One kilowatt-hour of electricity currently emits about 372grams of CO2, a number that has dropped from 500 grams in 2012.
A new Chevy Malibu gets 32.5mpg combined. Hummer EV gets 47mpge combined, or about 1.394 miles per kWh.
363gCO2 per mile for the Malibu, 267gCO2/mile for the Hummer.
I don’t think using hyper-specific region specific metrics makes a lot of sense considering the grid is all connected. (At least, the East Coast and Midwest, Texas doing its own thing, and then the west Coast.) in any case, the grid is getting lower emissions over time and could go MUCH lower than current (maybe half or less) over the full life of any new vehicle.
Also, a Hummer EV is displacing other large vehicles. And if everybody drove subcompacts or other hyper efficient gasoline cars then we’d have less of a problem anyway. But not everyone is doing that. And a lot of people don’t want to. From a political economy standpoint then this is still a huge net win. Every new car and truck needs to at least have a plug in it within the next 5 to 10 years, and then we can start penalizing larger and heavier vehicles more directly.
EDIT: what we should do is expand the EV tax credit. GM no longer qualifies as they used theirs up, like Tesla. Mostly just foreign EV makers qualify, which cannot be the real intention of lawmakers when they made the law.
We can use the EV credit as a tool for improving efficiency. Instead of subsidizing per kWh of battery, we subsidize per mile of range. The first 50 miles of range (ie to be a plug in hybrid, but need at least 6.6kW charging speed) are incentivized at $100/mile of range. The next 200 miles of range $25/mile (under the condition of 100kW fast charging capability).
That way car companies are incentivized (even more) to maximize miles per kWh. Small, hyper-efficient EVs will be disproportionately credited. For a given kWh of battery, you’ll make more EV credit money as a carmaker putting it in a small, very efficient car than a big Hummer. But unless we renew the EV credit (and make it per kWh), there isn’t this (additional) incentive.
>Also, a Hummer EV is displacing other large vehicles.
this is the key point, if you are going to compare compare apples to apples. I mean you can always keep making EVs bigger and thus more inefficient till you have total cost & environmental toll parity with some smaller car.
Though its unlikely that somebody who was going to buy a regular hummer was going to opt for a malibu & nevermind the price. a good starting point may be comparing cars with Total cost of ownership parity & that too when both cars are past initial production ramp.
my cynical brain says the truth is much simpler, fossil industry they wants a stream of these type of articles so they can keep the illusion of 'just as bad' alive for buyers on the fence. that is until then next fossil friendly administration shows.
> my cynical brain says the truth is much simpler, fossil industry they wants a stream of these type of articles so they can keep the illusion of 'just as bad' alive for buyers on the fence.
Yes that seems to be the takeaway from Transport Evolved on another recent “study” that compared EVs to ICE cars on tire particulate emissions.
A Hummer H3 is less than 5,000 pounds. The EV Hummer is about 9,000. This is a vehicle that's much heavier than almost anything on the road that isn't a commercial vehicle, including similar ICE vehicles.
(And for what it's worth, I don't think Tesla should get a free pass here. Tesla Model S's generally weigh about 4,000 to 5,000 pounds, which is awfully heavy for a Sedan. They just don't look heavy, so people don't think about it.)
I'm in favor of EVs generally, but I think the would would get along just fine if there wasn't an electric Hummer.
... and it will likely get stuck in all the narrow streets ancient European towns/cities are filled with... a Hummer is too wide to enter many villages
Sure we'd also get along fine if there were no Hummers at all, gas or electric. But some people are going to make Hummers and some people are going to buy them. If the ones they buy are electric that's still a net win.
Sure but they should be taxed heavily based on height. The heavier vehicles are, the more maintenance and faster the roads wear out. That road maintenance need to be financed.
I’m not a huge fan of that large of a vehicle being out on the road either, but realistically, it costs well over 100k, there aren’t going to be that many out on the road any time soon.
also I read somewhere that road damage is proportional to fourth power of axle weight. essentially meaning this heavy beast make roads about 16 times worse off for rest of us. to be clear other EVs should not get a free pass here either.
Talking of making larger and large EV's, but I've thought for a while that electric RVs would be great. Though I imagine that the Tesla one would(will?) be 500k minimum.
But you'd get a huge electric battery for boon-docking it, running AC, etc and you get a large surface for solar panels. You might even be able to have enough solar to be able drive for a day to a new local, and then park for a few days to recharge and then drive again. ;)
I bet they'd sell pretty well and still be better environmentally than the RV's that get 5mpg.
So I've run some rough numbers on this- solar power a 40 ft class A is 8.5 ft wide, so 340 Sq ft of surface area. It appears that 20 watts per Sq foot is about average, so the rv roof can generate 6.8 KW. Parked you could reasonable set out a solar awning and double that to 13.6 KW.
Most existing class As are between 12000 and 30000 lbs. We are taking a 40' RV, so go to the top end of that. The F150 lightning and the Rivian both with around 8500 lbs and do about 50 kwh/100 miles on 135 kwh batteries, so a theoretical RV would likely need (very roughly) 3-4x truck equivalents of weight to maintain similar range characteristics (taking a little jump here, but most of that truck weight is battery and you still need to put an RV on top). The likely power requirements are 150-200 kwh/100 miles and 400-500 kwh of battery.
The means that, at the 6.8- 13.6 KW of solar panels are adding maybe a few miles an hour to range. Not impossible to boondock it and charge over the time, but going from 10% to 85 is going to take you a good chunk of the week under pretty optimal conditions.
That's awesome! I've not actually run the numbers, but yours sound about right. Though you might be able to add say 2 awnings to triple the regular roof. Of course, that adds weight, etc.
Alas it doesn't seem sustainable to self-charge for most. Not many people probably want to take half a week to re-charge for every few hundred miles they go.
Then again maybe for some it'd "add to the journey". It would still seem cool to do it all. If you were in a spot for a month, then you'd get a free "drive" afterwards. And the ability to boondock with effectively unlimited battery storage would be awesome.
While I don't think a fully self sustaining RV is practical for many use cases, it does open up some interesting possibilities- even with the relatively slow charge is enough to add maybe 30-50 miles of range over a weekend. That should calm range anxiety as there are going to progressively be less and less places more than 60 miles from a charging station.
Cost is a problem. Batteries are expensive - I saw $132/kwh as a low point, so at least $60k just for batteries, and maybe $3-6k for the solar stuff. That's half the cost of a low end class A already.
Charging even at normal stations will also be interesting. Will you be able to plug in to multiple chargers at once? If not, even most "fast" chargers are going to take hours.
I think the "fully self sustaining" would only be embraced by a subset of folks, but it might be a very big draw for them. Though that group doesn't often overlap with those can afford $500k+ rig. Though I think the primary benefit for the group who could afford that would be the built in self-sufficient (or excess!) solar power for daily living. Want to run a microwave, watch TV, and have an AC running while off grid at the lake? No problem and now no annoying generator running.
> That's half the cost of a low end class A already.
Yah I'd think an electric RV would have to target the crowd already spending $300k+ RVs. That'd overlap with the plush lifestyle folks above. Eventually a second hand market would emerge. Perhaps it'd ironically appeal to say remote oil rig workers (ok, maybe just the foremen) and such who sometimes have cash to burn.
Though including a smallish but high efficiency NG/LPG generator could supplement the battery range enough to significantly save on cost / weight. It'd also cover for say really bad solar spells, or after driving all day and boondocking, etc.
A 20 kWh NG/LPG generator ($6-10k) running for 8 hours would yield ~160 kWh. That'd extend the range of a 340 kWh (4x Model S's) battery to match that of a 500 kWh battery. It'd also only require about ~30-35 gallons of NG costing about $30-40 for the entire 8 hours of driving.
> Charging even at normal stations will also be interesting. Will you be able to plug in to multiple chargers at once? If not, even most "fast" chargers are going to take hours.
Ooft, good point! Maybe there will be more of those semi-truck capable Tesla super chargers. Still, it's an RV! Plug in for a few hours and eat lunch, take a nap, etc.
RV parks are also great places to find level 2 chargers even for non-RV EVs. If you are driving up to Alaska, most of the trip they are basically your only option right now.
I went on a long road trip recently with my Model S and charged up at RV parks where we tent camped. It's $10 more than a non-electric site, but that charge's range is worth about $30 worth of gasoline, so it's an easy win and you can skip the time to supercharge.
RV parks are probably going to start metering electricity if this becomes more commonplace... I imagine charging an EV takes a lot more energy than charging an RV, no?
Also worth noting that as the grid goes green, so do all EVs. Not so for combustion engines, unless we somehow switch to synthesizing hydrocarbon fuel from non-sequestered carbon sources.
(Which tbh I think will happen more as we near 100% green energy - you'll still end up with special cases where the energy density and portability benefits of storing energy as bonds in hydrocarbons still makes sense and justifies paying a higher cost for such synthetic fuel!)
