Great piece Hannah. I’ve found the IEA’s forecasting (and particularly their inability to learn from their mistakes) particularly amusing over the years. We humans really struggle with non-linearity don’t we?
All we need is more reliable and affordable electricity production and we will be on our way. The main barrier to that is that we have no cheap scalable way of dealing with intermittency that does not involve fossil fuels. This is where nuclear is essential, as only with nuclear do we know we can have zero emission reliable and cheap electricity, which is obviously essential for electrifying transport and heating.
Without nuclear we will have to pray for revolutions in storage and/or carbon capture.
EVs are exactly a revolution in storage. When we have built a 100% EV fleet, we will already have battery production capacity to get to 99+% renewables. Nuclear is not even in the running at this point.
Anton, great point, but do you think "revolution" in energy storage is really necessary? We've already got pumped hydro and ideas for how to do that with seawater, and about two years ago serious money started flowing into getting more battery chemistries out of the labs and into mass manufacturing. What are your views on sodium ion and iron flow batteries?
Pumped hydro is effective but it is only available at the required scale in countries with appropriate geography plus plenty of water. As it requires two large bodies of water that continuously change levels, it has a large negative impact on the local environment, worse than ordinary dams, and their utility for recreation is limited. Hydro is also susceptible to drought and extreme weather. The worlds largest ever energy related disasters, in terms of people kills and property destroyed, have involved collapse of large hydro dams - for example the Banqiao Dam in China in 1975. 150,000-200,000 were killed and 10 million made homeless. That is vastly more that Chornobyl, which killed only 50-200 people.
Batteries are orders of magnitude too expensive and also incredibly energy and material intense to make. They will improve but the huge material requirements for grid backup make their environmental impact very high. Frankly they can only ever be niche products.
Thanks for sharing your views. About 150 countries have direct access to seawater, which would allow them to consider seawater pumped storage like the Okinawa Yanbaru facility. That plant's operating history I believe showed the technical feasibility of using the ocean as a source of water, although the plant wasn't economically profitable due to a lack of electricity demand in the local area. Good point that large hydropower has a poor record of safety.
I can see how your views of pumped hydro and battery storage would lead you to believe that nuclear power is necessary. But seems more likely to me that you're being overly pessimistic about the potential of those two storage technologies. In that case, solar power can scale up much faster than nuclear power and it will be cost-effective to retire all of the fission reactors we have built.
The expectation that solar PV plus pumped storage using sea water may become cheaper than nuclear power is encouraging, but until it happens we should not be prioritising installing solar PV over building nuclear power, especially in high altitude countries (see below). At the moment solar PV, when including the other, often hidden, costs associated with dealing with intermittancy, is more expensive that nuclear fission. That is evident in the fact that electricity costs have always increased in countries where solar PV and wind has been installed and nuclear reactors retired.
Nuclear fission has a MUCH lower material requirement and environmental footprint and produces less C02 per unit energy produced that any other form of clean energy.
Solar PV has a important role, but in my view, current solar PV should be confined to low latitude countries. Given the enormous energy requirements for manufacturing polysilicone, and the ~11% capacity factor in countries like Germany, solar PV north of the Alps is likely to be an energy sink.
As an aside, nuclear fission is unnecessarily expensive because of the onerous regulatory regime, which values a life lost to radioactivity from nuclear power 100-1,000 time more than a life lost to air pollution. Given that nuclear fission is clearly the safest form of reliable energy generation, and we urgently need to phase out fossil fuels, this regulatory regime needs to be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. It remains the biggest barrier to abundant clean energy and is self imposed and entirely irrational.
Perhaps we're not on the same page about the relative costs of nuclear power and solar power. My background includes working for Pacific Gas & Electric in the 1990s, which operated (and continues to operate) a fleet of nuclear power stations. I now own a mechanical contracting company which installs community solar projects in Maine. The ongoing operating cost for a solar power array are very close to zero. The ongoing operating cost for a nuclear power plant is much greater per kWh. The cost to build a new solar power plant is much lower than the cost to build a new nuclear fission power plant. For example, see Georgia Power's experience with their Vogtle power plant. According an AP new article from February 2023, "The total cost of the project to build a third and fourth reactor at Vogtle will cost all its owners more than $30 billion."
PG&E used pumped hydro storage to allow us to operate our nuclear power plants at full capacity 24/7. Perhaps new designs could be pushed through the regulatory process that allow better output moderation of nuclear fission reactors, but all of the nuclear power plants I'm familiar with try to operate as close to 100% output as possible all the time, and use pumped storage or other means to compensate for any discrepancies with load profiles in their operating territories.
