White House threatens to veto anti-EV bill just passed by US House(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
White House threatens to veto anti-EV bill just passed by US House
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/12/white-house-threatens-to-veto-anti-ev-bill-just-passed-by-us-house/
5 comments
Thanks for breaking down affiliations and motivations.
The disappointing thing is that not a single Republican crossed over in the other direction. Strict ideological enforcement seems much stronger on the GOP side.
Which house districts are EV manufacturers located? They're mostly blue districts.
Open factories in Red Districts, employ a statistically significant amount of residents, and then the Congressmember will flip.
Open factories in Red Districts, employ a statistically significant amount of residents, and then the Congressmember will flip.
Volvo EVs are made in Dorchester county South Carolina, which is red by 9 or so points.
You need to employ a statistically significant number of people too though. A significant portion of the EV supply chain is heavily automated making it harder.
Red states love their Japanese, European, and (now) Chinese auto factories. They brag about them a lot. There is enough critical mass that the car stuff is already there, and they just need to ship the batteries and motors in, which isn't a lot.
> ship the batteries and motors in
That's the issue. Most of those parts are manufactured in an automated manner already.
An ICE vehicle has more parts, and less portions of the supply chain automated.
This translates to more jobs for the various OEMs.
Any attempt at transforming an ICE OEM to an EV OEM translates to job losses as well as lower margins [0], which is why both unions (eg. UAW) and ICE manufacturers (eg. Toyota in Japan) have been lobbying against EVs.
These D- Congress members are all in districts where victory margins were relatively low and where the downstream impact of EV manufacturing could have a similar impact to what NatGas and Renewables had on Coal and Oil.
[0] - https://www.ismworld.org/supply-management-news-and-reports/...
That's the issue. Most of those parts are manufactured in an automated manner already.
An ICE vehicle has more parts, and less portions of the supply chain automated.
This translates to more jobs for the various OEMs.
Any attempt at transforming an ICE OEM to an EV OEM translates to job losses as well as lower margins [0], which is why both unions (eg. UAW) and ICE manufacturers (eg. Toyota in Japan) have been lobbying against EVs.
These D- Congress members are all in districts where victory margins were relatively low and where the downstream impact of EV manufacturing could have a similar impact to what NatGas and Renewables had on Coal and Oil.
[0] - https://www.ismworld.org/supply-management-news-and-reports/...
Ironically the Rio Grande Valley is also a major wind farm region (see https://eerscmap.usgs.gov/uswtdb/viewer/#6.94/27.473/-97.63) but I think the profits from oil and gas in the region are still higher (at least somewhat because of LNG exports).
Employment most likely.
An ONG terminal will employ more (unionized) people than Renewable repairs, and it's not like Battery companies are rushing there to train employees from scratch for a product who's entire manufacturing chain is largely automated [0]
Unemployed people vote for alternatives, and it's not like the US can shoot a couple protesters or take them to a blacksite for the "greater good"
I'd recommend watching For All Mankind season 3 - it touches on this point.
[0] - https://www.emobility-engineering.com/automated-battery-manu...
An ONG terminal will employ more (unionized) people than Renewable repairs, and it's not like Battery companies are rushing there to train employees from scratch for a product who's entire manufacturing chain is largely automated [0]
Unemployed people vote for alternatives, and it's not like the US can shoot a couple protesters or take them to a blacksite for the "greater good"
I'd recommend watching For All Mankind season 3 - it touches on this point.
[0] - https://www.emobility-engineering.com/automated-battery-manu...
When people say the Rio Grande Valley they typically mean the counties at the southern tip of Texas. The Permian Basin is at the westernmost parts of the state. The areas don’t overlap. At all.
Doh. My bad. Will edit it. But RGV is a major oil and gas transport hub as well. I think I confused Pan-American and Permian
Volvo makes EVs in South Carolina. But...well, they are Chinese owned even if the design is coming from Sweden.
They R&D and design in Shanghai [0] and recently laid off the Sweden R&D team [1] while opening a new design studio in Shanghai [2].
A lot of the supply chain in EV manufacturing is also largely automated compared to ICE manufacturing - a major reason for the UAW strike.
Kinda interesting how Scandinavian unions are up in arms against Tesla but said nothing against Geely/Volvo moving R&D jobs to China.
Not a Musk fanboy btw. He clearly needs to step away from the public spotlight to help his companies perform without scandal.
[0] - https://www.just-auto.com/news/china-volvo-and-geely-open-ne...
[1] - https://www.motor1.com/news/665644/volvo-cuts-1300-white-col...
[2] - https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
A lot of the supply chain in EV manufacturing is also largely automated compared to ICE manufacturing - a major reason for the UAW strike.
