TV Show Recommendation: "Electric Cars - Pros and Cons" (PBS)

[tps5352]

I recently discovered this interesting two-part moderated discussion/debate (originally broadcast October 2023). The show is called "Energy Switch" (produced in Austin, Texas) and is seen on the PBS (public TV) network.

• Part 1 (26 min)
• Part 2 (27 min)

Panelists were Dr. Beia Spiller (previously with the Environmental Defense Fund and now Director of the Transportation Program at Resources for the Future) and Dr. David Rapson (Economic Policy Advisor for the FED and Professor of Economics at Univ. Cal. at Davis). Both panelists can be categorized as experts on energy and economics. But they clearly come at electric car issues from different perspectives. Their insights exposed what may be a widespread dichotomy in thinking behind any possible sea-change in global personal vehicle transportation.

vs.

Spiller is admittedly concerned about economic impacts to disadvantaged and low-income global communities. She freely touts the advantages of battery-powered electric cars (EVs) and advocates for rapid investment in EVs and the related infrastructure. In contrast, Rapson acknowledges a likely eventual growth of EVs within the personal-vehicle marketplace, but thinks the current focus should be instead on removal of ICE vehicles with a more cautious reliance on a mixture of alternatives (hybrid, hydrogen, CNG, and battery) giving the electrical grid time to de-carbonize.

If you get a chance, take a look at the discussion. Here are some points made by each participant (apologies in advance for any mistakes/misinterpretations):

Dr. Beia Spiller

• Key goals:
  • Increase in numbers of EVs.
  • Less expensive EV models available to customers with moderate and low incomes.
  • Reduction of transportation impacts to disadvantaged communities.
• EVs are expensive, but their advantages will eventually lead to more and more consumers making the switch.
• EVs are in general a much better car. They are more fun, quieter, and cleaner with better performance and features.
• We can't afford the delay (to take time to de-carbonize the grid). For one thing, buyers need that time to learn (about EVs) and adapt.
• Hydrogen fuel cell technology is too complicated and expensive (for small vehicles) and (like gasoline) would require another huge and inefficient infrastructure. It's a poor alternative (to EVs).
• Part of any "carbon-tax" could be used for the electrical grid/infrastructure. But part should be returned to low-income households.
• Feels that EV battery problems can and will be overcome.
• If new-car EV sales mandates are applied, we'll see lower income people stuck driving (and being disproportionately impacted by) ICE cars.
• Current (USEPA) emission standards are not properly targeted. To maximize pollution reduction we need to improve the least efficient vehicles on the road. For example, raising fuel efficiency (in very low mileage cars) from 10 mpg to 15 mpg is much better than raising it (in moderate mileage cars) from 25 mpg to 100 mpg.
• If we are going to rely on hybrid vehicles they should be plug-in and come with longer electrical ranges (bigger batteries) and shorter gasoline ranges (smaller fuel tanks). Right now we have the opposite of that.
• However, she would like to see more EVs with lower ranges (i.e., smaller batteries) to make them less expensive. (Federal requirements may be pushing manufacturers in the opposite direction.)
• The charging network needs to grow and improve asap.
• In the Increase Numbers of Chargers or EVs First Debate: Favors increasing numbers of chargers first to encourage new car sales.

Dr. David Rapson

• Key goals:
  • Address climate change.
  • De-carbonize the electricity grid.
• From a global perspective, EVs are mostly purchased by the (relatively) "wealthy" and are not currently available to the majority of consumers (e.g., in 3rd-world countries).
• It's not about getting EVs on the road; it's about getting ICE cars off the road.
• One way to reduce numbers of ICE vehicles might be a "carbon tax" (though politically unpopular).
• A too rapid economic shift (e.g., from gasoline to electricity) could have drastic impacts. (Example: When Russia shut off CNG supplies to Europe for political reasons.)
• To reduce risk, the electrical grid should be de-carbonized before we put too many EVs into the marketplace.
• EV subsidies are counter-productive, don't work, and make little overall sense (in terms of long-term goals).
• Mandates (e.g., requiring a certain number of EVs by a certain date) are not the way to go. (Norway is a successful example where mandates were not used.)
• Worries about the drawbacks of battery technology (e.g., rare materials, controlled by other countries, are required).
• Advocates for alternatives to EVs--e.g., hybrid cars, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, in-car carbon capture, CNG and certain proportion of remaining ICE vehicles.
• We’ve previously seen NEW rapidly replace OLD technologies when the NEW clearly "dominated" the (old) competition. EVs are not clealry better than ICE cars in all categories. Hence, he doubts that we'll see EVs make up 100% of the fleet.
• In the Increase Numbers of Chargers or EVs First Debate: Favors allowing numbers of EVs sold to determine necessary growth in the area's charging network. The market should govern if, when, and where the charging network expands.
• Electricity generation must include "dispatchible" sources (reliable/dependable natural gas, nuclear, batteries) as well as "intermittent" sources (e.g., wind, solar).

