Good morning and welcome back to The Autopian’s daily news roundup! We’ve made it to Thursday, or “Friday Junior” as we call it at my house. Isn’t that fun? We have fun. Around here, we’re still parsing the big announcement from the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday that cements a zero-emission car future in America (if they can pull it off—and that’s a huge if) and we probably will be for some time. Most of that will be the focus of today’s roundup.
Let’s take a look, and you let me know if there’s anything you’ve seen out there on this that we may have missed. It takes a village to raise an Autopian. Or something.
Everybody’s Got Takes On The EPA News
Takes! I hear you kids like takes! You’re in luck today. You have an extravagant bounty of takes on the new proposed EPA emissions regulations, which if adopted will be the strictest ones America’s ever seen and basically cement a mostly-electric future.
The EPA’s plan—coupled with more changes to fuel economy regs and the tax incentives for EVs, battery plants and charging networks under the Inflation Reduction Act—could dramatically change our new-car landscape by the 2030s. As I’ve written elsewhere, to me it almost feels like President Kennedy’s mandate to put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s, complete with a communist “enemy” to compete against. Yes, it’s that big a deal, and nearly as complex.
Anytime you have something this big, you’re going to get wide and varied responses to it. Todd Spangler at the Detroit Free Press did a great job rounding up some of them, and I’ve added a selection here to show what I mean:
Fred Krupp, head of the Environmental Defense Fund, said with the introduction of the proposal on Wednesday, “America accelerated toward a clean transportation future and more jobs.”
They will still cause controversy: Oil companies are vehemently opposed to such a program and Republicans in Congress have complained in the past that Biden and the environmental community are trying to force the public to embrace more expensive electric vehicles against their will.
On Wednesday morning, Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group representing oil and natural gas producers, issued a statement saying, “This deeply flawed proposal is a major step toward a ban on the vehicles Americans rely on. As proposed, this rule will hurt consumers with higher costs and greater reliance on unstable foreign supply chains.”
“The Biden administration’s new rules will all but force Americans to buy electric cars,” said U.S. Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Caledonia. “This is wrong. We need competition and policies that let Americans choose the vehicles that best meet their needs.”
Not all environmentalists were pleased either. Dan Becker, an advocate for more environmentally friendly cars and director of the Washington-based Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, said the proposal doesn’t go nearly far enough, falling “well short of the 75% pollution cut necessary to protect our planet.” According to a chart in the EPA documents, the proposed standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions overall by about 8% compared to taking no action by 2032, though it would go up to 47% if continued through 2055.
[…] The UAW responded to the proposal saying the EV industry should be “entirely unionized.”
See what I mean? Takes for days, baby. I do expect “Biden is forcing you to buy an EV” to be some kind of talking point in the next election. But this EPA stuff isn’t the same as an outright ICE ban like Europe (and California) are doing, just a huge push toward efficiency and zero-emission cars. Right now it’s safe to say that battery EVs are the furthest along in that race and getting the most support in terms of infrastructure buildout.
But we’re in an election season, right? (It feels like we always are; thanks, cable news.) Realistically, even if you’re a fan of this stuff or hate it more than anything, it’s worth asking what happens if Biden loses the White House in 2024, or the Republicans take the Senate.
Some experts I spoke to yesterday say that since these EPA rules deal with cars from 2027 onward, and the soonest a new president could toss them would be in 2025 and 2026 after their election, the car companies will already be on this course by then and that will be tough to reverse. Besides, the auto industry was already going largely electric anyway. There’s a degree of inevitability to this policy, but even so, expect it to be a political talking point going into next year’s election.
The EPA Could Close A ‘Big Car’ Emissions Loophole
Like I said, we’re still figuring out what all of this stuff means. If you want to comb through 758 pages of proposed EPA rulemaking with us, be our guest. Shit, we could use the help. But one very interesting tidbit was caught by climate news site Heatmap yesterday. (In the interest of full disclosure, it’s a site Jason and I contribute to from time to time. And it’s another cool media startup like The Autopian and we love to see that, instead of bad shit happening in this dumb industry all of the time!)
Heatmap points out that the EPA rules could close an Obama-era loophole that helped cars, trucks and SUVs get a lot bigger in America over the past 13 years. In order to avoid a Supreme Court fight in 2010, that White House got automakers to agree to a “sliding scale” for emissions based on vehicle size:
Essentially, these footprint provisions said that a larger vehicle — such as a three-row SUV or full-sized pickup — did not have to meet the same standards as a compact sedan. What’s more, an automaker only had to meet the standards that matched the footprint of the cars it actually sold. In other words, a company that sold only SUVs and pickups would face lower overall requirements than one that also sold sedans, coupes, and station wagons.
There’s always been a double-standard for bigger cars in America, both for fuel economy and emissions standards. On the latter, the Obama rules did help accelerate an embiggening of cars that, along with buyer preferences and cheap gas, helped shift our market from a car one to a big truck one. Heatmap points out the new rules could make things tighter for the bigger cars:
For the first time, the EPA’s proposal seems to recognize this criticism and tries to address it. The new rules make the greenhouse-gas requirements for cars and trucks more similar than they have been in the past, so as to not “inadvertently provide an incentive for manufacturers to change the size or regulatory class of vehicles as a compliance strategy,” the EPA says in a regulatory filing.
The new rules also tighten requirements on big cars and trucks so that automakers can’t simply meet the rules by enlarging their vehicles.
Here’s an excerpt from the EPA rules:
EPA is proposing to revise the footprint standards curves to flatten the slope of each curve and to narrow the numerical stringency difference between the car and truck curves. The medium-duty vehicle standards continue to be based on a work-factor metric designed for commercially-oriented vehicles, which reflects a combination of payload, towing and 4-wheel drive equipment.