Kinda interesting how Scandinavian unions are up in arms against Tesla but said nothing against Geely/Volvo moving R&D jobs to China.
Not a Musk fanboy btw. He clearly needs to step away from the public spotlight to help his companies perform without scandal.
[0] - https://www.just-auto.com/news/china-volvo-and-geely-open-ne...
[1] - https://www.motor1.com/news/665644/volvo-cuts-1300-white-col...
[2] - https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
I mean, you can't expect Sweden to cater to 土豪 design aesthetics, I'm pretty sure Geely has plenty of design being done in china to support the Chinese market at the very least.
It's the exact same design aesthetic and even the same parts. I've driven the Chinese Volvos in Vietnam. They're the exact same as the ones exported in the West.
Volvo has been Geely for over a decade now, and they've been doing R&D layoffs in Sweden yearly since 2009.
Volvo has been Geely for over a decade now, and they've been doing R&D layoffs in Sweden yearly since 2009.
I meant from the article, the design they added in china to the EX90 was pretty gaudy, I doubt that is aimed outside of the Chinese market.
The new Tesla Highland isn't much better, the design language doesn't feel Californian at all.
> Its passage in the House follows a letter-writing campaign by some US auto dealers to get the White House to abandon its climate targets as the dealers say they find it too difficult to sell electric vehicles.
Have to kill dealerships off faster. They will fight the transition to the death.
Have to kill dealerships off faster. They will fight the transition to the death.
Like hospitals/health systems, dealerships are wealthy profit centers distributed throughout the country.
Both create a significant amount of economic inertia which stymies change in their respective industries, as they each have a Senator or two to bribe.
Both create a significant amount of economic inertia which stymies change in their respective industries, as they each have a Senator or two to bribe.
Hospitals provide a much needed service, auto dealerships do not. Not helping their case is their existence is mandated by law. Crony capitalism at its finest!
For sure, I can agree with that. The current dealership model appears to be worthless.
The reason I mentioned the two together is that they are somewhat similar as far as being evenly spread throughout the country, yet not part of a national monopoly like telecom and energy.
So instead of a couple national CEOs to lobby Senators via their home states, you have hundreds, spread across all of the states.
The reason I mentioned the two together is that they are somewhat similar as far as being evenly spread throughout the country, yet not part of a national monopoly like telecom and energy.
So instead of a couple national CEOs to lobby Senators via their home states, you have hundreds, spread across all of the states.
They might have an easier time moving EVs if they weren’t so eager to mark them up to the point of rendering tax incentives ineffective.
Dealerships also make money off repairs.
EVs have a fraction of the total number of parts compared to ICE Vehicles, and repairs might be owned by the manufacturer, not the dealership.
EVs have a fraction of the total number of parts compared to ICE Vehicles, and repairs might be owned by the manufacturer, not the dealership.
Most of Tesla's problems are solved via OTAs, but they still count as "recalls". Dealerships aren't allowed to charge for OTAs, so they don't make money off it unless they get an elder who needs them to install it for them.
In 110k miles in my 2018 Model S, I have only replaced tires and wiper blades, as well as wiper and brake fluid. That’s it.
The golden goose for car repairs is Engine repairs or Emissions related repairs. Neither of those really exist for EVs.
The biggest repair is a battery replacement and that's largely unskilled and low manpower.
The biggest repair is a battery replacement and that's largely unskilled and low manpower.
This is isn't accurate, but rather marketing. Current EVs are less reliable than gas cars:
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-s...
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-s...
My statement isn't around reliability. It's about the fact that EV repairs will have less parts and repairs will be owned by the manufacturer instead of the dealer.
> electric drive motors, charging, and EV batteries
These are repairs owned by the manufacturer, not the dealership.
> electric drive motors, charging, and EV batteries
These are repairs owned by the manufacturer, not the dealership.
It’s not going to stop EVs anyway - they have already crossed the total cost of ownership equality point and it is just physics from here.
This is the equivalent of lobbying for coal against natural gas
This is the equivalent of lobbying for coal against natural gas
> they have already crossed the total cost of ownership equality point
The cheapest car in the USA is the Nissan Versa at 18K USD? What EV costs 18K?
There is still a 10K USD gap to cover.
https://www.cars.com/articles/here-are-the-11-cheapest-elect...
The cheapest car in the USA is the Nissan Versa at 18K USD? What EV costs 18K?
There is still a 10K USD gap to cover.
https://www.cars.com/articles/here-are-the-11-cheapest-elect...
A chevy volt goes for $27.8k, with federal incentive that is $20.3k. Whether you can actually find that or a Nissan Versa for $18k is another story.
The Wuling Mini is around $5k. It might not be road legal for the USA, but you can imagine it will do really well in developing economies.
