Driving Electric Cars Produces Little Carbon. Making the Batteries Produces a Lot.
Many politicians who want to ban gas-powered vehicles appear to misunderstand the science.

Electric cars sales are up 66 percent this year.
President Joe Biden promotes them, saying things like, "The great American road trip is going to be fully electrified" and, "There's no turning back."
To make sure we have no choice in the matter, some left-leaning states have moved to ban gas-powered cars altogether.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order banning them by 2035. Oregon, Massachusetts, and New York copied California. Washington state's politicians said they'd make it happen even faster, by 2030.
Thirty countries also say they'll phase out gas-powered cars.
But this is just dumb. It will not happen. It's magical thinking.
In my new video, I point out some "inconvenient" facts about electric cars—simple truths that politicians and green activists just don't seem to understand.
"Electric cars are amazing," says physicist Mark Mills of the Manhattan Institute. "But they won't change the future in any significant way [as far as] oil use or carbon dioxide emissions."
Inconvenient fact one: Selling more electric cars won't reduce oil use very much.
"The world has 15, 18 million electric vehicles now," says Mills. "If we [somehow] get to 500 million, that would reduce world oil consumption by about 10 percent. That's not nothing, but it doesn't end the use of oil."
Most of the world's oil is used by things like "airplanes, buses, big trucks, and the mining equipment that gets the copper to build the electric cars."
Even if all vehicles somehow did switch to electricity, there's another problem: Electricity isn't very green.
I laugh talking to friends who are all excited about their electric car, assuming it doesn't pollute. They go silent when I ask, "Where does your car's electricity come from?"
They don't know. They haven't even thought about it.
Inconvenient fact two: Although driving an electric car puts little additional carbon into the air, producing the electricity to charge its battery adds plenty. Most of America's electricity is produced by burning natural gas and coal. Just 12 percent comes from wind or solar power.
Auto companies don't advertise that. "Electric vehicles in general are better and more sustainable for the environment," says Ford's Linda Zhang in a BBC interview.
"She's a Ford engineer," I say to Mills. "She's not ignorant."
"She's not stupid," he replies. "But ignorance speaks to what you know. You have to mine, somewhere on earth, 500,000 pounds of minerals and rock to make one battery."
American regulations make mining difficult, so most of it is done elsewhere, polluting those countries. Some mining is done by children. Some is done in places that use slave labor.
Even if those horrors didn't exist, mining itself adds lots of carbon to the air.
"If you're worried about carbon dioxide," says Mills, "the electric vehicle has emitted 10 to 20 tons of carbon dioxide [from the mining, manufacturing, and shipping] before it even gets to your driveway."
"Volkswagen published an honest study [in which they] point out that the first 60,000 miles or so you're driving an electric vehicle, that electric vehicle will have emitted more carbon dioxide than if you just drove a conventional vehicle."
You would have to drive an electric car "100,000 miles" to reduce emissions by just "20 or 30 percent, which is not nothing, but it's not zero."
No, it's not.
If you live in New Zealand, where there's lots of hydro and geothermal power, electric cars pollute less. But in America, your "zero-emission vehicle" adds lots of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Politicians and electric car sellers don't mention that. Most probably don't even know.
In a future column, three more inconvenient facts about electric cars.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And building and running an internal combustion car is green ?
And let's be specific about gasoline engines, the most up to date ones are getting close to 30% efficiency, the balance goes to wasted heat. (maybe only slightly less wasted in winter, you will still burn your hand on the engine even if the heater has made the car interior toasty warm on a February morning in Minnesota)
Whereas if you had taken the oil that was the feedstock for the gas it would have been burned at 93% efficiency in a power plant. By the way, you take a barrel of the crude, you are going to use 15% of the BTUs in that barrel of crude to make the gasoline. In other words making electricity and distributing it on the grid to charge cars makes more sense. I looking forward to reading more of these idiot ravings from John.
"...Whereas if you had taken the oil that was the feedstock for the gas it would have been burned at 93% efficiency in a power plant..."
Uh, simply put, you are full of shit. We have someone convinced that unicorn farts are the energy source of the future here.
You might rtfa before making an ass of yourself, but watermelons hardly ever do,
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (odi-18) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————————–>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Sevo is one of John's better students.
The average efficiency of oil-fired electricity production in OECD countries is 37% (over the 2001 to 2005 period). In non-OECD countries the average efficiency is similar at 36%.
The efficiencies in individual countries range from 23% in the Slovak Republic to 43% in the Netherlands (Figure 5). Since 1990, average efficiencies for oil-fired electricity production have increased slightly in most regions.
93% my ass.
Now you have to figure in the line losses in electricity transmission across the power grid. Cut efficiency by 50%.
Now, the storage loss in electric batteries, vs the storage loss of gasoline in a sealed tank, which is measured in months or years…
And storage/efficiency loss in batteries in cold weather. 400 mile ranges aren't happening below freezing (not to mention the car's electric heater).
Car and Driver saw a 40% reduction in estimated range last year when testing the new Rivian truck in cold weather. At a mere 35 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s higher than even the average high temperature where I live for dece,bet and January. Which we only see for a few hours a day. Sometimes the temps are in single digits, or lower. Then factor in further range reductions for even mild inclement weather.
Congratulations on your invention! You’ll be the world’s next billionaire in no time.
Here is another guy who claims to be a purveyor of The Science! (TM)
But don't worry people- he just accused people of being idiots, declared himself smarter than the physicist in the video, and spouted (omg!) MISINFORMATION to confuse anyone interested in the subject. But he'll be back here next week to spout all new stuff, convinced that he is Totally Right, being Totally Wrong today.
And let’s be specific about gasoline engines, the most up to date ones are getting close to 30% efficiency, the balance goes to wasted heat. (maybe only slightly less wasted in winter, you will still burn your hand on the engine even if the heater has made the car interior toasty warm on a February morning in Minnesota)
Teslas (and other EVs) actively heat the battery in order to charge. The whole car is algorithmically designed to heat the motors up to the neighborhood of 160°C (~60% hotter than your average engine block, ~20% cooler than your average exhaust manifold) in order to maintain a battery temperature of 40-50°C. For full-drain/charge Li batteries, 0-50% charge is most efficient with negligible effect of ambient temperature. However, from 50-100ish% the rate of charge drops off *unless* you warm the batteries. This is all while the car is at rest, as in, presumably not warming the cabin for humans sitting in it and is specifically for charging, the faster the charge to 100%, the hotter the batteries need to be. At discharge/run time, the heat works against the car and it must actively or passively shed all that extra heat in order to maintain efficiency. What is notable is that the larger batteries, being a thermal mass several fold larger than even a relatively large engine block for a passenger vehicle, acts as a heat sink/heater for some time. That is, if you pump enough electricity into a large enough battery, you can and do actually heat up the battery enough to warm the passenger cabin… for a time.