The only way I could see nuclear power becoming cheaper than solar plus storage is if Helion works.
Thank you again for sharing your perspective and knowledge of this topic.
It is wholly misleading to compare the cost of a first build nuclear power plant under absurdly onerous regulations with the cost of building a solar PV plant. The cost of solar PV plant does not include the costs of dealing with intermittancy, the cost of expanding the grid, and the cost of dealing the the vastly greater amount of toxic waste.
As medical doctor trained I disease mechanisms I am in a good position to understand the real risks of radioactivity. As noted in a previous post, current regulations value a love lost to radioactivity from nuclear power to be at least 100 times more valuable than a life lost to air pollution or other common environmental risks.
This irrational regulatory regime has done terrible harm.
Historical experience has shown that by the fastest way to reduce green house gas emissions associated with electricity generation was building nuclear energy.
The reason nuclear subsequently became so slow and expensive it entirely the result of costly regulatory mistakes driven by excessive fear of radioactivity. These mistakes ultimately ended the expansion of nuclear power. Coal fired power was built instead, despite being objectively 1000 times more lethal.
This irrational regulatory regime has:
(1) Accelerated climate change by increasing our use of fossil fuels
(2) Killed millions of people every years from avoidable air pollution
(3) Made us reliant on forms of clean energy which are more expensive and more damaging to the environment.
Reducing the regulations governing nuclear power would costs almost nothing. It is irrational and morally indefensible to have regulations that value lives so differently.
Having owned two plug in hybrid Mercedes over the last six years I am not at all surprised. I was happy to invest ahead of the curve to help the
Planet and drive innovation. Early adopters are different to the late majority, beware the long tail. Plenty of books on both these subjects tell us what is happening.
While initially expensive to buy the price and competitive offers have all expanded the market and created the economies of scale that a proper functioning market always does.
That acts to lower price and improve performance.
I’ve found over six years the cost of
Ownership and knowing the reduced engine emissions helps my carbon footprint and all other drivers and pedestrians.
Charging at home over night for me is easy and cheap. What needs to happen now is to ensure that everyone can afford one, that charging is easy for everyone in their location and lifestyle and that the grid provides massively more electricity cleanly and cheaply to replace all the petrol and diesel miles.
Like all technology be that washing machines, tv, phones, pc, mobiles, the benefits to the individual and communities pulls through the supply and demand. That needs to be delivered by engineers and industry with some controlled support of govt.
Let’s keep going with cleaner more
Sustainable options and keep a check on the reality through science moderating politics.
Progress is sweet especially when it is inclusive. We need to see these trends at home help the poorest people and countries and not loose sight of that as Market failures apply around the word.
With many things predictions are made by drawing lines through points. For EVs they need to factor in the new mines that need to be opened. New mines can't be opened quickly and EVs need plenty of new mines. With PV, the mineral constraints aren't as tight.
But the even bigger issue is that BMW (for one) estimate that their EV lifecycle emissions are about 40% lower than the ICE version. That means we can't decarbonise transport just be switching to EVs. We need more public transport and fewer cars. Public transport is slow to both plan and build. Can EVs reduce their lifecycle emissions to the kind of level we need ? (ie., 5% of current ... offset the rest?). That doesn't look remotely possible.
If you decarbonise steel production (hard but the tech exists), battery production (easy), and your grid (currently happening), then it's possible. BMW (along with most car manufacturers outside of China & Tesla) have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo.
Geoff, can you elaborate on the assumptions behind the idea that new mines will be required to increase the share of EVs in new vehicle sales? If you have any sources on the mix of battery chemistries I would really appreciate it. The recent announcements from CATL and other manufacturers regarding sodium ion batteries caught me off guard. I didn't realize that chemistry was ready for mass manufacturing already, and I wonder what other chemistries besides LFP and sodium ion are about to be introduced. I know all virtually all battery manufacturers are looking to eliminate cobalt and reduce nickel content, and the silicon anode technology appears on the verge of being manufacturable, which will improve material efficiency by increasing gravimetric energy density. Thanks for any insight into mineral requirements you have!
Incorrect, on two counts. A) PV hasn't taken off, not in any meaningful sense, and event today provides very little overall amount of power (compared to aggregate demand) and B) EVs are not functionally equivalent to ICE cars, for the one car middle class. The middle class is not buying EVs en masse, because to do so would represent a decline in their standard of living.
