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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
It’s not apparent to me that you have thought this through completely. Neither have the Democrats!
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.
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!
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.
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.
“a single wind turbine needs some 3.5 tons of copper per megawatt of electricity.”
Elaborate, can’t be.
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.
At least there are some miners getting some extra value in their byproduct streams.
First Solar signals interest in new U.S. supply of tellurium for its solar panel production – pv magazine USA (pv-magazine-usa.com)
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.
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.
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.
Could you estimate what percentage of mileage is battery driven vs. engine driven?
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.
“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.
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.
Cuba’s classic cars are 1950’s models, before the Castro regime came to power.
Many of them looked new when I visited in 1960.
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.
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!”
Typical politician proposal. One size fits all.
Typical alarmist, loves illogical “averages” where dense urban populations skew the results against the rural areas.
Uncle Joe has some hard lessons ahead….
‘Umbrella of stress’ on GM staff, 2 years after plant closed – ABC News (go.com)
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.
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.
Where do I find “Judith’s guest post?” I looked on this site’s page, but maybe not hard enough?
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.
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.
There are no subsidies for the oil and gas industry.
As usual, the troll defends one lie with another lie.
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.
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.
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.
Mark
See I back up my statements. Now waiting for you to reference a car that produces cleaner air than it is surrounded by.
I’m still waiting for you to cite something other than a propaganda site for your data.
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
Found the articles.
How does Hydrogen compare to Biomass-Based Diesel on GHG, PM, and petroleum reduction?
Is it time for CARB & EPA to revise vehicle emission and emission-reduction estimates?
As California Burns, Diesel Trucks Clean the Air
How Does California’s New Advanced Clean Trucks Rule Affect Diesel Demand?
Food for Thought: Overly Aggressive NOx Reduction Has Delayed California’s Ozone Attainment by 15 Years
How Accurate are VMT Estimates?
How Do ZEV Emissions Stack Up Against Super-Clean Gasoline and Diesel Engines?
Enjoy!
Likely referring to the capital tax write-offs that EVERY industry gets, including Tesla.
It really is amazing how progressives get bent out of shape at the thought of people not paying 100% of their income in taxes.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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)
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.
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
EVs have “traction” systems that slow them down without using the brakes. I don’t know the mechanics behind them, but I do know that I use the brake pedal on my EV a whole lot less than on a standard gas vehicle. In practice, while the mechanisms aren’t the same, the result is quite similar to the diesel brake on my truck.
I do a whole lot of “one pedal driving” in both my EV and my truck. No brake jobs on either vehicle, one bought in 2012 (the EV) and one bought in 2013 (the truck.)
EV’s use braking systems, they may be converting that energy into something other than heat but they don’t just magically stop. These systems produce particulates and part of the system is the tires. These also produce particulates. The point is that the California Air Resource Board is now focused on “new” vehicle emissions. This will soon include ozone produced by the drive system and all the other electronic systems. I find it interesting that CARB has jumped right into this new area of potential regulation.
I don’t believe in magic. I believe in engineering.
You missed the point of the original post and you missed the point of the reply. I am an engineer. I currently spend a lot of my time working with NEV’s. New Energy Vehicles. I work with power train systems. I just may know a few things about the topic.
Good. When will you reveal anything that you claim to know?
Hi Alan,
I feel your pain regarding CARB’s regulatory actions to keep in business. CARB’s zeal for mandating ZEVs has compelled me to write these articles you may find interesting. Bottom line gasoline hybrids are better than pure ZEVs for ambient air violation improvement. The ICE air consumption with entrained pollutants and clean up creates the benefit that the ZEV just drives through. I will be presenting at SAE this April to raise the findings. We have come full circle against ZEVs for criteria pollutant reductions. Leaving only ZEVs potential CO2 reduction remaining.
How does Hydrogen compare to Biomass-Based Diesel on GHG, PM, and petroleum reduction?
Is it time for CARB & EPA to revise vehicle emission and emission-reduction estimates?
As California Burns, Diesel Trucks Clean the Air
How Does California’s New Advanced Clean Trucks Rule Affect Diesel Demand?
Food for Thought: Overly Aggressive NOx Reduction Has Delayed California’s Ozone Attainment by 15 Years
How Accurate are VMT Estimates?
