This is a very good analysis, however I think a few more issues should be also considered. The lifetime assumption of 10 years is good for new cars, but for older cars, depending on the age when bought the lithium ion batteries may be need to be replaced within that time, incurring the batteries manufacture hit once again. The other issue is that cost is not considered and the analysis assumes a single car. Right now a small percentage of cars is electric, but if even half of all new cars were electric then until the battery/electric motor mineral supply chain ramps up the cost of electric vehicles will go up significantly. If the goal is to reduce emissions from the current level, using batteries in hybrid vehicles ( which use a much smaller number of batteries than a full BEV) would reduce emission even more since many more of them could be produced for the same amount of money. For example replacing 50% of all existing cars with hybrids that get double the mileage of current cars would reduce the emissions by 25% the same as replacing only 25% of existing cars with fully electric ones. The problems of upgrading grids and adding charging stations is also a hidden cost, since, like it or not, the petroleum infrastructure is already fully built out.
It is more likely that the costs of EVs go down like so much other tech does with each doubling of production. Supply bottlenecks will lead to more innovation and substitution and there is a long way to go down the learning curve for EV tech.
The idea that ramping up production is going to increase cost certainly doesn't track with the history of PV for example:
"When accounting for inflation of the U.S. dollar, the $45/kg cost in 2004 is equal to about $71/kg in 2022. If we consider that it took 16 grams to make a single watt in 2004, then the inflation-adjusted cost per watt of polysilicon in 2004 was approximately $1.14/watt. In 2022, at 2.2 grams per watt at $17/kg – the price is $0.04/watt. So, the real cost per watt of silicon has come down by 96.7%."
This suggests that there will still be a lot of life in the battery after 10 years. Affordable used EVs will have less range but the batteries will not need to be replaced. In 10+ years as current EVs become old vehicles, there will much more charging infrastructure in place to handle EVs with older batteries and lower range. As battery tech continues to progress, batteries will be outliving the vehicles they are installed in by a safe margin.
It's neo-Marxism. That you don't know this changes nothing.
You have no curiosity, no capability for critical thinking, you just parrot complete drivel. "High utiliziation of HEV and PHEV is just good economics". Clueless.
Jan 27, 2023·edited Jan 27, 2023Liked by Hannah Ritchie
This was a FANTASTIC ANALYSIS. There are outliers however. What the last 15+ years of production have taught is that Toyota Hybrids as a fleet have MUCH LONGER useful lives than nearly all other vehicles except perhaps SMALL HEAVY POLUTING DIESELS. Furthermore, the technology of the electric motors has even allowed the use of NIckel Metal Hydride batteries ratherr than the less exotic expensive and nearly impossible to recycle sealed Li-ion battery units ala Tesla. Finally, a very strange factor as to useful life has emerged amongst the electric vehicle leader Tesla. Tesla has been cutting edge in adoption of certain manufacturing technology, more closely associated with aircraft manufacture in many cases including heavy use of adhesives and very large tonnage presses making single parts that if damaged total the complete vehicle! All of these things are great for the manufacture and profit of the vehicle but distorts claims regarding useful life. The recent emergence of data that shows INSURERS TOTALING TESLA Y models at mileage as low as 10K raises a great concern about the true USEFUL LIFE of these vehicles. By comparison everyone knows someone who drove a Toyota for sometimes 20+ years and they just keep rolling. All of this could be part of an edge analysis since a Toyota hybrid provide 10 wonderful replacements for current basic ICE for the equivalent battery cell requirements of a single Tesla. The future is certainly BEV but WELL EXECUTED HYBRIDS likely contribute more to the reduction in greenhouse gases because of the EXTREME SIZE OF BATTERIES still included in full BEV.
A fair comparison context -- A Toyota Prius has an 8.8kW battery while the most modest Tesla Model 3 requires 50-82kW so the fairest comparison is what is the impact of 5-9 Priuses replacing ICE versus only one ICE being removed from service by a single Tesla. Food for thought. A case can be made the impact of 8 less ICEs by vehicles that operate in the same basic region of efficiency as the very best BEV might be an even better solution!
Your writing is FABULOUS and so happy to have become a new subscriber!
