As multiple cities worldwide record their highest temperatures ever, I find there are several points that should be made. We don’t know that the heatwave presently being experienced is a consequence of anthropogenic global warming. We also do not know that it isn’t. Arguendo let’s assume it is.
In his Wall Street Journal column Holman Jenkins makes a reasonable point:
If the goal were to reduce emissions, the world would impose a carbon tax. Then what kind of EVs would we get? Not Teslas but hybrids like Toyota’s Prius. “A wheelbarrow full of rare earths and lithium can power either one [battery-powered car] or over 90 hybrids, but, uh, that fact seems to be lost on policymakers,†a California dealer recently emailed me.
His numbers apparently originate with Toyota, setting off a small donnybrook in the green lobbying community. The same battery minerals in one Tesla can theoretically supply 37 times as much emissions reduction when distributed over a fleet of Priuses.
This is a shock only to those who weren’t paying attention. It certainly isn’t lost on government. Chris Atkinson, the Ohio State University sustainable transportation guru whose slogan I’ve cited before—“the best use of a battery is in a hybridâ€â€”was a key official in the Obama Energy Department.
Our policies don’t exist to incentivize carbon reduction, they exist to lure affluent Americans to make space in their garages for oversized, luxurious EVs so Tesla can report a profit and so other automakers can rack up smaller losses on the “compliance†vehicles they create in obedience to government mandates.
Mining the required minerals produces emissions. Keeping the battery charged produces emissions. Only if a great deal of gasoline-based driving is displaced would there be net reduction in CO2. But who says any gasoline-based driving is being displaced? When government ladles out tax breaks for EVs, when wealthy consumers splurge on a car that burns electrons instead of gasoline, they simply leave more gasoline available for someone else to consume at a lower price.
IMO the point he makes that is correct is that hybrids should be preferred over EVs. I disagree with him on carbon taxes.
He might be correct if the taxes being proposed actually changed the incentives of those who produce the most emissions but they don’t. Carbon taxes are regressive. And producing carbon emissions increases geometrically with income. A carbon tax won’t dissuade Bill Gates from owning dozens of home, convince Jeff Bezos that his mega-yacht is unaffordable, or cause all of the very rich from flitting around the globe in private aircraft but all of those produce carbon emissions far beyond anything produced by you or I. They will cause the poor to choose among food, healthcare, and cooling their homes in the summer.
A final point that should be made is that Tucson, Phoenix, multiple cities in Texas and some of the other southern cities complaining that it’s too darned hot, shouldn’t exist at all, at least not in their present form. Their existence requires lots of water and air conditioning with the power to run it. I laughed out loud when I heard the mayor of Mesa, Arizona declaim that they planned to plant a million trees.
The rule of thumb is that an established tree needs about 10 gallons of water per inch of trunk diameter per day. Where do they plan to get the water? Mesa gets a lot of its water from the Colorado River. Arizona’s allotment from the river was just decreased—they won’t be getting millions of gallons more from it per day.
Trees do help, though. I recall a tour I was taking in Los Angeles years ago in which the tour guide observed that before the Spanish came the Los Angeles basin was hot and dry. When the Spanish came and planted orange, lemon, and olive trees, it became cooler and more humid. When the Americans came they tore out the oranges and olives, paved the areas where they had been, and it became hot and dry again.
To me the moral of the story is that there are some places that shouldn’t have large populations.
One last observation. I grew up in St. Louis without air conditioning. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
WRT to the EV vs. Hybrid debate, it seems to me this is something for the market to decide.
How do you get the market to decide it? Keep in mind the key point is total emissions per mile driven. As noted it is VERY hard for EVs to equal hybrids in that.
You let people buy what they want.
As someone who very recently was car shopping and seriously looking at both EV’s and hybrids, there is currently no shortage of demand to the extent that there isn’t enough supply to meet current demand. We wanted a hybrid or EV but the only way to get one was to get on a waiting list or special order, pay above MSRP and wait a year for it to arrive. We got an ICE vehicle as a result.
Based on that the market has already spoken: internal combustion engines. About 10 ICE vehicles are sold for every EV+hybrid.
If we REALLY let the market decide, that would mean removing all incentives (on EVs, producing and shipping oil, etc.) and taxes (highway taxes, sales taxes,various excise taxes, etc.), I don’t know what would happen. My gut says we’d sell 20 ICE for every EV+hybrid.
