
Reply to  leonardo
March 9, 2021 9:18 am

I wonder how many of them would vote for it now?

michel
Reply to  leonardo
March 10, 2021 12:29 am

Of course the ridiculous thing is that the GND will have, even if implemented rigorously, zero effect on global warming and will do nothing to ‘save the planet’.

March 9, 2021 5:17 am

Joey the Clown sez as long as we have gubment of the demrats…by the demrats…and for the demrats, …….fossil fuels are ovah…..and he adds “what am I doin’ here?”

Last edited 4 months ago by Anti_griff
Bruce Cobb
March 9, 2021 5:24 am

“Welcome to the new reality show, Big Brother Knows Best, starring you. Don’t bother thinking – we’ve already done that for you. And don’t worry, we will tell the kiddos what to think as well, so they won’t be confused. You’re welcome!”

Anon
March 9, 2021 6:00 am

Just a back of the envelop calculation shows how ludicrous this is:

In order to drive to work:

1] Build enough solar and wind facilities to supply ALL of a city’s energy needs. And as power is intermittent you need a tremendous number of these.

2] Store the excess power in a grid level battery system to compensate for the intermittency.

3] During the night, when the vehicle is not in use, transfer the power to the car battery.

4] Drive to work (repeat the next night, etc)

Talk about energy efficiency!!!

And that does not even get into the mining required and the expense of a batteries as all of these systems will be competing with each other for battery raw materials. Nor the transmission system required to carry all of these peak loads, etc.

griff
Reply to  Anon
March 9, 2021 9:58 am

Many cars are parked all day, or for sufficient time to charge at malls, gyms, whatever…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 12:08 pm

How many charging stations per car are you anticipating.
1 at work. 1 at the store. 1 at home. 1 at …?

Beyond that, who do you imagine is going to pay for all those charging stations?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 2:01 pm

Do you have ANY concept of the amount of copper and asphalt/concrete it will take to install all the charging stations that will be needed? Do you have *any* concept of the cost this would entail? Do you have ANY concept of the inconvenience and loss of productivity this would cause as every single street and parking lot would have to be torn up for days to install all this?

It’s a certainty that not one single Democrat, especially Joe Biden, in the US understands this. NOT ONE!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 9, 2021 2:34 pm

And there is griff 😀

Robert W Turner
March 9, 2021 6:09 am

EVs have sticker shock now, just wait for the price of Li, Cu, and Co to skyrocket from their currently cheap prices. And then what is the investment situation going to look like for petrol that is still needed for lubricants, plastics, heavy machinery, and air travel? I suppose that means we’ll be paying $100+ per bbl to squeeze out the last drop from legacy production, mostly from the Middle East.

I think we all need to realize that the point is not to transition to some 1970s fantasy futuristic society, it is to get the plebs off the streets, put them in their boxes, and keep them there.

Last edited 4 months ago by Robert W Turner
H. D. Hoese
March 9, 2021 6:35 am

“The United States will begin to look like Cuba, which still boasts legions of classic 1960s and ‘70s cars…” I hope I live long enough to get a station wagon or at least a suburban type with a tailgate that I can sit on and doesn’t hit me in the head. Don’t think it will be safe to carry a propane heater in the front seat according to the warning label.

Coach Springer
March 9, 2021 6:40 am

Why the rush, why the inflexible mandates, and why the government spending on support? (Because the urgency, the mandates and the spending are unnecessary.)

As for building charging stations, the vast, vast majority of charging will take place at home. And the ones on the road need to be diesel powered to provide the power for needed quicker charges. And there will still be need and demand for dependable, repeatable, continuous heavy duty utility.(loads and trailers in high demand and remote environments) best served by internal combustion and transportable high volume energy supply.

PS – The EV fits with pressures against a mobile society. This environmental religion will later demand an end to electric vehicles right after the apparent elimination of the ICE.

MarkW
Reply to  Coach Springer
March 9, 2021 9:20 am

The more the world fails to live up to what the models predict, the more desperate they become to get their dream world installed before the rest of the population catches onto the scam.

John Endicott
March 9, 2021 6:42 am

The United States will begin to look like Cuba,

That’s, sadly, an overly optimistic assessment.