The Wuling Mini is around $5k. It might not be road legal for the USA, but you can imagine it will do really well in developing economies.
Purchase price != total cost of ownership
No, TCO includes purchase price. From cars.com
> Total Cost of Ownership page will show you exactly how much that new car will cost you over five years, based on its MSRP, ....
https://www.cars.com/articles/cars-com-introduces-total-cost...
> Total Cost of Ownership page will show you exactly how much that new car will cost you over five years, based on its MSRP, ....
https://www.cars.com/articles/cars-com-introduces-total-cost...
> TCO includes purchase price.
Which is true, but that doesn't mean TCO and purchase price are one and the same. The page you originally linked discusses purchase price, not TCO, so it's not very useful for analyzing outside1234's claim since it only provides one part of TCO.
Which is true, but that doesn't mean TCO and purchase price are one and the same. The page you originally linked discusses purchase price, not TCO, so it's not very useful for analyzing outside1234's claim since it only provides one part of TCO.
It makes cost of ownership expensive, and decreases subsidizes for manufacturing. By making manufacturing expensive, it slows down adoption of EV cars, as the price point is too high.
Isn't that only when you include the federal tax credit?
Model Y and 3 are priced below new combustion vehicle price pre tax incentive. As thinkcontext mentions, that price will be lower next year when the federal credit is taken off right at point of sale.
https://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-3-and-model-y-cost-less-tha...
> At $38,990, the base Model 3 sedan now costs $8,700 less than the average amount paid for a car or truck in the US. The starting price for a Model Y SUV is $3,700 below the average auto price of roughly $48,000, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Green. Tesla started cutting prices at the start of the year, twisting the screws on legacy automakers that were already struggling to make electric vehicles profitably.
> “Now the fun part of cost declines ... life after price parity,” said Sam Korus, an analyst at Ark Investment Management, which manages funds with approximately $1.27 billion in Tesla stock. “There is no reason why battery costs or EVs should halt their price declines at price parity. The product can continue to cost less, or it continues to sit in the same price segment and performance improves.”
https://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-3-and-model-y-cost-less-tha...
> At $38,990, the base Model 3 sedan now costs $8,700 less than the average amount paid for a car or truck in the US. The starting price for a Model Y SUV is $3,700 below the average auto price of roughly $48,000, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Green. Tesla started cutting prices at the start of the year, twisting the screws on legacy automakers that were already struggling to make electric vehicles profitably.
> “Now the fun part of cost declines ... life after price parity,” said Sam Korus, an analyst at Ark Investment Management, which manages funds with approximately $1.27 billion in Tesla stock. “There is no reason why battery costs or EVs should halt their price declines at price parity. The product can continue to cost less, or it continues to sit in the same price segment and performance improves.”
> At $38,990, the base Model 3 sedan now costs $8,700 less than the average amount paid for a car or truck in the US.
Not sure why Jalopnik would compare the Model 3 prices to a "segment" including cars and trucks.
Perhaps because the actual average price for a new mid size sedan in October 2023 is actually $32,400...
> The starting price for a Model Y SUV is $3,700 below the average auto price of roughly $48,000
The average price for a new Crossover SUV in October 2023 is $35,700.
I think it's highly disingenous to compare against "all cars and trucks", not against segment.
Now the Model S is almost at the average in its segment, starting at $74,900 versus $73,536 for the "luxury car" segment (I don't actually agree that the Model S is a luxury car, more 'high end', but we'll go with it.
Source: KBB via https://clark.com/cars/average-new-car-price/
Not sure why Jalopnik would compare the Model 3 prices to a "segment" including cars and trucks.
Perhaps because the actual average price for a new mid size sedan in October 2023 is actually $32,400...
> The starting price for a Model Y SUV is $3,700 below the average auto price of roughly $48,000
The average price for a new Crossover SUV in October 2023 is $35,700.
I think it's highly disingenous to compare against "all cars and trucks", not against segment.
Now the Model S is almost at the average in its segment, starting at $74,900 versus $73,536 for the "luxury car" segment (I don't actually agree that the Model S is a luxury car, more 'high end', but we'll go with it.
Source: KBB via https://clark.com/cars/average-new-car-price/
[deleted]
No. The average EV sale price in Sep '23 was $50K, down from $65K a year ago, vs $48K for the industry overall.
https://money.com/ev-vs-gas-cars-price-difference-decreasing...
Next year the tax credit will be incorporated into the sale price which should help sales.
https://money.com/ev-vs-gas-cars-price-difference-decreasing...
Next year the tax credit will be incorporated into the sale price which should help sales.
I hadn't heard of that, how are they going to justify that while the credit is still dependent on income?