As "luck" would have it (I don't believe in luck), we all get reinforced in our Newsfeeds whether we believe we are free thinkers or not. This morning I read an article from InsideE Vs which is a bit of a fanboy site for Tesla. Nevertheless that doesn't mean I don't learn things reading critically. They provided a perspective about BEST UTILIZATION of Lithium that is tied up in Toyota's plan for their vehicle fleet. It is quite similar to what I happened to describe above! That felt good. I happen to have concluded that reducing OVERALL emissions should be the priority and that focusing on BEV at this time is perhaps counter-productive. That makes the exchange, if you are prioritizing OVERALL reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from cars, you might be able to make 70 HEVs for a single BEV. A well engineered HEV might only have a 1.1 kW battery while a well engineered BEV (Tesla) might have a 75 kW battery. The difference achieved by the two approaches is overwhelmingly better via the HEV at this point. Until we magically can find, mine & refine a nearly impossible amount of Lithium, perhaps this is much more realistic. The HEV reduces CO2 a significant amount and provides the mechanism to REPLACE 70 ICEs versus a single Tesla or other large battery EV.
The BEST thing about all this, unless you are an angry recalcitrant type is that regardless of whether you CARE about CO2, the HEV will be better for YOU in a purely economic sense for YOUR personal pocketbook and that is true without SUBSIDY of any sort! If we let that sink in instead of arguing we might find some common ground that is unexpected! Buying less fuel is a good thing for you whether you believe it is bad for the environment or not. Its a start toward not being so reactionary.
Respond specifically to the Twitter thread I linked, or STFU. Say *anything* specific, rather than your bland, ignorant drivel, or STFU.
As for my wallet, I think I have a rather better handle on the financial implications of the Net Zero farce than you do. But, of course, you're too cock-sure to read my linked substack post either.
John, give it a rest, we get it, you hate EVs and climate change is a hoax, blah, blah, blah. How about doing something constructive rather than attacking everyone who comments? Reposting the same tired links to twitter feeds over and over doesn't make you smart, just irritating...
As usual, a very good analysis and cogent argument. Another "fun fact" is that less than 20% of the energy in motor gasoline makes it to the wheels, which explains why the engines are so hot. With electric vehicles, 90% of the energy makes it to the wheels.
Jan 27, 2023·edited Jan 27, 2023Liked by Hannah Ritchie
Great article Hannah. Current battery design and degradation suggests that EV’s will need to have their batteries replaced over the time span reviewed. As Buzen says above, it would be interesting to see that data included too.
On a broader note, while there is no dispute over CO2 emissions at point of use, why do we only look at CO2? There are many other harmful substances, such as brake dust - which is both carcinogenic and can be a major factor in causes of asthma. Both EV and ICE use brake systems that emit toxic particles at point of use. While zero/low CO2 massively helps towards cleaner air, until we start tackling the other elements Im not sure we are being totally honest with ourselves.
Once again, Hannah, a brilliant, well researched piece. I love the graphics that you generate and the sites you link to. Kudos. You are among our most important writers.
"The researchers found that, on average, gasoline cars emit more than 350 grams of CO2 per mile driven over their lifetimes. The hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, meanwhile, scored at around 260 grams per mile of carbon dioxide, while the fully battery-electric vehicle created just 200 grams."
However, considering that batteries are the LIMITING FACTOR, a Toyota Prius requiring only an 8.8 kW battery at worst yields a reduction of 350-260 g/mile=90 g/mile but you could make 8 Priuses with the battery cell requirements of a single Tesla Model 3!!!. Alas, the most modest of Teslas REQUIRES batteries from 50-82kW!!! So apples to apples, nearly eight equivalent Priuses might deliver a total savings in emission of nearly 2-3X of the merits of a single displaced ICE by a Tesla.
Right now the VERY BEST UTILIZATION of precious Lithium capacity is the propagation of broad use of hybrid vehicles and judicious use of plug-in hybrids for use by almost everyone with smallish range requirements. We would also save on the ludicrous transfer wealth to people buying luxruy BEVs with 100 kW batteries (at $7500 credit per vehicle!). Bad policy and poor use of a precious resource at least at this moment.
I think this is a good example of we can't let perfect stop us from doing that which is good.
A Prius has a carbon floor and eventually will need to be replaced with a zero carbon car. But 8 Prius with their immediate carbon reduction is great and people should be encouraged to buy them. 1 Model 3 with a zero carbon floor is also good and people should be encouraged to buy it.
I am not an expert in tax credits etc and policy, do you have links to more info on that?