Reply to  John Endicott
March 9, 2021 8:51 am

comment image

GDR after 1990 is comparable

Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 9, 2021 9:11 am

comment image

Or take that 😀

comment image

Gordon A. Dressler
March 9, 2021 6:46 am

Just one question: Did President Biden, VP Harris, CC Kerry, AOC, mini-AOC, Senator Schumer, and all the other EV promoters and GNDealers not see how completely useless EVs become when there is a widespread, nature-caused electricity blackout for a week or more, such as most of the US state of Texas experienced last month? 

MarkW
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 9, 2021 12:10 pm

Didn’t you hear AOC? According to her, had only Texas gone 100% wind and solar, there would have been no blackouts.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 5:22 pm

She has a point, all the people would have left so…no blackouts.

mkelly
March 9, 2021 6:48 am

If you get a chance to watch “Long Way Up” a series about riding electric Harley motorcycles from bottom of South America to LA, do it. The scenery is great. Seeing the problems they encountered with the electric bikes was hilarious. Having to hire a diesel generator on a truck to charge the bikes or a ask a semi driver to pull the electric pickups that accompanied them is what we should look forward to.

But the scenery was worth the it.

Tim Gorman
March 9, 2021 7:17 am

Can you imagine a farmer having to stop his combine, with the field half harvested, and drive 20 miles to a recharge station and then drive 20 miles back to the field to finish his harvest? Or having to drive his tractor 20 miles to a recharge point while he’s trying to get his downed hay baled before it rains?

And before someone says farmers can be exempted, just how much diesel will be available when all other uses than agriculture are banned? And what will it cost?

———————————

Think about the children that will starve as our ag sector has its productivity cut by half or more! (/sarc)

March 9, 2021 8:09 am

As the number of E cars increases the cost of batteries will sky rocket as the supply of raw materials runs out. Well we just mine more? It might take 20 year to be allowed to start a new mine, if ever. (See the efforts to start a copper mine in N. Mn)

You could just keep cranking up the subsidies? Sure, what the hell. Let’s do that.

Last edited 4 months ago by D, Anderson
ValleyBoy
March 9, 2021 8:14 am

A few comments after putting about 4,000 miles on my latest new (used) car – a 2017 Chevy Volt. This is a great car! Great concept and so far seems well built and engineered. 53 mile ev range covers almost 100 % of my day to day needs 300 mile range on ICE allows seamless transition and I have used it about 6 times now. No range anxiety. Ev range does decrease with heater/AC use, etc as expected. Live in SoCal but do get a few chilly mornings. AC more of an issue.

All the defects of modern design. Awkward roof door height = awkward entry/exit. Useable cargo space good but would be better with a raised hatch back. 110 volt charger OK for most people. I have 220 V. Reluntant to evaluate crash worthiness.

Most useful driving feature is the regenerative breaking. Toggled with a “paddle” on the left side of the steering wheel. Quickly learned to use this virtually all the time. Same location as the “paddle” downshift of my wifes GLK which I drive from time to time. Not quite the same results. Also – the control stalk on the right side does not put the Volt in park (as in the Mercedes). It turns on the wipers. Have not had the Volt roll away yet. Waiting on that.

Most of the other “range extended” vehicles have to short of an EV “tether” IMO. I had a MINI-E lease for a couple of years and while it was fun to drive the range limitations almost put it in the “toy” classification.

Virtue signal? I agree with Michel that this can/should help improve air pollution issues in large metropolitan areas. Also, possibly, noise pollution. All other concerns are BS IMO.

I expect the GRID to become progressively more challenged in our area and anticipate periods of more prolonged shut downs – high winds, fire, etc. On a personal basis I have substanial solar, battery, and generator backup so expect minimum inconvenice. I rarely let my vehicles get below half fuel levels in any case. It is hard to pump gas with no power so pure ICE may be problematic. Even more difficult for most people to recharge their pure EV in that case.

So – Chevrolet came up with an apparently well engineered, well buiit, eminently practical vehicle and then cancelled it? That should be the topic of discussion IMO.

nickc
Reply to  ValleyBoy
March 9, 2021 9:44 am

Your use is an ideal situation. I live in a location towns are sixty miles or more apart. Temperatures can fall to forty below. I tow a 26 foot travel trailer. Let’s see haw far Musk’s truck can that especially with hills.
I sometimes carry extra fuel. Maybe an ev can carry an extra super expensive battery? I store some extra fuel at home especially in winter.
Now take a look at a map of North America, lots of rural open spaces, long roads with not much habitation. Now add in the winters over most of that area.
A lithium battery fire is almost impossible to put out, were do you park?

