Should EVs have efficiency standards?

[nwdiver]

That plane just don't fly - ground it until there is a rational plan put in place.

Aviation is recognized as the last sector that will be de-carbonized. Fortunately there are plenty of other areas fools fuel is used that can be fixed.

So even though the life expectancy of cars is DOUBLE what you thought, it is still ok to just regulate emissions on new cars?

How about the clunker program where the government paid to retire old cars? Another stupid program - old cars that were hardly used were likely removed from the road

LOL! Make up you mind! Do you want old cars to be removed or keep them on the roads?

The Navajo Generating Station was supposed to stay online until 2044. It closed recently with the net effect of converting ~2.5M cars to electric. In your warped version of reality it should have kept poisoning our air for >20 more years? Why?

 

[juliusa]

I want a consisent, coherent, effective government policy. I have one in mind that would replace about 1000, but I won't say it again @ohmman.

What we have now is an expensive set of disjoint policies with limited effectiveness, driven by special interests. A single policy would be effective. The reason it won't get enacted by government is:
1. Revenue neutral to the government. Government gets their power by taking money from people.
2. No campaign contributions since there is nothing for special interests to lobby for or against. Politicians get money and power from lobbyists and their money.
3. It would be effective. Government gains nothing by solving problems - they need perpetual issues (race, wars, climate, etc) to remain large and relevent.

Good policy is bad for our current government structure. Term limits would help dismantle the ruling class, as would an educated electorate - another reason government has no incentive to allow the population to be educated.

 

[David_Cary]

So wouldn't a carbon tax be created and administered by the.... government?

I have to say you are going down the conservative rabbit hole that you are losing all credibility/sanity.

I don't think most really think what government does in many areas is rational or helpful. The alternative is anarchy. Countries that have done the most to reduce carbon are not super conservative. The US government has been relatively ineffectual because of the whole pilot/co-pilot political situation.

So you are trying to make the sweeping generalization that all regulation is bad. Market based approaches are generally better. I can agree with you to a point. The co-pilot thing at this point in history is the problem. The EV tax credit is a great case in point. Great motivation and effective for what it's intent was. Now it should be altered in a manner that would save money and reward domestic innovation - and we have nothing.

Trump has destroyed the republican party, and with it conservatism, for a generation. He has destroyed any remaining moral compass.

And just so we are clear, a carbon tax hurts poor people far worse than rich people. I (say upper-middle) use far less energy than every poor or middle income person that I know. The rich get to put solar panels on their roof - takes access to capital and a tax burden and we get to buy EV's - obviously takes access to capital and a tax burden(mostly). We can afford to live with short commutes.

You could increase the cost of all energy 5 times and it would mean that I would fly less. The rural poor wouldn't be able to go to the store let alone get to work.

Good luck getting a carbon tax, without some exceptions, through congress. It is nearly impossible. Who gets the credits? Say it costs $1000 on average per person and we give that $1000 back - equally to each person. That is a huge tax on industry and given to the people. Do you see any republican signing on to that? It is a huge tax to the middle of the country and a huge gift to California and Manhattan. Do you see any republican signing that? And the issues go on and on.

To be effective, it needs to be disruptive. Government is both the problem and the only solution.

 

[juliusa]

The Navajo Generating Station was supposed to stay online until 2044. It closed recently

It was replaced by cheaper natural gas power.

Economics closed the plant, not government regulations.

 

[juliusa]

So wouldn't a carbon tax be created and administered by the.... government?

Yes. But revenue neutral, and at a cost well below the 100s of programs it would replace.

I don't think most really think what government does in many areas is rational or helpful. The alternative is anarchy.

I am nor proposing eliminating government. Just replace a few hundred disjoint supposed carbon programs that are costly and ineffective, with a single low cost and highly effective program.

And just so we are clear, a carbon tax hurts poor people far worse than rich people.

Yes. But a revenue-neutral carbon tax/credit would likely be a net dividend to the poor, and a tax on the private jet flying rich elites.

Good luck getting a carbon tax, without some exceptions, through congress. It is nearly impossible. Who gets the credits? Say it costs $1000 on average per person and we give that $1000 back - equally to each person. That is a huge tax on industry and given to the people.