Both panelist agreed:

• Battery vehicles make the most sense for small- to mid-sized vehicles.
• EVs are expensive, but costs should eventually come down.
• There is a place for hybrid technology.
• The proportion of EVs in the overall personal vehicle fleet will remain relatively small (say by 2035). In actuality, it may take another 40 years to see EV dominance.

*****​

Postscript

While both participants were eloquent and informative, I found myself agreeing most often with Dr. Spiller. However, I disagreed with her on the battery-range issue. Here is an outline of my thinking.

• There will continue to be significant growth in numbers of personal transportation vehicles (PTVs) worldwide, especially in new markets like China, India, and (eventually) parts of Africa.​
• Existing and future numbers of PTVs have and will affect climate change, human health, and quality of life.​
• To help alleviate deleterious PTV impacts, it will be advantageous to substitute EVs for as many existing and future ICE vehicles as possible.
  |​
• While some ICE drivers are already well-educated and making the switch (encouraged by EV performance, features, and eco-advantages), the vast majority of ICE car users still are not.​
• One factor that discourages the switch is so-called "range anxiety." (Another factor is, admittedly, higher costs. But I would argue that, over time, higher EV costs will unfortunately become the "new normal," as we have so often seen with new, desirable tech products like smart phones. Eventually, some of what we now regard as "luxury" functions and performance should hopefully drift down to less expensive car models.)​
• However, the average (American) car apparently travels only 40 miles (or less) a day, and is probably fully charged every night at home. Nonetheless, American drivers psychologically want their cars to be able to travel much farther (median ICE car range was apparently ~413 miles).
  |
• There is another, valid reason for greater range--time saving. Though getting faster, DC fast charging still takes longer than pumping gasoline, I believe. And of course 240v AC charging can take up to several hours. So drivers naturally want to avoid any possibility of long delays from stops for charging (even if the majority of charging is performed overnight at home and even if charging stations have access to nearby food and shopping amenities).
  |
• Finally, as new EV owners have frequently discovered, there seem to be many factors that diminish maximum range (and, conversely, few that increase it). So (USEPA/manufacturer) promised maximum ranges are rarely, if ever, actually achieved (under normal driving). Such factors may include:
  |
  • The fact that to extend battery life manufacturers often discourage charging above, say, 80-90% capacity for most day-to-day driving.
  • Extreme ambient air temperatures.
  • Certain ("Mario Andretti-like") driving styles (e.g., jackrabbit starts; high speeds).
  • Car and battery aging. (In general, as an EV and its batteries age, maximum range shrinks.)
  • Use of pretty much any power-hungry onboard standard and aftermarket accessories (heaters, air conditioners, fans, etc.).
  • Number of passengers, cargo load, and towing (naturally).
  • "Sentry" Mode and other security systems.
  • Non-factory tire pressures.
  • OEM performance wheels and tires.
  • Aftermarket tires and non-stock tire sizes.
  • Performance software settings.
  • Terrain and elevation,...and so forth.
    |
    So right from the start EV customers wanting/needing the assurance of a certain maximum range have to take these factors into account and buy (up) accordingly in order to achieve close to the range they really expect. (With ICE cars gas mileage and maximum range claims could also be equally fictitious. But fewer people cared since gas was often relatively cheap [in the USA], gas tanks large, gas stations extremely plentiful, and fueling quick.)
    