ATheoK
Reply to  nickc
March 9, 2021 1:40 pm

Like you I live rural.

I’d use half valleyboy’s EV range just picking up a pizza. More in winter given cold weather and hills.

Mile long hills going up is a challenge for many small engine cars. Sheer battery drainer for EVs.
I’ll bet those EVs running in San Fran have drastically shortened range.

Yet, EV pushers love their overpopulated urban demographics and abjectly believe the majority of the world is a few blocks wide…

“Average” citizen demographics are a joke. They’re slanted by huge populations where owning cars is difficult.

Change those “average” demographics to per capita across most of the USA and those “ideal” EV uses suddenly fall to nil.

As others have pointed out, frail electric grids from unreliable renewables means that a lot of people are not going to get their vehicles charged until the blackouts end.

  • Cancel all of the subsidies.
  • Cancel all of the excise taxes that are intended to force EV use.
  • Cancel all tax rebates for EV purchases or use.
  • Cancel all HOV advantages for EV use.
  • Start charging ‘End of life’ fees for EV batteries.
  • Eliminate penalties for vehicle manufacturers meant to force EV construction and sale.
Mike Lowe
Reply to  ValleyBoy
March 9, 2021 11:12 am

Early adopters tend to be in ideal situations and technically aware. That probably applies to you, but won’t apply to the vast majority who would not even be able to recharge while parked off the road. Early adopters tend to be shallow thinkers with selfish tendencies (INHO).

MarkW
Reply to  ValleyBoy
March 9, 2021 12:14 pm

Most car noise is from the tires.
The belief that most city pollution comes from cars is a myth that may have been true in the 70’s, but hasn’t been true in decades.
What about people who don’t have garages to charge their cars in?

Last edited 4 months ago by MarkW
MarkW
March 9, 2021 8:33 am

This nonsense will continue as long as a majority of the people remain convinced that the purpose of government is to take money from those who work and give it to them.

markl
March 9, 2021 8:40 am

Lost in all the hoopla is the fact that EVs are a superior driving and passenger vehicle to ICE cars. The sweet spot for EVs is city use for both owner and city workers and dwellers. Range, charge time and infrastructure, and cost limit them to niche consumers. Subsidizing EV purchases is a reverse Robin Hood endeavor.

MarkW
Reply to  markl
March 9, 2021 12:17 pm

It may be superior for you, however your assumption that what you like must also be the case for everyone else is a belief not supported by the evidence.

Jake J
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 4:31 pm

I own an EV, a gas SUV, and a diesel truck, among more than a dozen vehicles I’ve owned in nearly 50 years of driving. EVs have issues — see my long post about that — but I also think electric drive gives the best driving experience because of the torque. The main issues are battery cost and capacity, and recharge time.

markl
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 4:56 pm

Evidence? EVs are smoother, quieter, accelerate better, low center of gravity from battery placement help them corner better, roomier due to lack of motor/trans/driveline, and “one pedal driving” all make for a better driving experience. What “evidence” is lacking? What criteria would you use for the driving experience?

Robert of Texas
Reply to  markl
March 9, 2021 5:29 pm

Superior? Really?

I can make it over 500 miles in my good old truck, plug in an ice cooler, run the stereo and AC and 2-way radio while charging 3 to 4 phones assuming passengers are with me and everyone in comfort…not bundled together like a can of sardines. I can carry 1/2 a ton in back while doing all this, then pull off the main road and go up a mountain road to go camping. I can carry an extra 5 gallon can of gas just in case – enough to get me over 100 miles on a paved road.

Your EV is superior?

TonyG
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 10, 2021 6:57 am

Apparently all that is not “evidence”. Only one outlook on driving experience matters, if you drive differently, you don’t count.

Just so we’re clear, I agree with you, and that’s why I like my truck too.

Jake J
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 10, 2021 8:31 am

I have a good truck, but it’s a 2013 with SCR, so it won’t roll coal on bicyclists, damn it. I can’t call it my “good old truck,” but I like it a lot. I also own a 2011 EV, purchased out of curiosity at a deep discount, and I like that one too.