But with how everything is going with solar, batteries, and nuclear, I suspect that the invisible hand of the free market is going to make the default "I want to make 1-7 people go about 70mph for 0-4 hours" vehicle be an EV, rather than doing complicated and expensive chemistry to make renewable hydrocarbons.
The grid doesn't have to be 100% green for it to be better than everyone burning gas in their cars. An electric car becomes greener as the grid becomes greener, a gas car is just as dirty today as it was last year.
I fact-checked this and it turns out I was completely wrong, and I'm sorry. Even with the current grid mix, a typical all-electric car will on average be greener than a gasoline car after about 15,000 miles. Even if you're in a place where 100% of your electricity comes from coal, the electric would still beat out the gas car after 89,000 miles.
So, it is like you said: It is already cleaner, and will get even cleaner as the grid improves.
If you’re going to factor in the refining process for the fuel, wouldn’t it make sense to factor in the refining and manufacturing process for the battery?
Yes, it would, but that’s part of making the overall car and it depends on lifetime. As EV batteries can now last 500,000 miles (vs 250,000 miles for first generation long range EVs), that’s not as big of an impact as many assume. (A lot of papers assume really low EV lifetimes, like just 100,000 miles, and no secondary reuse of the battery and they assume really outdated and inefficient numbers for manufacturing the cells.)
Only tangentially related, but I wonder what the expected battery lifetime drops to when you factor in crashes. You mention that the cells might last 500,000 miles but is that really relevant if you're likely to have your car totaled before 200,000?
Are there diminishing returns if you are a company working on a million mile battery since virtually no vehicles will make it that far?
I am speaking as someone who has had three cars totaled before 100,000 miles (none of which were my fault!)
Why are batteries typically measured in miles, rather than years and or recharges? Age and charge cycles are the two hardest things on batteries, not distance traveled. I for example will not drive 500k in my life, but I'm sure the battery is going to have much less capacity and life left in 10 to 20 years regardless.
It depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about a battery car, then it is better to use a number that makes sense for the end user, and number of charge cycle is not an easy one. If you recharge from 70% to 90% every day, is that a cycle, is that 1/5th of a cycle?
The main problem is the number of full capacity cycling a battery cell can do can change widely based in how it is used. So it depends on how it is integrated into a car and how the car is being used. A typical Li-Ion cell will last a few hundred cycles if cycled completely at a high rate without proper thermal control. But this number can easily be multiplied by 10 with proper thermal management, not charging it to max voltage and doing shallower cycling. If you want to give a number for a final product, you are bound to make assumptions on how it will be used. And at this point you just have an equivalence between distance driven and cycling count.
Also, age has less impact than cycling count in the context of a properly designed battery pack. The two main factors for battery degradation are time spent at high temperature and high state of charge, and cycling count (with speed and depth being the key elements). EV manufacturers are keeping a buffer for that purpose and their batteries do not spend a lot of time at high state of charge where the chemical degradation is more effective.
That would be comparing two completely unrelated things.
If you want to factor in manufacturing emissions, you would have to do so for both. Unlike the manufacturing process for the battery, fuel refining is not a one time thing, but part of the emissions associated with operating the vehicle.
I think the only thing in question is the co2 cost associated with the creation and consumption of the fuel, not the storage of the fuel or the parts that consume it.
But if https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-co2-emitted-manufac... is a good benchmark, we can probably assume the battery's manufacturing process releases between 3120kg and 15,680kg of co2, though that does describe a tesla model 3 battery and I don't know how similar it would be. For the sake of expedient math, I'll average them and say it emits 9,000kg of co2.
If we assume a lifespan of 200k miles, no part replacements, and no change in co2 costs/mile for EVs, then the total emissions would be:
~68,200kg for the EV (341g/mile) + the battery = 77,200kg total
~177,800kg for the non-EV (889g/mile), not including the manufacturing emissions associated with the ICE
Ultimately it's not an insignificant amount of co2, but in context it is actually pretty unimportant. It turns 341g/mile into 386g/mile. Of course, it's incorrect to assume an EV will have static "emissions" since they all come from the production of electricity, and given current trends it would be fair to assume those numbers will trend downwards. Gasoline, however, can probably be expected to have fairly static emissions over the life of the vehicle, likely actually getting worse as parts wear.
Most EV manufacturers are offering around 8 year/160,000-200,000km warranties on the batteries.
So not 200,000miles. But definitely covering the average usage pattern.
And not all will last that long, but the majority will. And potentially the worst case is just degradation - I.e. 200km range instead of 400km range, so still quite useful for a variety of use cases even outside of cars.
Yes, current EV batteries (not the old Nissan Leaf ones without active cooling) are projected to last as long as 3 million kilometres: https://youtu.be/7DYknTVskTw?t=325
Warranty is to some percent of original capacity, like 80 or 90%. Then you have another few hundred thousand miles for the next quantum of degradation.
Not really because this about emissions per mile driven. It takes energy to refine and deliver energy (both electricity and gasoline) so it makes sense to take that into account when comparing total emissions (comparing local emissions just makes ICE vehicles look bad). If you included the battery pack you would need to include the drivetrain of the ICE vehicle to make it commensurate. At that point it is just a different analysis, a fine analysis to do of course, but a different one.
Also what is the purchase price difference between the these two cars (the malibu versus the hummer)? I'm not American so not really familiar with either but from what I know I assume the average person who would but the ev wouldn't be cross shopping for the malibu. It seems like a bit of a straw man to present the figures for these two cars. It would be better to have what the average model 3 buyer would have otherwise purchased.
Agreed. And the Model 3 (132mpge) and Model Y (124mpge) are FAR more efficient, using less than half the electricity per mile than the Hummer EV (47mpge).
The one thing about a Hummer EV with a huge battery is it can be used for work requiring towing large payloads. With large tow jobs, the thing that matters most for range is the kWhs of the battery of the vehicle, so it’s somewhat justified to have such a big and heavy vehicle.
For Europeans, the Malibu is essentially the Opel Insignia with Chevrolet styling. It was also sold in the US as the Buick Regal with only the front Opel badge replaced by a Buick badge.
> Also, a Hummer EV is displacing other large vehicles.
Is it? Not all hummer drivers are Arnold Swartz. what if the main buyers are just folks who want the largest electric cars? It's possible this mainly cannibalizes Tesla Model X sales more than gas Hummers.
I haven't seen studies for who buys what but until there is we're all just making wild assumptions about consumer demand.
For the record, I'm not saying this is awful or hurts more than it helps. My main point is brands offer more EV options shouldn't defacto be applauded.
Dont forget that there's a lot of embodied energy in everything too.
Even renewable capacity creates CO2 when it's made. So does the grid. So does maintaining these things. And so does drilling for oil, & shipping it around the world, processing it, and shipping it again.
> We can use the EV credit as a tool for improving efficiency. Instead of subsidizing per kWh of battery, we subsidize per mile of range. The first 50 miles of range (ie to be a plug in hybrid, but need at least 6.6kW charging speed) are incentivized at $100/mile of range. The next 200 miles of range $25/mile (under the condition of 100kW fast charging capability).
> That way car companies are incentivized (even more) to maximize miles per kWh.
As long as battery charging times are so slow, IMO car companies already have a ton of incentive to make their EVs efficient, as range is a big differentiator and batteries are such a large cost component. I suspect there isn't a lot more efficiency that would be gotten out of a change to incentive structure.
> Also, a Hummer EV is displacing other large vehicles. And if everybody drove subcompacts or other hyper efficient gasoline cars then we’d have less of a problem anyway. But not everyone is doing that. And a lot of people don’t want to.
This is a big source of waste and inefficiency though. People just needing to commute by themselves from A to B and buying pickup trucks or large sedans with poor efficiency, then whining whenever energy costs shoot up.
As a taxpayer, I would much rather if my taxes subsidized programs that encouraged people to be more frugal with their vehicle type choices.
Well my personal opinion is these larger vehicles should require a special license to drive. And once we kill gasoline and diesel on our roads, we should tax based on 1) wear and tear on the roads and 2) risk to pedestrians and other vehicles.
Weight is an okay stand-in for that metric, but isn't perfect (there are ways to distribute load on the road using the wheels that reduce wear, and there are design features like a low hood or even external airbags that could be used to reduce fatalities to pedestrians and other vehicles).
But we shouldn't go there until we've all but eliminated fossil fuels from our roads.
You’ll be glad the biggest single consumer tax credit won’t go to buyers of the Hummer then. GM vehicles aren’t eligible for the federal tax rebate anymore
> A gallon of gasoline emits about 11.8 kg of CO2 if you include refining.
A gallon of propane emits about 0kg of additional CO2, if you consider that it's just going to get flared off as waste gas anyway, and we need to refine lots of oil to make the plastics to make electric cars.
Why are you still wasting time running things on petrol when propane is better in just about every way?
Is that equation complete though? The cost of making and disposing of the vehicle should be included, as making batteries and recycling the batteries is supposedly quite energy intensive. However electric motors are simpler, have less parts and require less maintenance.