    The result of all this? One conservative rule-of-thumb might arguably be to knock off at least, say, 50 miles from any (overly-optimistic) promised maximum range. Vehicles with large touted maximum ranges are therefore positioned from the start to better handle inevitable power draw-downs and still provide relatively worry-free true maxim ranges. Manufacturers are going to have to find that sweet spot: affordable EVs with a range that will still entice ICE car drivers.

So while I understand Dr. Spiller's point, I am left thinking that until American drivers in general become more fully comfortable with the realities of EV driving and charging, ranges need to be as large as possible across the new-car price spectrum in order to encourage ICE-car holdouts to make the switch to EVs.

Clearly, there will always be (and probably should be) a range of prices among EV models, so that people from all walks of life can afford to go electric. And since the size of onboard batteries greatly affects maximum range, that probably means that EVs will continue to exhibit a diversity in maximum ranges. However, I continue to hope that range will increase at all new-car price levels--i.e., that the average maximum range will continue to rise as new battery technologies are discovered and implemented.

 

[404 Not Found]

Those videos were great, thanks for posting them. I especially enjoyed the discussion about smaller batteries. It's been my thought for some time now that range anxiety is a fading problem as numbers of charging stations and EV knowledge increase. I wanted the big Model Y and was thrilled the day I could order one with a smaller 60 kwh LFP battery. I really don't need to travel more than 400 kms without stopping, so why spend $10,000 more for an 82 kwh battery that takes longer to charge? I think we need lots more charging stations and smaller cheaper batteries.

 

[tps5352]

Those videos were great, thanks for posting them. I especially enjoyed the discussion about smaller batteries. It's been my thought for some time now that range anxiety is a fading problem as numbers of charging stations and EV knowledge increase. I wanted the big Model Y and was thrilled the day I could order one with a smaller 60 kwh LFP battery. I really don't need to travel more than 400 kms without stopping, so why spend $10,000 more for an 82 kwh battery that takes longer to charge? I think we need lots more charging stations and smaller cheaper batteries.

I don't disagree with Dr. Spiller's (and your) argument. Once people are EV users and/or understand the issues, cheaper cars with smaller batteries may attract many drivers. However, I still support the longest range possible (and the various price ranges) for the reason that many ICE car drivers simply will not consider EVs unless ranges are as equivalent to the average range of gasoline-powered vehicle as possible. I guess I want it both--long range and cheap cars. I realize that that is not possible right now. But having long-range cars in a company's car model family should help increase the perception of long range and psychologically help convince holdouts that EVs are viable.

 

[404 Not Found]

I don't disagree with Dr. Spiller's (and your) argument. Once people are EV users and/or understand the issues, cheaper cars with smaller batteries may attract many drivers. However, I still support the longest range possible (and the various price ranges) for the reason that many ICE car drivers simply will not consider EVs unless ranges are as equivalent to the average range of gasoline-powered vehicle as possible. I guess I want it both--long range and cheap cars. I realize that that is not possible right now. But having long-range cars in a company's car model family should help increase the perception of long range and psychologically help convince holdouts that EVs are viable.

Yes, both would be best and let the buyers decide. Smaller batteries work great in my Southern Ontario urban environment. Maybe not so much in vast rural regions.

 

[UkNorthampton]

Yes, both would be best and let the buyers decide. Smaller batteries work great in my Southern Ontario urban environment. Maybe not so much in vast rural regions.

We'll have mix of falling battery prices and lower range needs from EV awareness and multi-vehicle homes. Which will have the most effect is unknown.

Many households also benefit from a lower performance, cheaper EV - lower insurance (especially for new/young drivers), easy to park and still outperform ICE on traffic-light/merging silliness.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

I see it this way:

There is a need for both long and short range vehicles. As mentioned by others, rural areas actually need more range, not just a want, a need. Urban areas, really don't need the range. They have affordability and size concerns more than range anxiety.

So, here's the problem:
To be cost effective and remain profitable, EV makers have to make tough decisions regarding their lineup.
If they make a larger EV, which at this point in existing battery tech, is required to be able to include a big enough battery to get the longer ranges, that larger EV is going to be more expensive. Can't be avoided.
So that particular model is going to end up in a particular demographic.