And idk the idea that the average American needs the 7500 credit baked into the price or they simply won't do enough research on their $50000 put hase to realize it exists otherwise doesn't seem great. It's either a stupid change, or the average car buyer... Isn't the brightest.
And idk the idea that the average American needs the 7500 credit baked into the price or they simply won't do enough research on their $50000 put hase to realize it exists otherwise doesn't seem great. It's either a stupid change, or the average car buyer... Isn't the brightest.
noob question, why does the title say [flagged]?
> If a user has 31 Karma, they can flag submissions. Although submissions cannot be downvoted, flags act as a "super" downvote and enough flags will strongly reduce the rank of the submission, or kill it entirely (flagging is supposed to be used for submissions which break the site guidelines, but that isn't always the case in practice). A submission that's flagged to death will have a [flagged] tag. Comments behave similarly.
> A [dead] submission (that does not also show [flagged]) is killed by a moderator or by the software. They will only be shown to users who have showdead enabled in their profile. A submission can simultaneously be [flagged] and [dead].
> If a user has 31 Karma, they can also vouch for a [dead] submission/comment. A vouched submission/comment has its rank restored (and potentially improved as the vouch can counteract the effects of flags).
> Currently, when an account is banned, a software filter trips, or enough users flag a post, the post goes [dead], meaning only users with ‘showdead’ turned on in their profile can see it. The trouble is that some posts end up [dead] when they shouldn’t be. Banned accounts sometimes post good comments, software filters sometimes have false positives, and users sometimes flag things unfairly.
> Today’s new feature lets users rescue [dead] posts on a case by case basis. Beside the ‘flag’ link, you’ll see a ‘vouch’ link to click when a post should not be [dead]. When enough users vouch for a post, the software will unkill it. Think of vouches as the inverse of flags: a flag says that a post shouldn’t be on HN; a vouch says it should.
> We’ll review all vouched posts to make sure that they don’t violate the HN guidelines. If we notice abusive vouches, we’ll take away vouching rights (again, by analogy with flagging), so please vouch responsibly! Only rescue civil, substantive contributions to the site.
Sources:
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#flaggi...
https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/two-hn-announcements/
(Also, welcome!)
> A [dead] submission (that does not also show [flagged]) is killed by a moderator or by the software. They will only be shown to users who have showdead enabled in their profile. A submission can simultaneously be [flagged] and [dead].
> If a user has 31 Karma, they can also vouch for a [dead] submission/comment. A vouched submission/comment has its rank restored (and potentially improved as the vouch can counteract the effects of flags).
> Currently, when an account is banned, a software filter trips, or enough users flag a post, the post goes [dead], meaning only users with ‘showdead’ turned on in their profile can see it. The trouble is that some posts end up [dead] when they shouldn’t be. Banned accounts sometimes post good comments, software filters sometimes have false positives, and users sometimes flag things unfairly.
> Today’s new feature lets users rescue [dead] posts on a case by case basis. Beside the ‘flag’ link, you’ll see a ‘vouch’ link to click when a post should not be [dead]. When enough users vouch for a post, the software will unkill it. Think of vouches as the inverse of flags: a flag says that a post shouldn’t be on HN; a vouch says it should.
> We’ll review all vouched posts to make sure that they don’t violate the HN guidelines. If we notice abusive vouches, we’ll take away vouching rights (again, by analogy with flagging), so please vouch responsibly! Only rescue civil, substantive contributions to the site.
Sources:
https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#flaggi...
https://www.ycombinator.com/blog/two-hn-announcements/
(Also, welcome!)
It will be several decades before a combination of renewable overcapacity and energy storage can meet any increase in demand for electricity. In the mean time, anything that causes an increase in demand, such as electric cars, will be met with an equal amount of additional coal or natural gas supply. This means electric cars in the US are 100% fossil fuel powered, and the Model 3 only has a ~20% smaller carbon footprints than average gas powered cars and a slightly larger carbon footprint than the gas powered Toyota Prius Hybrid.
EV subsidies have mostly lined the pockets of wealthy luxury car buyers who would have bought an EV anyway. Those subsidies would have reduced emissions far more if the subsidies had gone to making economy hybrids the same price as non-hybrids.
EV subsidies have mostly lined the pockets of wealthy luxury car buyers who would have bought an EV anyway. Those subsidies would have reduced emissions far more if the subsidies had gone to making economy hybrids the same price as non-hybrids.
A modern combined cycle power plant is significantly more efficient than a typical internal combustion engine, even when taking into account transmission losses. So, an EV is going to use less fossil fuel per mile, even if the power plant is fully fossil fuel based.