Not to mention that the stats this advocate uses are IEA data, for the world. Some places, in temperate climates, with short distances for travel (like Europe) are easier sells. Not so for Canada and the USA, very different animal. And these kinds of EV ra ra stories have been going on for at least a full decade at this point. Its rich people with several cars that buying EVs, in North America.
Hi Steven, I think you raise a valid point, that one-car families probably are going to be the laggards in EV adoption. However, given the fact that there are 290 million registered vehicles for a population of 332 million in the United States, there are a lot of two-car (or more) families. In my social circle, almost every family has more than one car and is considering a PHEV or EV for their next vehicle purchase. Do you think adoption rates will increase once EVs become more affordable and capable (i.e., have a longer range)? Or do you think there will be peer pressure among some groups not to buy EVs as long as ICE vehicles are available?
@Fred Horch The basic problem with these kinds of projections and assertions by technology promoters is that they usually don't look at the lowest common denominator or basic user needs and behavior. Not just for EVs, but all energy systems. I am an experienced energy engineer and analyst, been dong this >40 years, so I know the field. With regards to EVs, for two car citizens, having an EV can make a lot of sense, especially in temperate climates, and in urban areas, for local travel and errands. Absolutely. For one car citizens, you have to consider their practical needs. A harried single mother who needs to move her kids around in all weather, say, in Canada, simply cant live with an EV. If you get stuck in a traffic jam in a -30 C winter storm taking your kid somewhere, and you run out of juice, you simply cannot afford to get stranded, lives are at stake.
@steven lightfoot, we share a similar background. I own a mechanical contracting firm and spent a summer working for Pacific Gas & Electric (as a summer clerk in their corporate legal department) where I got a great overview of what happens if energy engineers don't do their jobs well. ;-) We are at the point where the serious questions you raise about depending on a BEV for your personal mobility are being considered and answered. My family has been driving BEVs in Maine since 2012 so I can answer the cold climate performance questions from personal experience. Did you know that AAA will give you a quick boost if you run out of charge in your BEV? Check out their "Mobile Charging Wherever You Need It" service https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/used-ev-buyers-guide
OK thanks for your comments. I don't doubt that the EV market is growing, however this article which I have criticized is typical of the kind of ra ra lack-of-critical-thinking stuff that is typical of the VRE promotional crowd. Magical thinking and poor analysis doesn't solve problems. Empiricism and reality does. Thanks for your comments.
The fundamental question with technology replacement is whether or not a new something is functionally equivalent or better. If its demonstrably better in practice, it will be adopted. If it looks the same or better, but users find that it is isn't in day to day life, it wont be adopted. That is the only measure you need to keep in mind. Unless EVs have same range and the same convenience factor as ICEs, then they aren't yet functionally equivalent overall (even if they already do have some other benefits).
A plea for data, Ms. H: perspectives on how to get the most renewable E on line ASAP. Options of what kinds of in-the-meantime duct-tape-and-string imperfect things can be done to maximize increased use of intermittent wind/solar/etc. Thanks.
Agreed. With clean electricity, BEVs are great. With dirty electricity, they are almost as bad as ICE. Tesla's model of selling cars, solar PV, and batteries seems reasonable. What do you think?
I honestly do not know. Sometimes it seems so counter productive to be arguing about nuclear/battery/gas-peaker/more-power-lines .. trying to always & only do the One Right Thing. Meanwhile Rome burns..
I gather the two main counterarguments are that electric motors turn more of the energy into motion and that even dirty large scale power plants are more efficient/environmentally friendly than the small portable ones in automobiles.
Supposedly, electric motors are twice as efficient, joule for joule, of converting their input energy into motion than ICE engines. I know internal combustion engines are much more efficient than they used to be, especially with modern transmissions, but you can heat the interior of a car with the waste heat from an ICE but not from an electric motor.
Meanwhile, power generation is getting cleaner and more efficient. Maybe solar and wind power are intermittent, but that just changes the scheduling for gas and other fossil fuel plants. Even with no storage, unless people stop using energy when the sun shines and the window blows, that energy offsets the need to burn fossil fuels.
I think that argument miss an important point: the fact that the cost of an addition can increase with the penetration of the resource, even if the cost of production decreases.
For the "political side" i think subsidies are more important thing than general "policy", especially for the time factor.