Exactly how is unclear right now. I am, however, deeply skeptical this could result in a huge reversal away from bigger vehicles; automakers are in thrall to the profits they get from SUVs and trucks, and in many ways that’s how they hope to finance this EV revolution. And it’s tough to ask people to downsize when they get used to bigger vehicles.
Battery Plants Have A Real Estate Problem
So America’s getting really serious about all of this stuff. Where are we gonna build it all? And where can we find a giant labor pool nearby to make it happen? (And in many car companies’ minds, a giant non-union labor pool too, if they can swing it.) These factories also run up against strict environmental regulations, which is ironic given the climate goals involved.
Here’s Reuters on the forthcoming “real estate problem” for battery supersites, using Volkswagen’s reborn Scout brand in America as an example:
Volkswagen’s off-road brand Scout Motors studied 74 different parcels of land across the U.S. last summer as it hunted for a place to build a $2 billion assembly plant.
It quickly eliminated almost all of them. In one case, they learned it would take six years to build a needed rail link. Others lacked access to clean power – crucial for a project for “green” electric vehicles. Some did not offer enough nearby skilled labor.
“We were hitting a deadline,” said Scott Keogh, Scout’s CEO, so they settled for a parcel in South Carolina that has all their desired features but is a bit smaller than they initially wanted – 1,600 instead of 2,000 acres.
Scout’s scramble highlights a challenge facing dozens of global manufacturers. Fueled by a combination of hefty government incentives, a transition to new transportation and energy technologies, and national security concerns about relying on distant suppliers, especially in China, there’s a factory-building boom taking place across the U.S.
Worth a read in full.
Breaking News: Charging Still Sucks
Let’s close out by going a little further with my moon landing metaphor. If that’s what the EV revolution is, our private charging networks are so lackluster that it’s like asking an ex-con who keeps getting busted for catalytic converter theft to build Apollo 11. They’re getting better and more extensive, sure, but charging is still the big missing piece in this moonshot project.
So reports Politico in this story, which is really good:
Imagine living in a world where the gas station has trouble providing gasoline. Every few times a driver fills up, something goes haywire — the gas doesn’t flow, or it flows fast for a while and then slows to a trickle. Other times, the credit card payment is mysteriously rejected or the screen is blank.
If the consumer wants a helping hand, too bad. In this world, the gas station has no human, and the only option is a 1-800 number. The gas pumps are alone in the middle of a big parking lot.
Swap the word “gasoline” for “electricity,” and this is a realistic description of what happens every day at electric-vehicle charging stations across the United States. The high-tech, high-speed highway fueling system that America is building to power its EVs and replace the gas station is riddled with glitches that are proving difficult to stamp out.
The story cites a study that says about a quarter of chargers in the Bay Area—the fucking Bay Area, where I think the government issues you a Tesla or at least a Polestar on an annual basis—had “unresponsive or unavailable screens, payment system failures, charge initiation failures, network failures, or broken connectors.” Come on!
They also just don’t want to deal with the complexities of credit card payments and prefer their membership programs or apps (please), make much of their money selling maintenance contracts instead of electrons, or aren’t built to handle the software complexities of modern EVs—which can vary from car to car.
Really, this is the thing to figure out. Car companies and battery manufacturers will get it eventually. Charging? I don’t see that stepping up at all in a way that will deliver on these lofty goals.
Your Turn
So is this zero-emission revolution achievable or not? If so, what would it take to make that happen? Where are the missing pieces right now, like charging?
Maybe, just maybe Americans buying new cars will be all into EV’s, but that’s completely overlooking the used-car market, which is still huge and not going anywhere, especially given that cars are staying on the road longer and longer.
My budget for buying a car is $2000 or less, and I drive my cars about 30k miles a year— I don’t have time to deal with charging or crappy range on used electric cars. So I’m just gonna keep on driving my 30 year old BMW for as long as I can. And I’ve got a whole business based on keeping old BMW’s alive, so you ain’t getting rid of us that easily.
Please let me know where you are finding these $2000 used BMWs… Any BMW 1980-2000 is pretty hot right now, insane how all the cool old stuff is skyrocketing. If you run out of funds to buy any $2k BMWs let me know, I collect BMWs.
I mostly find them in Arizona/California. They’re all rust-free here too, albeit with bad paint. The key to getting a BMW for $2k or less is to find one with mechanical issues, title issues, or both. My current 92 525i/5 was $1100 because it had a bad engine and no title, but I took care of both and have put 15k miles on it since October when I bought it. One of my friends bought a 92 525i/5 in running condition in Tucson for $1700, and it just needed a bunch of mechanical/electrical stuff (rear shock mounts, general module, front control arm bushings) along with having zero paint left.
Most know my take on this already. This is the “stick”, we knew was coming its too bad the “carrot” the IRA sucks so badly on this. Increase the income caps on used cars at least, at most open it up to the japanese/koreans with a phased in finally assembly requirement. We aren’t going to get there when they cost $8-10k more for the same ICE equivalent.
I have some coworkers that use their trucks for truck things. One switched to an F150 Lightning last year because he only does truck things inside city limits.
The others are trying to figure out if they need to buy newer, low mileage trucks this year or keep dumping money into their old, high mileage trucks. Their use cases don’t work for the current EV trucks. Their concern is that if the new rules go into effect, they wont be able to replace theirs in a few years. Maybe in 10 years once range (while towing campers) and DC fast charging improves they will be able to make the switch.
Most of the people I work with who have trucks would be fine with sedans. But there are a few who actually need them.