The two vehicles are very different. Everything you wrote is true, and irrelevant. Those (including me) who say EV’s are “superior” are talking about particular aspects of them: torque, quiet, low maintenance, cheap fuel. EVs have downsides, all associated with batteries: too expensive, lacking adequate energy density, slow charging times.

markl
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 10, 2021 9:23 am

Jeez, lot’s of “superiority” in your post. I’m talking about driving experience in an urban setting which is where EVs excel over ICE vehicles. Get a grip folks. I drive an ICE vehicle because I mix urban and country driving …. not an ideal setting for EVs. Doable but the range and recharging on the road limitations don’t work for me. But driving around town and short trips I would prefer an EV. If you live in a congested area like I do you’d understand the advantages for you, your passengers, and the people around you. Where the EV marketing is wrong is the “cleaner air for the good of the world” mantra. It’s all BS like most of the claims the media puts out these days. If they spent more time on the driving advantages of an EV the stigma of owning one would disappear.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  markl
March 11, 2021 3:58 pm

I’m not sure about city dwellers. For example, a ten story apartment building with say 5 apartments per floor and street parking. That’s at least 50 autos. Where do you put the charging stations and how do you provide the power to them?

Jake J
Reply to  Jim Gorman
March 13, 2021 10:53 am

Actually, all that’s necessary is a 240v, 30A plug (same as what’s used for clothes dryers) for each vehicle. Put one of those card readers used in Europe at each outlet to make sure that only tenants can plug in. At the average U.S. electricity rates, an EV driven 750 miles a month (average EV is driven 9,000 miles a year) will use 250 kWh, or about $35 worth based on 14 cents/kWh. The cost would change by $2.50 per 1 cent variation in the price of electricity. Where I live, 250 kWh goes for $24; in California, $62.

Charge tenants with an EV for 250 kWh and give them a card that will let them use the plug, with a monthly cap of 250 kWh. This would keep tenants from sharing their outlets. EV charging cords are cheap — I paid a couple hundred bucks for mine. At 240v/30A, the EV would charge at 7.2 kWh per hour. The typical newer-generation EV would go from 20% to 100% of charge in 7 hours, i.e. overnight. One of the uber Teslas with a 100 kWh battery would take 11-1/2 hours, which is still overnight.

This would be a win-win solution, because if the apartment owner made the electricity a pass-through rather than a profit center, the EV owner would pay about half of what he’d pay at a “public charger.” The problem would arise if multiple users plugged in at the same time; this would require an upgrade in the utility distribution network.

Another possibility would be to still use the cards at the outlet, but tie each outlet into the tenant’s existing meter. I’m not sure about the mechanical side of that idea.

Last edited 4 months ago by Jake J
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Jake J
March 13, 2021 4:26 pm
  1. How is the apartment owner going to provide charging ports at curbside where on-street parking is the only available parking?
  2. If you stick 220v/30amp charging ports along the right-of-way where on-street parking is used, how long do you think it will be until the local hoodlums figure out they can get a good light show by taking jumper cables and heavy screwdrivers and jamming them into the outlets? Blown circuit breakers at worst, internal fires in the wiring cable at worst.
  3. How long till vandals rip the card readers out of the charging posts?
  4. Most apartment users I am aware of get home in the early evening – which is when most of them will want to plug-in their EV. Not many people are going to go out at 2AM to plug their vehicle in because it is not their “turn”. Meaning you will have to provide as many charging ports as you have apartments. Since most apartments with on-street parking have their electric feeds coming in off the alley you are talking BIG expense for the landlord to bury multiple cable runs from the back of the apartment to the street – including the cost of trenching in hard to reach places plus having to tear up the right-of-way in front of the apartment building (sidewalks, trees, utilities, etc).
  5. I’m not exactly sure what apartment buildings you have lived in but the one where my wife lived when we met and the one my son lives in now have their electric meters as far from the parking lot as it is possible to get. Long, LONG runs for multiple 220v/30 amp cable runs.

It’s not apparent to me that you have thought this through completely. Neither have the Democrats!