Dave's Hot Chicken is a fast-food restaurant that serves spicy Nashville-style chicken. You can choose from chicken tenders or sliders, with spice levels ranging from "No Spice" to the extremely hot "Reaper." Meals often come with sides like fries, mac and cheese, or coleslaw. For those who prefer vegetarian options, they offer cauliflower-based dishes. https://daves-hotchicken-menu.com/
Dave's Hot Chicken is a fast-food restaurant known for its spicy Nashville-style chicken. They serve crispy chicken tenders and sliders that you can choose to be mild or very spicy even up to their hottest level called "Reaper." Meals often come with fries and their special sauce. If you don't eat meat, they also offer cauliflower versions of their tenders and sliders. You can add sides like mac and cheese, coleslaw, or loaded fries. For drinks, they have milkshakes and slushies to help cool down the heat. Prices are affordable, and they have combo meals for individuals or larger boxes to share with friends. https://daves-hotchicken-menu.com/
That is a common talking point without much in the way of facts. The Oil industry is heavily taxed and regulated. Some tax incentives exist but not taking money from someone is a long way from taking money from someone else to pay to make another product cheaper.
Yes this is all true. But it WON’T reduce emissions because same amount (roughly) of oil will need to be extracted for non-gasoline products. EVs well and good but won’t improve environment or global social issues.
How would the same amount of oil be necessary for non-gasoline products? Over the course of its useful life, a fuel-burning vehicle consumes several tons of petroleum that ends up dispersed in our atmosphere and ocean primarily as H2O and CO2 molecules. BEVs consumer far less oil, and all the plastics, metals and minerals in them can be recycled at their end of their useful lives. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
Fred- Gasoline only comprises about 40-45% of a barrel of oil -from the other 55-60% come about 6,000 other products used in global economy - mostly heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt (to make roads) but also eg medicines, plastics, etc. IF - for whatever reason including 'doing the right thing for climate' we swap out ALL of our internal combustion engines for EVs, yes that would significantly reduce demand for GASOLINE, but it wouldn't reduce the demand for OIL at all - or very slightly - (I'll explain below**). IOW, we need each barrel of oil in current system for all the things, gasoline being one of them. If we suddenly no longer need gasoline we will still extract and refine the same amount of barrels of oil - thus either needing to flare/dispose of gasoline OR also reduce demand for all the other non-gasoline oil products. **It is possible to change the refinery processes to switch some (a low %) of the middle distillates to make other products thus reducing demand for oil a bit, but its at the margin and very costly. This is a point I've made for years -our cultural discussions on these things are 'systems blind' - they only look at top level cause and effect 'gasoline cars bad for climate' without looking at how the solutions (EVs) would actually reduce emissions SYSTEM WIDE. You might see my podcasts w Art Berman on this topic for more info.
Is the argument that we'll be using a lot more bunker and other products to compensate for the fuel savings of electric vehicles?
Electric vehicles aren't about eliminating the need for fossil fuels. They use less energy overall for the same travel, so there is some savings right there. Large scale power plants are more efficient than small portable ones, so that's more savings. We also get flexibility for further improvements. There are lots of ways of making electricity, so cars could run on fossil fuels or solar or geothermal or nuclear power with no alteration or replacement. Like money, electricity is implicitly fungible.
The efficiency gain alone would cut the need for fossil fuels unless we come up with a new excuse to burn more of them. The ability to take advantage of a broad range of energy sources would allow for flexibility and further improvements.
EVs are heavily subsidized. If that were not the case the sales would plummet. Not to mention EV's increase our dependence on china and do nothing for the environment.
Gasoline powered vehicles are also heavily subsidized. It's not like the oil industry doesn't get its subsidies and tax breaks. Texas is one big welfare state for fossil fuel energy producers.
I can see solar powered transportation becoming ubiquitous in India and tropical areas within a decade. In India the possibilities of cheap solar panels when combined with human ingenuity are endless.
Also behind the curve on this - the British government (and no doubt many governments across the world, regardless of left-right placement or commitment to democracy). I'd dearly love for them to be ahead of this curve and installing tons of charging stations right now - but they clearly aren't.
Great piece Hannah. I’ve found the IEA’s forecasting (and particularly their inability to learn from their mistakes) particularly amusing over the years. We humans really struggle with non-linearity don’t we?
All we need is more reliable and affordable electricity production and we will be on our way. The main barrier to that is that we have no cheap scalable way of dealing with intermittency that does not involve fossil fuels. This is where nuclear is essential, as only with nuclear do we know we can have zero emission reliable and cheap electricity, which is obviously essential for electrifying transport and heating.
