As I’ve pointed out before presently electric vehicles (EVs) comprise about 1% of U. S. vehicle sales. As should be apparent without greater market acceptance, it will be darned hard to achieve the reductions in carbon emissions the Biden Administration would like to see. California’s senators have a sure-fire way for EVs to gain greater market acceptance—ban the sale of vehicles using internal combustion engines. From The Center Square:
(The Center Square) – California’s two U.S. Senators, both Democrats, are calling on President Joe Biden to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars in the United States.
Sens. Diane Feinstein and Alex Padilla sent a letter to Biden urging him to “follow California’s lead and set a date by which all new cars and passenger trucks sold be zero-emission vehicles.”
Last September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who now faces a potential recall election, signed an executive order banning the sale of gasoline-powered cars in California by requiring all new cars and trucks being sold in the state to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. Currently, electric vehicles account for less than 3 percent of all vehicle sales in the U.S.
“We urge your administration to take advantage of this effort and make real progress in coordination with states, like California, that share your goals to aggressively fight climate change by eliminating harmful pollution from the transportation sector,” the senators wrote.
They said they “support aggressive national standards for greenhouse gas emissions, clean transportation technology, and sensible fuel economy for passenger vehicles.â€
Feinstein and Padilla asked the Biden administration to require the auto industry to commit to shifting to primarily producing electric vehicles, something some in the industry, like General Motors, has said it “aspires” to do by 2035. Ford has announced its intention to shift its car models in Europe to be solely electric by 2030.
There are a number of impediments to this plan. For example, for the U. S. market the technology will need to improve considerably and realistically there’s little reason to believe the advances necessary will be available that soon. Second, we have little evidence that production of EVs can be scaled up to the requisite level that fast. Ask yourself one question: why is there a waiting list for Priuses? (Admittedly, they’re not EVs—they’re hybrids but the the principle is the same). I don’t believe they can produce them any faster than that.
I’ve also mentioned another impediment: the U. S. electrical grid won’t support the draw that many EVs will impose on it. And the environmental impact of producing that many EVs may not be what their proponents think. Consider the conclusions of the National Bureau of Economic Research on EVs:
First, we find considerable variation in the environmental benefit, implying a range of second-best electric vehicle purchase subsidies from $3025 in California to -$4773 in North Dakota, with a mean of -$742. Second, over ninety percent of local environmental externalities from driving an electric vehicle in one state are exported to others, implying that electric vehicles may be subsidized locally, even though they may lead to negative environmental benefits overall. Third, geographically differentiated subsidies can reduce deadweight loss, but only modestly. Fourth, the current federal purchase subsidy of $7500 has greater deadweight loss than a no-subsidy policy.
The highlighting is mine. They’re worse for the environment than the vehicles they’d replace.
The democrat party creates public policy out of euphemistic cloth.
The HR 1 bill, for instance is labeled, “for the people,†when it, in a sinister fashion, really upends voter integrity.
The border policy is framed in empathy for the downtrodden, when in reality it plays into making human trafficking a lucrative breeze for the cartels, and burdens state welfare systems, schools with providing for and educating large swathes of poor, unskilled people.
Obamacare was marketed as lowering medical costs, while it threw millions off health care plans they liked, involuntarily shuttled some into Medicaid programs, and higher premiums and deductibles for others.
The pandemic was heavily injected with fear, questionable stats, and orchestrated to deliver death blows to small business owners and middle/lower working classes while enriching corporations, tech who donated to and helped the Dems.
Global warming is touted as “settled science,†never to be debated, unless you want to be personally smeared. Forget the publications of scientists who question the temperature-raising effects of green house gases on the environment, or for that matter how inadequate and foolishly hyped subsidized green energy options really are.
Basically, when it comes down to democrat orthodoxy, demands, interpretation of science, politics, policy, morality you’re only a good person if you capitulate and simply fall into line with their thinking.
That’s why I prefer to discuss ways and means rather than endlessly arguing about ends. De gustibus non disputandum est. Why argue about the ideals? Focus on how you’ll achieve your ideals. If your means cannot achieve your objective, it makes no difference how lofty your objective is.
I have found much the same to be true when commenting on right-wing sites. Just to cite one example, you’ve pretty much got to accept that the 2020 election was stolen.
Transportation uses 28% of the total energy consumption in the US, and its all petroleum based. To electrify that sector would require the construction of about 350 1,000 MW nuclear reactors. We also have another 100 or so that urgently need replacement. So, we need to build about 500 nuclear reactors, more or less.
But fossil fuels actually supply about 80% of our total energy consumption, 28% for transportation and 42% for other uses, like manufacturing, home heating, etc. If we really want to go zero carbon, we need to build around 1,100 nuclear power plants, 1,000 new and 100 replacements.