Nothing handy. This is a mixture of my opinion and facts:
(1) It seems you can provide tax assistance to drive behavior. The four major ways you might do that (and we have) are (a) favor domestic production (b) focus on pollution reduction (c) focus on improved fuel economy to lessen foreign dependence (d) focus on driving adoption of electric vehicles. The final rules decided domestic FINAL assembly.
Your comment about a carbon floor is interesting. The point I was trying to make is a well designed PHEV might have an electric only range of 40 miles or so. For MANY PEOPLE, this could mean almost never burning a drop of fuel. Because of the carbon footprint of battery manufacture, the irony would be if you bought a PHEV and used it nearly exclusively for shortish driving, your overall carbon footprint would be less than a full EV!!!! In those cases, a person buying such a vehicle grants all of the environmental benefit of a full electric car, only requires a smallish Li battery and arguably can be the equivalent of eight full electric cars and be accessible to a broader subset of the population based upon pricing. On the rare occasion it needs to trave 200-300 miles it just works as normal.
An interesting tradeoff of newly electrified vehicles especially SUVs and Trucks is their ENORMOUS weight. It turns out these vehicles deflect the road and do lots of damage to driving surfaces and contribute nothing to the needed road maintenance fund. An interesting way to rightsize this might be to make the weight of the vehicle one of the primary drivers of what registration should cost.
The tax credits for electric vehicles have historically been provided to manufacturers but we allowed each company to sell some maximum. The latest rules figured out a way to include Tesla and exclude Toyota. That is probably just good politics and lobbying I suppose. My sense of ALL OF THIS is it depends what you want to encourage.
The current credit for EVs and PHEVs is "Only EVs and PHEVs with a final assembly point in North America will qualify for the consumer tax incentive. In addition, there are caps on how much vehicles can cost. For SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans, the threshold is $80,000. For sedans, hatchbacks, wagons, and other vehicles, the credit cuts off at $55,000.
This is PROBABLY why Tesla cut prices to just under the threshold. Tesla has been a notorious BAD ACTOR chasing subsidies. Arguably, at the time they moved their HQ to Texas, it was chasing subsidies. The reality was that to that time, north of 65% of all HISTORIC TESLA sales were in California, the place that made all of their development and emergence possible. This is not opinion but fact. At one point, since they manage their cars with OVER THE AIR software changes, they were peddling cars with BIG batteries and software disabling the battery to a VERY SMALL SIZE and pricing to get a federal tax subsidy. Then they allowed the customer to "unlock" additional battery. Not different than someone selling a refrigerator with the freezer disabled and then turning it on later.
Thanks for asking BTW. I think I may just write about this at some point! Will take a look at Making Products also.
The answer to many questions is "it depends". For argument sake lets compare a great electric car and a great PHEV. A Toyota RAV 4 Plug-In and a Tesla Model Y. The Toyota has an 18.8 kW battery. Tesla has a 75 kW battery. So if Lithium is the limiting factor (it is right now), you could put 4 Toyota RAV 4 PHEVs in service per single Tesla Model Y. Each of them have an ALMOST IDENTICAL carbon footprint over a driving experience of 100,000 miles. This means you could provide the BENEFIT of 4X carbon production if you ENCOURAGED the purchase of the Toyotas. For average consumers the price difference is around $20,000 dollars! So only after about 7 years of driving is there a switch to beneficial for the Tesla. Interesting and unexpected for many I suppose.
I would like to see consideration of the emissions and waste generated by toxic solar panels and windmills. The cleanest, safest and most efficient source of zero carbon energy is 4th and 5th generation fission nuclear power such as molten salt reactors.
The Department of Energy (DOE) through NREL has consistently collected and distributed inforrmation of this sort. Making solar panels undoubtedly creates a waste stream. Its scale relative to other approaches is mostly dwarfed because the BTUs are free as long as our sun doesn't burn out. I would imagine that all advanced civilizations capture free energy from their suns. Seems straightforward and sensible and the only limit for us was the human intellect was lacking for most of our history. I never looked at windmills as far as pollution. One unintended consequence was to largely tap out balsa wood trees with overwhelming demand for the blades though.
Interesting article. I wonder about the energy mix numbers though. Here in the UK the National Grid is struggling to cope with the massive increase in renewables. Hundreds of thousands of households have given up waiting for the government and are installing PV arrays (ours is 4KWp).