Working in the construction industry almost everyone I see uses trucks for truck stuff and I wonder how this will effect commercial / industrial trucks. If Ford makes a F450 for a service vehicle would that count against their car on credits…
Folks who charge at home at night will generally be okay. It’s other places and times that will be an issue.
Solar really cranks during the day when a lot of people are at work. We need L2 chargers at work for people to suck up those cheap solar electrons. Then drive home and use part of the battery from 5-9 PM when lots of people are doing people things at home. Charge from midnight to 6 AM or so using wind/hydro/nuke power and repeat. Think of the car as a mobile battery and not just as a car.
We can use this exact model and have people paid in a virtual power plant arrangement to help with the car loan. That probably will need legislation to force the investor owned utilities to allow such decentralized and distributed use/generation.
Electrified roadways.
“Battery Plants Have A Real Estate Problem”Actually, they have a real estate problem without massive tax breaks and subsidies.
Zero emission won’t ever be achievable as long as I’m alive!
Exactly. With what new/used cars cost these days there is no way I will ever own one unless Drew Cary gives me one for winning on the Price is Right. Just not gonna happen.
We just have to give you some Beano and you’ll be at zero emissions in no time!
https://www.beanogas.com/
The transition from gas to electric should no different than the transition from horses to cars. Better ideas do not need mandates.
So what you are saying is that EV’s are such a poor idea right now because they need the mandates. And outside California, even these mandates aren’t helping at all.
Been saying that for years! Just like charity to your neighbor is no longer charity when the government skims it off your paycheck. Throw SOME incentives (maybe) to make a new idea interesting and tempting. But if you need to force me to do it, then it’s probably not a good idea. That, or your marketing of the idea needs a re-work
EVs are almost certainly the future regardless of mandates, so I don’t think it’s true that EVs “need mandates”. The tax credits and regulations are probably just speeding up the process so we don’t get left behind on EV/battery manufacturing by China/Europe.
EVs are “almost certainly the future” because of ratcheting mandates by governments.
Let’s not pretend like the automakers were planning to invest billions into being electric only out of either the goodness of their hearts or for any kind of short-term profit motive. We can hold our various opinions on whether those mandates and emissions standards are worth it or not, but this is not some kind of inevitable development that would have occurred regardless of policy.
It’s impossible to completely divorce the effects of existing government mandates to see what the timeline for EVs would have been without them, but for a substantial number of use cases, EVs are objectively superior, so it’s reasonable to assume they would grab substantial market share organically, especially now that many manufacturers have already started moving that way.
Do I think EVs would quickly become 100% of cars without this “mandate”? No. There are plenty of use cases that they’re compromised for, but something like 30-70% by 2040, perhaps, could happen even without *additional* mandates like these EPA mandates.
Point being, THIS mandate by the EPA is not going to make or break EVs. EVs don’t “NEED” this mandate to take a substantial amount of market share.
Like I said, it may speed up the process, but the cat was out of the bag already. EVs have substantial advantages for some use cases. They’re going to grab substantial market share with or without these EPA rules.
I don’t disagree, the die was cast long ago. But there’s a big difference between “buy an EV if you want to and have a use case that supports one” and “You must buy one and the force of government will lean on the automakers until they don’t offer any other choices”. This mandate, and the state mandates of the last couple years, really are a big deal.
Yes, I agree they’re a big deal. I just disagree with the original implication that just because there are mandates, that it must mean the mandated thing is inferior. I don’t think EVs are superior for all use cases. There are some cases where they are clearly inferior and many where there are reasonable pros and cons between EV/gas. But there are absolutely use cases where EVs are “better” and no one has to be forced to buy them by mandate. Mandates mostly are speeding up the inevitable for those cases, now (which, again, are certainly not ALL use cases). I’m not an EV absolutist, by any means.
I think the part of the EV argument that most people forget is that even before the government mandates were placed, most of the manufacturers already had their EV plans in place. GM, Stellantis, VW, etc all have plans to be all electric by 2035 at the latest. Most much sooner. Whether or not “we are being forced!” the companies have all started moving that direction already. Does the infrastructure need improvement, hell yes it does. But until we make that move, nothing is going to change. Personally I have not made the move to EV because cost is definitely a consideration but lets be real for a second. It’s not like the used market of ICE cars is going to suddenly disappear the moment EV’s become only available new.
Yeah, this is my take too (and I hope I hit on it here.) This is the way things were already going for a lot of reasons. It’s just being cemented with regulations here, and heavily subsidized now with tax incentives, grants for chargers, etc.
Infrastructure is going to be the hardest shift. No one wants to invest because it’s going to cost is going to eat deep into profit margins. On the political side it’s already a polarizing issue. However one way or another it’s something that needs to happen. More people with more power needs even without adding in cars to the mix is already an issue. Digging our heads in the sand isn’t going to solve the issue. Forcing the issue will.
Absolutely true – however there is 0% chance any automaker will be 100% electric in 2035, unless they are fully electric now (a la Tesla etc..)
Only one I think has a chance is one of the VW group companies if only to make up for the diesel blowup. They are really going for some image change by pushing for electric. My bet is on Audi. Porsche has too much pedigree. Lambo has too much zoom zoom (sorry Mazda). VW has too many models. Audi is small enough model count and high enough price point to make the transition easiest.
“it’s worth asking what happens if Biden loses the White House in 2024”
Just speaking from a medical perspective, that dude is gonna be lucky to be cognizant in 2024, let alone serve another four years.
He isn’t gonna rebound somehow. He’s oooooooold, that’s what happens in life and it’s fine. But, still…
As far as the policies for carbon emissions, these broad strokes of mandates are gonna make a lot of people a lot of money over the next decade. Then when those folks retire, the policies will get readjusted. That’s just how it seems to always play out.