On top of that, per megawatt, building out new solar is cheaper than keeping existing coal plants running. The solar transition is largely constrained by the duck curve, which can be mitigated using v2g technology, so as time passes, the power sources get greener out of purely economic considerations.
As long as you're not throwing out brand new ICE vehicles and just replacing worn out ones, both the TCO and the total carbon footprint goes down when switching to EVs.
On top of that, per megawatt, building out new solar is cheaper than keeping existing coal plants running. The solar transition is largely constrained by the duck curve, which can be mitigated using v2g technology, so as time passes, the power sources get greener out of purely economic considerations.
As long as you're not throwing out brand new ICE vehicles and just replacing worn out ones, both the TCO and the total carbon footprint goes down when switching to EVs.
> It will be several decades before a combination of renewable overcapacity and energy storage can meet any increase in demand for electricity. In the mean time, anything that causes an increase in demand, such as electric cars, will be met with an equal amount of additional coal or natural gas supply.
There's a lot wrong with this comment, but this bit especially is just made up nonsense.
According to [1] 39.7% of USA energy generation on average is already either renewables or nuclear, and as other commenters have pointed out even if it was 100% coal including transmission losses it would still be more efficient than petrol in an ICE.
And saying that all additional power production built in the US grid will be 100% coal or natural gas for the next two decades is a bizarre claim.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
There's a lot wrong with this comment, but this bit especially is just made up nonsense.
According to [1] 39.7% of USA energy generation on average is already either renewables or nuclear, and as other commenters have pointed out even if it was 100% coal including transmission losses it would still be more efficient than petrol in an ICE.
And saying that all additional power production built in the US grid will be 100% coal or natural gas for the next two decades is a bizarre claim.
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
>And saying that all additional power production built in the US grid will be 100% coal or natural gas for the next two decades is a bizarre claim.
The electricity grid has something called a Capacity Factor. Capacity is the ability to produce power measured in Watts. The Capactiy Factor is the fraction of capacity which is actually producing that power at any instant in time. Power demand and supply must be almost exactly in sync at all times to maintain grid stability. This is achieved by turning on and off coal and natural gas power stations, which can be done relatively quickly, to ramp up and ramp down production as demand fluctuates. Capacity must always greatly exceed typical demand so that unusually high demand can be met. Nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric power plants always produce whatever power they can independent of demand. This is for a diverse set of safety and environmental reasons. Only fossil fuel plants can "load follow" to meet changes in demand. Like I stated in my original comment, all load following in the US is done with fossil fuels, and that will be the case for many years or several decades to come. Increases in capacity will mostly come from carbon free sources, but until those sources can load follow, either by dumping unused energy in off-peak hours or by storing that energy until it is needed, all load following will be done with fossil fuels. This means additional demand is going to be met entirely with fossil fuels for a long time to come. I hope that helps you understand the concept of marginal demand better.
The electricity grid has something called a Capacity Factor. Capacity is the ability to produce power measured in Watts. The Capactiy Factor is the fraction of capacity which is actually producing that power at any instant in time. Power demand and supply must be almost exactly in sync at all times to maintain grid stability. This is achieved by turning on and off coal and natural gas power stations, which can be done relatively quickly, to ramp up and ramp down production as demand fluctuates. Capacity must always greatly exceed typical demand so that unusually high demand can be met. Nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric power plants always produce whatever power they can independent of demand. This is for a diverse set of safety and environmental reasons. Only fossil fuel plants can "load follow" to meet changes in demand. Like I stated in my original comment, all load following in the US is done with fossil fuels, and that will be the case for many years or several decades to come. Increases in capacity will mostly come from carbon free sources, but until those sources can load follow, either by dumping unused energy in off-peak hours or by storing that energy until it is needed, all load following will be done with fossil fuels. This means additional demand is going to be met entirely with fossil fuels for a long time to come. I hope that helps you understand the concept of marginal demand better.
EVs are actually a nearly ideal load for load-scheduling to match net grid draw to times of overcapacity. If anything, they have the potential to vastly improve grid stability, which would otherwise become a concern as an increasing amount of power is supplied by fluctuating renewables.
Adding the charging demand, some of which will inevitably occur at peak-demand, is not going to improve the stability of the grid compared to a gas car that never places any load on the grid at all. EVs will only improve grid stability if owners chose to feed the grid during peak demand.
> Some of which will inevitably occur at peak-demand
Some, but nowhere close to most. If 90% charge their cars at night, or even just at the grocery store after work, that is off peak.
Some, but nowhere close to most. If 90% charge their cars at night, or even just at the grocery store after work, that is off peak.