Due to some arcane gents club agreements, however, we don't have the long distance cables to bring power from the Scottish offshore wind turbines down south where its needed, so we the tax payers are paying the wind farms NOT to produce power...
The price of our Electricity is financially linked to that of Gas, (part of the Gent's Club agreement), and is hammered with a "Green levy" to "accelerate the building of renewables".
Yes renewable power is hit with a tax to fund renewable power...
Even so, we regularly hear that renewables account for more than 50% of our production.
Thanks for the analysis, this is great. The next thing it causes me to wonder is how much we can decarbonize the battery manufacturing and where the lowest hanging fruit is there.
Always thought EVs are better on a long term basis but a 2-3 years (in case of UK) payback on production emissions is awesome.
This is a very good analysis, however I think a few more issues should be also considered. The lifetime assumption of 10 years is good for new cars, but for older cars, depending on the age when bought the lithium ion batteries may be need to be replaced within that time, incurring the batteries manufacture hit once again. The other issue is that cost is not considered and the analysis assumes a single car. Right now a small percentage of cars is electric, but if even half of all new cars were electric then until the battery/electric motor mineral supply chain ramps up the cost of electric vehicles will go up significantly. If the goal is to reduce emissions from the current level, using batteries in hybrid vehicles ( which use a much smaller number of batteries than a full BEV) would reduce emission even more since many more of them could be produced for the same amount of money. For example replacing 50% of all existing cars with hybrids that get double the mileage of current cars would reduce the emissions by 25% the same as replacing only 25% of existing cars with fully electric ones. The problems of upgrading grids and adding charging stations is also a hidden cost, since, like it or not, the petroleum infrastructure is already fully built out.
It is more likely that the costs of EVs go down like so much other tech does with each doubling of production. Supply bottlenecks will lead to more innovation and substitution and there is a long way to go down the learning curve for EV tech.
The idea that ramping up production is going to increase cost certainly doesn't track with the history of PV for example:
"When accounting for inflation of the U.S. dollar, the $45/kg cost in 2004 is equal to about $71/kg in 2022. If we consider that it took 16 grams to make a single watt in 2004, then the inflation-adjusted cost per watt of polysilicon in 2004 was approximately $1.14/watt. In 2022, at 2.2 grams per watt at $17/kg – the price is $0.04/watt. So, the real cost per watt of silicon has come down by 96.7%."
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/01/10/silicon-cost-per-watt-down-96-over-last-two-decades/
In Tesla's 2021 Impact Report they they claim a model S/X battery capacity retention of roughly 90% after 200,000 miles:
Page 67:
https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2021-tesla-impact-report.pdf
This suggests that there will still be a lot of life in the battery after 10 years. Affordable used EVs will have less range but the batteries will not need to be replaced. In 10+ years as current EVs become old vehicles, there will much more charging infrastructure in place to handle EVs with older batteries and lower range. As battery tech continues to progress, batteries will be outliving the vehicles they are installed in by a safe margin.
According to the most recent analysis from BNEF, battery cell costs fell 16% since January 2023 thanks to falling lithium prices.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-04-07/lg-energy-solution-profit-exceeds-estimates-on-us-tax-credit#xj4y7vzkg?leadSource=uverify%20wall
"This is a very good analysis"
No, it isn't. It's dishonest neo-Marxist activism. "Do the work", as the idiots themselves like to say:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DiscePuer/status/1619289281264230400
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
It's neo-Marxism. That you don't know this changes nothing.
You have no curiosity, no capability for critical thinking, you just parrot complete drivel. "High utiliziation of HEV and PHEV is just good economics". Clueless.
This was a FANTASTIC ANALYSIS. There are outliers however. What the last 15+ years of production have taught is that Toyota Hybrids as a fleet have MUCH LONGER useful lives than nearly all other vehicles except perhaps SMALL HEAVY POLUTING DIESELS. Furthermore, the technology of the electric motors has even allowed the use of NIckel Metal Hydride batteries ratherr than the less exotic expensive and nearly impossible to recycle sealed Li-ion battery units ala Tesla. Finally, a very strange factor as to useful life has emerged amongst the electric vehicle leader Tesla. Tesla has been cutting edge in adoption of certain manufacturing technology, more closely associated with aircraft manufacture in many cases including heavy use of adhesives and very large tonnage presses making single parts that if damaged total the complete vehicle! All of these things are great for the manufacture and profit of the vehicle but distorts claims regarding useful life. The recent emergence of data that shows INSURERS TOTALING TESLA Y models at mileage as low as 10K raises a great concern about the true USEFUL LIFE of these vehicles. By comparison everyone knows someone who drove a Toyota for sometimes 20+ years and they just keep rolling. All of this could be part of an edge analysis since a Toyota hybrid provide 10 wonderful replacements for current basic ICE for the equivalent battery cell requirements of a single Tesla. The future is certainly BEV but WELL EXECUTED HYBRIDS likely contribute more to the reduction in greenhouse gases because of the EXTREME SIZE OF BATTERIES still included in full BEV.