Then, if an EV maker wants to make a model that is more affordable, by nature it's going to have to be smaller, less battery, which means less range. So that model is then going to appeal to a different demographic.

The EV makers are not currently able to make a cheap, truly long-range vehicle that can appeal to both of the above demographics.
Now, those aren't the only 2 demographics, just 2 ends of a spectrum. The vast majority of car owners fit somewhere in between. That's why the Model Y is the best selling car. It's reasonably affordable for more people, while offering enough range for most people.

So, like the Model Y, the real solution is going to be somewhere in the middle of Spiller and Rapson.
Yes, the economy and society does need time to adjust, but the infrastructure also needs to pretty much already be in place for when that adjustment is happening. In a way Spiller and Rapson are both correct, and their points and ideas actually need to happen in unison.
The charging network does need to continue to be grown and expanded, at the same time as the power grid and network needs to be converting away from fossil fuels. I personally think that's the ONLY way this works. I don't think doing just one or the other would work long-term. It will take both plans running parallel for either of them to succeed.

My opinion, new nuclear tech is going to be the only way we ever get away from fossil fuels. It's safer, faster, cheaper, and until we embrace it wholly, we're stuck with oil/coal/gas. So much carbon damage is done before the fuel even reaches the ICE vehicles, through collection methods, processing methods, transportation, distribution, on and on...
New smaller nuclear plants can be put in more regional areas, making cheaper energy available to so many more people. It would unlock super cheap electricity to so many, which would aid in people thinking about switching to EV's, charging them cheaply at home.
The old stigma of past nuclear accidents is holding us back. Meltdowns are a thing of the past with the new technology. Nuclear is the safest form of mass energy there is!
No more destroying land through strip mining, or risking lives in real mines. No need to drill holes for oil, releasing methane into the atmosphere (or wasting energy to burn that methane).
Until renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) technologies improve enough to be sustainable, nuclear is the only answer if we ever want to seriously put any dent in the carbon emissions.

 

[UkNorthampton]

I see it this way:

There is a need for both long and short range vehicles. As mentioned by others, rural areas actually need more range, not just a want, a need. Urban areas, really don't need the range. They have affordability and size concerns more than range anxiety.

So, here's the problem:
To be cost effective and remain profitable, EV makers have to make tough decisions regarding their lineup.
If they make a larger EV, which at this point in existing battery tech, is required to be able to include a big enough battery to get the longer ranges, that larger EV is going to be more expensive. Can't be avoided.
So that particular model is going to end up in a particular demographic.

Then, if an EV maker wants to make a model that is more affordable, by nature it's going to have to be smaller, less battery, which means less range. So that model is then going to appeal to a different demographic.

The EV makers are not currently able to make a cheap, truly long-range vehicle that can appeal to both of the above demographics.
Now, those aren't the only 2 demographics, just 2 ends of a spectrum. The vast majority of car owners fit somewhere in between. That's why the Model Y is the best selling car. It's reasonably affordable for more people, while offering enough range for most people.

So, like the Model Y, the real solution is going to be somewhere in the middle of Spiller and Rapson.
Yes, the economy and society does need time to adjust, but the infrastructure also needs to pretty much already be in place for when that adjustment is happening. In a way Spiller and Rapson are both correct, and their points and ideas actually need to happen in unison.
The charging network does need to continue to be grown and expanded, at the same time as the power grid and network needs to be converting away from fossil fuels. I personally think that's the ONLY way this works. I don't think doing just one or the other would work long-term. It will take both plans running parallel for either of them to succeed.

My opinion, new nuclear tech is going to be the only way we ever get away from fossil fuels. It's safer, faster, cheaper, and until we embrace it wholly, we're stuck with oil/coal/gas. So much carbon damage is done before the fuel even reaches the ICE vehicles, through collection methods, processing methods, transportation, distribution, on and on...
New smaller nuclear plants can be put in more regional areas, making cheaper energy available to so many more people. It would unlock super cheap electricity to so many, which would aid in people thinking about switching to EV's, charging them cheaply at home.
The old stigma of past nuclear accidents is holding us back. Meltdowns are a thing of the past with the new technology. Nuclear is the safest form of mass energy there is!
No more destroying land through strip mining, or risking lives in real mines. No need to drill holes for oil, releasing methane into the atmosphere (or wasting energy to burn that methane).
Until renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) technologies improve enough to be sustainable, nuclear is the only answer if we ever want to seriously put any dent in the carbon emissions.