How Do ZEV Emissions Stack Up Against Super-Clean Gasoline and Diesel Engines?
Gary,
Thanks for the links. I first started dealing with CARB or I should say working towards CARB regulations in 1992. AT that time I was working with Orbital Engine, now Just the Orbital Corporation, in the early 90’s. Orbital did a lot of things that are used by most transportation companies today. The most interesting thing we did was an internal research project we called a gas/electric hybrid which used the engine technology we working on at the time. I’ve been paying attention to CARB since, which serves me well as I work primarily with power train systems (lots of NEV work). When I saw the link I posted I realized that CARB, like any good government bureaucracy, is working to stay relevant. Tire wear particulates have to go somewhere (big source of micro plastic pollution) so it’s not surprising that someone is figuring out it needs to be regulated and reduced so why not brake materials as well??? I was just a little surprised that they are tipping their hand so soon.
I will confine this comment to EVs, one of which I own (a 2011 Think City with a 24kWh battery, same as the first Nissan LEAFs.) I didn’t buy it to “save the planet.” I bought it out of curiosity, and because Think’s bankruptcy caused them to liquidate the inventory at deep discounts. I also own a 1-ton diesel pickup and a Toyota Rav4.
As such, I’m one of a relatively handful of EV owners who regards them as cars and not causes. There is ammunition for both sides here.
First, this is a battery game. If manufacturing scale economies and improvements in chemistry make batteries cheap enough, EVs will take over. General Motors recently said that they’ll be able to sell battery EVs for the same price as gas-powered vehicles. If that turns out to be true, the handwriting is on the wall.
Second, if batteries become cheap enough to enable REAL ranges of 300 miles on 80% of a charge at a gas-equivalent price, consumer resistance will be markedly reduced. A major factor there will be maintenance. EVs use no oil; have no transmission gearing; have no exhaust systems. The motors are much simpler and cheaper than gas engines. In going on 9 years of owning my Think City, the only maintenance has been a couple sets of tires and a new 12v battery for running the lights and accessories.
Third, the baseline performance characteristics — apart from any range issues — of EVs are superior to anything else. They are quieter, and the nature of electric motors deliver high torque throughout the power band.
Fourth, electric motive power is not new. Ever heard of a diesel-electric locomotive? You know, the ones that pull every freight train? The diesel motor runs a generator, which in turn supplies power to the wheels. In fact, the motors on those things have so much torque that a freight train has to be started rolling at a rate much lower than the motors can turn them. The issue is that there isn’t enough friction between the wheels and rails to allow for fast starts. In any case, electric motive power isn’t new or strange. It’s a battery game, period.
On the downside:
First, those “public chargers” are a joke. Let EVs go mainstream, and the first thing we’ll see is a litany of complaints about sitting around at chargers. My EV adds 0.6 miles per minute at the plug. The fastest chargers (Tesla’s so-called “superchargers”) add 6 miles of range per minute. My truck adds 80 miles per minute at the pump, and my Toyota adds 125 miles. The average small car adds 140 miles a minute. The EVangelists gloss over this, but the public won’t be thrilled by 45-minute waits at chargers. You heard it here first.
Second, the charging issue isn’t easily solved, because the higher the volts x amps (i.e. watts) going in, the hotter the battery gets. I don’t know what the tolerances are, but it’s going to take a LOT of work to make EVs charge as quickly as gas vehicles fill up.
Third, fuel economy (and therefore range) is MUCH more variable for EVs. The numbers you see quoted capture none of this, because they refer to range as fully charged to no charge, when in fact every EV maker advises to use no more than 80% of the battery’s capacity. Past that, ambient temperature is a huge factor, with EV fuel economy dropping by half in the sorts of winters seen in much of North America. Terrain exacts very large penalties, as anyone who drives their EV uphill knows. Same for driving faster than about 60 miles an hour, and for vehicles that tow or haul trailers or other heavy loads.
Some other points:
First, the maintenance and service issues present major challenges to the GMs, Fords, Volvos, et al., because their dealers make nothing on sales. They are all about the service, and EVs need a lot less of it.
Second, I am no fan of today’s Tesla, mainly because I think their product quality is sloppy. Not the motive power part, but all the other stuff in cars, like suspensions and electronics. That much said, this is more easily solved by Tesla than people think: At some point, they could simply buy an existing automaker, and — voila! — they’re suddenly a real car company.
