Inside the Republican Attacks on Electric Vehicles
Inside the Republican Attacks on Electric Vehicles
President Biden’s new rule cutting emissions from vehicle tailpipes has deepened a partisan battle over automotive technology.
I suspect insider trading or other fuckery. It's conservatives, they hate anything they can't get a profit of, especially renewables.
The frontman for the #1 EV car in America (Tesla) ain't exactly a liberal you know.
EDIT: Note that Elon Musk is very much a hate-filled memer. His arguments kill other clean technologies, such as California's high speed rail project. (See how Hyperloop was proposed as a fake project to kill the high-speed rail public transit politics).
I'm not "against EVs". I'm mostly against the bullshit that Elon Musk has brought to this discussion. EVs can be more efficient (especially as LFP chemistry is mastered, unfortunately by the Chinese, but hopefully we can bring that tech to the USA). We need to work on more advanced chemistries (LFP, or better), we should work on cleaner technologies, more durable batteries, etc. etc. Biden is right to also focus on American Workers / American Built batteries (so even if the Chinese LFP chemistry is superior, we need to "bring it home" or build a superior tech like Silicon Batteries, etc. etc. )
Tesla is falling behind technologically. Their only trick so far has been to kill other projects that threaten them (ex: ethanol, hydrogen, high speed rail projects, etc. etc.). That's fine, Tesla has played its role in meming pro-environmentalism to the greater public, we just gotta remove the toxicity in the EV argument and bring us back to a pro-Environmental stance IMO.
Elsewhere, I'm pushing green tech like Hydrogen and Switchgrass Ethanol, Kerosene and Syngas. Experimental tech should remain that: experimental. We need to keep investing into them and hope for the best. EVs are just one potential future, experimenting with other chemistries in the meantime ("just in case" we find something better) needs to be left open. There is a potential future where H2 is superior if some problems are solved. EVs are just ahead right now, but not necessarily over the next 10 years. An environmentalist would support scientists continuing to explore these other paths as long as a green future / carbon-neutral technology remains in view.
Only asshats like Elon Musk try to shit on competing technologies. So try not to be that kind of toxic EV supporter.
Except it's red states that are leading in building infrastructure for renewable energy production.
Wind and solar need land. Red states aren't building it ... they're where land is.
I'm in a position to buy old vehicles only. My current vehicle is more than 20 years old, and I don't plan to replace it soon. However, from my view, the sooner more options exist, the sooner folks like myself won't be driving otherwise reliable, but more polluting, vehicles. I don't even drive that much, about 1000 miles this year. So I could be driving what, 6000 or 7000 miles a year but having a smaller impact, but not until something like 2040 or even later at this rate.
Anyway, why push back? My winter climate isn't ideal for electric but people do it and I expect that to improve over time. We need it now, so others can have it then. My thoughts. For disclosure, I wasn't able to read the article. I apologize if I am off point 🙂
Mention electric cars or solar panels and Republicans suddenly turn into environmentalists.
We really do need fewer cars in general, though. Replacing all ICE vehicles with EVs isn't good enough. EVs still need tires and plastics and roads to drive on, all of which require petroleum. We need people living in relatively dense urban areas, that are highly walkable and bikable, with robust public transportation.
We need people living in relatively dense urban
Republicans are way ahead of you. Aside from dealing with EVs, they also are dealing with walkable cities in a similar way.
I'm fine getting rid of classic ICE.
But losing Hybrid and diminishing PHEV is dumb. Toyota Prius and Ford Maverick are very popular cars today, and calling those buyers anti-green and outlawing those vehicles over the next 10 years seems extreme to me.
This is definitely an overstep by the environmentalists IMO.
There's nothing wrong IMO with making new standards. But outlawing even the Prius is... extreme. This won't have traction in the long run.
Problem is that CO2 concentrations stay elevated basically forever once we dump it into the atmosphere.. This means that the temperature we hit is determined by the cumulative total emissions, not by the rate of emissions. So you can calculate how much we can afford to emit to have a 50% risk of crossing any given temperature threshold, such as 1.5°C or 2°C, between which we lose a lot of major ecosystems, and beyond which we end up outside the envelope where it's clear that we can maintain civilization. This is a very limited emissions budget, so actually keeping temperatures under 2°C means cutting emissions roughly in half before 2030, and to zero by 2050. Since cars last on average about 20 years, deploying new fossil-fuel-burning-cars after 2030 is effectively a commitment to risk ending civilization.