Renewable cheaper and quicker than nuclear. Add in stages, and storage, add Ultra High Voltage interconnects.

Nuclear sub optimal.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

Renewable cheaper and quicker than nuclear. Add in stages, and storage, add Ultra High Voltage interconnects.

Nuclear sub optimal.

Renewable also not consistent enough for mass grid reliability.
Sun isn't shining 24/7.
Wind doesn't blow 24/7.
Even drought can affect hydro at times, and not everywhere has a usable water source anyway.

Nuclear is the best option for the next 10-25 yrs. We'll see where batt tech and renewable tech are at that point. But we can't wait for those innovations. We need something to bridge the gap in the near future. Nuclear is that bridge.

 

[UkNorthampton]

Renewable also not consistent enough for mass grid reliability.
Sun isn't shining 24/7.
Wind doesn't blow 24/7.
Even drought can affect hydro at times, and not everywhere has a usable water source anyway.

Nuclear is the best option for the next 10-25 yrs. We'll see where batt tech and renewable tech are at that point. But we can't wait for those innovations. We need something to bridge the gap in the near future. Nuclear is that bridge.

It takes 25 years to build a nuclear plant, costs a fortune.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

Sadly, your exaggeration isn't that far off. Between the gov red tape, enviro approvals, etc, yeah, it's 5-10 yrs.
Which is part of the problem. Because many of the hoops put in place to jump through are to avoid the next 3-Mile Island/Chernobyl, but those aren't even applicable due to the new tech. Accidental meltdowns like that are no longer possible.
So the first real steps needed are to update the overall process to current and streamline for efficiency. But we're talking government, so that's where your 25 yrs comes in. Big gov is killing us all.

 

[UkNorthampton]

Sadly, your exaggeration isn't that far off. Between the gov red tape, enviro approvals, etc, yeah, it's 5-10 yrs.
Which is part of the problem. Because many of the hoops put in place to jump through are to avoid the next 3-Mile Island/Chernobyl, but those aren't even applicable due to the new tech. Accidental meltdowns like that are no longer possible.
So the first real steps needed are to update the overall process to current and streamline for efficiency. But we're talking government, so that's where your 25 yrs comes in. Big gov is killing us all.

It wasn't meant as an exaggeration.

Announced in 2010 (but under consideration well before), lets say 2007 - probably earlier, nuclear expansion plans have been around for decades in various forms.

Not likely to be built by 2031 (probably not going to be completed at all as economically not sensible as renewables much cheaper).

So 2007-2031 is 24 years. If planning started before 2007 or completion is after 2031, then 25+ years from inception. If you count only construction (and not any of the planning and approval that I would count), best case would be 2017-2029 of 12 years. Everyone is trying to wriggle out of the contracts but not wanting to pay penalties. It just doesn't make economic sense for anyone. Costs gone up, guaranteed minimum electricity price is too high compared to renewables, too low for a profit.

New onshore wind and solar projects in England have been banned since 2015. Recently "unbanned" but reports* that no applications have been made or approved.

Scotland has different rules & that's where a lot of renewable power has come from in the UK. Scottish wind power has been incredibly useful recently. England could have had the same. We are getting offshore wind but even that has been purposely delayed through lobbying.

Nuclear will cost an enormous amount of money.

Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (HPC)
Status	Under construction
Construction began	March 2017
Commission date	Estimated 2029–2031
Construction cost	£31–35 billion in 2015 prices

*unbanned - Has the UK really lifted the de facto ban on onshore wind in England?

The ban, first introduced by former PM David Cameron in 2015, meant an objection from just one person could stop a new onshore wind turbine from being built in England. It also meant that any new development had to be constructed in an area identified as suitable for onshore wind as part of the council’s local plan (footnote 54 in the National Planning Policy Framework) – a requirement which is not applied to any other infrastructure project.
...

