Should EVs have efficiency standards?

[ohmman]

User/thread contributor hat off, moderator hat on: I was about to move 30+ posts, including some of my own, away to the Politics quarantine, because they have nothing to do with the topic of this thread and have tread into territory that isn't compliant with the Terms. A thread, by the way, which I created because a certain member wouldn't stop baiting other members with disingenuous questions in another thread. As I tried to select the posts that were actually discussing the question, I realized this entire thread is just more of the same. I can lock this thread and rename it "my rants against government," or we can stick to unresolved discussions about the already disingenuous EV efficiency standard question. Thanks.

 

[David_Cary]

What we have arrived at is that less regulation is better than more regulation if it solves the problem since regulation, by its nature, picks winners and losers arbitrarily. Regulation gives government power and thus gives oligarchs power hurting the overall population.

So then EV's shouldn't have separate standards since that would be more regulation.

It really is that simple. Any additional regulation on EVs would slow the transition to EVs and since they are so much better than the alternative, it would be one of those regulations that actually hurts the intended reason for the regulation.

What tes-s wants is a carbon tax instead of CAFE and other similar regs. Which is what most environmentally minded people want. So we can all agree.

A carbon tax of significant strength will destroy the big three auto makers in a hot minute. And it would destroy coal faster than the "war on coal" tes-s mentioned. Those would be overall good things but would cause a good number of losers, devastated communities, etc. But as most of us know, that is going to happen any way.

 

[juliusa]

I'm simply taking about government regulation of carbon. There is a hodgepodge of regulations from different areas (DoE, EPA, and I'm sure others) with no coherent plan, and largely inefficient and ineffective.

A carbon tax of significant strength will destroy the big three auto makers in a hot minute. And it would destroy coal faster than the "war on coal" tes-s mentioned.

That is why it starts out slow and ramps up. I think GND says net zero in 10 years - I think a carbon tax would be much slower.

Regulations can get us to net zero, and economics (carbon tax/credit) can get us to net zero - as fast or slow as we want.

I choose economics because it will get us there at the lowest economic cost because resources will be allocated efficiently.

 

[ggr]

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

According to a recent post somewhere, the Taycan Turbo S only gets 68 MPGe.
Edit: found it: Porsche Taycan EPA range

 

[StealthP3D]

According to a recent post somewhere, the Taycan Turbo S only gets 68 MPGe.
Edit: found it: Porsche Taycan EPA range

Ouch! Can you even get one of those? Or is that a moot point? What I mean is who would want one? I could understand such poor efficiency if it was extra fast - but it's actually slower than some much more efficient EV's. I'm about to leave on a trip that I couldn't even do in a Taycan Turbo S (because it doesn't have enough range).

 

[Fredneck]

Neither are good, but they are not equal. Distributed emissions scattered throughout residences and directly onto pedestrians are worse than concentrated emissions at a plant. The types of pollution are also different. Burning NG and burning refined petroleum, or worse, diesel, result in different levels of pollutants. For instance:

View attachment 493328

So your statement is incorrect.

What is the significance of those numbers? Yes, less SO2 is emitted, but that is a minor pollutant these days with sulfur reduced diesel. Also, this is comparing DIESEL to natural gas. Gasoline is cleaner burning than diesel and is a much larger volume source of transportation energy.

Even if EVs are some percentage more efficient/cleaner, my point is this is not enough to be patting ourselves on the back and thinking we have solved any problems. Even a 50% reduction of CO2 production is not nearly enough in one sector.

As to the distributions, that depends entirely on where you live. They are shutting down a nuke plant near NYC, not entirely because they would never allow it to be built that close to the city if anyone applied today. I don't live in a city, so I'm not going to feel too bad for the city dwellers who prefer to pollute closer to me.

 

[nwdiver]

Even if EVs are some percentage more efficient/cleaner, my point is this is not enough to be patting ourselves on the back and thinking we have solved any problems. Even a 50% reduction of CO2 production is not nearly enough in one sector.

Are there any milestones that are enough 'to pat ourselves on the back'? Or is that only warranted when we're 100% solar and wind.

You... you realized that celebrating a milestone isn't equivalent to saying 'Game over, we're done'... right? I remember having a 'celebration' when I graduated from the 5th grade. Should we not have done that? Should we get rid of high school graduation too? Only college? And only if you're not going on to post-grad study?

 

[ohmman]

What is the significance of those numbers?

To educate you.