> One kilowatt-hour of electricity currently emits about 372grams of CO2
Not if it's coal. 1 kWh from a coal power plant generates 820-940 grams of CO2 (down from 1130g [5])
The EV Hummer actually gets ~631g CO2/mile - nearly twice that of the Malibu - if your electricity comes from a coal plant.
60% of the USA's power comes from coal, oil and gas. [6]
In many parts of the country, going to EV does not substantially reduce CO2 emissions nor save money. We have a very long way to go until we can say that EV is always better for the environment than ICE.
CO2 emissions from energy generation are now higher than they've ever been in history. More coal is being burned lately due to higher natural gas prices. And as emerging markets have more need for electricity, they are ramping up more non-renewable power production facilities, because gas, oil and coal are cheaper/easier/more available. [1] [2]
(aside: the EIA considers electricity generation "from biomass [..] to be carbon neutral" [3], which is bonkers. Biomass co-firing generates 740g CO2, non-cofiring 240g [4])
> We have a very long way to go until we can say that EV is always better for the environment than ICE.
This is a meaningless point as you can make this argument about literally anything. Please point to the person you think is making a purchasing decision where it’s heads = Chevy Malibu, tails = Hummer EV.
An H1 Hummer gets 10 mpg rated, but at the performance levels listed for the EV it would be substantially lower. So an equivalent performance gas H1 Hummer would have four, five or more times the emissions of a Chevy Malibu.
Your position is irrational. I’m really looking forward to urban gas stations being deleted and replace with nice things that don’t contribute to childhood cancers.
Only about 21% of US electricity comes from coal right now, and the number is falling over time.
Efficient natural gas plants can actually do pretty well, about the same as the 372g/kWh grid average. Almost no oil (or petro coke, etc) is burned for electricity. I think less than a tenth of the amount of electricity from solar (solar is currently somewhere around 5% to about 4.2%, depending on how you count "now", i.e. annualized amount based on the last month of data in April with seasonal effects taken out... or the more conservative 12 months rolling average).
>in any case, the grid is getting lower emissions over time and could go MUCH lower than current
This is a key point so many people miss.
Perfect World: We reduce our emissions.
Good World: We transition our infrastructure to things that can be decarbonized in the future. That Hummer EV could theoretically run on completely renewable energy (once other changes are made) the Malibu will never.
If the stupid EV credit was refundable I'd have taken it into account when looking for a new vehicle; as it is it's pointless to me because my tax liability isn't high enough.
The typical workaround (and it's not ideal, but it's not zero either) is to lease the car, where the finance company can take the credit and return most of it to you in the form of cap cost reduction on the front end of the lease. (Yeah, yeah, it's not as good as money in your pocket, but it's better than a stick in the eye.)
Interesting comment that inspired me to look into the grams of carbon dioxide emitted when running biodiesel fuel:
This page [1] says biodiesel emits 2,661 grams of carbon dioxide per gallon. Let’s say a 1988 F250 gets 15 mpg => 2,661 g/gal * 1/15 gal/mile = 177.4 gram CO2/mile.
Pretty cool it’s less than both the Chevy Malibu and Hummer but wonder how it compares to other petrol cars - it is just proportional to fuel economy but im not gonna run the numbers. In my head a pure gasser car would need to get above about 40mpg of petroleum fuel to emit less grams of CO2 than a 15mpg vehicle running pure biodiesel.
TLDR biodiesel is what’s up if you can’t afford an ev (and still has its place if you can).
Pure petroleum diesel still barely emits more co2 than gasoline anyway [2]
Disclaimer: only comparing carbon dioxide and not other greenhouse gas emissions
Edit: i'm seeing some numbers around that the average human exhalation per day is emits 1 kg of CO2, for reference. [3]
The thing with human exhalation is that this CO2 comes from the food we consume and gets captured again when food is produced thus having netzero influence on the actual CO2 in the atmosphere. Same basically applies to biodiesel. Of course that ignores energy spent to produce crops and other issues like fertilizer.
The problem is the fossil fuel that is concentrated carbon from millions of years of plants and now just adds to the CO2 in the atmosphere without a corresponding mechanism to take it out again.
If we create gasoline by capturing CO2 from the atmosphere there isn't a CO2 problem with using it for fuel. Processes exist, but all have some (major) inefficiency issues.
Biodiesel is interesting but if you end up using palm nuts as the oil source and the producers are clear cutting forests to plan palms then the climate story gets muddy.
Indeed, although palm nuts/oil as the result of clear-cutting is a straw man. I do agree, however, biodiesel is quite a varied product. There could be biodiesel made from palm or beef/meat byproducts (tallow), which could in theory come from a clear-cut area.
But it would likely constitute a very small volume of biodiesel (compared to soy for example [1]).
Soy ain’t perfect either (gmo, mono cropping etc etc) but certainly better than petroleum.
Edit/Note: I’m in the US and typically seek out data for the North American region. Maybe palm oil biodiesel is a bigger thing in other parts of the world (Africa, Europe, Asia?) - not sure. Would be intrigued if there is data supporting it either way. The US dataset below has “no data” explicitly stated for palm oils.
Are we allowed to call these "coal vehicles" yet? They don't make nuclear power plants anymore - so not sure why everyone wants to run more coal plants.
They do make wind and solar plants though. And either way, even with coal feeding a thermal plant as the energy source, it is still more efficient to generate the energy and distribute it to the wheel than it is to refine, transport and burn the fossil fuel the ICE vehicle would use.
In many places in the US it’s an accurate description for sure, but your getting down voted here because it’s an inconvenient truth. I gave you an upvote, because I appreciate the irony. Where I live it’s an 85% coal, 15% solar vehicle.
The US average is about 21% electricity from coal, a number that's down from over 50% about 20 years ago. And coal is falling over time as well.
It's not an "inconvenient truth", it's outdated information, basically a lie at this point. No one's bothering building new coal plants any more. People ARE building new nuclear plants (Vogtle, etc, not counting the small modular reactors). Nuclear produces about 18-19% of US electricity, nearly as much as coal. Solar is about 4-5% of US electricity (including solar behind-the-meter), hydro is 6-7%. Wind is 10%, geothermal about 0.4%. Wood and biomass waste (including landfill gas, etc) is about 1.3% total. Total renewables and nuclear produce over 40% of US electricity, twice that of coal.
No offense, but just listing out of all of the US energy sources used across the country does not mean that every individual local area derives all of their energy in the same percentages as you specified. You call the “coal powered vehicles” description a “lie”, but you obfuscate the data by choosing to look at it from a generalization point and low data resolution.
So like I said, (and I just checked my utility for these numbers and updated them for accuracy) where I live—EVs are presently being fueled by 86% coal (however, during peak demand periods, natural gas fueled turbines will come online and change the mix to 61%/25% coal/natural gas), and 14% solar. That is 86% of EV power coming from non-renewable fossil fuels with most of that fuel being coal. That’s not a lie, it simply is what it is.
If other areas are doing better with renewables, great. Here, EVs are running on mostly coal.
The US electric grid is well-connected, certainly regionally. You don't get all your electricity in your state. There's no sense in saying they mostly run on coal. And there's no way to refute your claims since you didn't mention what your location is, so I provided the US average, which is the only thing that makes sense as otherwise it's dishonest cherry-picking... which is precisely what you're doing. It's not "obfuscation" to use the national average!
Only 21% of US electricity comes from coal, and likely less than that in areas with the highest percentage of EVs. The future (which is what the Hummer EV will do its driving in) will also have far less than that. So yeah, calling them "coal powered" is dishonest to the point of being a lie.
All electricity I receive from my utility is generated in my state. My utility has excess capacity and provides energy to other utilities within the state. It provided those numbers as to their mix, that is what they have posted. If you want to dispute them with your general percentages, feel free, but you are not arguing from position of strength.
I would suggest instead of doubling down despite not knowing where I am, consider that in certain places within the US that the general mix of energy sources that you have provided could be different. Additionally, is it possible that in certain places within the US that energy sources like nuclear, wind, and hydro are simply not available to the consumers there? Also, is it possible that in those locations with the absence of effective renewable energy sources, that those areas might choose to rely on fossil fuels as their primary source of energy?
I could say nearly every EV roaming around Hawaii is 69% gas powered.
I could say nearly every EV roaming around South Carolina is 60% nuclear powered.
I could say nearly every EV roaming around West Virginia is 89% fossil fuel powered.
I could say nearly every EV roaming around Washington state is 69% hydroelectric powered.
All of those statements are accurate and all are completely different. According to you, they are all lies, because my statement is a lie.
It's not an inconvenient truth. It's a non sequitur designed to make people think gas vehicles are better or equivalent to EVs.
Yes power generation in many parts of the world still produces lots of CO2. We all know that. You're not more clever than the rest of us for pointing it out.
But to decarbonize we have to address both cars and power generation. It's okay for us to talk about electric vehicles in isolation. These problems can be dealt with independently.
Every time there's talk about EVs some smartass is saying "it's pointless cause we're burning coal to power them". Such an attitude of "nothing is worth it unless we fix everything at once" once promotes apathy and inaction, and is just plain annoying.