As a side note: Since this is kinda a political Dump today, I will make one prediction. Even though I don’t really like 90% of the stuff he does, DeSantis is gonna be the next president. It’s gonna happen, like it or not.
Is that you Ron?! Seems like a weird site to have a burner account on but do you do you
Huh, I didn’t remember talking shit to you, or asking if you were Rootwyrm’s burner account (haven’t seen him around, hope he’s ok). But, you do you as well 🙂
Dont worry he always is always political
Spelled it wrong. It’s Descrotus, or Descrotum if your Canadian..
my brother-in-law, FloridaMan, calls him Governor DeathSentence.
An old incompetent Biden is still roughly 8,572% better than any republifuck that will run.
We have 3 cars, 2 of them are electric, the cheapest EV with over 200 miles of range(bought used), and a 23 year old one with 40 miles range that’s more of a hobby thing. I consider us middle-class, the used newer EV’s car payments are over $300 a month, the largest car payment I’ve ever had in my 30+ years having cars, to the point I was iffy on getting it.
I don’t understand how the vast majority of middle class people are expected to afford these $50k+ EVs.
On top of that, the charging infrastructure point, I have the luxury of being able to charge at home, that’s really the best thing, every day have over 200 miles of range ready, only about 10 cents per kWh, so paying like $1 a day for my commute, that helps with the sting of the monthly payment. But for most apartment dwellers, or even house renters or house owners that their electric panel can’t handle adding a charger without an upgrade, what do they do? Fast charging is expensive, and fast isn’t really the right term as they really aren’t ‘fast’ unless you have again an over $50K newer EV, and it’s not below or above a certain amount of charge.
This is almost a replay of 1999, the CAFE jumped the gun and forced automakers to go EV and it was REALLY not ready, then change in regimes and now we have Hellcats that can suck down a gallon of fuel in less than 30 seconds so we see how that goes. They need to incentivize not ban.
I don’t understand how the vast majority of middle class people are expected to afford these $50k+ EVs.
Can’t afford it?
Fucking FINANCE it!
Also the additional cost passed on for the rebates and mandates plus electric costs to rebuild the grid that is already at maximum capacity. But we were told EVs will be cheaper.
What 23-year-old EV do you have? I wanna know more now!
2000 Ford Ranger EV, 40 mile range, 0-60 in the low teens! But gets me to Home Depot and the dump and back just fine.
Closing the huge vehicle emissions and fuel economy loophole is one of the most important parts of this entire fight. American manufacturers have gotten away with murder on that front for too long. As I said in the bro dozer article, the prevalence of so many behemoths on American roads is a massive problem for emissions, fuel economy, and the overall safety of our roads…which is laughably poor for a developed nation.
Then add in the toll that everyone driving 6,000 pound heavy duty trucks to the mall is taking on our already crumbling infrastructure and this is a pitch right over home plate. Expecting people and corporations to choose to do the right thing is a fool’s errand in such a ridiculously individualistic society, so unfortunately the government has to step in.
Speaking of which, if they really want this shift to work I think the gumbment is going to have to make charging infrastructure more of a priority. It may be something that has to be nationalized to a degree, because again…how has letting corporations do their thing to give us the infrastructure worked so far? Oh hey, it’s right here in the article!
All this being said I don’t think these goals are achievable. I think they’re pie in the sky ideas and that the switch to EVs is a bit of a dog and pony show politically right now. It brings people to the polls on both sides and that both parties are cashing in on all the political capital surrounding it. The vast majority of carbon emissions come from a handful of corporations, the military, flying, etc. and I don’t see anyone talking about it,
EVs are neat and they’re a part of this equation…but they’re not the entire equation, and shifting all the responsibilities onto individuals rather than corporations and other massive entities isn’t going to slow down climate change a whole lot.
This is a really well-thought-out response, could not agree more on all counts. Bravo.
One relatively simple way to improve charging infrastructure would be to make them accept credit cards (or maybe paying cash for a certain amount of charge at service stations). I don’t want to download an app for every charging station. Imagine if you had to pay with the Shell app or the Sunoco app. I am over downloading apps for every single thing. I was at the local university and their parking was by app. I just skipped that nonsense and made my visit quick.
..or, you could use the Tesla standard and allow the car to authenticate against a clearing system that is completely frictionless. Why use a credit card at the point of sale at all? One network got it right, so use that.
Now Putin has a burner account here. Tax everyone and everything tell everybody what to do, buy and say only the government knows what is correct. Lets put all the naysayers in camps right comrade?
Progressives: care about the environment
EV articles discussing government regulations and the environment: exist on car blogs due to the automotive zeitgeist
You: show up to comment on said articles knowing that this is what you’ll find
Also you: OH GOD THERE ARE PROGRESSIVES HERE, I CAN’T BELIEVE IT! THEY’RE DEFINITELY DOING COMMUNISM, EVERYTHING I DON’T LIKE IS COMMUNISM, I’VE BEEN ATTACKED!!!!
I’m not trying to get all up in your case or anything, but the fact that you (and you are not the only one on any side of this topic) are labeling yourself as one thing or another is problematic in itself. As a “Progressive”, one would think you’d see the irony in that.
This is a logistics and services issue, not a political identity one. Sure, there are fiscal implications and other such things involved, but those are secondary.
If anyone cares to label themself as identifying a certain way to earn a fictional
Cub Scouts badge for speaking their own truth and beliefs, that’s fine. It doesn’t matter. What does matter is that there is no position on ANY of this that is less flawed than the other.
The point is that you might want to consider not being so reductive to the point that it is equatable to the US v.USSR in the 1980 Olympic hockey match. Last time I check we are all kinda the same people. This isn’t a game.
Nsane’s comment might be the least Putinesque thing I’ve read today.