A fair comparison context -- A Toyota Prius has an 8.8kW battery while the most modest Tesla Model 3 requires 50-82kW so the fairest comparison is what is the impact of 5-9 Priuses replacing ICE versus only one ICE being removed from service by a single Tesla. Food for thought. A case can be made the impact of 8 less ICEs by vehicles that operate in the same basic region of efficiency as the very best BEV might be an even better solution!
Your writing is FABULOUS and so happy to have become a new subscriber!
As "luck" would have it (I don't believe in luck), we all get reinforced in our Newsfeeds whether we believe we are free thinkers or not. This morning I read an article from InsideE Vs which is a bit of a fanboy site for Tesla. Nevertheless that doesn't mean I don't learn things reading critically. They provided a perspective about BEST UTILIZATION of Lithium that is tied up in Toyota's plan for their vehicle fleet. It is quite similar to what I happened to describe above! That felt good. I happen to have concluded that reducing OVERALL emissions should be the priority and that focusing on BEV at this time is perhaps counter-productive. That makes the exchange, if you are prioritizing OVERALL reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from cars, you might be able to make 70 HEVs for a single BEV. A well engineered HEV might only have a 1.1 kW battery while a well engineered BEV (Tesla) might have a 75 kW battery. The difference achieved by the two approaches is overwhelmingly better via the HEV at this point. Until we magically can find, mine & refine a nearly impossible amount of Lithium, perhaps this is much more realistic. The HEV reduces CO2 a significant amount and provides the mechanism to REPLACE 70 ICEs versus a single Tesla or other large battery EV.
The BEST thing about all this, unless you are an angry recalcitrant type is that regardless of whether you CARE about CO2, the HEV will be better for YOU in a purely economic sense for YOUR personal pocketbook and that is true without SUBSIDY of any sort! If we let that sink in instead of arguing we might find some common ground that is unexpected! Buying less fuel is a good thing for you whether you believe it is bad for the environment or not. Its a start toward not being so reactionary.
https://insideevs.com/news/650150/toyota-says-ev-extremists-are-wrong/
I will never find common ground with someone who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
"This was a FANTASTIC ANALYSIS"
No, it really wasn't. It's dishonest neo-Marxist activism. "Do the work", as the idiots themselves like to say:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DiscePuer/status/1619289281264230400
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
Moron. Do I know how an ICE works? Lol.
Respond specifically to the Twitter thread I linked, or STFU. Say *anything* specific, rather than your bland, ignorant drivel, or STFU.
As for my wallet, I think I have a rather better handle on the financial implications of the Net Zero farce than you do. But, of course, you're too cock-sure to read my linked substack post either.
John, give it a rest, we get it, you hate EVs and climate change is a hoax, blah, blah, blah. How about doing something constructive rather than attacking everyone who comments? Reposting the same tired links to twitter feeds over and over doesn't make you smart, just irritating...
I hate liars, not EV's. And clueless morons are hardly any better.
"Tired links"? Try addressing the *content* of the link, rather than repeating your idiotic cult delusions.
Sealioning.
"I am not a Twitter user and don't wish to let facts get in the way of my prejudices".
As usual, a very good analysis and cogent argument. Another "fun fact" is that less than 20% of the energy in motor gasoline makes it to the wheels, which explains why the engines are so hot. With electric vehicles, 90% of the energy makes it to the wheels.
Great article Hannah. Current battery design and degradation suggests that EV’s will need to have their batteries replaced over the time span reviewed. As Buzen says above, it would be interesting to see that data included too.