None of this is a secret. Tesla advertises this and even states many of the specs in their manual. Even if they didn’t, you can charge a Tesla in an unheated garage and directly observe the electricity being used to, effectively, heat your garage.
I looking forward to reading more of these idiot ravings from John.
You might want to check some of the other replies to your own idiotic ravings before you start accusing other people of being idiots. Of course, you won't, and you'll probably be back on here spewing more easily disproved nonsense in no time.
On the plus side it's entertaining watching a smug asshole who thinks he's the smartest person ever because his mommy told him so get smacked down over and over again. By all means, please keep it up.
Whereas if you had taken the oil that was the feedstock for the gas it would have been burned at 93% efficiency in a power plant.
*facepalm*
You may not be aware of this, but you don't actually use crude oil in oil-fired power plants, you use fuel oil, which is extracted from crude oil, like so many other things including gasoline (and even Vaseline). There is actually no real use for gasoline besides in ICE engines, and one of the main reasons ICE engines were invented in the first place was to find a use for gasoline, which was a nuisance waste-product prior to that.
tl;dr the efficiency or non-efficiency of oil-burning power plants has no relationship whatsoever to how gasoline is used.
take a barrel of the crude, you are going to use 15% of the BTUs in that barrel of crude to make the gasoline.
Yep. fifteen percent ends up being used in the car. WHERE does the rest end up? Used for other things.. like diesel for trucks, trains, ships, light oil for jet fuel for airplanes. Yes, some does get burned to generate electricity directly, but these plants are very efficient, and clean.
You start with the absolute LIE that carbon dioxide is the rot cause of global climate change (the direction, warmer or cooler, seems to change on an irregular basis, we seem to be fussed about warming of late, I remember when all the California ports were going to be unusable because all the ice gonna be formed next week wo
uild take up so much water the ships could not clear the bar to get into the ports.. except for San Farncisco/Bay area.
How about this.. you take your Tesla on a road trip from Seattle to Bar Harbor Maine. See what sorts of adventures YOU have trying to keep it charged driving that rounte in the winter. Leave on Black Friday. It will be blacker for you ere the day is done. Side of the road, shivering in the cold, no charging station for an hundred miles, and your toy won't go very fast in the cold anyway.
Brandon will just issue a directive mandating more charging stations. Problem solved! /sarc
I’ve read such accounts. It’s a chore even with good weather The whole way. I want to see someone try this in the dead of winter during really bad weather.
'And building and running an internal combustion car is green.' Everything after this is pointless, because Stossell neither said nor implied any such thing. You do a great job of making yourself look like a fool, congratulations.
Could you source that 93% claim? I'd believe that in a fossil-fuel steam turbine plant, the boiler might operate that efficiently but there's other steps before that energy release becomes electricity. Getting 93% efficiency in converting heat to "organized" energy like electricity might actually be a negative-entropy proposition (and thereby hard to sneak past the laws of thermodynamics)
Highest efficiency level I can find for NatGas fueled combined cycle plants is 60% (traditional steam turbines are closer to 40%).
http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/fossil-fuels/natural-gas/
Then there's line losses when the power travels from the generator to the charger location, and inefficiencies/waste heat in the transformers that convert high-voltage to house voltage, then the step-down and rectification to convert to DC voltage at levels appropriate for charging the batteries in the car. After that, the remaining inefficiencies aren't unique to either ICE or EV propulsion vehicles.
All large fossil fuel (and nuclear) power plants use the Rankin steam cycle, and no practical Rankin cycle can reach over about 40% efficiency. This is first-year engineering school thermodynamics. The efficiency is limited by the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures. The boiler and super-heater temperature is limited because all suitable boiler materials soften and can't hold the pressure beyond a certain point. The minimum temperature has to be several degrees above ambient to get enough heat transfer to condense the steam.
Subtract a few percent for friction losses and losses in the alternators, and you get a maximum efficiency at the power plant outlet of 37%. (For a coal, oil, or natural gas plant - nukes are limited to a lower maximum temperature and efficiency for safety) Then you lose a few percent to line losses and transformers, and you're down to 30 - 33% at the load - in this case, the battery charger input terminals. Battery charges can be very efficient, and so are electric car motors, but the chemical cycle in the battery loses about 50%. So now we're down to about 15% overall efficiency from coal going into the power plant to the wheels on the car. That's no better than a gasoline car engine could do 50 years ago, before electronic ignition, etc.
Electric drive does have an energy advantage in stop-and-go driving. But a hybrid drive such as a Prius gives you that. At steady speed it will run the gasoline or diesel engine at maximum efficiency and avoid battery losses between the power source and the wheels. This is much more efficient overall than any system that puts all the energy through a battery charge/discharge cycle.
And any car that burns fossil fuel has one huge advantage: It doesn't depend on someone building more power plants to power the charging points, which _none_ of the politicians advocating battery cars are in favor of!
I think I took thermodynamics in my 2nd year of Engineering school, but I majored in Aerospace so the curriculum was a bit more tailored. Also, I've been doing structural analysis for a living for the last 25 years, and my recall of details from thermo are a little rusty.
That 93% claim jumped out though (since it's almost certainly blowing away the Carnot efficiency for any man-made tech).
Babylon Bee does this with more humor (https://babylonbee.com/video/state-with-no-electricity-orders-everyone-to-drive-electric-cars) but Stossel delivers the numbers.
Regardless, you're looking at the likely 2024 D candidate for POTUS; the asshole who knee-capped the CA economy, kept kids out of the already horrible PS system in CA and now is claiming what sort of fantasy?!
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… http://www.Profit97.com
Oh my God. The wind up model is priceless.
Last I heard, Newsom was reconsidering making a run in 2024.
It came out that he was polling behind DeSantis among CA voters (quite an achievement in a state with probably close to 70% registered Dems).
There's been some rumors that he might be looking to get himself appointed to replace Kamala so they can finally take out Biden with a 25A motion once the third year of his term starts (so the VP stepping in won't lose a cycle of eligibility for having served the partial term). Not sure how they push that past the party's identitarian base though.