>>EDIT: what we should do is expand the EV tax credit
No we don't, that will increase inflation is basically a tax on poor people to pay for rich people to buy new vehicle
The EV Tax credit needs to do away completely, EV can either compete with ICE in the market or they cant, government should not be picking winners or losers.
>>Also, a Hummer EV is displacing other large vehicles.
Not until batter tech improves, I am interested in an EV truck, none of them have the towing range that makes them practical for a weekend trip to the dock with your boat, or a camping trip. One of the Youtube channels I watch just did a head to head with a ICE truck against the Ford Lightening, they did not get 80 miles with the truck before they ran out of charge pulling a normal sized trailer, that is with the Truck claiming a 150 or so mile range at the start of the trip. TERRIBLE towing miles.
Current batteries may be good for a car like the Model 3 and Model S, or the Mach E, but it is TERRIBLE for large SUV's or Trucks that are made for towing
> The EV Tax credit needs to do away completely, EV can either compete with ICE in the market or they cant, government should not be picking winners or losers.
One of the governments jobs is to make sure externalities are accounted for, and ICEs should not get a free ride by not dealing with their pollution.
There are many things that do not make sense on the open market, unless we can collectively agree to tip the scales in the direction it should go for a better society, till the "market" can manage it on it's own.
>>One of the governments jobs is to make sure externalities are accounted
We clearly differ as to what the role of government is, because I do not believe that is one of the governments job at all.
Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less
Given the federal tax credit is US Law, I would also like you to point to where in the US Constitution is the power granted to the federal government to "make sure externalities are accounted" I missed that provision in my copy of the Constitution
>>There are many things that do not make sense on the open market
I am sure we are going to disagree widely here as well, as I am very much an Adam Smith invisible hand adherent
> Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less
…which they are doing by encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles. Lotta property is gonna go underwater, the less carbon we emit today, the less needs defending tomorrow.
Maybe, but there is zero evidence that the Tax Credit does what people claim it does, it seems to me people buying EV are doing so regardless of the Tax Credit, instead is simply is a subsidy for people that can already afford the sticker price anyway, i.e wealthy people.
> Government is simply the organization of the natural right of lawful defense to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each. Nothing more, nothing less
And managing externalities fits because public things (like the air we breathe) are something we all have a right to, and one person shouldn't be allowed to fuck that up for everyone else unilaterally.
If you believe in protecting individuals and natural rights you have to reserve the power to prevent individuals from interfering with them. I would wager money that you do believe the government should do this to some extent (murder, say, or dumping toxins in your water supply), so it's not some question of principle, just of where you draw the line.
The problem here is mere existence is an externality, if you make the claim that government should have the power to curb externalties then the very idea of limited governance ceases to exist, as a government empowered to control externalities has unlimited power, as everything is an exernality include human breath.
Murder, or Dumping toxins is not on the same vein as CO2 emissions not even close, for former as a theoretical harm that may occur over 100+ years if technology and human behavior does not change naturally something not supported by history
Murder and Dumping toxins has a direct instant harm caused with immediate effect, if you can not see the difference then I am not sure how to continue the conversation
> I am very much an Adam Smith invisible hand adherent
The ICE ecosystem already benefits from large involvement of the government in securing fuel supplies. The EV ecosystem also benefits from large involvement of the government in electricity production and distribution. Both sectors benefit hugely from government involvement in road building and maintenance.
The whole transportation industry, and infrastructure in general, is very much not an "invisible hand" sector... More like layer upon layer of government involvement. I think you'd probably disagree with a lot of people who've voted in some form for these things.
> One of the governments jobs is to make sure externalities are accounted for, and ICEs should not get a free ride by not dealing with their pollution.
Should be a tax on ICE vehicles rather than EV credits. The former is not inflationary and charges directly for the externality.
The EV tax credit doesn't apply at all to the Hummer EV, so you have your wish.
But what we need is a full carbon tax of about $250/tonne of CO2 (eventually), as that's approximately the fully accounted social cost and is also about the long-term cost to suck the CO2 out of the air and store it. Then there wouldn't be any need to subsidize anything except for the usual industrial policy/tech dev reasons as the externalities would be priced in.
I agree to an extent. Pass a carbon tax to take care of the externalities, and let the invisible hand work. Unfortunately most people who are as enamored with the free market as you are would never go for it. So instead we get things like EV tax credits.
So don't use them for towing, or wait 5-9 years. Towing is not not done by a huge fraction of trucks, in fact most are probably looking pretty in suburban driveways.
While most trucks are not used for towing daily, many truck owner have them for vacations, and other rec uses on top of daily driving, this saves having to have 2 vehicles (or 3)
So even if the Truck is only used for towing 2 times a year, you will never get most truck owners to buy one with a 80mile towing range
Maybe this saves having to rent a car for the occasion...
Even then. Friend of mine busted his daily commute SUV before a long road trip. Ended up renting a much more fuel efficient sedan. Could not believe how little gas he used on the way. Maybe next time he'll rent again.
Trucks in the US are a stupid status booster for most people. Once you start seeing cars as a box to safely get you, your passengers and your cargo from point A to point B for a decent amount of time and money, and stop thinking about how what you drive makes you look, not a whole lot of trucks make sense anymore.
Like I said, wait a few years. Used to hear the same disparaging comments about digital cameras. Ten years later film cameras barely exist. Battery tech has moved a bit slower, but has made incredible strides in twenty. We're almost there, just a matter of time.
The entire context of this discussion is about government penalties or subsidies for on ICE or EV..
As I said a in my opening comment, there should be neither and like the Film vs Digital the market should work itself out
The comments in this thread is people pushing back claiming the market can not do that and the government must step in with its coercive force to tip the scales.
“ Comparing larger vehicles, the original Hummer H1 emits 889 grams of CO2 per mile and the new Hummer EV causes 341 grams, demonstrating that behemoth EVs can still be worse for the environment than smaller, conventional vehicles”
So 1/3 the emissions of a normal hummer… I don’t think the normal hummer owner is going to ever switch to a sedan so that seems like a major improvement
Arguably that’s why you need legislation to more strongly dissuade buying a ridiculous car like that via taxes or whatever. If you leave it to individual choice there will always be plenty of people who don’t care about the costs they’re imposing on others.
This seems like a useless place to optimize. Like, what is the total pollution output of all Hummers or similar vehicles? A rounding error, I'm guessing. The only way to make dents is with systemic changes like for entire trucking industry, for example.
Sounds like a good reason to create protected “no turn on red” crosswalks.
The state’s monopoly on violence should be used judiciously and sparingly to secure our individual rights, not as a catch-all tool for coercing (or outright forcing) people into making the choices you want them to.
Yes, first and foremost the right to bodily integrity, since rights are no good if you are dead. The two biggest killers of people in the US who are otherwise many many years from dying are guns and cars, and in both cases a large number of those dead had neither a gun nor a car in the moment. If the state is going to use its monopoly on anything, it should obviously be those two.
They can also enforce existing laws better. Don't forget that most states have had truck laws for a very long time. We know there is a direct linkage between vehicle weight and road maintenance costs. We've had laws that required vehicles to be weighed. We've had laws that taxed vehicles that exceeded certain weights on given roads. We've had laws banning vehicles of certain weights from certain roads. We could turn those laws "back on", get back to enforcing them better, adjust their fines and penalties to match a decade or three of inflation.
(For instance, Hummers are allegedly already technically illegal by weight on California residential streets. When was the last time that was enforced? When was the last time an owner paid fines on that?)
This old article mentions a lot of advantages of electric velomobiles vs cars like doing average commutes in roughly the same time, dramatic increase in road capacity, tiny power consumption if everyone was to switch etc etc
But write-ups hardly ever mention how hard it is to damage a pedestrian with it. Crashes involving just velomobiles usually leave little more than a scratch.
I live in a state with many “no right turn on red” intersections, and I can tell you for sure that people very often ignore those signs and do it anyway.
> The state’s monopoly on violence should be used judiciously and sparingly to secure our individual rights, not as a catch-all tool for coercing (or outright forcing) people into making the choices you want them to.
May I steal this, please? I know a few people who don't get my political philosophy, and I want to help them understand.
The state's monopoly, qua Max Weber, is on the legitimate use of violence.
That is, the right and legitimacy of that right, is restricted to the state.
Absent this, one of three conditions exist;
1. There is no monopoly. In which case violence is widespread, and there is no state.
2. There is no legitimacy. In which case violence is capricious. This is your condition of tyranny (unaccountable power).
3. Some non-state power or agent assumes the monopoly on legitimate violence. In which case it becomes, by definition the State.
The state's claim is to legitimacy. A capricious exercise would be an abrogation of legitimacy
Weber, Max (1978). Roth, Guenther; Wittich, Claus (eds.). Economy and Society. Berkeley: U. California P. p. 54.
Piecemeal regulations that treat luxury and small business vehicles separately and ignore the rich's pastimes to crack down on the working man's daily bread are why nothing other than an evenhanded carbon tax could ever be applied in a democratic country.