Steve Z
March 9, 2021 8:40 am

Vice President Kamala Harris doesn’t seem to realize that a “zero emission vehicle” doesn’t really generate zero emissions–the emissions are just transferred to wherever the power is generated, unless the generator is a nuclear power plant. Other than that, the only way electric vehicles can reduce overall emissions is if the electric power is generated by combined-cycle gas-fired power plants, where the hot, low-pressure gases leaving the gas turbine are passed through heat exchangers to generate steam, and additional power. For any other generation method (coal-fired or simple-cycle natural gas), net emissions are actually higher from electric vehicles than from gasoline-powered vehicles, due to energy losses in generation and transmission of electric power to the vehicle.

There are other ways to reduce vehicle emissions that don’t involve electric vehicles, such as vehicles powered by compressed natural gas. While this is impractical for private cars (filling up a tank of compressed natural gas safely requires training not available to the average Joe or Jane filling up at a gasoline station), several cities have their entire municipal bus fleet running on compressed natural gas, whose tanks are filled by specially-trained personnel late at night when there is little demand for bus transportation. Buses running on natural gas generate much less pollution than diesel-powered buses, for the same number of miles traveled.

Those demanding “free charging stations” for electric vehicles need to consider: who pays for the electric power consumed at the charging stations? If people charge their EV’s at home, the power consumed shows up on their electric bill, and if people prefer a zero gasoline bill and a higher electric bill, that’s their choice. But at a public charging station, the power company supplying the electricity will want to be reimbursed for the fuel consumed, with profit, and will be unwilling to provide power to the charging stations. Power companies might set up public charging stations where a consumer inserts a credit or debit card to start charging, and then is billed for X cents per kWh consumed payable to the power company, but no power company would agree to provide electricity to a “free” charging station.

If politicians try to ban the sale of ICE vehicles by a certain future date, there will probably be a backlash whereby people rush to buy new or recent-model used ICE vehicles while they are still legal, so that they can continue to use them after the deadline. There could also be a popular revolt (due to the high cost of electric vehicles) which would force politicians supporting such a ban out of office, and their replacements could repeal the ban on ICE vehicles and gasoline sales before the deadline.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Steve Z
March 9, 2021 11:18 am

The latter scenario ignores the practical consideration that all of those Evs which people rushed to buy would have close to nil value about 8 years later. Very few people would buy a high-use expired-battery EV second hand. So that rush-to-buy would completely destroy the used vehicle market, where many of us exist. Just one of the many unexpected consequences brought about by unaware non-technical ideologically-driven politicians!

Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 9:04 am

The EV’s are coming but the method of introduction is important. Any government intervention distorts the market and usually has very bad economic cost (which we pay for). Let the market do it’s job and the rate of introduction will be closest to optimum.

JonasM
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
March 9, 2021 11:07 am

Nicely put. I always tell people that a free market does not necessarily produce a perfect solution. But it can be counted on to produce the Optimal solution.

ResourceGuy
March 9, 2021 9:19 am

“a single wind turbine needs some 3.5 tons of copper per megawatt of electricity.”

Elaborate, can’t be.

ResourceGuy
March 9, 2021 9:22 am

Don’t forget to factor in a large loss of dealerships and their staffs when they start dropping like flies. It already started in the list of Cadillac franchisees.

ResourceGuy
March 9, 2021 9:26 am
Tom Abbott
March 9, 2021 9:28 am

From the article: “Zero emission fantasies”

That’s what we are talking about with all these efforts to wean the economy from fossil fuels.

None of this is practical. And it’s not necessary, since there is no evidence that CO2 needs to be controlled.

The dishonest and the gullible of the world are in the process of causing great destruction over the contrived scare of CO2. The mounting failures of their claims and schemes does not deter them from continuing down this destructive path.

ResourceGuy
March 9, 2021 9:34 am

In all of this change there are going to be dead bodies, lots of dead bodies. Many car brands and models will disappear along with the jobs, supply chain, and dealerships that went with them. Even the quality brands like Toyota and Honda can’t believe what they are seeing.

March 9, 2021 9:40 am

Hybrids can make sense depending on the vehicle size. Pure EVs not so much.
We have owned a Ford Escape AWD hybrid since 2007, with a class one tow hitch. Drive range almost 400 miles even at 70mph on one 15 gallon tank full even with AC on. Engine off at idle. Engine off up to about 20mph unless you floor the pedal, so terrific for congested city driving (Fort Lauderdale in season). Atkinson cycle I4 provides by itself 15% fuel savings over equivalent displacement Otto cycle, with torque loss made up by the electric machine. Regen braking.
32city/28highway compared to the equivalent V6 Otto version at 18city/22highway.
Best, the I4 hybrid uses regular, the V6 premium gas. 2/3 the gallons, and a buck less per gallon. That has more than returned double the about $3500 hybrid premium we paid new. No subsidy needed. And the NiMH battery is still problem free after 13 years because the charge only floats between ~45-55%. Deep discharge from ‘full’ is what shortens EV battery life, especially if hot or cold.