It's not that simple. Feeding power back to the grid certainly helps (and this will likely become ubiquitous; even just tapping into the top 10% of capacity would be a massive benefit). But EVs connected to the grid can even help improve grid stability, even without feeding power back to the grid, through simple frequency-based dynamic demand methods. At peak demand, the grid is most sensitive to marginal loads. EVs that are charging at this time can modulate their power draw, even without returning power to the grid. In effect, if you turn on your kettle, a charging EV can simultaneously lower its draw rate by almost the exact same amount, so that the grid load gets smoothed out. This can be done without any data or networking. It is equivalent to adding additional rotating inertia to the grid, and very helpful for grid stability. It's a technology that is not widely adopted today, but very cheap to implement and likely to spread quickly.
the effect of increasing peak demand is going to outweight that advantage massively
It actually does not.
The fact that EV charging will mostly happen at night means the fraction of EV energy coming from renewables will lag far behind other electricity uses even after some of it is able to be met with renewables. Fossil plants pick up the slack from renewables at night and that effect will increase as solar replaces nuclear.
I'm confused - you posted on a thread about EVs, the problem here is a long term ramp up of demand over the span of years or decades as more and more people swap their ICE vehicles for EVs. This is a problem to be solved by the building out of more power production capacity over the long term. Dealing with short term load spikes with existing infrastructure is a different problem that isn't really relevant in this context.
Power demand from EV charging is pretty predictable too - the bulk of it happens overnight when demand is usually lowest from everything else.
Power demand from EV charging is pretty predictable too - the bulk of it happens overnight when demand is usually lowest from everything else.
>Dealing with short term load spikes with existing infrastructure is a different problem that isn't really relevant in this context.
EVs sold today are going to be charged on the grid we have today. if that makes their carbon footprint barely better than gas and slightly worse than a hybrid it means our subsidies would be better used to increase carbon free electricity generation and increase hybrid sales. Once EVs have smaller carbon footprints then it will make sense to subsidize them. If you don't care about the short term then yes. The long term solution is full carbon free electricity and EVs
EVs sold today are going to be charged on the grid we have today. if that makes their carbon footprint barely better than gas and slightly worse than a hybrid it means our subsidies would be better used to increase carbon free electricity generation and increase hybrid sales. Once EVs have smaller carbon footprints then it will make sense to subsidize them. If you don't care about the short term then yes. The long term solution is full carbon free electricity and EVs
Why don't you mention "big batteries" ? These make wonderful peakers. Victorian Big Battery (VBB) in Australia is 300MW. Comparable in size with a nuclear reactor.
Thanks to the EV success, lithium batteries costs are falling exponentially. Coincidentally, photovoltaics costs are also falling exponentially.
Conclusion: regarding electricity production, fossil fuels are soon not going to be competitive, PV + batteries would be so much cheaper...
When? With the actual costs curves, in less than a decade.
Thanks to the EV success, lithium batteries costs are falling exponentially. Coincidentally, photovoltaics costs are also falling exponentially.
Conclusion: regarding electricity production, fossil fuels are soon not going to be competitive, PV + batteries would be so much cheaper...
When? With the actual costs curves, in less than a decade.
No way they are "100% fossil fuel powered" when, for example, 20% of US power is nuclear. If you're just going to throw out something like that so casually, why should I believe any of it?
You should beleive it because its true. Please read my comment again carefully. Marginal demand is not an intuitive concept, but it is quite real I assure you. Please don't be upset. My figures are from the paper "Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States". Also see my reply to virtue3 for what I hope is a clearer explanation of the marginal demand concept.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062...
Nuclear power is used to provide baseline grid capacity. You can't just burn more or less uranium/plutonium as demand changes with the reactors that are in service. On the margins the surge demand largely comes from hydrocarbons, because you can just burn more or less coal, oil, or gas. Thus electric vehicles that tax the grid are going to result in new power being added as needed, and it will be nearly all from hydrocarbons.
Most EVs charge at night, which is typically the time of lowest grid demand, and used to set the operating point of base-load plants like nuclear and coal.
Raising the demand at night will disproportionately come from nuclear, and if anything by raising the baseline, it'll mean those nuclear plants are running more around the clock _decreasing_ the amount of gas peakers needed during the day.
Raising the demand at night will disproportionately come from nuclear, and if anything by raising the baseline, it'll mean those nuclear plants are running more around the clock _decreasing_ the amount of gas peakers needed during the day.
This is totally wrong. Nuclear has a very low marginal operating cost and to maximize return on investment Nuclear plants run at 100% of their allowed output irrespective of demand. Increases in the price of baseload power are unlikely as intermittent sources like wind and solar contribute a higher fraction of power. In particular, midday solar output will lower the baseload far below the current low point at night.
You can, however, charge your EV at night. Natural gas and hydro work well with nuclear, you can fire them up at peak and wind them down at night. Bonus if you can do pumped storage using extra power at night from the nuclear plant, but I don't hear that happening much in practice.