On a broader note, while there is no dispute over CO2 emissions at point of use, why do we only look at CO2? There are many other harmful substances, such as brake dust - which is both carcinogenic and can be a major factor in causes of asthma. Both EV and ICE use brake systems that emit toxic particles at point of use. While zero/low CO2 massively helps towards cleaner air, until we start tackling the other elements Im not sure we are being totally honest with ourselves.
"Great article Hannah"
Errm, no. It's dishonest neo-Marxist activism. "Do the work", as the idiots themselves like to say:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DiscePuer/status/1619289281264230400
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
Once again, Hannah, a brilliant, well researched piece. I love the graphics that you generate and the sites you link to. Kudos. You are among our most important writers.
"a brilliant, well researched piece"
Errm, no. It's dishonest neo-Marxist activism. "Do the work", as the idiots themselves like to say:
https://mobile.twitter.com/DiscePuer/status/1619289281264230400
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
Good piece - it’s just a little sad that the message still needs repeating. Keep up the excellent work
Just a little sad that it's so utterly dubious.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DiscePuer/status/1619289281264230400
Great topic, great newsletter. I will recommend this to my creation care and climate crisis networks.
Maybe engage brain first?
https://mobile.twitter.com/DiscePuer/status/1619289281264230400
https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/the-dummies-guide-to-uk-net-zero
Hi Bill! Wonder if we're distantly related.
https://www.mattball.org/
How do hybrid vehicles compare?
"The researchers found that, on average, gasoline cars emit more than 350 grams of CO2 per mile driven over their lifetimes. The hybrid and plug-in hybrid versions, meanwhile, scored at around 260 grams per mile of carbon dioxide, while the fully battery-electric vehicle created just 200 grams."
So hybrid is better than gas, but as grid goes green EVs will pull away. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
However, considering that batteries are the LIMITING FACTOR, a Toyota Prius requiring only an 8.8 kW battery at worst yields a reduction of 350-260 g/mile=90 g/mile but you could make 8 Priuses with the battery cell requirements of a single Tesla Model 3!!!. Alas, the most modest of Teslas REQUIRES batteries from 50-82kW!!! So apples to apples, nearly eight equivalent Priuses might deliver a total savings in emission of nearly 2-3X of the merits of a single displaced ICE by a Tesla.
Right now the VERY BEST UTILIZATION of precious Lithium capacity is the propagation of broad use of hybrid vehicles and judicious use of plug-in hybrids for use by almost everyone with smallish range requirements. We would also save on the ludicrous transfer wealth to people buying luxruy BEVs with 100 kW batteries (at $7500 credit per vehicle!). Bad policy and poor use of a precious resource at least at this moment.
I think this is a good example of we can't let perfect stop us from doing that which is good.
A Prius has a carbon floor and eventually will need to be replaced with a zero carbon car. But 8 Prius with their immediate carbon reduction is great and people should be encouraged to buy them. 1 Model 3 with a zero carbon floor is also good and people should be encouraged to buy it.
I am not an expert in tax credits etc and policy, do you have links to more info on that?
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-models-for-new-qualified-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
Nothing handy. This is a mixture of my opinion and facts:
(1) It seems you can provide tax assistance to drive behavior. The four major ways you might do that (and we have) are (a) favor domestic production (b) focus on pollution reduction (c) focus on improved fuel economy to lessen foreign dependence (d) focus on driving adoption of electric vehicles. The final rules decided domestic FINAL assembly.
Your comment about a carbon floor is interesting. The point I was trying to make is a well designed PHEV might have an electric only range of 40 miles or so. For MANY PEOPLE, this could mean almost never burning a drop of fuel. Because of the carbon footprint of battery manufacture, the irony would be if you bought a PHEV and used it nearly exclusively for shortish driving, your overall carbon footprint would be less than a full EV!!!! In those cases, a person buying such a vehicle grants all of the environmental benefit of a full electric car, only requires a smallish Li battery and arguably can be the equivalent of eight full electric cars and be accessible to a broader subset of the population based upon pricing. On the rare occasion it needs to trave 200-300 miles it just works as normal.
An interesting tradeoff of newly electrified vehicles especially SUVs and Trucks is their ENORMOUS weight. It turns out these vehicles deflect the road and do lots of damage to driving surfaces and contribute nothing to the needed road maintenance fund. An interesting way to rightsize this might be to make the weight of the vehicle one of the primary drivers of what registration should cost.