Curious George
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 9, 2021 10:52 am

Could you estimate what percentage of mileage is battery driven vs. engine driven?

Reply to  Curious George
March 9, 2021 12:21 pm

Very little of our driving is battery only. Engine kicks on almost instantly at a normal acceleration from a stoplight. If stuck in creepy crawly traffic, we can motor for about 2.5 miles under 20mph before the engine will kick on to keep the battery charge floating around 50%.
The reality is the battery is probably in use about 1/3 the total drive time for torque boost and regen braking. Our Escape has a monitoring feature that shows when the battery is engaged, and whether it is discharging or charging. So the estimates are good ballparks.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 9, 2021 11:22 am

“Deep discharge” is what enables the EV enthusiasts to claim high range figures and little range anxiety. The more that view is emphasised, the worse the end result of short battery life and nil resale value.

Reply to  Mike Lowe
March 9, 2021 12:29 pm

Same is also true for Tesla’s vaunted rapid charging to solve range anxiety. Rapid charging means battery heats up. As a rule of thumb for LiIon thanks to the Nerst equation, every 10C heat increase charging above about 40C almost halves battery life. The reason Musk uses water enveloped can cells rather than GM’s pouch cells is to increase the thermal mass to mitigate the rapid charging heat.

Joel O’Bryan
March 9, 2021 9:43 am

Cuba’s classic cars are 1950’s models, before the Castro regime came to power.

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
March 9, 2021 11:24 am

Many of them looked new when I visited in 1960.

Bernie1815
March 9, 2021 9:49 am

Does anybody have a reliable source of data on the income of those actually receiving these EV and Solar tax credits? Obviously anyone who buys a high end Tesla is in a higher tax bracket than me, but having the actual numbers would be useful.

griff
March 9, 2021 9:55 am

Not all parts of the world have same driving profile as the US… the average length of a car journey in the UK is just 8.4 miles…

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 1:30 pm

Not all parts of the world have same driving profile as the US… the average length of a car journey in the UK is just 8.4 miles…

Very true, profiles vary enormously. For instance, in 8 miles, I’m not close to my nearest town, and have probably only passed 10 dwellings. EVs here in Oz are virtually useless. I can drive up to 1600 km (1000 miles) in my Toyota, with a/c or heating, on one tank of fuel.

Like the old joke
European: “I’ve been driving 20 minutes, and I’m in a different country!”

Australian: “I’ve been driving 20 minutes, and I’m at the end of my driveway!”

Last edited 4 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
March 9, 2021 7:35 pm

Typical politician proposal. One size fits all.

ATheoK
Reply to  griff
March 9, 2021 1:51 pm

Typical alarmist, loves illogical “averages” where dense urban populations skew the results against the rural areas.

ResourceGuy
March 9, 2021 10:26 am
Chas Wynn
March 9, 2021 11:31 am

Net Zero CO2? Go for it. Can we have a raffle to pick the date when the pitchforks and torches march on the legislatures? Barring a revolution in battery technology the only revolution forthcoming will send AOC and her ilk into political oblivion. History shows that when there’s no food on the table the guillotines get dusted off.

Reply to  Chas Wynn
March 9, 2021 2:16 pm

Having been active in energy storage (batteries, battery chargers, and supercaps since the mid 1990’s, I can assure you there is NO revolution coming in energy storage. My own fundamental ‘breakthru’ energy storage materials patents from 2007 for supercaps increased their energy density by about 40%, power density by about 2x, and decreased cost for equivalent Farads by about 30%. That came from fundamentally revising the physical understanding of how they actually work. The old concepts were just wrong, an accumulation of errors. New math basis, new experimental confirmations thereof. For electrochemistry based batteries, even that is not possible after 200 plus years of research. Progress is very incremental, and the remaining problems to be solved for known but not commercial technologies (dendrite formation in rechargeable zinc/air, for example) are very tough.