While we await a secondary announcement in the Autumn, it looks like these changes will, at best, make it slightly less difficult to build new onshore windfarms in England.

 

[David_Cary]

There is very little chance that government rules on nuclear will change in the next 20 years so the 25 year timeline still applies. Even if government changed in 10, it would take 15 to take advantage of the change and install.
And you would also need state and local government changes.

Nuclear challenges oil power just as much as renewables do. Oil wins because oil has the money and the government in their pocket.

Building solar farms/wind power and batteries do not require as much government change. The government has no ability or desire to change so that is where we will head even if nuclear was cheap enough (and it really isn't).

 

[tps5352]

...having long-range cars in a company's car model family should help increase the perception of long range and psychologically help convince holdouts that EVs are viable.

I should also have said that reducing the amount of time necessary to charge (at DC rapid-charge facilities) closer to the average time it takes to fill up a gas tank with liquid fuel will also help tremendously.

So to eliminate ICE drivers' reluctance to switch to EVs, here are some steps that could/should be taken (or already are being taken):

• Longer range (say, something from 400 to 500 miles).
• Plenty of charging stations. (Good job, Tesla. Keep it up.)
• Quick charging. (I believe an average fill-up with gasoline takes something like two minutes?)
• The lack of engine-sound issue. (Some electric vehicles apparently put out "canned" ICE noises to overcome this arguable "deficit.")

Meanwhile, EVs (especially Tesla cars) tend to be:

• Much cleaner, less polluting, and easier on the environment
• Quieter
• Faster/more powerful/more efficient
• More amenable to self-driving and being updated (over-the-air)
• Chock full of state-of-the-art features/functions
• Fun
• Cool
• relatively high performance

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I should have said that reducing the amount of time necessary to charge (down to the time it takes to fill up a gas tank with liquid fuel) will also help tremendously.

So to eliminate ICE drivers' reluctance to switch to EVs, here are some steps that could/should be taken (or already are being taken):

• Longer range (say, something from 400 to 500 miles).
• Plenty of charging stations. (Good job, Tesla. Keep it up.)
• Quick charging. (I believe an average fill-up with gasoline takes something like two minutes?)
• The lack of engine-sound issue. (Some electric vehicles apparently put out ICE engine noises to overcome this "deficit.")

Plenty of charging stations is a bigger fix than the range. More range helps for certain cases, but with improved DCFC infrastructure, there comes a point where extra range makes very little difference for most people. What you then really get from the capacity needed from extra range is faster charging.

Faster charging is good, but I think that gasoline speeds is unrealistic. A crappy gas pump is 5gal/min. (Fastest pumps are 10gal/min.)
So even a 20mpg guzzler at a crappy gas pump is 100mi/min, or 6000mph. Being _very_ optimistic, at 5mi/kWh, to match that you'd need to average 1.2MW charging power.

That would be very expensive all round. I think it's better to pick a target charging power that's no more than the car can pull, and isn't a huge issue from the grid.

150 miles in 10 minutes is 900mph. At 3mi/kWh that's an _average_ of 300kW.
2 to 2 1/2 hours of driving and then a 10 minute break. With improved charging infrastructure the charging would be closer to highers on average, helping to limit the overall diversion to about 15 minutes.
Stretch goal of 5 minute charging, which would be 600kW average.

Fake engine noise is fine as long as it's (1) in the cabin and (2) you can turn it off. I get annoyed enough by my Kona EV's wooo below 21mph.

If we're going for a lot of extra range, I want 2000 miles of range so I'll likely never have to use a DCFC.

 

[David_Cary]

For my use case, 330 mile range with 1000 mi/hr charging is perfectly fine.
Very few trips for me are over 500 miles. So usually drive close to 4 hours, charge for 10-15 min and then finish the trip and charge at destination. When the charging station is in the right place and full speed, it isn't bad.
Most of the time, You would be gas filling on a 1000 mile RT twice. In this case, I would be charging twice - outside of home and destination.
Gas filling 5x2 min; EV charging 15x2 min. This is totally acceptable to me.
The vast majority of my road trips are under 300 miles so then the time wins out over gas filling. And it wins out in daily use.
So 20 extra minutes for trips at 500 miles (lets say 2 per year or 40 minutes). vs 1 oil change at 60 min and 30 gas fills at 5 min - total 210 minutes.