Yes, it's politically tough, but the alternative is to take on a really insane risk.
You're throwing away the baby with the bathwater here. Hybrids, such as the Prius, reduce CO2 emissions by 30% to 50% compared to a normal vehicle by achieving 57mpg.
Switching all of our ICE vehicles to Prius (or other Atkinson Cycle hybrids, such as Ford Maverick) would instantly cut out 30% to 50% of our greenhouse gas emissions. And yet this is apparently not enough for yall. That's insanity.
Secondly: Hummer EV (and other poorly designed EVs) will pollute more than some ICE cars (see ACEEE's Greenest list of cars). 9000lb EVs use up so much electricity, that a typical ICE has fewer emissions (once we factor in the amount of coal / natural gas that turns into the electricity that'd power a Hummer EV).
Fortunately, these EPA rules are better written than the Advance Cars II standard (and really, that's the one I'm pissed off about). But the extremist pro-EV groups have gone too far, to the point where EVs are more pollution causing than some other quite legitimate vehicles (ex: Prius).
As I said before: banning the Prius is a mistake. People will wake up to the madness as these kinds of regulations take effect, and we will miss out on our goals. At very minimum, the rules need to make sense and truly progress us as a people. Writing down bullshit because the extremist environmentalist faction is braindead is... well... counterproductive.
Someone made a good point to me the other day on this though, the PHEV is the worst of both worlds because you lug around the wrought of the ICE engine, have to pay for a lifetime of maintenance with it and when electric, you have diminished range due to the weight of the ICE engine
PHEVs are lighter than every EV on the market of equivalent size.
Prius Prime is 3500lbs, while Nissan Leaf is 4000 and Model Y is like 4300.
EV batteries are the real waste when you actually measure how heavy the battery packs are. The engine + transmission system of ICE is far, far, far lighter.
you have diminished range due to the weight of the ICE engine
More like the 800lbs of extra batteries you carry (and rarely use) are a waste on the full size EV. Like, how often are you running your battery down and using all 1000lbs of Li-ion effectively?
Yes, an Ioniq 6 is over 1000lbs of battery. Most engines are just a hundred or so lbs. You seriously can't make any kind of "weight" argument here, EVs are so heavy its not a reasonable comparison. Any weight argument immediately swings in favor of ICE, Hybrid, or PHEV.
The far lighter weight of the Prius (3200lbs) and Prius Prime (3500lbs) is one of the reasons why they have much better efficiency than their pure-EV competitors. And is likely a major influence on why they reached #1 on ACEEE's greenest car of the market list.
have to pay for a lifetime of maintenance with it
$35 an oil change x 15 oil changes == $525 over ~10 years of a car's usage. People are seriously overdramaticizing the costs of oil changes.
https://www.cartalk.com/extended-warranties/tesla-maintenance-cost
Tesla’s Model Y has a 100,000-mile maintenance cost estimate between $8,250 for base trims and $15,000 for the performance trim. This does not include repairs. By comparison, a Toyota Highlander in the Car Talk fleet had a 100,000-mile maintenance and repair cost of $14,029. A Honda Accord had a 100,000-mile maintenance and repair cost of $7,684. If there is a cost advantage to Tesla with regard to maintenance and repair, we cannot find it.
Meanwhile, a single Tesla 3 set of tires is like $1000, and because the weight of the vehicle, the tires wear out faster and spew microplastics everywhere.
And because Tesla vehicles have absurdly overpowered motors, people tend to wear out their tires faster.
I wanted a non ICE car but was priced out. Car companies are making it tough to buy electric. Ended up with a hybrid while I wait for more choice in the electric arena that are not stupid expensive.
Honda Accord Hybrid and Corolla Hybrids are so efficient they still are top 15 cars on the Greenest list of ACEEE.
Depending on the Hybrid you bought, you can still feel very good about reduced emissions and saving the planet (etc. Etc). Don't let the extremist faction make you feel bad for missing out on the more expensive vehicles in the top10 or top5