The tax credits for electric vehicles have historically been provided to manufacturers but we allowed each company to sell some maximum. The latest rules figured out a way to include Tesla and exclude Toyota. That is probably just good politics and lobbying I suppose. My sense of ALL OF THIS is it depends what you want to encourage.
The current credit for EVs and PHEVs is "Only EVs and PHEVs with a final assembly point in North America will qualify for the consumer tax incentive. In addition, there are caps on how much vehicles can cost. For SUVs, pickup trucks, and vans, the threshold is $80,000. For sedans, hatchbacks, wagons, and other vehicles, the credit cuts off at $55,000.
This is PROBABLY why Tesla cut prices to just under the threshold. Tesla has been a notorious BAD ACTOR chasing subsidies. Arguably, at the time they moved their HQ to Texas, it was chasing subsidies. The reality was that to that time, north of 65% of all HISTORIC TESLA sales were in California, the place that made all of their development and emergence possible. This is not opinion but fact. At one point, since they manage their cars with OVER THE AIR software changes, they were peddling cars with BIG batteries and software disabling the battery to a VERY SMALL SIZE and pricing to get a federal tax subsidy. Then they allowed the customer to "unlock" additional battery. Not different than someone selling a refrigerator with the freezer disabled and then turning it on later.
Thanks for asking BTW. I think I may just write about this at some point! Will take a look at Making Products also.
The answer to many questions is "it depends". For argument sake lets compare a great electric car and a great PHEV. A Toyota RAV 4 Plug-In and a Tesla Model Y. The Toyota has an 18.8 kW battery. Tesla has a 75 kW battery. So if Lithium is the limiting factor (it is right now), you could put 4 Toyota RAV 4 PHEVs in service per single Tesla Model Y. Each of them have an ALMOST IDENTICAL carbon footprint over a driving experience of 100,000 miles. This means you could provide the BENEFIT of 4X carbon production if you ENCOURAGED the purchase of the Toyotas. For average consumers the price difference is around $20,000 dollars! So only after about 7 years of driving is there a switch to beneficial for the Tesla. Interesting and unexpected for many I suppose.
I would like to see consideration of the emissions and waste generated by toxic solar panels and windmills. The cleanest, safest and most efficient source of zero carbon energy is 4th and 5th generation fission nuclear power such as molten salt reactors.
Solar panels and wind turbines have the advantage that they actually exist today
The Department of Energy (DOE) through NREL has consistently collected and distributed inforrmation of this sort. Making solar panels undoubtedly creates a waste stream. Its scale relative to other approaches is mostly dwarfed because the BTUs are free as long as our sun doesn't burn out. I would imagine that all advanced civilizations capture free energy from their suns. Seems straightforward and sensible and the only limit for us was the human intellect was lacking for most of our history. I never looked at windmills as far as pollution. One unintended consequence was to largely tap out balsa wood trees with overwhelming demand for the blades though.
very interesting article but unfortunately the finance side of things does not addup if you are going from a second hand debt free ICE to a new EV.
The savings in fuel dont wipe out the debt repayments to actually buy the car.
I argue for those who read but don't post, John. The undecided. The interested.
Another good reason to eschew ad hominem. One doesn't want rudeness to put off the undecided.
Few (not all) points to consider re. EV and their admiration:
a. How "clean" is the electricity used for charging?
b. How many buyers are interested in used EV with 40000km?
c. How costly (CO2) is the disposal of the EV-waste with 40000+km?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/07/energy-dashboard-how-electricity-generated-great-britain
https://energyguide.org.uk/electricity-generation-uk-sources/
Interesting article. I wonder about the energy mix numbers though. Here in the UK the National Grid is struggling to cope with the massive increase in renewables. Hundreds of thousands of households have given up waiting for the government and are installing PV arrays (ours is 4KWp).
Due to some arcane gents club agreements, however, we don't have the long distance cables to bring power from the Scottish offshore wind turbines down south where its needed, so we the tax payers are paying the wind farms NOT to produce power...
The price of our Electricity is financially linked to that of Gas, (part of the Gent's Club agreement), and is hammered with a "Green levy" to "accelerate the building of renewables".
Yes renewable power is hit with a tax to fund renewable power...
Even so, we regularly hear that renewables account for more than 50% of our production.
Thanks for the analysis, this is great. The next thing it causes me to wonder is how much we can decarbonize the battery manufacturing and where the lowest hanging fruit is there.