Any comment by Dave is likely to be the dumbest thing you read all day.
US would have been better off if it had spent the last 15 years subsidizing light rail instead of billions subsidizing heavyweight luxury cars at $7500/car.
I like cars but our transportation system is completely bricked if everyone is forced to use them for every single task during the day. They keep building endless McMansions in the hills around my city.
Need to go to store? Car.
Work? Car.
Kids to school? Car.
cold medicine? Car.
Play at the park? Car.
Gym? Car.
Every car makes it dangerous to walk. You can’t even walk safely anywhere.
Light rail LMAO! We have a 130 Billion light rail system that goes nowhere here in Seattle to sell you.
Have fun spending the only life you will ever have sitting in gridlock traffic going nowhere.
You are clearly not from Seattle- our light rail boondoggle is an educational experience in government fuck-ups at every level. And now, 25+ years of solid building delays later just when it is finally becoming marginally useful it’s overrun by drug zombies who openly smoke fentanyl and stab each other, and the transit cops won’t do anything.
Seattle traffic sucks, but the risk of death is far lower.
Light rail isn’t the problem, the implementaion of light rail is the problem. The US is fucked and will never get off cars unless every metro area got flattened and we had a reset.
You can always build subways – expensive and not suitable everywhere. But we spent billions and billions of dollars and now have a bunch of almost-dead Nissan Leafs and Fiat 500-e’s that go 20 miles on a charge so…
US has a subway tunnel from 1890 still in use today
As someone who worked many years in light rail as a Conductor, don’t ever hang your hat on that. If you thought other government agencies are bloated and inefficient, I have some news for ya. The FRA is the craziest, most wild waste of money you’ll ever see. Rail is a horrific idea in the US. That whole system is based on adjustments to lawsuits and preventing new ones. Nothing is logical, it’s reactionary and all the while just serves those that are employed. It’s not actually for the public benefit. Light rail is a grift, through and through.
Wait until you see how much our roadways cost
I get it. I’m well aware of what the NHSTA costs and its extremely wasteful spending on contracted bids and the like. The roads, however, are practical for everyone. Light/commuter rail only serves a very small subset of society and mostly serves to take poor people to work in rich areas, or for the rich to get somewhere on the cheap (the caveat being that it’s extremely inconvenient) once they figured out that living in an urban area is not conducive to a well-rounded life.
Light rail is a utopian dream that is not feasible for multiple reasons. It’s either a toy for the affluent or a last-ditch effort for the less mobile to get basic services because where they live is a wasteland.
Light rail is the dollar store version of a band-aid to limp past the real problems. That’s all a much deeper conversation, though.
I’d love to see more passenger rail options! Man if I could take a train from my area in PA into NYC I would be on it a couple times a month. But people just don’t realize that the US is Gigantic, and it’s just not a feasible thing to implement like it is in a more densely packed, super urban environment like continental Europe or Great Britain or Japan. I mean the highest profile train project in the country this century was the California High Speed Rail – and that was such a disaster it even ruined of the best television shows of the past decade! (Seriously, True Detective Season 2 is absolutely unwatchable)
No. This is the wrong answer. See: light rail in the silicon valley.
There is no way we get to 100% battery powered EVs even in 100 years. This is all just political virtue signaling. Even the science says it won’t reduce global warming by any significant amount. Yes global warming is real, yes a significant portion is man made, but the solution is to adapt to it and out compete the communist dictators. Making products people need more expensive and arguably less useful in a lot of ways will not create jobs or make people richer. It will just hurt our economy and make the world less safe from the evil dictators of the world. We won the Cold War with our economy. Even if we crash our economy trying to stop global warming we will still have to adapt to the changing climate because as the science says, we already can’t stop it.
That’s basically the premise of the tax credits: Incentivize manufacturers to build EVs and batteries in the US so we don’t get left behind on this emerging technology by China, etc.
But we aren’t doing that, we are forcing vehicles sold to be EV, not loosening regulation that prevents US manufacturing. So China gets to build and sell batteries here using fossil fuel power, then they get to sell the cheaper gas cars to their people. Where we are artificially increasing battery demand which will increase Chinas profit margin on said batteries. If this will help us compete against China, then why aren’t they implementing it similar regulations in their country?
I said the *tax credits* incentivize manufacturers to build EVs/batteries here, which they do. They subsidize the pricing of EVs and battery production.
Does the fact that we need the government to give “tax credits” so we can be competitive with China bother you? What if the government is wrong and gives tax credits to the wrong type of business?
“There is no way we get to 100% battery powered EVs even in 100 years. ”
You’re wrong.
“This is all just political virtue signaling”
Except for the actual legislation that was passed that means shit will get done.
” Even the science says it won’t reduce global warming by any significant amount. ”
The bullshit on Fox News doesn’t qualify as ‘science’. Real scientists all pretty much agree that BEVs are the way to go.
“but the solution is to adapt to it and out compete the communist dictators.:
Noooo… the BEST solution is for us to reduce our emissions to lessen the impact/severity.
“Making products people need more expensive”
BEVs are actually a lot cheaper when you factor in the operating costs over the life of the vehicle.
” and arguably less useful”
I think the opposite is true. BEVs are more useful on average since in many cases, they have frunks as well as trunks. And have you seen the frunk on the F150 Lightning? Plus, BEVs mean that many are freed from having to visit fuel stations regularly and the associated hunt for ‘cheap gas’.
“in a lot of ways will not create jobs or make people richer. ”
The shift to BEVs is not about that. But with every shift, old jobs get phased out and new jobs get created.
” It will just hurt our economy and make the world less safe from the evil dictators of the world.”