A very funny quirk of human psychology is people drinking water shipped from Fiji in an Uber Black car on their way to a first class flight thinking “those hicks in hummers are really destroying the environment”
We as humans only really internalize the things we see.
Well could be done on all scales. A small Kia with a roofrack / towbar maybe for extra cargo / small trailer is probably big enough for most human A->B needs, even small scale moving house.
Large trucks and SUVs tend to be so expensive to buy and operate that you can pay for a lot of deliveries and truck rentals per year—maybe a boat slip at the local marina, too—while still saving money.
Farther out in the sticks, sure, those things may be so inconvenient or unavailable that it's not an option, but it is for the average Suburban Assault Vehicle owner.
Yes, some people really need big vehicles (and/or we need them to keep farming) and so you need exemptions. In the UK there is Red
diesel for example that is for farm use / private use that is much cheaper than diesel for the road.
Right—it's not a subsidy, at least in the US, because much or all of the gas tax goes to road maintenance, so if you're not driving on public roads, you don't have to pay it.
Doesn't make sense to make e.g. farm tractors that rarely see a public road, pay for public road maintenance when fuel's purchased for them. Or trucks and other vehicles (some farms are really big and may include road-worthy vehicles that hardly drive on a public road more often that the tractors do).
If you're going to only drive on private land, you also don't need tags/plates for your car, at least around here. No registration. Just personal property tax and you're good to go.
What are the carbon emissions of manufacturing a yellow pencil? The amount of carbon released by the trees that were cut down? What about the chemicals needed to add the shine? Or the rubber manufactured for the eraser? What about the employees that have less time to feed themselves so they buy crappy junk food with packaging creating more waste? What about the costs to recycle it? What about the ecosystem that was replaced to make way for the new factory? What about the cost of the tools that were created to make these pencils? Do you calculate that in by how much wear is added every time they're used? And what about the tools needed to make THOSE tools? What about the graphite powder used for the lead or the energy it cost to heat petroleum coke above the temperature of graphitization or the ships needed to ship those to the right factory? What about that petcoke? Do you discount some of its cost because its mostly a side-product of the process of refining oil? What about when a company innovates to sell higher quality pencils made of higher quality petcoke that requires more emissions to make and isn't just a byproduct? What is the social cost of advertising and manipulating tastes in demand?
> The simplest approach, administratively, is to levy the carbon tax “upstream,” where the fewest entities would be subject to it (for instance, suppliers of coal, natural gas processing facilities, and oil refineries).
Include other highly polluting industries with that, and while you may not get 100% coverage, it would definitely cover the majority of carbon intensive products and services and lead to a drastic reduction in emissions.
CCL estimates that the annual administrative cost of a carbon tax in the US would be about $4 to $5 billion per year, which is about 6.8 percent of revenues in year one ($15/ton of CO2e year one, rising by $10/ton each year), but as revenues grow along with the fee, it drops to only about 1.7 percent by year 10.
True, it definitely is trickier, but it can be managed to some degree.
> The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act has a provision built in to protect trade competitiveness: a ‘Carbon Border Fee Adjustment’ imposed on covered fuels and ‘emissions-intensive trade-exposed’ (EITE) goods that cross our border in either direction. These goods include products like steel, aluminum, cement, glass, certain chemicals, and some agricultural products.
Goods that fall under this EITE classification and are imported from a country that does not have a carbon price equivalent to ours will have to pay a surcharge to make up the difference. Conversely, domestic EITE products exported to any country will get a refund for the carbon fee paid.
> If you leave it to individual choice there will always be plenty of people who don’t care about the costs they’re imposing on others.
I think the current state of affairs is actually worse than that -- big trucks are popular not just because some people like big trucks, but also because there are regulations that prevent small trucks from being a viable market segment in the U.S.: that class of vehicle has much more stringent fuel economy standards (perversely forcing people into larger vehicles with looser regulations), and light trucks imported from other countries are subject to a 25% tariff.
The only light truck I know of that you can get currently is the long version of the Jeep Wrangler. I'm not sure if they actually meet the fuel economy standards, or if they can somehow claim to not technically be a light truck. Maybe there are some others, but as far as I can tell almost all trucks sold in the U.S. are huge and have comically tall grills.
If I wasn't already in the middle of an EV conversion project, I'd be tempted to get something like an old Datsun 620 and load it up with batteries. I wish there was a product on the market like that.
I'm fairly low emissions but mostly by accident. I work from home and have until recently been too poor to travel like that. I just always found it annoying when people who are jetting around the globe complain about other people's cars. You on the other hand have a leg to stand on in that regard.
I put in a ton of flight miles and saw the world. No regrets, but I recognize I need to spend my carbon more judiciously now.
That said, I do truly believe travel makes you a better person, so if you can afford it now you should get out there and see it before it all burns down. Use my “credit”. :-)
I always see replies like this in conversations about vehicles in the US and it baffles me a little. Yes, of course there are appropriate situations in which someone might own a Hummer. But are we really trying to claim that even 10% of Hummers out there today are used in those situations? They’re very obvious status symbols.
If their owners wanted to actually go off road, they'd have bought something else. They really have no purpose other than to mark you as a person with more money than sense.
This definitely does not mean what you think it means. Owning a large car for work doesn’t mean it’s utilized as such. I know people who own trucks and large SUVs for work - but it’s “just in case” not because they need additional space on a daily or even weekly basis.
There are about 60m trucks on the road in the US [0]
There are 6m construction/mining workers, 6m installation workers, and 4m building maintenance workers. [1]
Using that definition, at most, 25% of trucks are used for work.
If you want to be extremely generous, there are also 13m transportation drivers (being very generous because that 60m does not include big rigs) and 8m factory workers (again, unlikely to use trucks for work).
Using that frankly incorrect definition, you still get only 62% of trucks being used for work.
So no, under NO circumstances are the "vast majority" of trucks in the US used for work.
But how many of those contruction/mining workers need to drive a truck?
My brother works in road construction - he drives a 15,000 lb maintenance truck owned by his company. But he doesn't drive it home, it stays on the job site (which varies between 15 and 150 miles from home). He owns a truck, but like many suburban trucks, it's in pristine condition and he mostly only uses it to pull a trailer, he drives a Honda Civic to get to the job site.
So you must not be familiar with NAICS codes. They are a mutually exclusive completely exhaustive categorization of jobs, as defined by the US government.
Here's the other ones:
11-0000 Management Occupations
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
23-0000 Legal Occupations
25-0000 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations
27-0000 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations
37-0000 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
51-0000 Production Occupations
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
Sure, maybe the 500k farming, fishing, and Forestry workers should be added to the list, but I'm curious as to what else you think should be.
EDIT: HN is banning me so this doesn't turn into a flamewar, but I'll leave you with this:
I am trying not to personally attack you, but I think you're kind of dipping into ad hominen attacks because you regret making statement that is not supported by data.
If you want to know why I think they shouldn't be included (and why I think you're really over your skis here), it's because the reality of farm work in the US is as follows:
1) The majority of the <1m US farm workers do the following job [0] [1]:
Manually plant, cultivate, and harvest vegetables, fruits, nuts, horticultural specialties, and field crops. Use hand tools, such as shovels, trowels, hoes, tampers, pruning hooks, shears, and knives.
It is not clear to me that this requires a truck (especially not one for each worker).
2) The average wage of farmworkers is $15/hour [1] and the average cost of a used F-150 in the US is $40k ($30k pre-pandemic) [2], so it's not immediately clear to me that this group of people own a large number of pick-ups.
Ultimately though, for someone to work at a large tech company, make their identity publicly available and to be so aggressive on a forum like this seems like a weird risk to take. If you want to delete all of this stuff and just move on, I'm ok with that.
The fact that you don't even think of 'farmers' when you think of truck user makes it clear you've got a warped suburban idea of what people use trucks for.
Farmers are a rounding error in the claim "the vast majority of trucks are used for work".
[EDIT] I think, assuming you're posting all this in good faith, it may be a result of expanding a local perspective to the entire country. Some parts of the country definitely do have way fewer non-work trucks driving around, as a proportion of total cars. One might conclude that this is the norm over enough of the country that "the vast majority" of trucks are work trucks. It very much is not.
A Suzuki Jimny would probably be more effective for 99% of Hummer owners that actually use it off-road, and in turn that is probably a very small minority of the total.
There's probably some amount of a valid point there, but making it about a Hummer, specifically, undermines it, since they suck at most of the things one might think they'd be good at.
Incidentally, I saw tons of Hummers on the road around here in the '00s. Now... I thought they'd stopped making them. All those "I want a huge car because... I want a huge car" buyers must be getting expensive trucks or other kinds of big SUVs these days.
I’ve been in places with rougher terrain than virtually anything in the US.
You’ll see people in areas like that driving a beat up truck barely large enough to fit 2 people or a tiny scooter that’s hauling a half ton of cargo.
Nobody is getting their hummer dirty or risking a scratch. And anybody going to a job site is going to prefer an actual truck over an oversized vehicle for bored suburban couples.