There is a material difference between not getting an EV/Hybrid because of a shortage and not wanting an EV/hybrid at all.
About 15 million total personal vehicles were sold last year in the U. S. Of those the total number of hybrids plus electrics is around 1.5 million.
That sounds to me like the market is saying ICE.
If Andy’s experience is common then the market should respond and provide more EV/hybrids. However, it might take a while. We know that US manufacturers tend to ignore the smaller/cheaper car market. The Japanese responded to that need 30-40 years ago. Suspect its China, S Korea or even India this time.
Steve
Re EV’s. There are plenty of reports in the MSM that EV’s are accumulating on dealer’s lots and can’t be sold. The price is exhorbitant even with the government subsidy. The range is pathetic. And they have NO resale value once the battery warranty runs out–8 years/100,000 miles. They do, however, have great acceleration. Can’t beat a DC motor for that.
As to global warming, yes, we are recovering from the Little Ice Age. We have a ways to go. It was warmer during the Medieval Climatic Optimum, warmer still during the Roman expansion, and yet warmer during the Minoan period. The planet has been cooling during the Holocene since the Younger Dryas.
They could grow oranges and lemons in Britain.
As I noted in the post I have strongly mixed feelings about the situation faced by people in Los Angeles, San Diego, Tucson, Phoenix, etc. I was in Phoenix in the 1950s. It was basically a railroad crossing. Not the megacity it is now. It’s a lousy place to have a major city—completely dependent on a very narrow set of circumstances. As those circumstances change so will the city’s viability.
By comparison Seattle, Chicago, New York, Boston, and others have ALWAYS had substantial populations. Even before Columbus. IIRC the biggest population center in what was to become the U. S. before Columbus was Cahokia in the St. Louis area (another area that has always been a population center).
I don’t know how Phoenix will survive without plentiful water or air conditioning.
Just to give a sense of proportion when talking about ICE, hybrids, and EV’s. We’ll use a Toyota RAV4 and a Tesla Y.
The RAV4 with an ICE engine gets 30 MPG.
The RAV4 Hybrid has a 1.8 kWH battery and gets 40 MPG (or uses 25% less fuel).
The RAV4 Prime (plugin hybrid) has a 18.1 kWH battery and gets 94 MPG-e (or uses 10x battery to save another 43% in fuel compared to the hybrid)
The Tesla Y has a 68 kWH battery and gets 131 MPG-e (or uses another 3x battery compared to the plugin hybrid to save only 10% in fuel, or uses 38x battery to save 53% in fuel compared to the hybrid.)
From this, the main benefits in reducing gasoline usage and carbon emissions lies somewhere between hybrids and plugin hybrids. Using 3x battery resources to achieve only a 10% reduction in carbon emissions is an extremely poor allocation of resources.
Yet the government incentives are exclusively in EV’s ($7500). They are practically discouraging hybrids because in some states — with no purchase incentives, they force hybrid owners to pay an “electrical infrastructure fee” which negates a substantial portion of the gasoline savings.
Yes, you’ve illustrated the point well, CuriousOnlooker.
Now that we have established that the objective of policy CANNOT be reducing carbon emissions (if it were they would subsidize hybrids, especially plug-in hybrids), what IS the objective of policy?
That’s not a rhetorical question. I would genuinely like to know.
I’ve always thought that the actual objective is classist.
To gently guide the peasantry into living like peasantry,
Mass transit, bicycles, walks on neighborhood sidewalks instead of trips to the National Parks.
Exclusionary, make freedom prohibitively expensive.
And of course, long term efforts at population control.
You need to stop living in the past. Tesla batteries show 12% degradation at 200,000 miles. Our old Prius showed little change at 150,000 miles when it got totaled. When y0u redo the numbers CO uses with an ICE engine that doesnt get such good mileage the numbers come out differently. It also assumes no change in battery and car tech. Its possible battery and car tech stops dead and there are no new advancements, but that seems highly unlikely.
If there is demand for the cars then we will find ways to mine the stuff we need or change what we do. Note Tesla announcing changing voltages so they can decrease the amount of copper they use.
Steve
AFAICT the Prius sales figures do not suggest a growing let alone a booming market.
Quite to the contrary they suggest a niche product which has already saturated its niche.