This is where we are today - why do we NEED to be so much better? Just like cost - with TC and gas savings (outside of CA), we are pretty cost neutral in certain categories. Our problem right now is not enough variety and adequate competition with Tesla and its issues with Elon and sales/service experience.

 

[EatsShoots]

Quite interesting. David was much better behaved here than when he slapped me back in grade school. A year ago I stumbled upon him for the first time in 30+ years on an article about rent control, IIRC. I still keenly remember where I was when he slapped me, because it was so uncalled for at the time.

Anyway, he has some good points about the facade of electrification's impact on actual climate impact, given that the tailpipe emissions are zero but the providing energy is not. That argument is nothing new but it's still far from being solved.

 

[tps5352]

Quite interesting. David was much better behaved here than when he slapped me back in grade school. A year ago I stumbled upon him for the first time in 30+ years on an article about rent control, IIRC. I still keenly remember where I was when he slapped me, because it was so uncalled for at the time.

Anyway, he has some good points about the facade of electrification's impact on actual climate impact, given that the tailpipe emissions are zero but the providing energy is not. That argument is nothing new but it's still far from being solved.

A. About the slap--ha, ha. (I guess. Bullying is mean, at any age and school incidents can be traumatizing.)

B. He seemed to take an industry point of view on some key issues. Not that that is always bad, but I found myself more sympathetic to Spiller's positions.

C. It's true that the value of EVs does depend, somewhat, on the source of the electricity. However, even if the electricity is "dirty," EVs are better than ICE cars. Why?

ICE vehicles are part of a very diverse ("non-point source," to use a water quality phrase) pollution system. There are m/billions of individual cars driving around each pumping various amounts of poisons and climate-changing substances into the atmosphere. In order to treat the non-point problem, you would have to affect every car, which is both expensive and difficult. We have done that somewhat, through regulations for mileage increases and anti-pollution engineering requirements. But it still hasn't stopped the problem, because the internal combustion engine is inherently a pollution-producing device difficult to fully regulate, and even with today's reduced emissions there are just so many ICE cars on the road.

In contrast, as we know EVs do not pollute (much) while driving around, but of course they get their electricity from power plants (via the electrical grid and storage in batteries). Now, yes, power plants can be very dirty, which diminishes the value of the electricity (and the usefulness of EVs using that "dirty" electricity). So EVs pollute via their original source of their electricity--the power plants. But the plants are "point sources" of pollution. They are limited in number and don't move around. Therefore, most of the EV pollution is originating in a single "point," the plant. Treating pollution at a single point/plant is much easier and all-together less expensive (but of course plant operators don't want to have to shell out money to do it, so there is still political resistance).

Simplistically, this same model applied (successfully, to an extent) to water treatment. Over the years it ultimately proved way easier (politically and engineering-wise) to construct water treatment plants that served many customers in each municipality rather than to try to treat waste coming individually from each home/business (which is possible but expensive).

The sooner we get ICE vehicles off the road, the sooner America's cities and towns will see improved air quality. Since we need vehicles (for our way of life), EVs are a good alternative. (For various reasons, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid cars are arguably not.)

 

[EatsShoots]

Actually I did find his comparison of the cost of a battery to the cost of a gas tank to be confusing, because implicit in that is that the price of an electric motor is comparable to the entire rest of an ICE's drivetrain, which it certainly isn't.

Of course part of their discussion was they had to take opposing sides and may have played devil's advocate at times.

 

[ChooseFreedom]

ICE vehicles are part of a very diverse ("non-point source," to use a water quality phrase) pollution system. There are m/billions of individual cars driving around each pumping various amounts of poisons and climate-changing substances into the atmosphere. In order to treat the non-point problem, you would have to affect every car, which is both expensive and difficult. We have done that somewhat, through regulations for mileage increases and anti-pollution engineering requirements. But it still hasn't stopped the problem, because the internal combustion engine is inherently a pollution-producing device difficult to fully regulate, and even with today's reduced emissions there are just so many ICE cars on the road.