Over at Judith’s some years ago, I posted on the one possible exception I am aware of, a LiIon/supercap device hybrid enabled by graphene. 20000 full charge discharge cycle life, 5 minute charging from 20 to 80%. The concept was developed and performance proven between 2007 and 2010 by Subaru’s Dr. Hatozaki, using conventional carbons and a complex assembly process, then abandoned for cost reasons.

The ‘ideal’ graphene cost and bulk structure problems were subsequently solved by a PhD thesis at UCLA.

Heinrich Fiskars was on it right away with license options and much PR, but eventually he went with conventional LiIon for his new EV supercar. Dunno what went wrong in his three years of sponsored research BatCap development. Could be as simple as he could not afford both the car and the BatCap development and manufacturing after blowing over $1 billion of investor funds on his first failed EV company.

Judith’s guest post has all the details and references, including the patents and applications to that point in time.

Last edited 4 months ago by Rud Istvan
Jake J
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 9, 2021 4:25 pm

Where do I find “Judith’s guest post?” I looked on this site’s page, but maybe not hard enough?

Reply to  Jake J
March 10, 2021 12:49 pm

The guest post was in 2016 at Judith’s blog Climate Etc.
Title was Vehicular Decarbonization. Her search bar will take you directly to it.

Simon
March 9, 2021 11:34 am

Funny how many here are so against subsidies for EV’s and renewable energy and yet the oil industry receives billions from the government every year. Many of the tax breaks they get are hangovers from years gone by and yet the oil industry keeps claiming them. So are you OK with subsidies or not? Seems to me you can’t have it both ways.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2021 12:23 pm

There are no subsidies for the oil and gas industry.
As usual, the troll defends one lie with another lie.

Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 3:07 pm

Agree. It is amazing how warmunists confound actual subsidies for renewables with normal tax practices for fossil fuels. So be specific, renewable feed in tariffs, PTCs, taxpayer guaranteed Solyndra loans, UK shutdown comps, are all direct renewable subsidies available only to them.
Depletion and amortization US tax deductions are normal business practices available to all.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 3:52 pm

Duh!!!!!
In the United States, the federal government has paid US$145 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($85 billion) and fossil fuels ($60 billion) from 1950 to 2016. 
Reference…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20the,billion)%20from%201950%20to%202016.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2021 7:08 pm

Wikipedia is worthless for anything regarding global warming and fossil fuels.

Standard tax breaks that all companies receive, are not subsidies. As usual, you confuse propaganda for data.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 3:54 pm

Mark

See I back up my statements. Now waiting for you to reference a car that produces cleaner air than it is surrounded by.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
March 9, 2021 7:09 pm

I’m still waiting for you to cite something other than a propaganda site for your data.

Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 9:34 pm

I may be able to provide some help. Yes, in high air pollution areas only, today’s gasoline and diesel cars are cleaner on particulate matter, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide, and about 185 gasoline car models have negative NOx emissions when driven on the highway cycle. I have written 6 articles on this topic, unfortunately, I see now that they have been moved behind a paywall at Stillwater Associates.

Yes the ZEV is cleaner in clean air environments of course. With the Clean Air Act Congress empowered EPA and CARB to reduce air violations, not to make clean air cleaner. There is no benefit to reducing air pollution once the pollutant is below the health-based violation threshold. The most interesting observation is that in dirty (air violation) environments today’s cleanest cars and trucks are at most a zero emitter, if not negative emitters. The ZEV does not benefit the air in dirty cities during air violation days, because it never becomes a negative emitter. Because vehicle emissions have been reduced 98-99.9% for most all criteria pollutants, we have now come full circle, against the argument for ZEVs for air pollution needs. And yes there are a few gross emitter gasoline and diesel vehicles per EPA in-use testing this population is less than 10% and shrinking. Note that ZEVs do have gross emitters too – winter use increases energy use 45%, pre AC a ZEV too raises energy / emissions. You should understand that the criteria pollutant emission differences from the clean gasoline ICE and ZEV is 0+/- 3%.