Unfortunately half of our government is against any common sense regulations or rules. Mass shootings are becoming a daily occurrence that happens in no other first world country but instead the gop has spent the last decades trying to weaken what little gun regulations there are. Enough of The public seems totally okay with that, and would absolutely go batshit if they perceived someone as wanting to ban trucks.
Tell me in that climate how the government does it’s job? People keep electing government officials who are expressly against what you’re suggesting.
I think the premise of the article is a bit silly - not everything is "average-able". The US is huge, and many places (like SV) do have 100% renewable energy so the electric is carbon free. This is like saying that if Portugal had a 100% clean grid that cars in Poland powered by coal plants meant that Portuguese EV's were not truly "environmental".
Something rarely discussed is that the generation technology matters in your specific locale.
If you're powering it with coal, this is horrible. If hydro/solar/nuclear power, well it's still a big load on the grid, but carbon wise it's a small fraction of the footprint.
Of course you need to factor in where the power is actually coming from on your grid. And definitely factor in the time of day (are you charging overnight and actually using a higher carbon source, etc).
When you do the math on this Hummer on the cleanest sources, it's still far cleaner than even a small ICE engine. Even though I still hate it :)
If you are powering with hydro/solar/nuclear then you are consuming electricity that could otherwise be used to reduce the load on a natural gas power plant somewhere else
I think you're missing the fact that a huge chunk of a vehicle's lifetime emissions are just in the manufacturing alone. And EVs are much more energy intensive to manufacture. Mostly this is due to the batteries. Which also have to be replaced every decade
Because of this alone, there are many EVs that are still worse for the environment than many gas-powered vehicles
38%[0] of an EVs emissions are in the manufacturing alone. Ultimately, the best thing you can do for the environment is still to STOP BUYING NEW CARS
Carbon costs per-vehicle can be calculated based on your local grid power source, duration of ownership, and more: https://www.carboncounter.com/ -- be sure to click the "Customize" tab
If your annual driving distance is low (<5,000 miles) and your grid is relatively dirty (e.g. the midwest [SRMW] grid), a range of EVs have more CO2 emissions/mile than conventional internal combustion vehicles.
> If your annual driving distance is low and your grid is relatively dirty, a range of EVs have more CO2 emissions/mile than conventional internal combustion vehicles.
Right now. I'm sure you know but the beauty of this is that those cars' emissions can be reduced without changing anything about the car simply by changing the fuel used to generate electricity which can (and has to) happen in the future.
Yes this is a key point lost on many when I hear this argument. It doesn’t mean to not buy an EV, it’s still a great idea, we just need to do more work on our power sources
Within a decade from when my Volt was manufactured to when I sold it, the carbon emissions per kWh dropped from 500g/kWh to 372g/kWh. Gasoline emissions have not dropped and might even be getting worse as we have to reach further to get nonconventional oil from tar sands, etc.
Those cars' emissions can also be made worse over time without changing anything about the car simply by changing the fuel used to generate electricity....
Such as Germany currently decommissioning nuclear plants...
That didn't stop Germany from reducing its oil, coal and gas consumption though. Those reduced over time or at least stayed the same while renewables steadily increased.
Related data on CO2 intensity on grids, this shows a map based on EPA data. It shows what the equivalent CO2 emissions would be between an average EV compared to a gas car. The worst in the lower 48 is SERC Midwest (parts of IL and MO) at around 42mpg, the best is upstate NY at 255mpg.
Customize, click on West Virginia preset and graph uses 560 gCO2/kWh to EPA's 860 for WV for Electricity (charging). Select Idaho and graph uses 310 gCo2/kWh compared to EPA's 96.
Carboncounter seem to be using the eGRID subregions, but I'm not sure how much green power actually flows from southern Wisconsin all the way to western Virginia. Maybe there's a power expert here that can comment on whether state or eGRID subregion numbers are more appropriate.
That the graph origin is not 0,0 by default and includes tax credits doesn't inspire much confidence in their impartiality.
One thing to note is power isn’t consistently generated M from the same source. Sometimes more wind, sometimes more solar, sometimes more gas. There’s currently a surplus of wind power overnight in that region and There are several companies teaming up with utilities to shift EV charging to lower cost, lower CO2 producing times.
The fundamental difference obviously being that electricity production can change significantly during the lifetime of a vehicle whereas energy production within the vehicle usually can not.
Seems like the overwhelming majority of the midwest is outperforming Missouri/Illinois, but yeah, that region is performing poorly.
I’m also disappointed that the second link didn’t include the emissions in the manufacture of the vehicle itself, which will be higher for EVs than gasoline cars, but from what I’ve read[0] the lifetime emissions of an EV are far far lower (breakeven point is about 10-15kmi).
If I was worried about this offsetting purchases of Chevy Malibus, then maybe yeah? But they are still going to produce significantly less CO2 than their actual competition.
In the long run, manufacturers making all of their halo cars ostentatious EVs is a good thing. Offroad car bros are not one wholesome lecture away from switching to a bicycle. Let's let car makers make electric cars cool and then focus on actually providing better sources of electricity.
They aren’t a wholesome lecture away, but they are a law, tax, or regulation away. Removing tax loopholes for large cars, tightening emissions standards, and perhaps adding extra licensing requirements for oversized vehicles could reduce the environmental hazard and the safety hazard these vehicles create.
I doubt it because I don’t think most status car buyers are particularly cost-sensitive and moreover passing said legislation is easier said than done (and regulations are likely to be overturned whenever the presidency changes parties). So far “sexy” has done a whole lot more to convert people to EVs than regulation (and I say this as a staunch proponent of carbon tax/pricing).
I think that requiring a CDL to drive a 9,000 pound vehicle with a 3 second 0-60 time would be enough to deter most potential buyers unless they were really motivated. Getting the license would be an actual inconvenience, not something you can just throw money at.
CDL may also lower the legal BAC to .03, which would be a problem for many people. I only know one person to mention that and he had the full class A license (it was his turn to drive home so his wife was drinking and he refused even one drink even though they were planning to stay for more than the hour it takes for alcohol to clear the bloodstream because he refused to risk his license)
I don't think it's all that rare to need a pickup truck for certain uses, but small pickup trucks have basically disappeared.
Rather than require a CDL for any pickup truck, I'd prefer a policy to require a CDL for vehicles above a certain size/weight, or with front grills that extend more than about 3 feet off the ground, or with the ability to reach freeway speeds from a stop in under about 5 seconds.
You “take it” wrong. SUVs didn’t exist prior to the 80s and are relatively rare outside of the US. People get along just fine with minivans and station wagons which are far safer for other due to their lower weight and far safer for those in the car due to their lower COG.
Minivans didn’t become mainstream until the mid-late 80s, and anyway pickup trucks were common well before that. Moreover, station wagons that were popular in the 80s were huge and they guzzled gas.
They’re comparable. Minivans are a bit better with kids, SUVs are often better for recreation (e.g., pulling a camper). Lots of people also depend on pickup trucks, contra the parent’s viewpoint that they’re rarely legitimate.
Pulling a camper is something that most people do rarely - no reason to drive that pickup to work every day when you could just rent it for trips.
Yes there are certain areas where most people will need a bunch of hauling capacity due to their professions. But most people who drive a pickup in the USA are doing it for stupid (prestige related reasons)! I don’t mean to sound too extreme here, I’m just tired of hearing people (who I know IRL) with expensive gas guzzlers complain about the cost of diesel when a compact sedan would suite their needs!
Firstly, if you have a camper you probably want to take it out many times a year, and even if you just have a tent, an SUV is pretty nice for all of your other supplies. Moreover, it’s not any one use case that justifies an SUV as much as a combination. If you have kids and you camp and you bring bikes and you have jet-skis, ATVs, dirt bikes, snow mobiles, or other toys then it quickly becomes worthwhile.
My wife and I upgraded to a small (electric) SUV and it’s absolutely been worthwhile just for extended roadtrips and camping with our dog and maybe a friend or two.
I’m sure plenty of people get big vehicles for prestige/whatever, but I was refuting a specific claim that use cases for pickups are rare and SUVs should be banned altogether.
Everyone is sensitive to large enough changes in price. Converting people to EVs does nothing if those EVs are energy and lithium hogs.
There is no substitute for energy efficiency. Having the right form of energy generation or storage is wonderful but efficiency is a fundamental virtue for hardware that is currently undervalued.
I'm all for good incentives, but I fundamentally do not see the value in waging wars on things people like while there is so much other low hanging fruit.
We need to dictate the what cars people drive in order to achieve green energy. Even if we had the political will to go 100% solar, the resources needed to make cars and panels and electricity generation are still going to be scarce. Why should those resources be thrown away on pointlessly large card when we could be using them for so much more?
It’s incredibly frustrating to see society dump our limited metal reserves into useless things. Every EV on the road that could be replaced by public transit and every big EV that could be replaced by a small one is N kWh of grid storage batteries that don’t get built.
> We can hem & haw and browbeat consumers, but if they want to buy big trucks.. better EV flavored ones than V8 coal rolling polluters.