Once upon a time, Americans used to focus on how technology and innovation could solve existing problems in the future re say energy sources.
Don't know why libertarians are so enamored of a 1950's era obsession about fossil fuel.
Nothing wrong with EVs. Lots wrong with mandating them. If they're that good, you don't need to.
There’s a lot wrong with EV’s. Especially with Biden’s perverse policies.
There’s plenty wrong with them
Too expensive, produce hazardous waste, not enough raw materials for widespread use…
Yeah, the CO2 that might be produced in the making of the batteries is the least of anyone's worries.
"Earth is 2 - 4 C warmer on average and trees grow to the northern tip of Norway"
or
"Large quantities of highly toxic waste that will be around forever."
I'll take a gasoline vehicle, thanks.
that is IF the two to four C actually come round. Go and read about the electromagnetic energy changes on periodic bases going on in the sun, something none of us can effect in any way, and track that factor alongside golbal average surface temps over time, maybe over a few thousand years. There is a VERY strong correlation between the two.
Further, carbon dioxide is NOT a "leading' factor for temp changes. It is a FOLLOWING factor. Temp changes which then effects CO2 levels. It's been tracked going back for centuries. Rock solid correletion... first temp rises, then following by a short period of time, and EVERY yime CO2 rises.
That's something Gore and GreenPeace won't talk about. Wonder why.....
Any suggestion that there's a connection between the "response" of the surface temps on the earth and what is essentially the single external input of energy to that system (solar input) has been officially designated as "denial of science" (or in the more recent parlance, "misinformation"). Same goes for any reference to the easily provable fact that solar output isn't an absolute and universally constant value.
"Belief in the Science" is an act of faith these days because the people who engage in it have anointed their ideologically selected politicians into a sort of clergy who are trusted to "interpret" what the science actually means. Don't go trying to trip up the people who "follow the data" by presenting them with actual objective facts, they've already established their own paradigm in which everyone "lives their truth" because that frame makes "truth" a fundamentally subjective entity.
Indeed. And the extraction of the raw materials in question for ICE doesn’t invigorate the economy of our greatest global foe.
Mandating them is wrong but incentivizing them is acceptable to me. Many things get incentivized, and I see no reason that EVs should be excluded.
Everything should be excluded.
True.
You can incentivize far in excess of mandating. Everyone can be mandated an EV or a COVID booster, but once they've been mandated and everyone's got one, the mandate becomes moot. However, you can still throw in a free $1000 rebate to incentivize people to comply with and even exceed the mandate.
TWENTY THOUSAND dollars tax free would not change my mind about either an electric car or that infernal injection supposedly to prevent my getting the WooFlew.
I might take a chance if it was the Super Soldier formula.
Do you mean true free market incentives? Or do you mean incentives motivated by a specific societal vision or ideology?
He means another government program. He can’t see beyond that.
Adding a subsidy on a vehicle with a 6-12 month waiting list increases prices.
Idiot.
Nothing wrong with EVs. Lots wrong with mandating them. If they’re that good, you don’t need to.
This.
If some people want to drive EVs, fine, but let's be realistic about them. There's no such thing as a free lunch, everything has a cost, and EVs aren't some magical cure all that will lead the way to some mythological green utopia. The fact that some people seem to think they will just shows how stupid and gullible they are.
Well, we're not allowed to go nuclear and every calculation we run says that everybody owning EVs would blow up the grid, so.................?
Oh we’re going nuclear all right. Just not in energy production.
We’re against the government distorting markets with graft to cronies and mandates dumbfuck.
Unless of course those cronies and mandates are our own. Nothing worse than other people's cronies and madates.
No. That’s your way of thinking. We reject you and all your evil works.
Agree here 100%. Technology is great unless you made a political decision it is bad.
And as John Stossel shows, technology can easily backfire.
When you're deluding yourself about how the thing works and telling yourself it just works better while closing your mind to actual analysis, that's where people need to come in with a dose of reality.
If EVs were clearly superior, the government wouldn't need to subsidize their purchase. If the batteries didn't have environmental costs, they could easily be produced in the USA. But since both of those are true, people who close their ears and sing "la-la-la" are more interested in virtue signaling than saving the environment.
Democrats also rant about slavery, but have no problem with outsourcing our industry to slaver countries. It’s their way.
If EVs were clearly superior, the government wouldn’t need to subsidize their purchase.
EV's aren't clearly superior.
In the US there are roughly 120,000 gas stations with multiple pumps. Each PUMP (maybe 750,000 total) can add say 200 miles of range in less than 5 minutes.
There are roughly 42,500 public EV chargers in the US (mostly on the coasts). Roughly 7500 are DC fast chargers which can add 60-80 miles of range in 10 minutes.
Government subsidy of the purchase of EV's is completely misbegotten and immoral. Government distortion of EXISTING subsides for transport fueling infrastructure needs to be undone. And imo, vehicle fuel usage (which would include electricity production) needs to have some element of capitalized cost so that those decisions actually get incorporated into the purchase decision for the vehicle.
My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I d ..https://www.pay.hiring9.com
If EV’s were really superior, no coercive regulations or incentives would be necessary.
Behold the JFear style of argumentation. Point out that government mandates are actually mis-applying technology and ignoring unseen costs, and suddenly you are a backwards obsessed.
The same guy will tell you we need to use more trains, which is 1800’s technology.
You also don't understand why people interested in individual liberties think your stance on denying rights to people based on vaccination status makes you a hypocrite and a liar, so there's that.
It's easy to dismiss the unicorn farts, but have you considered the pixie dust, the fairy flowers, and the rainbow sprinkles? Magical thinking encompasses many aspects that you have to account for, it's not so easy to just hand wave away.
Driving Electric Cars Produces Little Carbon.
Making the Batteries Produces a Lot.
Making the Electric For Powering Electric Cars Produces a Lot Too
...so who are we fooling? Ourselves!
Liberty Lover:
assuming you meant CO2 when you said "Carbon."
- Not True. Since there is no combustion there is zero CO2 produced in driving electric cars.
- True
- True
Burning gasoline in a typical car produces a lot more CO2 than an EV powered by coal - Also true.
Read the fucking article.
Nope.
Is there a Vegas over/under bet line for abandoned ev's when a freak snowstorm shuts down a freeway and batteries die? Now before you say, gas cars get abandoned also. Yes but they are simply ready to go by adding a little gas. An ev? Yeah not so fast. Will snow plows have to wait on the "climate change" generating tow trucks to pick up the paperweights or can the snow plows just push em aside.