Another point to consider here.
Even if EVs are powered by fossil fuels. A powerplan producing electricity and transmitting it to your house is orders of magnitude more efficient than generating energy from gasoline in a motorvehicle using an internal combustion engine.
Also we can curb emissions at the power plant and track them dramatically easier.
And more EVs does not mean more power plants turning on per se. Most EVs are charged at night when power usage drops dramatically (and when you get cheaper rates on your electricity).
The real answer here is using more green house gas free power options like nuclear and solar and wind. I doubt we'll see much nuclear in the near future because it is so cheap to create solar and wind farms at this point and there's dramatically less risk despite it being dramatically less productive.
Even if EVs are powered by fossil fuels. A powerplan producing electricity and transmitting it to your house is orders of magnitude more efficient than generating energy from gasoline in a motorvehicle using an internal combustion engine.
Also we can curb emissions at the power plant and track them dramatically easier.
And more EVs does not mean more power plants turning on per se. Most EVs are charged at night when power usage drops dramatically (and when you get cheaper rates on your electricity).
The real answer here is using more green house gas free power options like nuclear and solar and wind. I doubt we'll see much nuclear in the near future because it is so cheap to create solar and wind farms at this point and there's dramatically less risk despite it being dramatically less productive.
> orders of magnitude more efficient
This is simply not true. It's more efficient, but a typical gasoline car gets around 20% efficiency (large diesel trucks can be significantly greater).
A modern, state of the art combined cycle natural gas fired power plant is only up to around 60% efficient. There's some additional loss for distribution, charging the EV battery, and in the electric motor, but it's not large and you're probably about 50% efficient overall.
Another win is that natural gas emits around 25% less CO2 than gasoline per unit of energy. And of course if you're powering your car with solar, then that's much better.
Anyway, thermal efficiency is on the order of 2.5x better, not "orders of magnitude".
This is simply not true. It's more efficient, but a typical gasoline car gets around 20% efficiency (large diesel trucks can be significantly greater).
A modern, state of the art combined cycle natural gas fired power plant is only up to around 60% efficient. There's some additional loss for distribution, charging the EV battery, and in the electric motor, but it's not large and you're probably about 50% efficient overall.
Another win is that natural gas emits around 25% less CO2 than gasoline per unit of energy. And of course if you're powering your car with solar, then that's much better.
Anyway, thermal efficiency is on the order of 2.5x better, not "orders of magnitude".
>And more EVs does not mean more power plants turning on per se. Most EVs are charged at night when power usage drops dramatically
Consider:
Scenario A: 1,000,000 EVs are put on the road. Scenario B: 1,000,000 gas cars are put on the road.
Scenario A: 100% of zero carbon energy is consumed by existing demand. Remaining demand is met by fossil fuels including the energy needed to power the 1,000,000 EVs. Scenario B: 100% of zero carbon energy is consumed by existing demand. Remaining demand is met by fossil fuels, not including the energy to power additional EVs.
In Scenario A, more energy is generated by fossil fuels by exactly the amount of energy used to charge the EVs. In the US, at no point in time, day or night, summer or winter does any zero carbon energy go to waste. So increasing demand means more fossil fuels being burned.
Consider:
Scenario A: 1,000,000 EVs are put on the road. Scenario B: 1,000,000 gas cars are put on the road.
Scenario A: 100% of zero carbon energy is consumed by existing demand. Remaining demand is met by fossil fuels including the energy needed to power the 1,000,000 EVs. Scenario B: 100% of zero carbon energy is consumed by existing demand. Remaining demand is met by fossil fuels, not including the energy to power additional EVs.
In Scenario A, more energy is generated by fossil fuels by exactly the amount of energy used to charge the EVs. In the US, at no point in time, day or night, summer or winter does any zero carbon energy go to waste. So increasing demand means more fossil fuels being burned.
In Scenario A, more clean energy deployment immediately reduces transportation CO2 emissions. In fact, every single bit of roof top solar being deployed contributes, in some small way, to reducing CO2 emissions from transportation.
In Scenario B, no amount of clean energy deployment changes the emissions of transportation. In fact, a good chunk of that production is likely wasted due to the mismatch of production and demand, without the benefit of storage.
In Scenario B, no amount of clean energy deployment changes the emissions of transportation. In fact, a good chunk of that production is likely wasted due to the mismatch of production and demand, without the benefit of storage.