Yes, or perhaps regulate these tanks that are a disaster for human life in all the years past 2150 (i.e., a time people born in the next twenty years will live to experience)...
I mean, I can't just bring a gigantic 500 kilo suitcase on an airplane. There's costs associated to the airplane and other passengers, and thus doing this is priced such that nobody does this for fun or mere convenience, but rather only very rarely out of necessity. In fact, only on the rare occasion when the costs are worth paying because the value is equal or higher than the price.
There's rules & conditions to using certain services and infrastructure like an airplane. Roads aren't any different, we just happen to accept rules & conditions that are ridiculously imbalanced, aren't pricing in the costs, and are disastrous on a whole range of categories: from climate change, to environmental pollution, to human health and safety, congestion and geopolitical issues around oil dependence.
Very few people are buying this exact monstrosity at $100K price point.
I am mostly trying to drive home a point I think a lot of perfectionists miss..
A lot of people drive gas vehicles.
A lot of people drive big trucks.
The more form factors that EVs come in, the more gas vehicle drivers can be converted to EVs, which is a net win.
I am not sure we are going to magically regulate and legislate away everything al at once in one Great Leap Forward of banning ICE, mandating smaller vehicles, changing land use and road design all in one go.
I am simply putting forward the opinion that every EV Hummer sold to a former gas Hummer buyer, is a net good. Every F150 Lightning/EV Silverado/Rivian sold to a former F150/Silverado V8 buyer is good. Every Tesla Model 3 sold to a former Camry/Accord buyer is good. Every VW ID4 sold to a former CRV/RAV4 buyer is good. Every Chevy Bolt sold to a former Honda Fit/Chevy Sonic buyer is good. Etc etc etc.
Look at the list of top vehicles sold in America. Most of them don't have EV versions available or affordable today. The more we can convert the merrier.
I don't think you are going to convert a lot of Chevy Suburban buyers into a Polestar 2, or BMW X5 buyer into a Tesla Model Y, or a Toyota Highlander into a Chevy Bolt. You could get some of them into a BMW iX or Mercedes EQS SUV or Rivian R1S, etc.
Some vehicle bloat is also crash safety regulatory driven as you see how much crumple zone growth cars have experienced if you compare say a BMW 3 series from 1990/2000/2010/2020.
Are these people obese? I don’t judge. It’s sad really, the way corporate interests have so profoundly shaped the fabric of North American cities towards car dependence, and hijacked our proclivity for calorific foods to the point of widespread overconsumption.
I'm a taller guy with wide shoulders. Not obese at all. Most cars are uncomfortable to me because the bucket seats aren't wide enough. I own an 2007 Tundra and it's the most comfortable vehicle I've driven. It's also the smallest truck that can tow my boat. I don't think corporate interest shaped my desire for an old truck and even older boat, but who knows.
In that case, I beg your pardon. Although, I’m curious where the desire for a truck and a boat comes from.
I know when I bought my car it was the sense of freedom it granted me that appealed, and some vague sense that cars are what “real” adults own. Now I look at it as a tool for our collective self-annihilation.
I would sell it, but then someone else would presumably actually use it. So instead, it sits there in the drive.
>I would sell it, but then someone else would presumably actually use it.
They would use it and reduce the need for carmakers to make a new car. Making a new car emits co2 as well. So unless your car has a bad enough mpg that the better mpg of the new car outweighs the manufacturing co2, it's better for the environment for you to sell your car. Reduce, reuse, recycle.
"Although, I’m curious where the desire for a truck and a boat comes from." is this a serious question or a comment for you to grandstand on your perceived superiority and 'green cred'?
"I would sell it, but then someone else would presumably actually use it. So instead, it sits there in the drive."
It sounds like it could be, but seriously? a) who talks to people like this and b) would actually do something that silly, spend money to keep something to grandstand on the fact that you are saving the earth by owning something to prevent others from using it.
Surely you could do something else with your time and money to further your goals and 'values' that would be far more productive. Such a strange mentality.
Not grandstanding, given that you’re all strangers and this is a pseudonymous account.
In truth, I stopped working and gas prices are real high. That was the initial grounds for the car to sit idle. Then I got to thinking whether I should keep the thing or not — whether I actually need it. I happen to live in a place with extremely good public transport, so there’s that.
And the question was meant in good faith. With time on my hands, I’ve been scrutinizing my own life choices up to this point, and it’s honestly hard to discern what influenced them.
I’m genuinely curious about people’s motivations. I can surely understand the desire to relax on the water :)
I sat in the back of a model 3 last week and my feet didn’t even fit straight under the drivers seat. I had to twist them both to the side for an Uber ride. I’m not small but not excessively large either. Sedans just don’t move groups of adults around very comfortably
If they want to buy big trucks, we need to consider those trucks' negative externalities. A bigger, faster, heavier, and more deadly vehicle, imposes costs on everyone around it.
Insurers aren’t properly internalizing the liability costs and therefore are pricing premiums too low for the risk these vehicles create. Maybe judgements need to be higher for deaths and injuries caused by overweight vehicles? I don’t have enough context to say. If they’re significantly more dangerous, it should be priced accordingly (based on claims data).
I don’t have any data myself, but it is a common argument in the United States that automobile drivers enjoy ridiculously little legal liability for injuring or killing pedestrians and cyclists in all but the grossest cases of recklessness or negligence.
Here is a recent case where a driver of a Jeep swerved into the oncoming lane to at high speed try to hit a bicyclist. They were only given a misdemeanor.
This person should not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle. There is almost no consequences for motorists who repeatedly violate the law and risk others' lives. We should be much more aggressive about taking away people's drivers licenses who demonstrate that they are incapable of public safety.
They don't really care about a lot of the externalities, like more land used per parking spot, more energy used by transportation, increased road wear from heavier vehicles, etc.
Who says more dangerous equals more expensive? Killing a victim can often be cheaper than the medical costs required to treat a severely injured person.
Or more commonly, someone who drives a compact car drunk habitually through a dangerous neighborhood is higher risk than a high-income person with a good driving record who drives a heavy car in a quiet suburb.
The people who cause the most insurance losses are often people who really don't have their lives together. They're driving cheap pieces of junk and wrecking them frequently.
> Killing a victim can often be cheaper than the medical costs required to treat a severely injured person.
Maybe, but I am rather skeptical of this claim being true under most circumstances.
And even if it is true that the payout from insurance is bigger in the case of injury than death, there's potentially lost revenue if the insured goes to jail.
>there's potentially lost revenue if the insured goes to jail.
It is surprisingly hard to end up in jail after killing someone with your car in the US. As long as you weren't drunk, weren't doing something crazy like going 40mph over the speed limit, and didn't flee the scene, the most you are generally looking at is a misdemeanor if you are charged with anything at all.
Likely the victim's medical or comprehensive insurance - most states only require very small liability limit policies that won't really cover much in a big crash.
California, for instance only requires ~30k injury coverage and ~5k property damage, not even enough to replace a cheap used car when totaled these days.
Strong agree that California’s minimums for insurance don’t make sense. I’m constantly surrounded by $75,000+ cars and have bumped up coverage amounts considerably
Weight is a confounding factor if an accident does happen, but the biggest risk that insurers deal with is the driver and the environment in which they operate their vehicle.
If those externalities were priced correctly, people would stop buying big cars. That’s why they’re not.
This is the sort of things governments can be good at if they choose. Otherwise gas/energy prices will eventually do it for us. And it won’t be pretty.
> If those externalities were priced correctly, people would stop buying big cars.
That isn't what it means to "price externalities correctly". Pricing them correctly means that the price covers the cost of the externality. That doesn't stop people who are willing and able to pay the price from doing so.
> This is the sort of things governments can be good at if they choose. Otherwise gas/energy prices will eventually do it for us. And it won’t be pretty.
This is exactly the sort of thing you want a market to sort out. Rising energy prices would naturally create the market pressure needed to find alternatives. It's the kind of problem firms would see coming a long way off and prepare for.
> Pricing them correctly means that the price covers the cost of the externality
My argument is that current fuel and energy prices do not cover all externalities. And I'm suggesting that maybe they should.
> This is exactly the sort of thing you want a market to sort out.
Yes and that doesn't work very well when fuel, roads, and the car industry are heavily subsidized in an effort to make car culture more affordable.
Part of the problem is that knowing the true price of relevant externalities is currently difficult or impossible. We'll find out eventually one way or another. Through the price of habitable real estate and lower crop yields if nothing else.
Not only only we not pricing in those externalities, the current regulations are structured in a way that actively incentivizes bigger vehicles, above and beyond consumer preferences:
Capitalism is well suitable to people at their current level, which is about developing a strong ego with intelligence and clear boundaries. Communism was appropriate in the past, when people had weak notion of self, is not appropriate now, and will be appropriate in the future when people want to give more and take less. "I think my nature was always one that strove to yield itself to the great whole of which it was such a small part - and by yielding itself, to draw back into it the sustenance of life." - a pretty good allegory on the essense of communism done right.
Given that all of recorded history has taken place in the last 10500 years, and that time has seen a huge diversity of social structures in civilizations across the globe, I think your pessimism is unfounded.