Isn't the answer here that the driver will have to be smart the same as a fossil fuel driver. You don't want to let the engine run dry in either case. You need to shut the vehicle down with a reserve to get you off the highway. This should be a reminder that people should avoid driving in a snowstorm and be prepared with blankets, food and water in their car.
No the answer is that a fossil fuel car can survive the driver being an idiot and bringing back a can of gas, while the electric car will require someone to roll a portable diesel generator that is less efficient.
Isn’t the answer here that the driver will have to be smart the same as a fossil fuel driver.
Given the lack of intelligence demonstrated by EV drivers here and elsewhere, that's a pretty tall order.
Can you cite a reason why you think EV driver are not as smart? I am guessing this is an opinion based on you own prejudice.
Given the demographics of EV buyers, most owners just know they are smarter superior people.
Just one? Well, OK. If I look past the fact that, as John said EV drivers buy cars that are more destructive to the environment off the lot, cars that are more destructive to roadways, drive them in a manner that's more destructive to the roadway and the car, assume that ZEV means zero emissions anywhere, require and voluntarily cede control to exceedingly simple/stupid driving systems and grid power systems that are smarter than they are, do so in manners so stupid as to cause manufacturers to revamp the systems to account for their stupidity... I'd have to cite retards driving from IN to WV and being more willfully stupid than a 6-yr.-old playing 'I spy'.
I think Town Crier's point is that with a gas car whatever gas you left in the tank is still there when you get back, with an EV the battery charge slowly depletes, particularly in severe cold weather. You could potentially come back to a dead battery even if you still had range left when you abandoned the car.
I guess. It’s just such a contrived scenario in the first place.
Freak snowstorm? That’s going to be a PIA with or without electric vehicles. And there are these things called tow trucks.
The big consideration for electric vehicles is the mining and the energy production, as Stossel points out. (And electrical distribution, which Stossel will probably go into in one of his future articles.)
EV’s fare much more poorly in cold and cpnclement conditions. Every in depth road test of any EV in such conditions has confirmed this.
I was on a recent road trip, and I noticed that IN and OH turnpike wayside station all had installed fast charging stations. I also saw a Telsa driving the WV tollway. So, the EVs are getting out onto roads all over.
Given the lack of intelligence and general awareness by EV drivers, expecting them to be as intelligent and cognizant as your average ICE driver is a pretty tall order.
One of our cars is an EV. We’ve been having the problem that most of the charging stations around town are in disrepair. Not sure if that’s just a local phenomenon.
One thing we didn’t realize before shopping for an EV, that is going to be a big problem in states like California, is that we had to have an electrician come in an wire a 220 V 50 amp outlet in our garage. {In theory, one can charge an electrical vehicle on a 120 V outlet, but it is highly impractical. It takes hours and hours, and nothing else (such as the second refrigerator in our garage) can be plugged into the same circuit as the vehicle}.
In California, are all those electric vehicles that are parked out on the street (because of limited garage parking) going to have 50-amp 220V cords running across the sidewalks for people to trip over?
Are people going to steal electricity the way they steal cable TV?
Also, we are only willing to own an EV because we own _another_ car which we can take on long road trips or camping trips. If we could only own one car, it would most definitely be a gasoline burner.
I imagine getting a licensed/bonded/union/politically-approved electrician to wire the outlet in CA is probably quite a bit more expensive than in other states as well.
Just our experience is the other way around. When we lived in California, it was fairly easy to book an electrician. Our new home state is a red state with a housing boom — the housing boom makes it take longer to book an electrician.
And yet your democrat overlords are attempting to force them on us all. Which is just another reason to get rid of them.
It cost me $350 a year ago in California. I have no idea what it would cost elsewhere. Not mentioned by anyone: many homes in Cali (again, don’t know about elsewhere) wouldn’t be able to handle another 50 amps on their electric panel. Mine couldn’t. It costs a lot more if you have to upgrade the panel. I didn’t have to: I have a hybrid, so a 16 amp upgrade was good enough.
BTW, this desire by politicians to go full EV is ludicrous. Hybrids would suffice for many people. At my last gasoline fill-up I had gone two months since the prior fill-up on 8 gallons. I got 140 miles to the gallon.
The EV owner will very likely need to upgrade their garage, but as one owner pointed out utilities will cover the cost as they expect to make money selling more electrical power. My local newspaper pointed out the problem is more complicated for renters as their apartment likely does not have a 220 outlet for them.
The upside here for the average commuter is that they can start the day with a fully charged car. Average commutes are well within the current EV range so they can make it through a day with the charge and return home to recharge. No stopping at the gas station.
Overnight charging makes sense for a car owner, but not so easy for green energy providers.
“No stopping at the gas station.”
Ah, that is the best part of owning an EV!
“The world has 15, 18 million electric vehicles now,” says Mills. “If we [somehow] get to 500 million, that would reduce world oil consumption by about 10 percent. That’s not nothing, but it doesn’t end the use of oil.”
It’s retarded microcosms on top of retarded microcosms. Everybody talks about the danger of climate change. Nobody ever talks about the danger of dumbing down future generations with with brilliance that comes with gluing your hand to the floor without figuring out the bathroom situation first. They need to make an even darker version of ‘Idiocracy’ where the intelligent people died out sitting in moving traffic, gluing their hands to the floor, fomenting BLM riots, and teaching troon idiocy.
I’m worried about the environmental impact of all that super glue used in protests.
I can't wait for some eco-warrior group defending the oceans to glue themselves to a reef--at low tide.
If they do, I’ll bring popcorn.
OT: Oh, huh.
“This is not something you would normally hear me say, but Donald Trump was right on TikTok years ago,” Democratic Sen. Mark Warner said last week.
Now do "This is not something you would normally hear me say, but Donald Trump was right about Europe relying on Russian natural gas being a bad idea."
He was right, as were the previous Presidential administrations that gave the same warnings.
Amd had Darth Brandon not cripple our petroleum production, we might be in a position to help them, which would have the added benefit of undermining Russia.
I wonder how many children in third world and oppressed countries, working for 25 cents per day, will die so rich people in first world countries can drive an EV and feel good about themselves.
Every car in North America, Europe, Australia, and NZ could be electric on 1/1/2023 and it wouldn’t do a damn thing to lower the average CO2 levels in the atmosphere. NADA.
If we can never treat children being involved in mining as a separable problem I don’t see how the human race can utilize any advanced technology, not even considering adopting or not adopting electric vehicles. Mining is not something that is exclusive to the production of electrical vehicles.