The issue is all tailpipe emission testing on automobiles we exclude the fact that all engines consume air. It was not a problem in the 1970s when we established test cycles, but as vehicle emissions dropped this “irrelevant ambient air pollutant” became equal and greater than tailpipe emissions. I am virtually-presenting at SAE conference this April to show the automotive industry the error we are making by ignoring the fact. I have a paper that shows using CARB’s own EMFAC data how diesels became negative emitters starting with the 2007 model-year with 99.9% lower PM levels than 1990 engines (CARB’s own data), during high ambient air pollution events.

Hope this helps. Sorry I cannot link to one of the papers on this topic.
Recovering Governmental Automotive Engineer
GY

Robert of Texas
Reply to  MarkW
March 9, 2021 5:31 pm

Likely referring to the capital tax write-offs that EVERY industry gets, including Tesla.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert of Texas
March 9, 2021 7:08 pm

It really is amazing how progressives get bent out of shape at the thought of people not paying 100% of their income in taxes.

Flight Level
March 9, 2021 12:04 pm

The major historic engineering unsolved to this day problem of EV’s being how to make affordable, durable, light, large enough and safe “fuel tanks” as electrons do not appreciate the housing comfort of jerrycans.

It’ll take quite a bunch of executive orders to outplay this major design flaw.

John Hardy
March 9, 2021 1:00 pm

I’m an EV enthusiast but not because of carbon dioxide – urban air pollution, noise, driving experience (smoothness and torque) are the things that er important to me. The mechanical simplicity (one moving part and two bearings in a typical motor) appeals to my engineering instincts

However I am also a libertarian and I am dead against governments outlawing new ICE vehiclkes. I think it is impudent and arrogant. And it may back fire. People should drive EVs because they like them, not because there is no alternative. And it won’t suit everyone. If you don’t have off-road parking you are stuck. Shoving EVs down people’s throat will make people hate them

Reply to  John Hardy
March 9, 2021 1:58 pm

Noise is for newer cars no problem, in general you don’t hear the engine but the tires, nothing else. And EV have tires too.

ResourceGuy
March 9, 2021 1:22 pm

You’re going to need the stimulus payment in March to pay for the start of bad policies coming in April and afterwards from Uncle Joe.

MarkW
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 9, 2021 3:36 pm

According to Pelosi, the Covid relief bill is going to be as transformative as ObamaCare has been.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/pelosi-compares-transformative-coronavirus-legislation-to-scope-of-obamacare

To think that something this “awesome” had to be passed in almost complete secrecy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 2:22 pm

Republicans should campaign on rescinding as much of this spending as possible after they win the 2022 elections. Much of this spending doesn’t even take place for years. A Republican Congressional majority in 2023 should whittle that down as soon as possible. Override Traitor Joe’s veto.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tom Abbott
Kenneth R Morgareidge
March 9, 2021 2:07 pm

Hey Paul, you didn’t mention how the huge container ships will be powered; or do we just grow our computers and smart phones organically in the USA?

B C
March 9, 2021 2:21 pm

This 2017 article about Tesla semi trucks has some interesting comments and statistics:
PepsiCo orders 100 of Tesla’s all-electric Semi trucks (nypost.com)

H.R.
Reply to  B C
March 9, 2021 5:44 pm

That’s 2017.

Just curious: how many are on the road today? Are they ‘vaportrucks’? Have they been produced? From B C’s linked article (couldn’t read any comments), production was expected to start in 2019. (Not gonna go lookin’ for the answer.)

I can see it working for Pepsi. Best I know of the fizzy pop business, they don’t do much, if any, long haul trucking. It costs too much to haul fizzy, flavored water long distances. Most of their trucking is distribution routes from a large number of local botte/can/fountain facilities via daytime delivery trucks to restaurants and retail outlets. Maybe some runs of syrup to local bottling plants.

I’d still think it’s probably cheaper to buy a commercial diesel engine that gets 400,000 to 600,000 miles (or much more!) before needing rebuilt or replaced to replacing batteries over the equivalent miles. I dunno. Haven’t done the math.

But if Pepsi isn’t just virtue signaling and has actually done the math, it wouldn’t surprise me if they found a niche use for EV big rigs.

Alan Klinkenberger
March 9, 2021 3:00 pm

I thought this was an interesting develop with regards to CARB staying relevant. Even that supposedly non-polluting EV will be producing dangerous emissions. This has been looked at for a while, imagine how much worse a heavy EV will be. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/brake-tire-wear-emissions

Jake J