3 ms·

Some Countries Are Having Second Thoughts About Electric Car Mandates

16 points by RickJWagner 4y ago

solardev 4y ago
The infrastructure is nowhere near ready. Even in the CA Bay Area, chargers at popular destinations are already overwhelmed (and really expensive) and take forever. That can't easily be scaled up to entire replace gas stations. Rural areas don't even have that kind of power readily available. And if you have to wait hours instead of minutes to continue your journey, that means charging stations can't just be convenience stores, but entire destinations unto themselves. It takes time and a whole lot of money and willpower to build all that. That's not even talking about the pollution. A sudden ramp-up in EV usage without a commiserate increase in renewables storage means, in reality, we're just offsetting gas combustion at the point of use with coal and natural gas combustion at the point of generation. It's barely an improvement and nowhere actually near carbon neutral. You can mandate and legislate MPG improvements and % EV requirements and such to spur development, but you can't just leapfrog over the infrastructure requirements. We need something like the New Deal with a new Interstate-like boost to get the grid up to par. Otherwise too many EVs on the road would mean terrible effects upstream and cascading infrastructure failures.
eesmith 4y ago
> But many of those same countries are now having second thoughts. I didn't see where those countries were having "second thoughts". Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania want 2040 instead of 2035, but the source material doesn't indicate they first wanted 2035 and then had second thoughts for 2040. > The United States should consider adopting a market-based strategy for increasing electric vehicle usage. Wake me up when Reason describes how to include the significant negative externalities of vehicle ownership in the market price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities_of_automobiles#Solutions_to_negative_externalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities_of_automobiles#S... lists a few ways, one of which is regulation. Two others are fuel and carbon taxes, and subsidizes, both solutions Reason's libertarian dreams avoid.
- solardev 4y ago
  FWIW, as someone who is generally pretty left-leaning and not at all libertarian (more policy, please), I still find Reason a rather valuable resource, very different from the "fake news" kinda rags. They put out good articles that may skew free-market, yes, but often serve a perspective vacuum when it comes to renewables journalism. A lot of renewables reporting is rah-rah hypemongering that slants sensationalist and unrealistic, which over the long term has the side effect of making the public more and more cynical as most of the exciting developments they hear about (solar roadways!) never come to fruition for reasons they never bother to examine, because the articles are more marketing fluff than actual analysis. Reason at least provides a sobering counter-narrative and forces advocates of renewables to better examine and defend their positions and/or identify weaknesses to address. It's almost like a good peer review process. I appreciate what they do, even if I'm not their target audience. Edit: And I think renewables/emissions/carbon targets and things like CAFE standards are always being double- and triple-guessed. They are political games, not scientific projections.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Can you point to a renewables piece which is more substantive than this one? Because I found this one pretty information free. For example, does Reason have a position on the goal of net zero emissions by 2050? Is it a valid goal? A search now mostly finds criticism that it can be reached, and an argument that top-down regulations are much worse than rapid economic growth and a free market. But that's an evaluation of the political success, not the need for success. And most of the content I find is that things will get worse, but we can let the free market solve the problems. And with a touch of its own rah-rah hypemongering, for example, that "small modular nuclear reactors paired with molten salt storage" will come to the rescue, and we won't have to change our existing habits. Their solution seems well summarized at https://reason.com/2021/11/18/will-glasgow-climate-promises-be-kept/ https://reason.com/2021/11/18/will-glasgow-climate-promises-... : ] All of the ongoing trends toward the adoption of lower emissions energy sources and technologies would be dramatically accelerated if policymakers adopt clean free market policies instead of the top-down mandates popular at COP26. Unlike subsidies and mandates that target specific technologies, clean tax cuts are a technology-neutral tool that rewards innovators and encourages competition to develop and deploy low emissions energy supplies and infrastructure. because, "Cutting taxes is nearly always a good thing “for any excuse whatsoever.”" says https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.153/ab1.df9.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/Policy-Brief-2-Understanding-Clean-Tax-Cuts.pdf https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.153/ab1.df9.myftpuplo... , and ... no, I am not going to read dumb-ass libertarian policies statements like this, based in the premise that The Free Market Solves Everything.
andanotheropt 4y ago
And then there is NIO quick battery swap tech. That could be another strategy other than just charging the battery. Offer many options.
- solardev 4y ago
  I'll believe it when I see it. Tesla promised that, what, a decade ago? And it went nowhere. Edit: Wow it really was almost a decade ago... /cry https://www.tesla.com/videos/battery-swap-event https://www.tesla.com/videos/battery-swap-event
photochemsyn 4y ago
The basic concept that countries and corporations still disagree on is whether or not to rapidly phase out fossil fuels due to the reality of steady fossil-fueled global warming and related issues (floods, droughts, heat waves, intense storms, sea level rise, etc.). At this point, at least, the science denialists have little sway, and the arguments come down to 'we can live with it, and should maintain current fossil fuel production levels over the next 30 years' versus 'the results will be so damaging that we have to get off fossil fuels immediately by building out renewable electric systems'. It's certainly technically possible to replace the entire fossil fuel system at present using existing technology: no new inventions are required, it's just a matter of construction at scale. However, this would require a global reorganization and investment on the scale needed to replace the entire fossil fuel system - which was constructed over decades with rough estimates on the order of $10 trillion in inputs. Think of all the drilling rigs, the oil tankers, the networks of pipelines, the hundreds of refineries, the millions of vehicles relying on gasoline and diesel, the gas-burning electric power plants, the coal-burning electric power plants, the trains hauling the coal... Of course, if properly managed, the switch will also be an economic boom - for some. There's the unavoidable fact that economies that have relied on export of fossil fuels to global markets for decades will simply go belly-up under a replacement scenario. Resource export systems typically benefit a relatively small number of elites in the source country (Russian oligarchs, Saudi Arabian princes, Wall Street billionaires, etc.) but there are trickle-down effects. The non-diversified economies will be the hardest hit. In contrast, countries and regions that rely heavily on fossil fuel imports, or on dirty coal - for example China, Japan, Germany, etc. - have the most incentive to make a rapid transition. Europe in general would see benefits from ending reliance on Russian, American and Middle Eastern oil and gas imports. Technologically, this is just progress. Fuels are inefficient means of generating electricity, and direct conversion of sunlight and wind to electricity and storage and distribution of electricity is just more efficient, cleaner, and not reliant on global transport of fuels from sources to destinations. As far as fossil fueled global warming, I'm afraid the tipping point has come and gone. Even with halting fossil fuel use over the next three decades (a 3% reduction and replacement per year scenario with renewables is certainly plausible), there's already a significant permafrost emission input, megadroughts are already a reality, and it'll take another century of slow, steady warming before temperatures begin to stabilize, even under the most optimistic scenario. This means adaptation is going to be an inevitable necessity.