"If we can never treat children being involved in mining as a separable problem"
A holistic approach is valid. Otherwise children and the weak and defenseless will always be at the bottom of our list of priorities. And you are correct that the ingredients of batteries aren't the only thing that is mined. Oil, coal, iron, aluminum, and uranium all come from the ground and mined. Also milling and refining other processing and handling are far from carbon neutral. Controlled nuclear fusion and harnessed photosynthesis are probably the most promising avenues that aren't heavily extractive.
I think robots will eventually also make intelligent recycling of valuable commodities practical. For example, automated disassembling a circuit board instead of having some Indian kid melt it down in an alley.
Pay attention to the end game here, people. The goal is not to get everyone to switch to an electric car, it is to make cars so prohibitively expensive that only the well heeled elites can afford them, as the raw materials to make batteries dries up, which it will very quickly. You will have no choice but to take bus or train, and maybe use a shared car when you really need one (if you can find one). If your job depends on having a car, your betters expect you to find another one that doesn’t , preferably in a megalopolis with mass transit.
That may be the end scenario, but it isn’t the goal. The people pushing electric vehicles have good intentions, even if they are being really dumb about where it will end.
The goal is not to get everyone to switch to an electric car, it is to make cars so prohibitively expensive that only the well heeled elites can afford them
"You will own nothing, and you will be happy." - Klaus Schwab
Notice Klaus didn't say "we will own nothing," he said "you will own nothing." He and his ilk will be the ones who own everything. Their true goal is to return to a feudal like state where they're the lords and everyone else are peasants.
"You will have no choice but to take bus or train, and maybe use a shared car when you really need one (if you can find one). "
A choice between a bus, train or car? That's more choice than many have now. Many buy cars because adequate bus or train service is not an option.
That may be true, but families with kids often need cars to get them around, and many have jobs where getting there by train or bus can take up a lot of time. Here in DC, metro is frequently broken or delayed and finding housing near transit is way too expensive for all but the top 5% of incomes. So there’s not really much choice in reality.
"So there’s not really much choice in reality."
Family cars may be on their way out. The self driving cars seem to be the way of the future, and the cars and the software that drives them will not be owned by the people who use them but outfits like Uber and Google. It makes some sense in that cars owned by individuals sit idle for 90% of the time, according to one analysis I remember reading. Eliminating personal ownership would drastically cut down the environmental impact of the cars and free up a lot of parking space and space for bicycle lanes. In Hong Kong, incidentally, many live in housing the same size as a parking spot.
I understand that currently many feel they have no choice but to get a car whether for work, family or business etc. We may see more alternatives in the future where cars are no longer seen as necessary, especially in urban areas.
Just another reason to get rid of the democrats. Always infringing on American’s freedoms and quality of life.
You should vote for some one else if it will make you feel better. Why torture yourself voting for democrats? Does your freedom and dignity mean so little to you?
You've got that backwards. Why would living in a crowded city using buses and trains be preferable? People prefer the freedom their own car gives them. People use trains and buses because cars aren't an option.
" People use trains and buses because cars aren’t an option."
You're not following. People buy cars because they are the only option. Public transit is either inconvenient or absent entirely, distances too great or infrastructure inadequate for walking or cycling, cars are the only option. That's why people feel they must have them.
As to why people like to live in a crowded city, ask the young who move from the countryside or small towns, who pick up sticks and move to large cities. More cultural variety, higher pay, more challenging work, the anonymity of city life gives people a sense of freedom they wouldn't enjoy living among people who know you and know what to expect of you. City life also frees you from the burdens of car ownership. Having to pay for insurance, pay for parking, pay for gas, all take their toll, and are unnecessary for getting about in a city provided it has rudimentary public transport and taxis.
Until you need to move. I heard an anecdote from someone in NYC that saw some people who had a table set up on the subway. They weren’t selling anything. They were moving and it was their only option.
Fuck public transportation.
" They were moving and it was their only option."
They were obviously bullshitting you. There are companies in New York and other cities that are devoted entirely to helping people and their appurtenances move from one abode to the next. Try not to be so gullible next time someone from the big apple accosts you with a hard luck story.
I plan to get an EV for my next car, but I'm trying to convince my wife to let me get a bumper sticker that says "Powered by Fracking"
You should probably ask your wife to give you your balls back…/sarc
Haha, co-signed.
One of the first Trump bumper stickers I saw back in 2016 was on a Tesla
Yes, but they allow their owners to virtue signal and feel superior to those "truck driving hicks," and that's the real reason people buy them. It's all about the smug for these fuckwits.
What you said may be true, but it is no more true than some of the truck drivers have vehicles that are bigger than they will ever need. Because a bigger truck makes up for a smaller self esteem (that not what my wife says of course, but I don't want to be crude here).
Because a bigger truck makes up for a smaller self esteem (that not what my wife says of course, but I don’t want to be crude here).
Don't worry, I'm sure your wife will find a dick that's appropriately sized for her someday. Until then, I'm sure she'll be content with your sharp-as-a-tack mental acuity.
Hmm, I wonder what the correlation factor is for people wearing COVID masks while driving alone and EV-hybrid vehicles.
Yes, South Park covered that in their “smug storm” episode.
Like any all-American boy, I love pickup trucks. Seeing a red Ford F-150 from around 1969 will make me cry.
But I do have to laugh whenever I see a perfectly spotless, dentless huge pickup truck being driven around in the city.
Ultimately the correct approach to electric vehicles is the same as the correct approach to almost everything else: since there is certainly a legitimate purpose for electric vehicles in some settings and applications, let the "free" market decide how many and at what price and try to stop the government from interfering in the process. There is room in our future for almost every technology we can imagine and some we haven't imagined yet, and government is extremely unlikely to get it right.
Batteries have their problems. Is there anyone on the planet working on ways to make batteries better? Is their work not worthy of attention?
There are most definitely people working on better batteries. I get articles on my news feed all the time announcing that this or that research team has made a breakthrough in battery technology.
The announcements are invariably premature, giving no consideration to the huge gap between research results and the practicalities of manufacturing at scale batteries with whatever the breakthrough is.
"The announcements are invariably premature,"
I come across these announcements too, but I'm not in a position to assess their significance. It's unfortunate that Reason only sees fit to denigrate renewable technologies like electric batteries rather than exploring their potential.