No tax on industry. All taxes are paid, utlimately, but the end consumer. And the credit is given right back to them. No impact on the average consumer. Net tax on the above average carbon consumer (rich people), and net credit to below average carbon consumers (poor people).

There is a reason the carbon per capita is higher in rich countries than poor countries.

The difficulty in getting it through congress is it does not meet their objectives - money and power for government and themselves. They don't care about carbon - it is simply a means to money and power for them.

 

[iPlug]

It was replaced by cheaper natural gas power.

Economics closed the plant, not government regulations.

Those responsible for closing Navajo cited air quality regulations were indeed a significant part of the reason to close that plant.

Therefore it is reasonable to believe the plant would’ve remained open for years longer despite the also important economic pressure.

 

[SageBrush]

New Those responsible for closing Navajo cited air quality regulations were indeed a significant part of the reason to close that plant

Expect the declarations of officials and politicians and corporate mouthpieces to be at best a part of the story.

Cost of pollution controls played a part but the owners had bought off the NM politicians for 20 years and EPA non compliance was a given. The death kneel of the big coal plants in the SW USA are due to California. The day CA decided to include out of state carbon generation in their carbon budget the coal plant closings writing was on the wall since it meant that CA would not buy the generation. The CA utilities divested their ownerships and no buyers were interested because the CA market was closed to them.

 

[juliusa]

Those responsible for closing Navajo cited air quality regulations were indeed a significant part of the reason to close that plant.

Therefore it is reasonable to believe the plant would’ve remained open for years longer despite the also important economic pressure.

Perhaps a factor, but primarily the low cost of natural gas and renewables.

The day CA decided to include out of state carbon generation in their carbon budget the coal plant closings writing was on the wall since it meant that CA would not buy the generation.

Most honest thing CA has done. They used to wrap themselves in the green flag as they imported dirty electricity.

 

[iPlug]

Those responsible for closing Navajo cited air quality regulations were indeed a significant part of the reason to close that plant.

Therefore it is reasonable to believe the plant would’ve remained open for years longer despite the also important economic pressure.

Expect the declarations of officials and politicians and corporate mouthpieces to be at best a part of the story.

Cost of pollution controls played a part but the owners had bought off the NM politicians for 20 years and EPA non compliance was a given. The death kneel of the big coal plants in the SW USA are due to California. The day CA decided to include out of state carbon generation in their carbon budget the coal plant closings writing was on the wall since it meant that CA would not buy the generation. The CA utilities divested their ownerships and no buyers were interested because the CA market was closed to them.

I think we are on the same page. Was referring to CA regulations. Perhaps should not have said air quality specifically, but carbon regulations (although air quality has been mentioned too).

California’s green energy plan, SB 100, requires utilities like LADWP to deliver 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045. That played a big part in killing the plant with regulations, even earlier than economics alone.

 

[ohmman]

Most honest thing CA has done.

In the history of the state?

 

[SageBrush]

That played a big part in killing the plant with regulations, even earlier than economics alone.

Absolutely

 

[juliusa]

California’s green energy plan, SB 100, requires utilities like the DWP to deliver 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045. That played a big part in killing the plant with regulations, even earlier than economics alone.

That is good. But they are replacing the coal plant with a new natural gas plant. Not sure how that fits into their 2045 plan - unless they expect to slip the date. Hard to believe they will get a ROI on a gas plant if they shutter it in 20 years.
Los Angeles is finally ditching coal — and replacing it with another polluting fuel

Also hard to understand why they are shutting down NG plants, and building a new one. My guess is politics.

 

[juliusa]

In the history of the state?

Perhaps, but I was thinking more in the context of power.

A good way to shut coal plants is for consumers to not purchase power from them. If there is nobody to buy the power, they will shut down.

In CT, we don't have to rely on the government for this. Not sure about other places. As a consumer, I can choose to purchase my energy from a 100% green supplier.

 

[StealthP3D]

Yes, that is what I meant. Government regulations like there are on ICE vehicles.

Energy has an environmental/societal cost - whether it is electricity or gasoline.

When they do the calculations for fleet standards, do they use MPGe? Or are they all EVs "ZEVs"?

I think the lowest MPGe of any EV is around 85 MPGe.