Arguably using less oil will actually give less power to ‘evil dictators’… many of which get their money from oil. And I also believe it will help the economy as it will make us more energy independent without the risk of ‘oil shocks’ like in the past.
You really need to educate yourself.
We have more than enough oil stateside for our own use, so much that we exported it during the last administration. Not producing oil has given Russia huge profit margins for their oil, as well as OPEC.
I can’t drive my boat 100 miles up 4000 ft one way with anything battery powered electric for any cost.
I looked into getting an electric car, it didn’t pencil out because I only drive 100 miles a week, except when I travel for work and then its usually 700 miles in 1 day out in the sticks pulling a trailer. I wouldn’t put enough miles on electric car before its defunct to ever pay it back, especially since I need to keep my gas powered truck. If I had a real commute, I would already have an electric, but it definitely would have to be a second car.
Please site a scientific source showing that this legislation will stop global warming?
California can’t even keep all the lights on during the summer. How do they expect to charge all the EV through rolling blackouts?
Sorry people, you can charge your EV or run your lights and AC, but not at the same time
Fine – run A/C during the afternoon and early evening, turn on the lights later in the evening and charge the car overnight when everyone’s asleep and the A/C isn’t needed.
You obviously don’t understand that during the summer, the night is the primary time I use my AC. I mean its still over 90 deg outside at 10 pm. Why would people use their AC during the day when they aren’t home.
Ironically a part of the solution is more storage. And a great source of storage is: EV’s!
For the vast majority of the time when people are driving 35 miles a day or less, a great thing to do is charge EV’s using solar power that would otherwise be curtailed. Roll that giant battery 17.5 miles home, plug it in and use a portion of the energy to power the home. Obviously leave enough to get to work plus a reserve. Then plug in at work and repeat.
What this would need is a lot of chargers at workplaces and housing. Also necessary would be a means to compensate EV owners for using the energy and their battery. This is doable but would need a big shift in thinking.
Charging is definitely the biggest issue, in my eyes. If we are talking about majority adoption of EVs in the near future, the infrastructure for refueling needs to be there otherwise they’re expensive paperweights. And currently, I seldom see vacant charging stations. And from what I understand, there’s not much consistency with regards to the speed and accessibility of any given charger. Also the idea of placing charging coils throughout roads across the US is pretty ridiculous. I’ve been seeing the same potholes in my area for years.
Not potholes predug cable trenches.
The EPA and Biden Administration are playing with fire here if they’re actually serious about unofficially mandating that the new vehicle sales mix being 2/3 EVs by the 2030’s. That’s less than a decade away. In the real world, they’ll still be expensive, still offer compromises many consumers will not willingly embrace, and the charging infrastructure and power grid as a whole will be nowhere close to ready. Hell, I have doubts that the manufacturing infrastructure (battery and final assembly plants) will even be ready, even if automakers move aggressively.
I’m not anti-EV and sincerely believe we need to do a lot more about climate change. But the reality of the situation is that you actually need to entice consumers to want these things and create an environment where there are fewer tradeoffs than there are now. Otherwise, I fear that they’ll be overplaying their hand if they truly stick to this target with no wiggle room, and there will be a massive backlash. Generic American swing state voter will not be happy if they can’t acquire transportation that meets their needs for a somewhat reasonable price, and pushing too far too quickly could doom future efforts.
I’m still annoyed that both the industry and governments (globally) seem hung up on only pushing full BEVs. PHEVs could be produced at scale relatively quickly now and would dramatically reduce oil consumption. It would allow most people to do 80-90% of their daily driving with electricity and use gas for longer trips, without producing massive, expensive, resource-intensive batteries required for full BEVs or needing to immediately build a robust charging network that will probably cost hundreds of billions and take years. It’s not like personal transportation is the only thing that creates carbon emissions. I don’t know why we have to let perfect be the enemy of good here and yet seemingly just completely ignore emissions from other sectors of the economy that are just as damaging to the climate, if not more.
All good points. I think something that ties in having to entice consumers (minimizing the downsides, emphasizing the benefits) is radical design. Many companies building these BEVs are trying to signal what they are and shape the perception of the future by design. I think that there should be a number of BEVs with more pedestrian or mundane design. There’s a lot of styling and extra features you get with a BEV, that can be a turn off to many consumers. Some of that also translates to higher purchase prices, which is also unpalatable to a large population of buyers. If someone could get a car that looked and felt familiar, like a late model vehicle, but had the BEV drivetrain (or PHEV), it would be far easier for those people to make the leap. Not everyone is amused by, nor wants to live with, designs inspired by Tron.
Governments are ignoring PHEVs and traditional hybrids at their own peril. They can be a huge part of the solution and they’re here and usable right now.
You are right but the government has the benefit of just telling others to do it. They have no idea how. But fail and our screaming idiots will shout you down and tear down your property with our peaceful protests.
They aren’t mandating EVs. They are setting a cap on GHG emissions/mile for an automaker’s fleet average. Automakers are free to use whatever technology they can develop to meet those targets.
In today’s technological environment, they anticipate that this cap will require EVs, but that’s not necessarily the case ten years from now.
“The EPA and Biden Administration are playing with fire here if they’re actually serious about unofficially mandating that the new vehicle sales mix being 2/3 EVs by the 2030’s.”
I would argue that by NOT doing this, they will literally be playing with fire… in the sense that there will be more global warming and more wildfires.
Outside of the lack of meaningful charging infrastructure in place, the second biggest pitfall to the EV movement is a dearth of uniformity. Nearly every manufacturer who produces an EV for the public market requires their own proprietary charger. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) should be in charge (no pun intended) of standardizing charger apparatuses to make the transition more convenient. Auto manufacturers can’t seem to get out of their own way, or progress, when it comes to all their shouting and phallus waving.