"giving no consideration to the huge gap between research results and the practicalities of manufacturing at scale"
The gap is that there are researchers and there are manufacturers. One side has the ideas the other the capital. It's not necessarily a huge gap. Often it's only ideological hobby horses that hold them apart.
"It’s unfortunate that Reason only sees fit to denigrate renewable technologies like electric batteries rather than exploring their potential."
Well, Stossel did. Reason has a record of allowing staff and guest writers to express a wide range of opinion.
"Well, Stossel did. "
The science editor does the same. I don't see a wide range of opinion on battery technology. I think it's clear the editorial position of the magazine is to denigrate renewables. The bulk of the magazine's funding comes from the Kochs who are in the fossil fuel business. So it's understandable.
Here is the archive of Reason articles on renewables. Can you point to an example of denigration of renewables:
https://reason.com/category/energy-environment/renewable-energy/
By the way, there is only one politically-active Koch brother anymore. One of the "Kochs" died.
Thanks for the link. Reason actually has a tag 'ALARMISTS' for articles about people concerned over the environment. They constantly promote hucksters like Shellenberger who tell us that western nations should subsidize African coal exploitation so they can become rich and clean like us. Writers here routinely repeat flat earth chestnuts about the 'sun going down at night' to denigrate solar. Energy from wind kills birds, ignoring the fact that emissions from burning fossil fuels kill far more birds and contributes to asthma other respiratory difficulties in humans, ignoring also research into solid state wind exploitation which won't result in bird strikes. In fact I don't see any articles about technological improvements in any renewables, whether batteries, controlled fusion, solar, photosynthesis or whatever.
"By the way, there is only one politically-active Koch brother anymore."
I remember reading about that. I'm assuming there are Koch sisters and Koch children to carry on the family business.
It’s also understandable because ‘renewables’ are largely infeasible bullshit relative tot hero cost and feasibility as a replacement for effective means of energy production.
The trouble with fossil fuels is the green house gases. And they are dirty and scarce. Renewables have some advantages. Electricity is very convenient. I wouldn't want to run my computer, lights, etc via internal combustion engines which are noisy and smelly.
Is there anyone on the planet working on ways to make batteries better? Is their work not worthy of attention?
Only since about 1800.
"Only since about 1800."
Stossel, for all his faux concern about how horrid batteries are, doesn't mention any efforts to improve them. Rather he seems to revel in their negativities. It seems a typical approach taken by writers here.
Here is the Reason archive of articles that mention batteries. Stossel's is the first that mentions batteries at all in the past five years:
https://reason.com/tag/batteries/
My point is that political decrees aren’t going to solve a 200 year old engineering problem.
With said problem being the creation of a battery that is more reliable, efficient, and cost effective than traditional motive sources. The democrats might as well mandate water powered cars (and I don’t mean with fuel cells, smart asses).
"My point is that political decrees aren’t going to solve a 200 year old engineering problem. "
Wasn't it politics that turned our cities away from electrification and towards internal combustion? It was about 100 years ago. There are quite a few books written on the subject. The movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit touches on this history.
Well, away from electric streetcar lines. Electrification of homes and businesses caught on big time.
"Electrification of homes and businesses caught on big time."
Because electric light is cleaner than oil, whether it comes from sperm whales or Saudi Arabia. The internal combustion lobby used it's clout to squash competition in the transport sector, even though electric transport is also cleaner and quieter. Internal combustion cars offer the bourgeois comforts of speed and privacy, at the expense of the commons. One reason why cars are viewed more favorably by the right. To use an extreme example to make a point, look at a certain A. Hitler, as big a car fanatic as they come. Under his direction, Germany continued to build a road network for cars well into the war years until it became painfully apparent that the warring nation was desperately short of manpower, construction on this vanity project was stopped and the workers were transferred to the military or the various industries feeding the war effort.
I’m all for bourgeois comforts.
Even with modern technology, electric transport is woefully inadequate. I would ask how you’re this obtuse, but it’s you.
"electric transport is woefully inadequate."
Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people around the world who use their subway system everyday. They will laugh in your silly face.
Had no idea Mass and NY are copying Cali with the EV mandate and pushing it 5 years ahead, but I’m not surprised with by the blue state monkey see, monkey do.
Will be interesting in January and February when the temps can dip to near zero along with the battery range.
I figure one of the first hard realizations that California will come to is that they have to make an exception to the electric vehicle ban in the Sierra areas of the state.
But what about those Bay Area folks with ski houses at Tahoe? Guess they can register their cars there until they ban that too. Progs’ brains are not wired for common sense
"Will be interesting in January and February when the temps can dip to near zero"
Isn't that when water freezes? Humans will never be able to adapt to such harsh conditions.
I meant 0 F, not 0 C. Are you Canadian?
"I meant 0 F, "
I'm just joking. Either way it's cold enough to freeze water. Kelvin is even colder.
True story: One commenter here wrote that a temperature rise of 1 degree wasn't going to make hardly any difference. I responded 1 degree celsius or 1 degree kelvin?
Not specific to California or anything, but it is a solvable problem, at the sacrifice of battery range. For example, I just saw that the Tesla 3 has battery heaters. (I'm pretty sure our family's used Nissan Leaf has no such feature.)
I began to ask myself if Newsom and his like minded pals in government were going to exempt snow plows, tow trucks, ambulances, etc.
Which lead me to the sad conclusion that Idiocracy is no longer a tongue-in-cheek cautionary tale, but rather a best case scenario for us going forward.
They will have to make such exemptions at some point.
That stupid fuck Inslee is inflicting the same idiot ideas on Washington State.
Grand Moff Tarkin: “This bickering is pointless! Stossel – release him!” As usual the government has no clue what its goal is or why it's their goal. Having no clue what the goal is, they have even less of a clue about how to achieve or even approach that goal. When you have no real idea about strategy, you tend to try to focus on tactics. Ultimately the goal of politicians is to virtue signal in a way that gets them elected or appointed to official offices and forwards their political careers. Trying to convince greenies that their goals and opinions make no sense is even more pointless.
Sooner or later, California's grand plans will hit reality.
It happened with high-speed rail. (Hmm, it may be _because_ the high-speed rail plan fell apart that they needed a big, new boondoggle.)
The other day someone on here boasted how cheap and affordable EVs are and I posted
Electric Hummers are selling for more than $100,000 over their list price as demand outstrips supply by almost 100 to one
So maybe the Economics of it is: In order to fleece EV buyers the huge increases in price are being disguised as signs of how affordable they are 🙂
Holy ****! Hummer EVs are a real thing?!