Without nuclear we will have to pray for revolutions in storage and/or carbon capture.
EVs are exactly a revolution in storage. When we have built a 100% EV fleet, we will already have battery production capacity to get to 99+% renewables. Nuclear is not even in the running at this point.
Anton, great point, but do you think "revolution" in energy storage is really necessary? We've already got pumped hydro and ideas for how to do that with seawater, and about two years ago serious money started flowing into getting more battery chemistries out of the labs and into mass manufacturing. What are your views on sodium ion and iron flow batteries?
Pumped hydro is effective but it is only available at the required scale in countries with appropriate geography plus plenty of water. As it requires two large bodies of water that continuously change levels, it has a large negative impact on the local environment, worse than ordinary dams, and their utility for recreation is limited. Hydro is also susceptible to drought and extreme weather. The worlds largest ever energy related disasters, in terms of people kills and property destroyed, have involved collapse of large hydro dams - for example the Banqiao Dam in China in 1975. 150,000-200,000 were killed and 10 million made homeless. That is vastly more that Chornobyl, which killed only 50-200 people.
Batteries are orders of magnitude too expensive and also incredibly energy and material intense to make. They will improve but the huge material requirements for grid backup make their environmental impact very high. Frankly they can only ever be niche products.
Thanks for sharing your views. About 150 countries have direct access to seawater, which would allow them to consider seawater pumped storage like the Okinawa Yanbaru facility. That plant's operating history I believe showed the technical feasibility of using the ocean as a source of water, although the plant wasn't economically profitable due to a lack of electricity demand in the local area. Good point that large hydropower has a poor record of safety.
I can see how your views of pumped hydro and battery storage would lead you to believe that nuclear power is necessary. But seems more likely to me that you're being overly pessimistic about the potential of those two storage technologies. In that case, solar power can scale up much faster than nuclear power and it will be cost-effective to retire all of the fission reactors we have built.
The expectation that solar PV plus pumped storage using sea water may become cheaper than nuclear power is encouraging, but until it happens we should not be prioritising installing solar PV over building nuclear power, especially in high altitude countries (see below). At the moment solar PV, when including the other, often hidden, costs associated with dealing with intermittancy, is more expensive that nuclear fission. That is evident in the fact that electricity costs have always increased in countries where solar PV and wind has been installed and nuclear reactors retired.
Nuclear fission has a MUCH lower material requirement and environmental footprint and produces less C02 per unit energy produced that any other form of clean energy.
Solar PV has a important role, but in my view, current solar PV should be confined to low latitude countries. Given the enormous energy requirements for manufacturing polysilicone, and the ~11% capacity factor in countries like Germany, solar PV north of the Alps is likely to be an energy sink.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379
As an aside, nuclear fission is unnecessarily expensive because of the onerous regulatory regime, which values a life lost to radioactivity from nuclear power 100-1,000 time more than a life lost to air pollution. Given that nuclear fission is clearly the safest form of reliable energy generation, and we urgently need to phase out fossil fuels, this regulatory regime needs to be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. It remains the biggest barrier to abundant clean energy and is self imposed and entirely irrational.
Perhaps we're not on the same page about the relative costs of nuclear power and solar power. My background includes working for Pacific Gas & Electric in the 1990s, which operated (and continues to operate) a fleet of nuclear power stations. I now own a mechanical contracting company which installs community solar projects in Maine. The ongoing operating cost for a solar power array are very close to zero. The ongoing operating cost for a nuclear power plant is much greater per kWh. The cost to build a new solar power plant is much lower than the cost to build a new nuclear fission power plant. For example, see Georgia Power's experience with their Vogtle power plant. According an AP new article from February 2023, "The total cost of the project to build a third and fourth reactor at Vogtle will cost all its owners more than $30 billion."
PG&E used pumped hydro storage to allow us to operate our nuclear power plants at full capacity 24/7. Perhaps new designs could be pushed through the regulatory process that allow better output moderation of nuclear fission reactors, but all of the nuclear power plants I'm familiar with try to operate as close to 100% output as possible all the time, and use pumped storage or other means to compensate for any discrepancies with load profiles in their operating territories.
The only way I could see nuclear power becoming cheaper than solar plus storage is if Helion works.
Thank you again for sharing your perspective and knowledge of this topic.
You are comparing apples with oranges.