Why are you only concerned with emissions of transportation and not total emissions? Replacing 10 GWh of fossil fuels with 10 GWh of renewables will reduce total emissions in both scenarios because that 10GWh of fossil fuel energy was being consumed fully in both scenarios. Eventually, when almost all electricity is carbon free, adding more carbon-free capacity will stop reducing emissions because your capacity greatly exceeds demand. Once that happens, then yes, scenario A will result in greater reduction of emissions for every unit of new carbon free electrical production because it is offsetting gasoline combustion. But my point is that we are decades away from electricity being nearly 100% carbon free.
Because the scenarios in question are only concerned with emissions from transportation, but more importantly disregard storage.
Multiple countries at present, at times, exceed their energy demand by renewable production...but the excess is pretty much just lost, their isn't adequate storage to bank that energy.
EVs do bank that energy, and more importantly they're likely to do it during the parts of the day demand isn't as high (i.e. peak sunshine).
Moreover, centralized emissions control or reduction is much more addressable then 1,000,000 individual combustion engines.
Multiple countries at present, at times, exceed their energy demand by renewable production...but the excess is pretty much just lost, their isn't adequate storage to bank that energy.
EVs do bank that energy, and more importantly they're likely to do it during the parts of the day demand isn't as high (i.e. peak sunshine).
Moreover, centralized emissions control or reduction is much more addressable then 1,000,000 individual combustion engines.
> In the US, at no point in time, day or night, summer or winter does any zero carbon energy go to waste. So increasing demand means more fossil fuels being burned.
Are you just forgetting the part where there's less gasoline demand or any efficiency differences?
Are you just forgetting the part where there's less gasoline demand or any efficiency differences?
Yes. Those two factors are completely irrelevant for calculating the source of electric power used to charge new EVs. Gasoline demand and efficiency differences are instead captured in the carbon footprint estimates.
But you yourself estimate 20% savings and then hand wave that away under "fossil fuels."
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
[deleted]
EVs generate a bunch more carbon during their manufacturing process.
> As of 2022, Woodley's research showed that aggregate use of EVs below 55,749 miles may — in the U.S., at least — fail to generate any emissions benefit over gas-powered vehicles.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-a...
Also, If we end up using coal to charge an electric vehicle, its carbon emissions are actually higher than that of can you an ICE vehicle.
Then if you have to replace the battery on your EV, that will reset some of that carbon offset.
> As of 2022, Woodley's research showed that aggregate use of EVs below 55,749 miles may — in the U.S., at least — fail to generate any emissions benefit over gas-powered vehicles.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/08/when-buying-a...
Also, If we end up using coal to charge an electric vehicle, its carbon emissions are actually higher than that of can you an ICE vehicle.
Then if you have to replace the battery on your EV, that will reset some of that carbon offset.
A Tesla Model 3 has a lower carbon footprint than an Toyota Corolla after 13,500 miles per Argonne National Labs (vs a Harvard puff piece).
Only 20% of electricity in the US is generated with coal, and phaseout continues at speed. There is over 1TW of renewables in US interconnect queues.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38243912 (citations)
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/01/us-coal-electricity-dro...
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439
https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-inter...
Only 20% of electricity in the US is generated with coal, and phaseout continues at speed. There is over 1TW of renewables in US interconnect queues.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38243912 (citations)
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/01/us-coal-electricity-dro...
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55439
https://www.pv-tech.org/nearly-1tw-of-renewables-in-us-inter...
Correction:
“The United States has at least 1,350 GW of wind and solar capacity and 680 GW of storage is waiting to be connected, which is enough to double the country’s electricity supply.”
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-low...
“The United States has at least 1,350 GW of wind and solar capacity and 680 GW of storage is waiting to be connected, which is enough to double the country’s electricity supply.”
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/12/08/solar-lcoe-now-29-low...
[deleted]
This is so boring stop.
Expect the FUD to get more and more unhinged as it becomes harder and harder to for anyone not either malicious or stupid to believe it.
BRB I’m gonna go build a new coal plant because my neighbor got a polestar.
Peltota represents Alaska at large, another major oil hub, and her tribe's Alaskan Native Corporation (Calista Corporation) has the oil drilling rights to the North Slope oil fields. On a separate note I had a buddy who used to lobby for ANCSAs before becoming a Pharma lobbyist. Good guy, and ANSCAs would actually be a better operating model for the lower 48 instead of the current tribal sovereignity one.
Don Davis's constituency in South Carolina hosts Volkswagen, Honda, etc's entire US manufacturing supply chain.
I can't think of a reason for Jared Golden to vote against this. ME-2 doesn't have a significant oil or automotive economy
Edit: Forgot Jared Golden is on the Small Business Committee - Car Dealerships tend to be the largest small businesses in constituencies.
EV manufacturers should (and most likely are) try to expand manufacturing in Ohio, South Carolina, and Indiana to better lobby in their favor.
Tesla clearly did a bit of this by expanding operations in NV and TX.