In contrast, as we know EVs do not pollute (much) while driving around, but of course they get their electricity from power plants (via the electrical grid and storage in batteries). Now, yes, power plants can be very dirty, which diminishes the value of the electricity (and the usefulness of EVs using that "dirty" electricity). So EVs pollute via their original source of their electricity--the power plants. But the plants are "point sources" of pollution. They are limited in number and don't move around. Therefore, most of the EV pollution is originating in a single "point," the plant. Treating pollution at a single point/plant is much easier and all-together less expensive (but of course plant operators don't want to have to shell out money to do it, so there is still political resistance).

Simplistically, this same model applied (successfully, to an extent) to water treatment. Over the years it ultimately proved way easier (politically and engineering-wise) to construct water treatment plants that served many customers in each municipality rather than to try to treat waste coming individually from each home/business (which is possible but expensive).

The sooner we get ICE vehicles off the road, the sooner America's cities and towns will see improved air quality. Since we need vehicles (for our way of life), EVs are a good alternative. (For various reasons, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid cars are arguably not.)

Great points!

Just think about the urban scenes around the world in late 2020. So many visibly clearer skies because there were a fraction of the ICE cars on the road. The Earth can heal itself if we let it.

Also keep in mind, not all electricity is "dirty". Albeit a very small percentage at this point, there are folks who can afford to have solar panels on their roof, charging a Tesla power wall (or equivalent), to charge their car. As examples like that continue to grow, the negative impact of creating electricity can diminish as well. But to your point, still a bigger impact at the single points of mass creation at power plants.

Not a 1:1 comparison, but look at what the Bitcoin mining industry is showing the world what's possible. Over half of all the energy used globally for BTC mining now comes from renewable sources. Whether it's hydro, methane burn-off, solar, wind, they're a great example of what's possible with the right motivation.

The biggest hurdle, and you mentioned political resistance, will be getting the big oil, coal, gas companies out of the pockets of politicians so that real change can be put in bills and laws can be passed. But that's such a massive hurdle!

They say change happens one funeral at a time. So none of these things are going to happen quickly.
But steps continue to be made in the right direction, it's just whether they're going to happen fast enough to save us.

Next year's Tesla model (2/mini Y, Z) will be another step in the right direction. A small more affordable EV "for the masses" will certainly get more ICE's off the roads all over the world. We've seen the impact of Tesla in the past 10 years. Will be exciting to see where the impact shows in the next 10 yrs.

 

[SO16]

I agreed with Spiller far more often although the other guy seemed to represent the sentiment of the public well (albeit often wrong). Sad that he is making decisions at the Fed level for some of this stuff. But he is right on other things like a carbon tax. I’d prefer we get rid of mandates and remove all oil/gas subsidies. The true cost of gas would be enough for most to want to switch. For low income, only charge higher tax rates for people above a certain income.

The host was wrong in the beginning stating we don’t have oil. We do. But still shouldn’t be used for transportation purposes.

Lost in the debate is the energy used to just refine a gallon of gasoline. That alone can often propel an EV over 20 miles.

HFCV is ridiculous at the passenger vehicle level. Might make sense for planes or large ships.

The point he made with coal and EVs, even with coal, EVs come out ahead after like 6 or 7 years. And as the grid gets cleaner, so does every EV.

Hybrid doesn’t make sense. Two crappy drivetrains. Proper EVs work fine in cold with proper use.

EV range for towing is still a concern but that too will improve.

Concern about China with battery materials and the IRA making minerals only produced in US is ridiculous. We should produce in US but even battery materials brought in from China can be recycled for further use. That’s like receiving all the material from their mines.

I don’t agree with her that Elon should be forced to open the supercharger network. But it is good for the mission. I’m glad it played out like it did and we ended up with NACS. I’ve also used CCS and it is just so clunky in comparison and since we don’t have 3 phase power, NACS makes sense.

Prices of EVs have come down quite a bit and will continue to do so. He just seems so out of touch. He says about how better products dominate like the smart phone and flat screen tvs. Then he says EVs can’t because of price. Um, smartphones and flatscreen TVs have cost more than flip phones and tube TVs for a very long time.