Hummer's are probably the worst example of an EV. Certainly the most inefficient. Besides you could hardly call the Hummer EV a mass produced vehicle. They made what 10 of them? Yep a fool and their money.....
Right now demand is driving up the cost of EVs so you are correct, there is still a quite a price premium on EVs. Until production catches up with demand there is likely to be a significant purchase price premium for the foreseeable future.
I have purchased 2 EVs, thankfully before the car market went insane. The first was a Ford Focus Electric, total cost a little over $16k brand new in 2014. With it's pathetic range it will never be anything more than a grocery getter / commuter. In my 8 years of ownership my maintenance cost has been wiper blades, a set of used wheels and winter tires to put on them, and some brake fluid to flush the brakes. Couple that with a little over 3 cents per mile to fuel and I'm pretty sure that is far cheaper than any dino-burner.
I also bought a model 3 in 2018 with a total cost of $43,500. By far the most expensive car I've purchased. like any vehicle it has its fair share of short comings and is not perfect but my ownership experience so far has been great. On gas savings alone I will probably never break even compared to a much less expensive ICE car I would have otherwise bought. However in the 10 to 20 years I intend to keep it, with the reduced maintenance costs, I expect the total cost of ownership to be in the neighborhood of a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry.
I'm pretty curious how the battery life fares in the tail end of that life. Will it's original range drop by 40%? 70%? will it even last 20 years as a functional exercise? I'm glad you're one of the test participants. I'm all in on new tech, but EV's seem like a poor choice unless you live in a city or have two vehicles, one of which is conventionally powered. So, I'm in the camp that thinks all the years and billions in R&D invested in ICE powered cars has given me what I need. EV's have a long way to go to push ICE vehicles off the top spot. But I'm glad there are a variety of choices out there.
Most ICEs are still fully functional/usable when they reach EOL at ~170K mi. The issue is reliability and maintenance (not operation) costs. Same goes for Teslas. Tesla states that acceptable loss is >30% over the life of the vehicle and that most will last 8-10 yrs. or 200K mi. before hitting that. Evidence suggests, as one might expect, fast-charging 90kWh batteries gets to unacceptable loss quicker than charging 80kWh batteries slower. Either way, at which point the cost to replace the battery will exceed the sale price of the vehicle, regardless of whether the vehicle is functional or not. That is, assuming Tesla's support for used vehicles approaches traditional ICE support, which includes software updates that Tesla could whimsically engineer or declare non-reverse compatible. All of which gets conveniently overlooked when you're selling a unicorn-fart-powered device that's going to propel humanity into the next millennium.
I don't really have an opinion on standard or metric wrenches (crescent, socket, torx, etc., etc., etc.), My goto drill/driver is 24V cordless, all my other tools (including backup drills) are AC, alternating current and direct current both have their uses. I understand star drive screws are better than phillips are better than flathead screws (and that there are configurations better than star), I've still got a CFL in a lamp on an end table that no one uses, the rest are 95% LED and 5% incandescent (not counting kerosene). I've still got a PowerPC that will hold charge for about 10 min. Convection oven/air fryer? Check. Even owned an air-popper at one point. The corded phone is gone. The CB and walkies are not. OTA antenna and house is wired with COAX (and ethernet). CRT with attached VCR stashed in the attic.
Except for the LEDs and the cell phones, all the other 'alternatives' are older than I am. Anybody who thinks EVs are going to wholly replace ICEs in the next 50-100 yrs. is a fanatic idiot.
Outside od something in the direction of hydrogen fuel cells or the Arc Reactor, petroleum is here to stay. It’s just a question of how much conflict will be necessary to prevent the global ,racists form inflicting their ‘green future’ upon us.
Until you need to buy a new battery pack. Which will cost far more than your maintenance savings. Oh, and thanks to the democrats, your gas savings will soon dry up. As the cost of electricity ’will necessarily skyrocket’.
Which will cost far more than your maintenance savings.
And that's at today's cost. Everybody keeps saying 'economies of scale' out-of-hand while ignoring the fact that the demand for something north of 50M new EVs in the next 10-15 yrs. has already been imposed artificially and, even if it hadn't been, saying 'economies of scale' out-of-hand is how we get/got to the current 'problematic' situation with (peak) oil.
I anticipate the rising demand for these materials will see a sharp increase in battery costs going forward.
Politicians may appear to misunderstand science. But they don't actually misunderstand it.
Newsome, for example, is just a progressive LARPer. He'll do or say anything to advance his political career, he doesn't actually have any ideological grounding.
He knows this 2035 goal is ridiculous, he doesn't care. He hopes to run for President in 2 years, so that problem is more than a decade after he needs to shine. Other people's problems.
I"m not really sure what point Stossel is trying to make other than there are a few stupid econazis who think EVs are humanity's savior. I guess I naively thought most people were aware of this.
I think we can pretty much all agree that the push to ban ICE is pretty idiotic. Let the free market work. The total cost of ownership is already lower for an EV than a comparable ICE car. Once battery tech matures a little more and production capacity is ramped up bringing EVs into purchase price parity with their ICE counterparts, there will be very few still interested in the more expensive ICE technology.
As an owner of 2 EVs I occasionally participate in EV events, I interact with a higher number of other EV owners than most people. Yes there are a few idiots out there that think their EV runs on unicorn farts and are great for the environment. However the overwhelming majority I have interacted with have no delusion that a manufactured product (EVs) results in pollution. All manufactured products do. Stossel does make a good point that many people new to EVs aren't aware that they have a much higher amount of pollution associated with manufacturing than a gasoline car. 60,000 miles seems a bit on the high end for the pollution break even point, considering the source of that data is a legacy internal combustion vehicle manufacturer that was dragged into EVs as a result of their emissions cheating, I am not surprised it would be heavily biased. I would think the real world number would be closer to half that but there are so many variables I am sure there are edge cases where the break even point is a year or less and others where the break even point is never reached.
The point he never fully acknowledges is that on the whole EVs are less bad for the environment than traditional ICE vehicles. That is kind of the whole point of the push for EVs. Although, I personally could care less about the pollution aspect of EVs. The other inconvenient fact that Stossel omits is that as the grid gets cleaner so do EVs. He also is silent about the fact that even an EV charged by a coal fired electric plant still pollutes less per mile driven than pretty much any internal combustion vehicle.