“There are plenty of reports in the MSM that EV’s are accumulating on dealer’s lots and can’t be sold.”
Where is this happening? It’s certainly not in Colorado or nearby states. The only case I’ve seen of this in my area are the lowest-end Tesla models that are sedans, rear-wheel drive, with the smaller (shorter range) battery. That’s not a popular configuration in Colorado for an ICE car, much less an EV.
“Yet the government incentives are exclusively in EV’s ($7500). They are practically discouraging hybrids because in some states — with no purchase incentives, they force hybrid owners to pay an “electrical infrastructure fee†which negates a substantial portion of the gasoline savings.”
My view is that demand is sufficient such that incentives aren’t necessary. Hybrids are selling well and don’t need them. I’d guess that EV’s don’t need them either. Subsidizing products that have supply constraints just isn’t very smart IMO.
“AFAICT the Prius sales figures do not suggest a growing let alone a booming market.”
The Prius is a single vehicle that’s been out for many years. Growth will come from other market segments, especially SUV’s.
“There are plenty of reports in the MSM that EV’s are accumulating on dealer’s lots and can’t be sold”.
To Bob’s point. Roughly 2x the inventory in days of sales compared to ICE’s. Oh, and steve, not just small cars. Do you just make this shit up out of whole cloth?
https://www.thedrive.com/news/evs-are-piling-up-on-dealer-lots-as-supply-outpaces-demand”
Oh, and steve, in what century will this improved battery technology you have been touting for 10 years actually drive EV desirability?
bob sykes: It was warmer during the Medieval Climatic Optimum, warmer still during the Roman expansion, and yet warmer during the Minoan period.
That is not correct. See Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021: “When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years.”
Dave Schuler: They could grow oranges and lemons in Britain.
Not reliably.
Already happening.
“The new edition of the IEA’s annual Global Electric Vehicle Outlook shows that more than 10 million electric cars were sold worldwide in 2022 and that sales are expected to grow by another 35% this year to reach 14 million. This explosive growth means electric cars’ share of the overall car market has risen from around 4% in 2020 to 14% in 2022 and is set to increase further to 18% this year, based on the latest IEA projections.”
https://www.iea.org/news/demand-for-electric-cars-is-booming-with-sales-expected-to-leap-35-this-year-after-a-record-breaking-2022
Cost is the issue holding things back in the US, partially because in the US the focus is on large/performance cars. Battery tech has improved much faster than conservative would know (since they dont want to know). Range and costs have come down. A kWh in 2008 cost $1355 and in 2022 it cost $153. We are also about to see cars with Na ion batteries hitting the market for the first time. Not as energy dense but cost less. Lithium phosphate batteries are spreading and we are starting to see good results in combining silicon and graphite n the anodes.
And as a bonus, that $3 billion battery recycling plant in Nevada is about to come online.
Steve
bob sykes: It was warmer during the Medieval Climatic Optimum, warmer still during the Roman expansion, and yet warmer during the Minoan period.
That is not correct. See Osman et al., Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum, Nature 2021: “When compared with recent temperature changes, our reanalysis indicates that both the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual relative to the changes of the past 24 thousand years.”
Dave Schuler: They could grow oranges and lemons in Britain.
Not reliably.
Zachriel:
Which temperature recording stations during the Medieval warm period are you using for data?
It’s no surprise at all that today, with so many locations recording temperature that many, many, local records will be broken as there are so many available locales.
The Romans grew grapes in the British Isles for wine, much more important than lemons.
The lack of which may explain why they left
Grey Shambler: Which temperature recording stations during the Medieval warm period are you using for data?
Osman et al., cited above, used geochemical proxies for sea-surface temperature. You will have to dig through the footnotes for specifics. You could start with Marcott et al., A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years, Science 2013. What is new with Osman et al. is that they bring together a large amount of data sufficient to provide a much finer geographic and temporal resolution.
Grey Shambler: It’s no surprise at all that today, with so many locations recording temperature that many, many, local records will be broken as there are so many available locales.
It’s the ratio that matters. If there were no increase in mean temperature, you would expect about as many record cold temperatures as record warm temperatures, but what we see is that record warm temperatures outnumber record cold temperature globally.
They grow grapes in Canada. You dont need to have tropical weather to grow them. Southwestern England is warm due to the currents.
Steve
Wow!
I didn’t know that Steve.😵
Please, go on.