The capacity of the electric power grid, down to the household, would have to be increased proportionately, a factor of at least 5.
I am not opposed to that. But NIMBY and federal and state regulations make it impossible.
For comparison, there a total of 440 operating nuclear reactors in the world today. Another 50 are underconstruction.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
To put the cherry on the sundae, Rosatom is currently the largest builder of nuclear power plants in the world, with 35 units at some stage of construction. The US is sanctioning Rosatom, possibly for the offense of building clean power, most likely “just because.”
That’s a pretty good summary, bob sykes. I presume that the retort of those who are talking about 100% EVs is that the electricity will be produced by wind and solar, apparently unaware that total reliance on wind and solar is, essentially, a mythical beast.
And even that wouldn’t accomplish the objective because, as I’ve mentioned in the past, after power generation and transportation the third greatest producer of greenhouse gases is cement production and there’s not much that can be done to reduce that except to produce less cement.
“electricity will be produced”
IMO rationed is the more appropriate word.
By cost or by decree, electricity use is more easily measured and controlled.
Electric current itself will be next condemned. It’s production warms the planet, magnetic fields cause cancer and birth defects in endangered species and marginalized people who are condemned to live beneath the
transmission lines by systemic racism.
If I could think of that on short notice, imagine what professional squawks can do.
Why grant them ideals? When what they want is power?
Biden is now musing about building wind mills up and down coastal areas. He probably thinks this will complement the solar farms envisioned by green energy advocates. In contrast, Sykes logical assessment would most likely solicit a glazed over look from most warmist “experts.â€
In response to Dave’s 2020 stolen election comment:
I personally think the election results are far from being adequately or fairly resolved. There were simply too many misadventures, numbers that didn’t add up, questionable antics, with so many controversial misgivings amassed in only swing states (like heartburn) that surfaced in the processing and mechanics of this election, to be acceptable. I, for one, listened to a few of the initial hearings in MI and Arizona, finding the evidence presented to be compelling. Supposedly, nearly 3000 affidavits were collected describing inappropriate actions noted while votes were being counted. Dominion machines were seen hooked up to the internet, ballots observed being run through multiple times, unrealistic vote dumps with one candidate receiving almost all the votes, and fractions denoted in vote tallies for both candidates that were impossible if the votes had equivalent values. Furthermore, the fact there was so much interference made to not give the Dominion records over to people questioning the validity of the results, and Dems refusing to grant reasonable audits in highly disputed counties, just adds more doubt and dismay as to what the actual vote count really was.
And, Just because anyone voicing discontent over the ethical nature of the 2020 election is instantly censored on social and democrat-run media…just because the courts refused to hear evidence, basing their refusals on process and/or standing….just because the DOJ turned a sudden deaf ear, and the FBI a blind eye to the breaches of ethics or lack of adherence to historical voter tabulating standards, unlike what has been energetically shown in running down people and evidence of those pictured in or near the Capitol building 1/6….. the election questions will not be easily dismissed nor go away until a rational and fair airing of witness testimonies are heard and voting irregularities are fully explained.
Sometimes if you want clean-energy, you’ve got to get your hands dirty:
Macron, Orban urge EU to ‘actively support’ nuclear power
(with photograph of Macron and Orban shaking hands like old chums)
70% of France’s energy is nuclear. It’s sort of committed. Germany, on the other hand, went nuts after Fukushima.
Your NBER paper is 6 years old. Battery prices have come down markedly since then. Battery density has also increased. We are close to having EV and Gas vehicles cost about the same. If the solid state battery tech works out, looks pretty good right now, then we have another big jump.
I suspect they have to modify their goal for 2030 but this could drive a major shift. Maybe get some savings just on scale.
“Forget the publications of scientists who question the temperature-raising effects of green house gases on the environment”
They largely dont exist. Those who do exist rarely do original research and a large percentage are the same people, usually emeritus types, who supported the tobacco companies in their efforts to prove tobacco is healthy.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a34992832/battery-price-drop-2023/
Steve
Oops. Above should say they dont do original research.
Those conclusions are only tangentially related to battery price. Additionally, there is no Moore’s Law in battery development, i.e. there is no reliable and predictable pace of development in batteries. We may have reached the end of the road. Or there may be revolutionary discoveries right around the corner. There’s no way to tell and we certainly should not formulate policy based on the assumption of future development.
Heck, Moore’s Law has just about reached the end of the road WRT semiconductors.
Curious, that Senators want an Executive Order instead of doing the needful to pass a law to the same effect.
Rationing electricity, isn’t that what the Carbon Tax does?
Tangentially? You cite paper that has costs but now that batteries that cost half as much and last longer it is not relevant?
Steve
Yes. Reducing battery costs does not eliminate externalities. Indeed, it’s irrelevant to them.