At least for me, the pros vastly outweigh the cons of EV ownership compared to ICE. I like them due to the drastically reduced maintenance and operating costs. Never having to visit a gas station for my daily driving needs is an added bonus I didn't realize until becoming an EV owner. Then there is the fuel savings, My EVs cost about 3 to 4 cents per mile to fuel. At $3.50/gallon a 30 mpg car costs 11.7 cents per mile to fuel.
I wouldn’t be surprised it Stossel writes about EVs but personally owns a Tesla. Just like he writes about the folly of government-subsidized beach house insurance and he owns a beach house.
(Don't misinterpret this as a slam of Stossel. I liked how he called himself a "welfare queen".)
It’s more than a few econazis. The entire democrat party, including the governors of multiple states, have mandated EV’s in a short number of years. Darth Brandon is also on board with this stupidity, Gutting our energy industry in favor of it.
And EV’s are not better for the environment. That’s part of the point here too.
As an owner of 2 EVs I occasionally participate in EV events, I interact with a higher number of other EV owners than most people. Yes there are a few idiots out there that think their EV runs on unicorn farts and are great for the environment. However the overwhelming majority I have interacted with have no delusion that a manufactured product (EVs) results in pollution. All manufactured products do. Stossel does make a good point that many people new to EVs aren’t aware that they have a much higher amount of pollution associated with manufacturing than a gasoline car. 60,000 miles seems a bit on the high end for the pollution break even point, considering the source of that data is a legacy internal combustion vehicle manufacturer that was dragged into EVs as a result of their emissions cheating, I am not surprised it would be heavily biased. I would think the real world number would be closer to half that but there are so many variables I am sure there are edge cases where the break even point is a year or less and others where the break even point is never reached.
Weird how hanging out with all the EV owners you never learned about the DOE's calculations made available (and updated) by Argonne National Labs (GREET model) a couple *decades* ago. Or other academic models put forth in the last 10 yrs. Must've been hard to find buried in the anti-EV, niche publications like the AP and Reuters or torn down and rebuilt at length by little-known and pro-ICE organizations like the OECD, NHTSA, NREL, etc.
I know I told M4E that EV drivers weren't smart but I didn't expect the retards to come out of the woodwork shrieking their stupidity into the void so loudly.
Whoops, meant in reply to Quimrider above.
Meanwhile, whatever happened to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?
They only sell them in California still. The infrastructure never really took off, and the econutz don’t like them because the hydrogen comes from fossil fuels (but somehow strip mining metals for batteries in third world countries is ok).
It’s a shame.
EVs still need tires, brakes, and hydraulic fluid, which all use materials derived from oil, not to mention most of the electricity
Thanks to mountains of pseudo-science in the fake news few people understand that an all-electic vehicle cannot be directly compared to one with an internal combustion engine. The ICE is a power source but a rechargeable battery is not. The battery must first be charged by a power source before it can be used. If the source is electricity it must be generated somehow. Once generated significant amounts of energy are lost converting the energy from one form or another and further energy is lost in transmission. There are no electrical conversion and transmission losses when the power source is located under the hood. Comparing the two vehicle types is not simple enough for governments to understand so they should stop giving massive subsidies for buying "green" vehicles.
If Stossel believes cars compete with stars in making carbon from scratch, why shouldn't Fox fans believe Tuck when he says you can't charge an electric car from a wind farm. John's grasp of technology has decayed alarmingly in recent years.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Your credulity
That’s not really a thing where I’m concerned. But thanks for playing.
Watch as the Nazi-Empire creates its next 'CRISIS'; the energy crisis.
If only the weather was as predictable as Nazi-Empire policy.
There’s nothing wrong that can’t be resolved with the attrition of the Marxist population.
False.
True.
Ah, "THE SCIENCE", the perpetual mating call of the progressive incel.
EVs will RULE!!! Eventually. Like in about forty or fifty years, after the following conditions have been met:
1) a workable fusion-based energy solution (not likely)
2) a meaningful investment in solar energy production -- not exactly inexpensive and will take at least twenty years to start making a difference). The large solar plant in Nevada produces about as much electricity as the Hoover Dam. On the other hand, in "inflation-adjusted dollars," it cost seven times as much. Take a look at your current electric bill, and see if you can handle a seven-fold increase.......
3) a 1000 percent increase in nuclear plants (actually workable)
"Mandating" the use of electric vehicles, or "encouraging" their purchase, through tax credits, etc, will not shorten the time needed for this to happen.
The analysis disregards several things:
1. As the market becomes saturated with electric vehicles, the availability of recycled batteries becomes significant, reducing the requirement to continue to mine lithium and similar materials and the energy required to manufacture batteries..
2. Nuclear power has the potential to substantially reduce the carbon generation of fossil fuel-fired electric power plants. In addition to solar, wind, and hydroelectric generation, this would further reduce the carbon impact of electric vehicles.
As Jefferson's Ghost just said, the technology is mostly ready for prime time, but a ramp-up time is required. The world, and particularly the third world, must survive in the meantime.
Even if what you say is true, the battery problem will not be solved.
"Even if what you say is true, the battery problem will not be solved."
Well, assuming that battery technology, or ways to extract lithium are somehow "static," that might be true. But two technologies (that I know of) are on the horizon and already undergoing "real world" research and production.
As far as supplying abundant lithium without having to dig it out of the ground,
"The Salton Sea is one of the largest lithium storages in the world. Lithium is an essential component in electric batteries found in cell phones and electric cars, the demand for which is sky-rocketing. With up to six million metric tons of lithium stored underground, the area has been deemed "Lithium Valley". The Salton Sea is utilizing a new process to extract lithium from geothermal brine."
https://ecoflight.org/flight/salton-sea-lithium-mining-2/#:~:text=The%20Salton%20Sea%20is%20one%20of%20the%20largest,underground%2C%20the%20area%20has%20been%20deemed%20%22Lithium%20Valley%22.
Carbon nano-tube-based batteries are very close to hitting the market (admittedly in limited use) -- they require no lithium, are easily recyclable, and should be less expensive and much lighter than current EV batteries;
Long-term, solid state batteries hold promise, but that is less likely to happen soon, due to weight and cost.
None of these solutions are going to happen tomorrow, but they will (or, guaranteed, something else will.)
"The Salton Sea is one of the largest lithium storages in the world."
Sounds like an invaluable resource. May I suggest leaving the lithium in place, filling the sea with electric eels, hooking up some wires and voila! The world's biggest battery.
Maybe, but who will feed the eels?
Carbon is never going away. CO an CO2 are never going away. So far fairy dust powers nothing.