16 points by RickJWagner 4y ago

The infrastructure is nowhere near ready. Even in the CA Bay Area, chargers at popular destinations are already overwhelmed (and really expensive) and take forever. That can't easily be scaled up to entire replace gas stations. Rural areas don't even have that kind of power readily available. And if you have to wait hours instead of minutes to continue your journey, that means charging stations can't just be convenience stores, but entire destinations unto themselves. It takes time and a whole lot of money and willpower to build all that. That's not even talking about the pollution. A sudden ramp-up in EV usage without a commiserate increase in renewables storage means, in reality, we're just offsetting gas combustion at the point of use with coal and natural gas combustion at the point of generation. It's barely an improvement and nowhere actually near carbon neutral. You can mandate and legislate MPG improvements and % EV requirements and such to spur development, but you can't just leapfrog over the infrastructure requirements. We need something like the New Deal with a new Interstate-like boost to get the grid up to par. Otherwise too many EVs on the road would mean terrible effects upstream and cascading infrastructure failures.

eesmith 4y ago

> But many of those same countries are now having second thoughts. I didn't see where those countries were having "second thoughts". Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania want 2040 instead of 2035, but the source material doesn't indicate they first wanted 2035 and then had second thoughts for 2040. > The United States should consider adopting a market-based strategy for increasing electric vehicle usage. Wake me up when Reason describes how to include the significant negative externalities of vehicle ownership in the market price. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities_of_automobiles#Solutions_to_negative_externalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalities_of_automobiles#S... lists a few ways, one of which is regulation. Two others are fuel and carbon taxes, and subsidizes, both solutions Reason's libertarian dreams avoid.