Only one automaker in the US is using a proprietary charger. The rest all use the J1772 plug standard. We need a revolution in charging infrastructure, but this is as settled as phone chargers (everyone uses USB-C now, except for one manufacturer).
Everyone uses USC-C now, except for one manufacturer, who has over half of US marketshare …
Basically the perfect analogy. Only Tesla uses a different plug (everyone else uses CCS), but they have >50% of marketshare and probably 75% of the current fleet of EVs that are actually used for travel.
Perhaps I was thinking of how there are “Brand X” charging stations and you can’t use your “Brand Y” car on those, even if they have the same plug. That said, I could’ve sworn I’ve heard of a number of owner complaints in which Rivian and Tesla have their own specific plugs, for example.
Rivian uses the same plug as everyone else (except Tesla), but they DO have a VERY limited number of charging stations that only Rivians can use, despite the plug being the same.
Okay, that must be what I was thinking about. I feel like that’s a problem. It adds unnecessary clutter and cost to the infrastructure because you need however many times the charging stations (base number multiplied by however many manufacturers have exclusive charging).
It’s certainly somewhat less efficient to have multiple plugs and associated locations, but I think the issue is overblown relative to other issues. Tesla is making some of their stations compatible with everyone else, Teslas can already use CCS with an adapter, and Rivian’s handful of stations are negligible, like the ones at Porsche dealers for Porsche only. Effectively two plug types isn’t an insurmountable issue, like gas vs diesel. Plus, the car will tell you where to go. People aren’t really showing up at a charging station then finding out the plug they need isn’t there.
The bigger issues, by far, IMO, are the number of chargers in general, and the reliability (or lack thereof) of the non-Tesla chargers.
I do agree there needs to be uniformity on charging, but right now the standards are basically “Tesla” and “everyone else.” Every OEM does not require its own proprietary charger. That’ll get regulated eventually.
I think the only way towards mass EV adoption is a) realizing and accepting that it will require compromises and affect our ability to travel great distances with little thought or inconvenience, and b) accept that it is going to screw over a ton of lower income people. This will only happen if the government (in this case likely only the Supreme Court) realizes the inevitable health/financial implications of rampant global warming and forces change.
Yes, gas is tough to replace because it’s awesome. It’s unlikely EVs will ever match its convenience. It’s also unreasonable to expect normal citizens to disrupt their lives for cleaner alternatives when a) no infrastructure exists to support it (cycling and walking, public transportation) , and b) nobody is going after other, often bigger sources of carbon such as manufacturing and transport of goods, air travel, etc
Saying you need to compromise on anything will get you instantly voted out in the US.
Yup, hence why I don’t think it’ll happen unless the Supreme Court forces their hand, which I don’t think will happen with the current appointees…
It’s kinda funny considering the ones who oppose climate change measures (far right) idolize the WW2 generation. Those people were drafted to died by the millions because they (as a whole) felt compelled to do the right thing-but heaven forbid if you can’t drive a f350 diesel to pull your fifth wheel using $2 fuel that’s just evil. Those pansy ass entitled gen Zers can’t possibly expect you to sleep in a tent when you camp! Or ride a bicycle-outside, where there’s like…stuff?? The horror
For long-distance travel, yeah, gas is unbeatable. For driving within the range of your vehicle in your local region, EVs are already more convenient for those with home charging.
There are pros and cons to both. Gas is compromised near home. EVs are compromised away from home. For many use cases, the differences between the two are very minor: Getting gas sometimes isn’t actually a big deal, but it’s nice to have home charging. Stopping for ~35 mins total on a 7-hour drive isn’t actually a big deal a couple times/year, but it’s nice to be able to fill up/pee/etc. in 10 mins.
Yeah I think it’s mainly the fringe cases that freak people out-like when thousands are trying to evacuate a hurricane, or you see a line of cars 10 deep at the only charger near a national park. It shouldn’t be a major consideration for most, particularly in a 2 car household, but it’s enough to make you think (or justify preexisting bias).
Personally it’s appalling that we feel it’s ok for people to drive alone in cars. Start putting more people on motorcycles and e-bikes, rather than giving everyone 500 mile EVs. Of course, that would mean prosecuting distracted driving and bike theft, and heaven forbid we hold people accountable for their actions.
for usa (per epa):
29% of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation (ALL forms – cars trucks planes ships)
25% electricity generation
24% manufacturing/industry
13% commercial/residential (primarily heating) &
11% agriculture
“Yes, gas is tough to replace because it’s awesome. It’s unlikely EVs will ever match its convenience. ”
As it stands, my next vehicle is likely to be a BEV because it will be more convenient for me. I’ll never have to hunt for ‘cheap gas’ or go to gas stations again. I just plug in my car when I get home and will be conveniently charged up for me the next morning.
Plus, far less maintenance such as having to do oil changes every 3 months.
A BEV will be far more convenient for me than any ICE vehicle.
Thanks Patrick for the well-balanced take on this issue. I drove a Volt for 5 years and loved it. I just got a BMW 330e and I love that too. I also have a V8 truck and would never consider full EV for towing. I’m tired of both sides exaggerating their position and scare-mongering this issue. I worry about pushing things this fast. I work in a field where I know a lot about utilities and their readiness for EV’s. They aren’t even close to being ready for this many EV’s on the grid. With that many EV’s you are probably looking at nearly doubling the power use in this country. As you say, the charging infrastructure is crap (unless you have a Tesla).
The government is completely bypassing the PHEV and pushing everyone to full EV. Even my 330e with it’s 20 miles of electric range does nearly all of our daily driving on electric and we’ll probably only fill up the 10 gallon tank every couple months. I drove it 55 miles on the interstate yesterday and used 2/3 of a gallon of gas, plus most of the electric charge. On my Volt, I typically used 20-25 gallons of gas a year. Both of these cars don’t count on charging infrastructure (I charge at home) and the batteries are much smaller than a full EV.