Are you suggesting that we should hold EV's to a higher standard of efficiency than gas and diesel vehicles? Because manufacturers are already required to disclose the efficiency. It sounds like you are saying EV's need to have better efficiency or we should regulate or tax the ones that are below (for example) 100 MPGe.

Maybe we should require all ICE vehicles to return 85 MPG or higher.

 

[ohmman]

Perhaps, but I was thinking more in the context of power.

A good way to shut coal plants is for consumers to not purchase power from them. If there is nobody to buy the power, they will shut down.

In CT, we don't have to rely on the government for this. Not sure about other places. As a consumer, I can choose to purchase my energy from a 100% green supplier.

Your article explains a lot of why they're building the gas plant. Politics is part of it, but so is capacity and reliability. Obviously if they'd started sooner, they wouldn't have to build the plant, and I'd personally prefer they don't at all.

A group with whom I volunteer pushes for complete GHG inventories in climate action plans and the like. What California has done is exactly what we're trying to ensure that smaller agencies do as well. One aspect of GHG inventories that is often ignored is cross-boundary emissions, like these. In my county, where tourism is a big part of the economy, we are trying to ensure that inventories account for transit here, much of which is air travel, and plenty of which is overseas air travel. There are incentives to ignoring those important aspects, as you're pointing out with the hyperbolic "most honest thing CA has ever done" phrase.

 

[juliusa]

Are you suggesting that we should hold EV's to a higher standard of efficiency than gas and diesel vehicles?

No. If we have regulations to reduce emissions from ICE, we should have separate regulations to reduce emissions from EVs.

Coal, natural gas, and biomass plants generate electricity. They all have different emissions standards.

 

[juliusa]

A group with whom I volunteer pushes for complete GHG inventories in climate action plans and the like.

That is excellent. Most simply look at direct GHGs; some look at imports (like electricity); but few look at the full picture.

One aspect of GHG inventories that is often ignored is cross-boundary emissions, like these.

Yep. Importing dirty electricity is one. Air travel you point out is another. Products manufactured elsewhere is yet another.

That is why I commend CA for addressing the import of dirty electricity.

Politics is part of it, but so is capacity and reliability.

But couldn't LA's capacity and reliability be accomplished by keeping the 3 NG plants in CA operating, instead of shuttering them and building a new one in Utah? That is why I came to the conclusion it was mostly politics driving the NG generation out of LA to Utah. Everything from the regulatory cost in CA vs Utah, labor cost, loss of jobs on a reservation, use of transmission line - lots and lots of interested parties with different interests driving the decision. Two absentees from the negotiations are the environment and the rate payer.

 

[nwdiver]

It was replaced by cheaper natural gas power.

Economics closed the plant, not government regulations.

Which reduced CO2 emissions by the equivalent of electrifying ~2.5M vehicles since gas is ~50% cleaner than coal. Economics that were influenced by government regulations.

 

[juliusa]

Which reduced CO2 emissions by the equivalent of electrifying ~2.5M vehicles since gas is ~50% cleaner than coal.

It is good that it is saving CO2, but it comes at a huge cost - capital, jobs, to name a couple. That is the fault of poor policy and regulations.

If we simply had a good carbon tax and credit system, we would get better outcomes at lower costs.

 

[nwdiver]

It is good that it is saving CO2, but it comes at a huge cost - capital, jobs, to name a couple. That is the fault of poor policy and regulations.

If we simply had a good carbon tax and credit system, we would get better outcomes at lower costs.

So.... no policy and no regulation would be better? The coal plant would still likely close due to a carbon tax and the workers may be in worse condition with a credit system. SRP is currently assisting in relocation and retraining because there's nothing for them to fall back on. If they were getting a $400/mo carbon dividend that may not be the case.

I'm not opposed to a carbon tax/credit system but until that happens I'll take what I can get while still pushing for a carbon tax/credit system and an equitable transition.

Regulation isn't perfect (nothing is) but on balance it's better than no regulation. The FDA makes mistakes but having the FDA is better than not having the FDA. Without the FDA who would have stopped Thalidomide? The FAA isn't perfect but without the FAA who would force Boeing to fix the 737 before returning it to flight?