Conclusion:
EVs are coming, and I think Tesla is going to keep their leadership and mostly likely extend it. No, I don’t own the stock, so I am not talking my book here.
“EVs …. have no transmission gearing” Not true. They utilize a step down one speed/no shift transmission.
Semantics. An EV has a shifter, but there is only one gear. If I’m a mechanic specializing in transmissions, I will get no work fixing EV transmissions, because they don’t have transmissions. If I’m Jiffy Lube, I won’t be changing their oil, because they don’t use it. If I’m Midas muffler, there will be no EV mufflers to replace.
If I’m doing tuneups, engine rebuilds, valve jobs and the like, I won’t be doing any of that on EVs. If I’m the tire dealer, no change. Same if I do alignments. And I’ll be doing various other repairs not involving engines, fuel systems, or transmission systems. This is going to be a very big issue for the incumbent car manufacturers and their dealers.
Look, I am not an EVangelist, and I happen to think the global warming crusade is a complete fraud. But not everything goes in one direction. There are solid upsides to EVs. The only people who deny it are one or more of the following: ideologues and idiots. I don’t think anyone should be forced into an EV; if the battery issues (cost, capacity) can be addressed, they are going to take over.
You can bury your head in the sand if you want to, but not me. Remember: They are cars, not causes. EVERYTHING I write here or anywhere else about EVs looks at them that way. They are definitely a mixed bag, but then so are ICE vehicles.
Nobody does those for ICE’s either.
Really? Would you like to pay my latest truck service bill?
“I will get no work fixing EV transmissions” Due to the high almost instant torque of electric motors the transmission/not a transmission is a major stress area for EVs … along with tires. Tesla had a major problem with their transmission/not a transmission gears destructing in the model S because people were showing off their acceleration too much. Under 3 second 0 -60 mph blasts cause a lot of stress.
Tesla’s issue wasn’t a transmission issue. Transmissions are there to change gear ratios. EVs have one ratio and no transmission. Why? Because electric torque is flat within a hugely wide RPM band. No need to change gearing, hence no need for a transmission.
They do have transmissions. They also have differentials. Some of these systems even use clutch plates. Soon they will be using multiple speed transmissions. This is one of the ways efficiency will be improved.
I’m sure someone, somewhere has built an EV with those things, but they aren’t in any EVs sold now — except for differentials, which are in all vehicles and are not part of a transmission.
I’ve seen lots of claims regarding how EVs need lots less maintenance compared to ICE cars.
I’ve never seen any data to back up the claim.
I’ve owned ICE cars for over 40 years, and only once have I had to replace a part that doesn’t also exist on EVs, and that was on a car that had over 120,000 miles on it.
The engine on an ICE will outlast the EVs battery, and cost a lot less to replace.
EV’s needing less maintenance is a farce. EV’s are *heavier* than equivalent ICE vehicles. This means more wear and tear on things like shocks, u-joints, axle bearings, spindles bushings, and whatever moving parts you can find on a car. EV’s don’t get some special dispensation on mechanical wear. The engines in may ICE vehicles today, e.g. Honda Accord/Pilot, Ford Focus/Escape, etc, are good for 250K miles before the engine needs a major overhaul.
Yes, on the non-powertrain side, that’s true. And it’s what I wrote, but you are too much of a typical ideologue to bother to actually read anything. And here you almost certainly think you are one bit different than any “progressive” idiot.
I have owned plenty of vheucles: Gas, diesel, electric. EVs don’t need nearly as much service as ICEVs — and those dealerships know it. Go talk to any of them. I have. All of this is at the front of their minds. They aren’t shallow yammerers. This is about their livelihoods. Must be nice to be rich like you.
My 10 year old Accura MDX has never needed an engine repair. Most Honda engines don’t over their service life. An EV can’t get better than that!
From CarMD, which got the data from millions of OBD-II readings, the most common car repairs — NONE of which are done on EVs:
Wouldn’t it make sense that the most common car repairs would be repairs that are done on the most common cars?
There are almost 290 million cars registered in the US, out of which 1.4 million are EVs (about 0.5%) – comparing the “most common” repairs of 99.5% of vehicles to 0.5% simply doesn’t make sense. OF COURSE ICEVs would be the most common repairs.