I feel these regulations are going to hurt people who need 8+ year old used cars the most. EV’s, and even my PHEV aren’t going to last much more than 10-12 years without a pricey battery change that will cost more than the car is worth. I look at the 15 year old car that my son drives and think, there’s no way this would still be running if it had a battery in it. I cringe a little every time I see someone talking about buying a 10 year old Chevy Volt and financing it. They are going to be financially devastated when the battery fails bricks the car and they find out it’s going to be $5000-$8000 (or more at a dealer) to replace the battery with another used battery with a 3 year warranty). Battery costs aren’t going to drop quickly if we force this many batteries onto the road in this short of the time.
On the other hand, if we can get the battery costs down, the rest of the car lasts a lot longer. Electric motors don’t go bad frequently. Regenerative brakes have pads that last 100,000 miles pretty easily because they are never used. The maintenance and wear/tear on my Volt was nearly nothing. It still felt like a new car with 80,000 miles on it, and the engine barely had 7,000 miles of run time on it. The problem is that there isn’t money in it for the manufacturers to think about battery replacement cost and easy of battery replacement.
The average household in the US uses 10,632 kWh/year per EIA.gov.
The average household has 1.79 cars.
The average car drives ~14,500 miles/yr.
Even if we assume a pretty bad efficiency of ~2.5 mi/kWh :
1.79*14,500/2.0 = 10,382 kWh/household
So, residential use could be roughly double, but Residential use only accounts for 21% of electricity usage in the US. Will commercial and manufacturing electric usage go up by 100% also?
Also, there’s some electricity savings from not refining all the gasoline for all those cars.
I’m not saying your estimate is wrong. It seems reasonable for residential on average, it just seems high for a nationwide usage number to me and I’m interested in what the actual increase would be.
You are absolutely right. I meant to say double the residential use. Commercial is a challenge too, because most buildings don’t have capacity to add more than a handful of charging stations. And DC Fast charge stations usually need a separate electrical service. Existing Gas stations are not built for the electrical infrastructure needs. There’s so much to be done and not much time to do it in these plans.
I can’t believe you misspelled such a cromulent word.
And I think the comparison to the moon landing is apt in another way: there will no doubt be a gaggle of information-challenged folks who don’t actually understand what’s happening but choose to shout about it anyway.
Shouting about things we don’t understand is an American tradition!
It us unfathomable to me that the charging network hasn’t been better implemented. Granted, when gas cars were new, the whole fueling system was pretty haphazard, but they figured it out pretty quickly. One would think we’d have learned. It just doesn’t seem like the problems are insurmountable.
And yet, here we are.
If the end game is 100% EV adoption, that’s never going to happen in America. Even when there is no more gasoline on the planet, there will be bootleggers ethanol in the woods. Trying to ban everyone from owning an internal combustion car will also NEVER happen. They still can’t even get everyone to wear their fucking seatbelts.
Yeah but we require seatbelt usage but make wearing a motorcycle helmet optional
The day I’ll be riding around in an EV is probably the hearse at my funeral, if and only if the hearse is electric. I am just waiting on some crackhead with enough black market expertise in weapons procuring to get an EMP and actually use it. Yeah, sure make all the vehicles electric.
You do realize that emp would kill every gas car that uses an ECU right?
That’s why I drive pre 70s monoliths…. Tough luck sukka’s!
You do realize that emp would kill every gas car that uses an ECU right?
That’s why I wrap all my ECUs in tinfoil!
I laid out most of my thoughts on this yesterday, so no point in repeating them.
I will just say that an economy-wide carbon tax in place of industry-specific rules, loopholes, sliding scales, etc would be both simpler and more effective.
Smoking is an unquestioned public health negative. But we didn’t ban it. We just made it harder/worse to be a smoker through taxes and indoor smoking bans. And, I might add, to great effectiveness. Smoking rates are way down. But, and this is key, you can still smoke if you want to pay for it. Why this isn’t the strategy we used for carbon emissions is an utter mystery to me.
Instead, rich people who can fly everywhere, and urban dwellers who don’t own cars anyways, have decided that getting everyone into an EV is costless, because they don’t understand or don’t care about objections from those of us for whom EVs simply don’t work.
I shared a lot of my thoughts yesterday as well and won’t rehash them either.
What I will say, as someone who just purchased a classic Mini (gas powered, obviously), I am very stoked to hear that the “fuckhuge truck” loophole will start to be closed. Maybe everyone doesn’t need an EV, but we shouldn’t incentivize Ford to start cranking out Canyoneros either.
https://youtu.be/PI_Jl5WFQkA
https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
IIRC there’s also a perverse tax incentive for the self employed to buy a giant truck and get a higher write off, which might account for some sales of the F250 Platinum
The writeoff threshold is actually only at 6000 lb GVWR, which is much lighter than an HD truck (10,000 GVWR and above) and encompasses many midsize and larger CUVs, minivans, and humorously, Bentley sedans.
Damn that’s even worse than I imagined
I needed a e350 SD For my business delivering food to grocery stores. Take away the discount it just means i charge more to the stores and they charge more to their shoppers. Oh wait economics is a proven science. And people say Republicans refuse to follow science. Just charge the rich more. I would laugh if it wasnt so pathetically stupid.
If taxpayers are subsidizing your penis extension, they are already paying the higher price. That write-off comes from somewhere.
The subsidy is intended to give legitimate business use a break. My comment was more about, for example, a partner in a law firm buying a Tahoe to get the tax break.