Public and Private Sectors Working Together To Encourage Electric Transportation
8/26/11 1:56:14 PM — Music Director Riccardo Muti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra conclude their performance of Strauss’ Death and Transfiguration during their first concert on tour. © Todd Rosenberg Photography 2011
Here’s an article that suggests the forces of pure market economics are all that are necessary to replace gas and diesel powered cars and trucks with electric vehicles. Of course, this is the thesis of most of what I’ve written over the last couple of years, e.g., Bullish on Renewable Energy.
But it would be a mistake to discount the role of government entirely in pushing this transition along. It’s anyone’s guess what progress—if any—would have been made in the direction of electrifying transportation if it had not been for the $7500 federal subsidy for EVs, and various additional incentives at the state level. Moreover, aggressive CAFE standards have forced OEMs to develop a range of EVs for their customers who would be early adopters.
Of course, the most powerful laws are those that ban the sale of new cars and trucks with internal combustion engines after a certain year in the future.
It’s hard to separate the effects of heightening consumer demand from subsidies and policies banning ICEs; they seem to be working in a beautiful concert.
Craig,
Sometimes I wonder what planet you inhabit !
The reason EV’s are not widely adopted is the technology is not yet adequate !
No amount of encouragement or idiotic mandates, can alter that reality. Until Toyota, LG, Hyundai or any one of a thousand battery researchers can build an economic ESD with adequate capacity, long life and fast charging, were stuck with gasoline and hybrid technology.
I’ve bee trying to explain this for 15 years, but always find a multitude of people who refuse to accept reality. I partly blame the movie “Who killed the electric Car” for creating this myth.
You seem to be saying that government policy has no effect of the success or failure of technology. which is completely untrue. The reason we’re having this conversation via semiconductors is a result of the US government’s creating that industry in the mid-20th Century.
Craig,
No, I’m not saying government policy can’t both help promote and encourage technology. Government incentives if carefully monitored and used judiciously are of great benefit.
However, what I am saying is government policies aren’t a magic bullet. As King Canute illustrated,just passing a law or proclaiming a policy can’t in itself, invent a new technology and make it feasible.
The government didn’t just issue a proclamation, “Lo, let there be semi-conductors, and they magically appeared !”.
When I read the press reports (led by the Guardian) of the plan by the UK government to stop selling gasoline and diesel by 2040, I realized the plan was unworkable.
My reasoning :
Existing passenger vehicle fleet……………..35,000,000
Motor-cycles, scooters etc……………………1,300,000
Light Commercial (55 Diesel)………………….3,900,000
Heavy vehicles……………………………… 300,000
Heavy vehicles visiting from EU………………. 100,000
Coaches and buses…………………………… 160,000
Inland Shipping and Railway locomotives……….. 320,000
Agricultural machines……………………….. 820,000
Earth moving machinery………………………. 240,000
Total 41,120,000
(This list doesn’t include cranes, and other specialist engines. Nor the nearly, 600,000 historic or classic cars, trucks and buses)
(It’s interesting to observe that the emissions from the entire UK road fleet doesn’t equal the pollution caused by one large container ship !)
To replace all these vehicles in a mere 23 years without a major ESD breakthrough, is simply logistically impossible. Without an acceptable alternative, any serous attempt would result in an electoral revolt no government could survive.
Nor is it economically feasible. The task of building for over 2 million new EV’s, while also supplying supporting infrastructure each year for 23 years, would be economically ruinous ! Not only would the economy and government revenues shrink by at least 20% but the plan would cost the UK between 15-20% of GDP, the combination would create economic chaos and the whole enterprise would collapse.
Nor is it technically feasible. No technology currently exists to supply anywhere near the power required for the heavier users of distillate fuel.
In time, hybrid technology will continue to advance, reducing the use of gasoline and diesel,with some growth in EV’s, but this will be a gradual process stretching out until at least 260.
(even Toyota estimates it’s solid state batteries are 10 years away from commercialization)
In the meantime, what is far more feasible, would be to simply ban Ships rigged for bunker oil usage. Just two ships would more than equal all the UK road pollution.
The planet is a biosphere, pollutant emissions don’t respect national boundaries !
Eliminating bunker oil would be relatively economic and unnoticed by the average consumer. It’s dubious if the cost of shipping would increase, but even if it did, it would be marginal.
This is a typical example of cowardly, poorly conceived government policy, pandering to ideologically driven propaganda.
In the short term, such nonsense will satisfy the left and Guardian readers, but in the end amount to very little except a huge waste of tax payer funding that would be better spent on more productive projects.(Maybe education)
No magic bullet. Agreed.
Not sure about your analysis of the migration to electric transportation, though. I find it hard to believe that the migration to clean energy and transportation will be “economically ruinous.” I can’t find anyone who agrees with you.
Craig,
You seem to have a talent for selecting phrases and quoting them out of context !
I employed the term “economically ruinous’ within the context of the UK government financing and mandating the building of at least 2 million EV’s each year for 23 years, while also constructing massive electric charging infrastructure and compensating the owners of existing vehicles for the value of the existing stock of vehicles.
Somehow you managed to reinterpret that statement as ” migration to clean energy and transportation will be “economically ruinous.”
I can’t think of anyone who would agree to invest 15-20% of the UK GDP into implementing a technology yet to be invented, at the expense of causing a simultaneous 20% restriction in the economy, except a few deluded idealists.
Nor would the electorate stand for such lunacy.
Since, (unlike you) I am very much a pioneer, investor and early adopter of EV technology, I find your observation disingenuous.
That’s the difference between idealistic activists idealists with vague wish lists and pragmatists carefully examining the practicalities of such proposals.
Like all leftist dreamers, when can’t explain how a a policy or assertion can be implemented, you either just ignore the issue, or resort to vague distortions. It’s much easier to remain in lofty condescension, maintain the illusion of knowledge, than actually admit you haven’t the faintest idea how your plans could be implemented.
The migration to “clean energy and transportation” will happen, but through impractical ideologically motivated fantasies.
Trump may have his faults (well, he certainly has) but at least he’s not a hypocrite.