solardev 4y ago
FWIW, as someone who is generally pretty left-leaning and not at all libertarian (more policy, please), I still find Reason a rather valuable resource, very different from the "fake news" kinda rags. They put out good articles that may skew free-market, yes, but often serve a perspective vacuum when it comes to renewables journalism. A lot of renewables reporting is rah-rah hypemongering that slants sensationalist and unrealistic, which over the long term has the side effect of making the public more and more cynical as most of the exciting developments they hear about (solar roadways!) never come to fruition for reasons they never bother to examine, because the articles are more marketing fluff than actual analysis. Reason at least provides a sobering counter-narrative and forces advocates of renewables to better examine and defend their positions and/or identify weaknesses to address. It's almost like a good peer review process. I appreciate what they do, even if I'm not their target audience. Edit: And I think renewables/emissions/carbon targets and things like CAFE standards are always being double- and triple-guessed. They are political games, not scientific projections.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Can you point to a renewables piece which is more substantive than this one? Because I found this one pretty information free. For example, does Reason have a position on the goal of net zero emissions by 2050? Is it a valid goal? A search now mostly finds criticism that it can be reached, and an argument that top-down regulations are much worse than rapid economic growth and a free market. But that's an evaluation of the political success, not the need for success. And most of the content I find is that things will get worse, but we can let the free market solve the problems. And with a touch of its own rah-rah hypemongering, for example, that "small modular nuclear reactors paired with molten salt storage" will come to the rescue, and we won't have to change our existing habits. Their solution seems well summarized at https://reason.com/2021/11/18/will-glasgow-climate-promises-be-kept/ https://reason.com/2021/11/18/will-glasgow-climate-promises-... : ] All of the ongoing trends toward the adoption of lower emissions energy sources and technologies would be dramatically accelerated if policymakers adopt clean free market policies instead of the top-down mandates popular at COP26. Unlike subsidies and mandates that target specific technologies, clean tax cuts are a technology-neutral tool that rewards innovators and encourages competition to develop and deploy low emissions energy supplies and infrastructure. because, "Cutting taxes is nearly always a good thing “for any excuse whatsoever.”" says https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.153/ab1.df9.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/Policy-Brief-2-Understanding-Clean-Tax-Cuts.pdf https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.153/ab1.df9.myftpuplo... , and ... no, I am not going to read dumb-ass libertarian policies statements like this, based in the premise that The Free Market Solves Everything.

andanotheropt 4y ago

And then there is NIO quick battery swap tech. That could be another strategy other than just charging the battery. Offer many options.

solardev 4y ago
I'll believe it when I see it. Tesla promised that, what, a decade ago? And it went nowhere. Edit: Wow it really was almost a decade ago... /cry https://www.tesla.com/videos/battery-swap-event https://www.tesla.com/videos/battery-swap-event

photochemsyn 4y ago

The basic concept that countries and corporations still disagree on is whether or not to rapidly phase out fossil fuels due to the reality of steady fossil-fueled global warming and related issues (floods, droughts, heat waves, intense storms, sea level rise, etc.). At this point, at least, the science denialists have little sway, and the arguments come down to 'we can live with it, and should maintain current fossil fuel production levels over the next 30 years' versus 'the results will be so damaging that we have to get off fossil fuels immediately by building out renewable electric systems'. It's certainly technically possible to replace the entire fossil fuel system at present using existing technology: no new inventions are required, it's just a matter of construction at scale. However, this would require a global reorganization and investment on the scale needed to replace the entire fossil fuel system - which was constructed over decades with rough estimates on the order of $10 trillion in inputs. Think of all the drilling rigs, the oil tankers, the networks of pipelines, the hundreds of refineries, the millions of vehicles relying on gasoline and diesel, the gas-burning electric power plants, the coal-burning electric power plants, the trains hauling the coal... Of course, if properly managed, the switch will also be an economic boom - for some. There's the unavoidable fact that economies that have relied on export of fossil fuels to global markets for decades will simply go belly-up under a replacement scenario. Resource export systems typically benefit a relatively small number of elites in the source country (Russian oligarchs, Saudi Arabian princes, Wall Street billionaires, etc.) but there are trickle-down effects. The non-diversified economies will be the hardest hit. In contrast, countries and regions that rely heavily on fossil fuel imports, or on dirty coal - for example China, Japan, Germany, etc. - have the most incentive to make a rapid transition. Europe in general would see benefits from ending reliance on Russian, American and Middle Eastern oil and gas imports. Technologically, this is just progress. Fuels are inefficient means of generating electricity, and direct conversion of sunlight and wind to electricity and storage and distribution of electricity is just more efficient, cleaner, and not reliant on global transport of fuels from sources to destinations. As far as fossil fueled global warming, I'm afraid the tipping point has come and gone. Even with halting fossil fuel use over the next three decades (a 3% reduction and replacement per year scenario with renewables is certainly plausible), there's already a significant permafrost emission input, megadroughts are already a reality, and it'll take another century of slow, steady warming before temperatures begin to stabilize, even under the most optimistic scenario. This means adaptation is going to be an inevitable necessity.