What are the numbers and types of repairs per 1,000 of each type of car? That would be a more accurate metric.
Correct, about what repairs are most common. It makes my point, because every single one of those repairs will never be made on an EV. Yes, there will be repairs apart from the drivetrain. The car repair business won’t go to zero, but it will be a lot smaller than it is today. And that’s going to really hurt the dealers, many of which will be out of business as EVs take share. It won’t happen all at once because of the replacement cycle, but it WILL happen.
You’re not making ANY kind of sense.
EVs are 0.5% of the total, so if the repair RATES are even FOUR TIMES as much, they would make up only 2% of the repairs, far from the most common.
“most common” repairs is completely irrelevant, repairs per car is what matters.
Keep right on denying. LOL
Keep right on with the personal attacks.
It’s pointless to bother any further discussing this with you. Go ahead and get in the last word, I’m done.
Jake,
It’s good to read a more balanced view that considers both the pros and cons of EVs. There’s so much negativity in this thread, which seem so ‘anti-science’ to me.
There are always problems to be addressed with new technology, and the potential shortages of Lithium, Cobalt, Nickel and other elements, can, should, and is being addressed through research into improved recycling techniques, and alternative battery technology which will likely be more efficient, more durable, and less expensive than the current Lithium-Ion batteries.
There is rarely one solution that solves all problems, but a break-through in battery technology that doesn’t rely upon scarce resources, will be a major step forward.
I find it rather puzzling that some people on this forum think we will never achieve such ‘break-throughs’ in battery technology, which will lower the cost, whilst increasing the durability, storage capacity, and safety, and also decreasing the average charging time.
We can build rockets to send up satellites to orbit the Earth, land men on the moon, and eventually, no doubt, land men (and women) on Mars, but we cannot develop a durable, high-capacity, low-cost battery. Wow! What a lack of faith in the progress of science and technology!
There are a number of different battery technologies in development, one of which is based on Sodium instead of Lithium, so there is hope for all you people who are concerned about a looming shortage of Lithium. Here are some links to the research.
“Extremely encouraging results have been achieved for the Na-ion technology in a very short time when compared to the Li-ion technology.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200922102424.htm
https://scitechdaily.com/new-material-breakthrough-for-stable-high-voltage-long-life-solid-state-batteries/
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Most-read-in-2020/Toyota-s-game-changing-solid-state-battery-en-route-for-2021-debut
The media do nothing but slap bylines on press releases. Beware.
Thanks for the informative perspective. Has battery deterioration on range been an issue. I noted several Leaf owners were very sensitive to the loss of driving range over time.
I can answer that.
Every battery deteriorates. The question is how fast. For starters, you look at charging cycles. Whether the state of charge is low or high at the beginning of a charge doesn’t matter; every charge counts as a cycle. The second thing to look at is how far does a battery have to degrade before it should be replaced? EV warranties specify 70%.
We don’t yet have a good handle on degradation data because EVs are still quite new. So there’s some guesswork. The sources I trust say about 1,000 cycles, but again, that’s a guess. Probably a good one, and probably conservative. So, if my EV will go an average of 70 miles on a charge, the battery should be good for 70,000 miles until its capacity has degraded from 24 kWh to 17 kWh.
But that 1,000 (or whatever the number really is) cycles is no guarantee. It depends on not just the battery but on the user’s behavior. So, for example, if I regularly top off the “tank” from a high state of charge, I will waste cycles. This was common among early LEAF users, because at the beginning most of them were leased and the lessors had no incentive to take care of the battery. (And by the way, beware of used EVs, especially ones coming off lease.)
If the driver regularly lets his state of charge go much below 20%, degradation will accelerate. Same if the driver lives in a really hot climate and charges to 100% and then leaves that vehicle in the sun. This happened with a bunch of LEAF users in the Southwest, and Nissan wound up replacing a lot of batteries under warranty.
Back to “topping off.” When I read EVangelist promotion of “public chargers” at malls and workplaces, I laugh. Have at it, kids. Waste those charge cycles, but don’t come running back when you’ve used a thousand cycles, each of them adding 10 or 20 miles of range, because you thought you’d signal your eco-virtue by plugging in your car when it didn’t need to be plugged in.