It is wholly misleading to compare the cost of a first build nuclear power plant under absurdly onerous regulations with the cost of building a solar PV plant. The cost of solar PV plant does not include the costs of dealing with intermittancy, the cost of expanding the grid, and the cost of dealing the the vastly greater amount of toxic waste.
As medical doctor trained I disease mechanisms I am in a good position to understand the real risks of radioactivity. As noted in a previous post, current regulations value a love lost to radioactivity from nuclear power to be at least 100 times more valuable than a life lost to air pollution or other common environmental risks.
This irrational regulatory regime has done terrible harm.
Historical experience has shown that by the fastest way to reduce green house gas emissions associated with electricity generation was building nuclear energy.
The reason nuclear subsequently became so slow and expensive it entirely the result of costly regulatory mistakes driven by excessive fear of radioactivity. These mistakes ultimately ended the expansion of nuclear power. Coal fired power was built instead, despite being objectively 1000 times more lethal.
This irrational regulatory regime has:
(1) Accelerated climate change by increasing our use of fossil fuels
(2) Killed millions of people every years from avoidable air pollution
(3) Made us reliant on forms of clean energy which are more expensive and more damaging to the environment.
Reducing the regulations governing nuclear power would costs almost nothing. It is irrational and morally indefensible to have regulations that value lives so differently.
I believe the smartest option is to use cars in general as little as possible. It’s quite doable, just build more housing in urban areas.
+1 for nuclear. But we also need storage and carbon capture. But mostly adaptation and development.
Matt, carbon capture is a scam made up by the fossil fuel industry.
Having owned two plug in hybrid Mercedes over the last six years I am not at all surprised. I was happy to invest ahead of the curve to help the
Planet and drive innovation. Early adopters are different to the late majority, beware the long tail. Plenty of books on both these subjects tell us what is happening.
While initially expensive to buy the price and competitive offers have all expanded the market and created the economies of scale that a proper functioning market always does.
That acts to lower price and improve performance.
I’ve found over six years the cost of
Ownership and knowing the reduced engine emissions helps my carbon footprint and all other drivers and pedestrians.
Charging at home over night for me is easy and cheap. What needs to happen now is to ensure that everyone can afford one, that charging is easy for everyone in their location and lifestyle and that the grid provides massively more electricity cleanly and cheaply to replace all the petrol and diesel miles.
Like all technology be that washing machines, tv, phones, pc, mobiles, the benefits to the individual and communities pulls through the supply and demand. That needs to be delivered by engineers and industry with some controlled support of govt.
Let’s keep going with cleaner more
Sustainable options and keep a check on the reality through science moderating politics.
Progress is sweet especially when it is inclusive. We need to see these trends at home help the poorest people and countries and not loose sight of that as Market failures apply around the word.
With many things predictions are made by drawing lines through points. For EVs they need to factor in the new mines that need to be opened. New mines can't be opened quickly and EVs need plenty of new mines. With PV, the mineral constraints aren't as tight.
But the even bigger issue is that BMW (for one) estimate that their EV lifecycle emissions are about 40% lower than the ICE version. That means we can't decarbonise transport just be switching to EVs. We need more public transport and fewer cars. Public transport is slow to both plan and build. Can EVs reduce their lifecycle emissions to the kind of level we need ? (ie., 5% of current ... offset the rest?). That doesn't look remotely possible.
If you decarbonise steel production (hard but the tech exists), battery production (easy), and your grid (currently happening), then it's possible. BMW (along with most car manufacturers outside of China & Tesla) have a strong interest in maintaining the status quo.
Geoff, can you elaborate on the assumptions behind the idea that new mines will be required to increase the share of EVs in new vehicle sales? If you have any sources on the mix of battery chemistries I would really appreciate it. The recent announcements from CATL and other manufacturers regarding sodium ion batteries caught me off guard. I didn't realize that chemistry was ready for mass manufacturing already, and I wonder what other chemistries besides LFP and sodium ion are about to be introduced. I know all virtually all battery manufacturers are looking to eliminate cobalt and reduce nickel content, and the silicon anode technology appears on the verge of being manufacturable, which will improve material efficiency by increasing gravimetric energy density. Thanks for any insight into mineral requirements you have!
Even though electric cars are mildly better for the environment, USA still needs to be moving away from car-dependency as much as possible.
We need bike lanes, bus lanes, rail expansion, and urban infill housing that is located in pedestrian-friendly areas.
Developers are happy to build pedestrian-oriented housing, we just need more upzoning to allow it.
Excellent work, as always.
Incorrect, on two counts. A) PV hasn't taken off, not in any meaningful sense, and event today provides very little overall amount of power (compared to aggregate demand) and B) EVs are not functionally equivalent to ICE cars, for the one car middle class. The middle class is not buying EVs en masse, because to do so would represent a decline in their standard of living.
Steven, you should try reading the article before commenting.
Not to mention that the stats this advocate uses are IEA data, for the world. Some places, in temperate climates, with short distances for travel (like Europe) are easier sells. Not so for Canada and the USA, very different animal. And these kinds of EV ra ra stories have been going on for at least a full decade at this point. Its rich people with several cars that buying EVs, in North America.
My comments wouldn't change. The one car family middle class is not buying EVs.
Hi Steven, I think you raise a valid point, that one-car families probably are going to be the laggards in EV adoption. However, given the fact that there are 290 million registered vehicles for a population of 332 million in the United States, there are a lot of two-car (or more) families. In my social circle, almost every family has more than one car and is considering a PHEV or EV for their next vehicle purchase. Do you think adoption rates will increase once EVs become more affordable and capable (i.e., have a longer range)? Or do you think there will be peer pressure among some groups not to buy EVs as long as ICE vehicles are available?
@Fred Horch The basic problem with these kinds of projections and assertions by technology promoters is that they usually don't look at the lowest common denominator or basic user needs and behavior. Not just for EVs, but all energy systems. I am an experienced energy engineer and analyst, been dong this >40 years, so I know the field. With regards to EVs, for two car citizens, having an EV can make a lot of sense, especially in temperate climates, and in urban areas, for local travel and errands. Absolutely. For one car citizens, you have to consider their practical needs. A harried single mother who needs to move her kids around in all weather, say, in Canada, simply cant live with an EV. If you get stuck in a traffic jam in a -30 C winter storm taking your kid somewhere, and you run out of juice, you simply cannot afford to get stranded, lives are at stake.
@steven lightfoot, we share a similar background. I own a mechanical contracting firm and spent a summer working for Pacific Gas & Electric (as a summer clerk in their corporate legal department) where I got a great overview of what happens if energy engineers don't do their jobs well. ;-) We are at the point where the serious questions you raise about depending on a BEV for your personal mobility are being considered and answered. My family has been driving BEVs in Maine since 2012 so I can answer the cold climate performance questions from personal experience. Did you know that AAA will give you a quick boost if you run out of charge in your BEV? Check out their "Mobile Charging Wherever You Need It" service https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/used-ev-buyers-guide
OK thanks for your comments. I don't doubt that the EV market is growing, however this article which I have criticized is typical of the kind of ra ra lack-of-critical-thinking stuff that is typical of the VRE promotional crowd. Magical thinking and poor analysis doesn't solve problems. Empiricism and reality does. Thanks for your comments.
The fundamental question with technology replacement is whether or not a new something is functionally equivalent or better. If its demonstrably better in practice, it will be adopted. If it looks the same or better, but users find that it is isn't in day to day life, it wont be adopted. That is the only measure you need to keep in mind. Unless EVs have same range and the same convenience factor as ICEs, then they aren't yet functionally equivalent overall (even if they already do have some other benefits).
A plea for data, Ms. H: perspectives on how to get the most renewable E on line ASAP. Options of what kinds of in-the-meantime duct-tape-and-string imperfect things can be done to maximize increased use of intermittent wind/solar/etc. Thanks.
Agreed. With clean electricity, BEVs are great. With dirty electricity, they are almost as bad as ICE. Tesla's model of selling cars, solar PV, and batteries seems reasonable. What do you think?
Sir.
I honestly do not know. Sometimes it seems so counter productive to be arguing about nuclear/battery/gas-peaker/more-power-lines .. trying to always & only do the One Right Thing. Meanwhile Rome burns..
I gather the two main counterarguments are that electric motors turn more of the energy into motion and that even dirty large scale power plants are more efficient/environmentally friendly than the small portable ones in automobiles.
Supposedly, electric motors are twice as efficient, joule for joule, of converting their input energy into motion than ICE engines. I know internal combustion engines are much more efficient than they used to be, especially with modern transmissions, but you can heat the interior of a car with the waste heat from an ICE but not from an electric motor.
Meanwhile, power generation is getting cleaner and more efficient. Maybe solar and wind power are intermittent, but that just changes the scheduling for gas and other fossil fuel plants. Even with no storage, unless people stop using energy when the sun shines and the window blows, that energy offsets the need to burn fossil fuels.
I think that argument miss an important point: the fact that the cost of an addition can increase with the penetration of the resource, even if the cost of production decreases.
For the "political side" i think subsidies are more important thing than general "policy", especially for the time factor.
Dave's Hot Chicken is a fast-food restaurant that serves spicy Nashville-style chicken. You can choose from chicken tenders or sliders, with spice levels ranging from "No Spice" to the extremely hot "Reaper." Meals often come with sides like fries, mac and cheese, or coleslaw. For those who prefer vegetarian options, they offer cauliflower-based dishes. https://daves-hotchicken-menu.com/
Dave's Hot Chicken is a fast-food restaurant known for its spicy Nashville-style chicken. They serve crispy chicken tenders and sliders that you can choose to be mild or very spicy even up to their hottest level called "Reaper." Meals often come with fries and their special sauce. If you don't eat meat, they also offer cauliflower versions of their tenders and sliders. You can add sides like mac and cheese, coleslaw, or loaded fries. For drinks, they have milkshakes and slushies to help cool down the heat. Prices are affordable, and they have combo meals for individuals or larger boxes to share with friends. https://daves-hotchicken-menu.com/
That is a common talking point without much in the way of facts. The Oil industry is heavily taxed and regulated. Some tax incentives exist but not taking money from someone is a long way from taking money from someone else to pay to make another product cheaper.
Yes this is all true. But it WON’T reduce emissions because same amount (roughly) of oil will need to be extracted for non-gasoline products. EVs well and good but won’t improve environment or global social issues.
How would the same amount of oil be necessary for non-gasoline products? Over the course of its useful life, a fuel-burning vehicle consumes several tons of petroleum that ends up dispersed in our atmosphere and ocean primarily as H2O and CO2 molecules. BEVs consumer far less oil, and all the plastics, metals and minerals in them can be recycled at their end of their useful lives. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
Fred- Gasoline only comprises about 40-45% of a barrel of oil -from the other 55-60% come about 6,000 other products used in global economy - mostly heating oil, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt (to make roads) but also eg medicines, plastics, etc. IF - for whatever reason including 'doing the right thing for climate' we swap out ALL of our internal combustion engines for EVs, yes that would significantly reduce demand for GASOLINE, but it wouldn't reduce the demand for OIL at all - or very slightly - (I'll explain below**). IOW, we need each barrel of oil in current system for all the things, gasoline being one of them. If we suddenly no longer need gasoline we will still extract and refine the same amount of barrels of oil - thus either needing to flare/dispose of gasoline OR also reduce demand for all the other non-gasoline oil products. **It is possible to change the refinery processes to switch some (a low %) of the middle distillates to make other products thus reducing demand for oil a bit, but its at the margin and very costly. This is a point I've made for years -our cultural discussions on these things are 'systems blind' - they only look at top level cause and effect 'gasoline cars bad for climate' without looking at how the solutions (EVs) would actually reduce emissions SYSTEM WIDE. You might see my podcasts w Art Berman on this topic for more info.
Thank you! I'll check out your podcasts with Art Berman to check out your assumptions and conclusions. Appreciate the thoughtful response.
Is the argument that we'll be using a lot more bunker and other products to compensate for the fuel savings of electric vehicles?
Electric vehicles aren't about eliminating the need for fossil fuels. They use less energy overall for the same travel, so there is some savings right there. Large scale power plants are more efficient than small portable ones, so that's more savings. We also get flexibility for further improvements. There are lots of ways of making electricity, so cars could run on fossil fuels or solar or geothermal or nuclear power with no alteration or replacement. Like money, electricity is implicitly fungible.
The efficiency gain alone would cut the need for fossil fuels unless we come up with a new excuse to burn more of them. The ability to take advantage of a broad range of energy sources would allow for flexibility and further improvements.
EVs are heavily subsidized. If that were not the case the sales would plummet. Not to mention EV's increase our dependence on china and do nothing for the environment.
Gasoline powered vehicles are also heavily subsidized. It's not like the oil industry doesn't get its subsidies and tax breaks. Texas is one big welfare state for fossil fuel energy producers.
I can see solar powered transportation becoming ubiquitous in India and tropical areas within a decade. In India the possibilities of cheap solar panels when combined with human ingenuity are endless.
Also behind the curve on this - the British government (and no doubt many governments across the world, regardless of left-right placement or commitment to democracy). I'd dearly love for them to be ahead of this curve and installing tons of charging stations right now - but they clearly aren't.