Yes, people are selfish. People also have a great capacity for cooperation and altruism, given sufficient cause to bind them together.
I rather hope that the impending collapse of the biosphere that sustains all life is just such a cause. Then again, we appear to be setting the world on fire at an ever greater pace.
1) As status symbols (because they're expensive, and because their "truck = freedom" advertising has been very successful) that still read as blue-collar / "red";
and,
2) Explicitly because of their size—they're perceived (pretty accurately) as being far more likely to "win" a crash than a smaller car, and they also put you up high, so you have better visibility. Not sure if the latter actually translates to more safety, but it's certainly perceived to. This is also a big reason SUVs sell well. There may be some related "I like to intimidate other drivers" factor here, too (not my uncharitable guess, as I've heard it seriously expressed by truck owners, and I'm also not saying this is extremely common—but it's common enough that I've encountered it several times). For that last part, see again: status symbol.
Some portion of the population owns trucks for the same reasons people own trucks in other rich countries, but that's not the reason they're unusually popular here. It's largely a form of class & political signaling ("I'm in your tribe, and also not poor") coupled with some tragedy-of-the-commons personal/family safety concerns.
[EDIT] 3) Aspirational purchases and poor cost/benefit analysis. Think: the lettuce you buy then don't eat before it goes bad. "I really want to get into [x activity that is easier with a truck] and I need to buy a vehicle of some kind, so I should get a truck" -> buys truck -> does not actually use truck-specific functionality anywhere near enough to justify purchase vs. use of paid services or rentals.
Definitely depends on where you live. I live on the coast in the south. Tons of people trailer boats. The 'smallest' truck that can tow (actually able to stop) my boat is a Tundra.
Then there's people who own homes in the suburbs. Could I make multiple trips with my car to pick up 2500 pounds of sod for a project I just finished? Sure, I could also pay a lot to have it delivered in a couple weeks. And there's the other things like throwing my surfboard in the back or other 'fun' gear. Then there's trips to the dump, because trash won't pick up certain things.
The reality is, having at least a single truck in the family is useful for anyone not living in a city.
No one is saying pickup trucks are never used to haul large items. They’re saying the vast majority of pickup trucks purchased are not used for that purpose and even when they are it’s a couple of times a year, a situation where renting a truck ought to make a lot more logical sense.
While I generally agree with you, I live in a large metropolitan city, and there are just as many trucks being used for work as there are vanity trucks. The work trucks actually tend to the smaller side, think Chevy s10s and the most common working vehicle is actually a cargo van, mostly Ford transit connects. And then there are tons and tons of lifted wranglers and trucks that never see a day of work. It's laughable, as I grew up in a more rural area and never saw that. Excepting of course the redneck coal rollers with hanging nuts and all. But those were not that common. And I don't think I've ever seen a Hummer actually used on a job site.
Why does this talking point get employed every time this conversation takes place? As I said:
> No one is saying pickup trucks are never used to haul large items
Obviously some people use them for purpose. The majority don’t and are purchased as status symbols in suburbia. The fact that farmer do use them does not invalidate that.
I grew up in rural America. Nobody used their Sierra Denali for farm work, unless it was to take horses to a horse show. Most use their personal trucks for recreation or utility... towing the camper to the camp site, or getting some mulch at Lowes. 1.3% of Americans work in Agriculture.
Farmer I sometimes do some work for pulls the cattle trailer with his Lincoln Mark LT. It's getting old though, not sure what he'll replace it with but he's on the list for the Cybertruck.
I live in a very rural area with cows on 3 sides. My neighbours have 400 acres of grazing land.
The vehicles that drive down my road are about 30% sedans/crossovers, 30% tractors, and maybe 20% old beater pickup trucks, like your classic 90's Toyota.
But I live somewhere that we don't encourage people to buy gargantuan tanks and use them to take your kids to school.
This is not because of some innate character of Americans, it is because of specific state policies and subsidies. Fuel prices and registration fees are only slightly higher in California but that small economic nudge is enough to knock trucks completely out of the ranks of best-selling vehicles in that state. The Model 3, Camry, Civic, and Corolla all outsell any pickup truck in California.
My observation is that in many countries people want to drive big cars but only in US non-negligible fraction of population can afford it: combination of 5th highest median income in the world, low (relative to the EU) fuel (and electricity) prices and availability of parking for large cars. A state can counter this by higher taxes, but looks like support for this is not broad enough.
That would seriously depend on 'what part' of California you are talking about. In the cities and down south where parking and traffic are huge factors, you bet. But the farther north you go the more trucks and large SUVs you will see on the road. California is far too big to be treated as a single entity when it comes to anything.
Arguments that the empty part of California is huge and therefore important baffle me. 99% of Californians live south of Yuba City. 90% of them live south of Lodi. Half of them live south of Ventura.
Yes the incredibly empty "Empty Quarter" of the state is large, and empty. As in nobody lives there. The best-selling vehicle in Modoc County may or may not be a truck, but the fact is of no interest.
> In the cities and down south where parking and traffic are huge factors
Really, INME, just “in the cities” (with maybe also the coastal mountain areas between the coastal cities). The inland rural south is no different than the inland rural north in this respect, AFAICT.
>Fuel prices and registration fees are only slightly higher in California but that small economic nudge is enough to knock trucks completely out of the ranks of best-selling vehicles in that state.
I'd be cautious about blaming it all on fuel prices. I'd argue that the increased wealth of California residents relative to the rest of the country also plays a part in why a vehicle that is too expensive for most people made it so high on that list in California.
That price is for a V6 (not ecoboost), single-cab, short-bed F-150 that doesn't even have power locks or windows. Those trucks aren't generally sold to consumers. Minimally, you're looking at at least $35,515 for an XL Super Cab, but more than likely you're looking at a minimum cost of $41,755 for an XLT. KBB's data [1] reported that the average cost in 2018 for an F-150 was $47,174 before fees.
Not sure what you were trying to cherry-pick there, but in general trucks cost more than cars, and this has been the case for decades. The recent new record highs for average new light vehicle price has been largely driven by a continued shift toward trucks and away from cars.
> This is not because of some innate character of Americans, it is because of specific state policies and subsidies.
I would argue it's more because auto manufacturers wish to streamline their production lines. Body-on-frame is very flexible and allows them to re-use most components across different products.
The marketing departments then produce Television ads questioning your masculinity if you don't drive a vehicle based on a commercial truck frame. Suddenly "it's what the customer demands".
> Fuel prices and registration fees are only slightly higher in California
I'm not sure what the prices and fees are in California, but for comparison, in Mississippi it costs me about $45/year for registration and today I paid $4.17 for fuel. If I recall correctly, vehicles newer than 20 years old can cost significantly more to register here, but I don't have anything that new.
This is the thing that drives me nuts. Remember the anti-SUV mania of the 90s? It completely failed and SUV consumption skyrocketed and people stopped buying minivans and station wagons. The absolute least, smallest, simplest thing an ordinary consumer can do to decrease emissions is to just buy a smaller car and people just did the opposite. You're right that our only choice is to meet consumers where they are it just makes it such an uphill battle. Everyone complains that elected leaders and corporations are not doing anything to fight climate and it's almost entirely because people are telling them not to.
Yeah, that's how I remember it too. Back then I wondered why some people I knew bought SUVs even though they were only needing to commute to/from work.
In the early 2000's my own situation changed, I was needing to haul relatively heavy/bulky items. I acquired a Honda Pilot because of its rated 1300 lb payload, better than a small pickup. After a while that need ended, but I kept the Pilot and still drive it. However since then it's used <3000 mi/year, a good thing with price of fuel being what it is now.
The Pilot was/is built on the same platform as the Honda minivan, albeit with slightly modified drive train. Pilot and minivan have essentially identical mileage ratings. So with these models switching from minivan to "SUV" makes no difference in fuel usage.
Can't disagree that old-style "station wagons" were more fuel-efficient than minivans and similar size vehicles. However, station-wagons seem to have disappeared from the scene at least to my observation. Out of fashion I suppose. And from the fuel usage point of view that's unfortunate.
EVs are the future but expense factors will keep ICE in the picture for some years to come. Do you suppose the current increased fuel prices will inspire a resurgence of smaller vehicles for routine transportation? In the interim that would be a good thing.
I wonder why the truck rental market isn't bigger.
I occasionally have to haul heavy or bulky items too, but when I do, I walk a mile to the nearest U-haul, pay about $30, and have a pickup for the day. For the rest of the time, my primary vehicle is a Honda Fit that gets 40mpg, can fit into the Compact spaces in all the local parking lots, and easily pulls a U-turn even on narrow roads. I wouldn't want a pickup as my daily ride - it wouldn't fit in my (relatively small) garage, it burns gas like you wouldn't believe, and parking options are much more limited. Dropping $30 for the couple times per year that I need one is way more cost-effective than spending the upfront cost for them + additional gas & maintenance.
Exactly - its minivan to SUV swaps mostly. And its the same vehicle under the hood. Increased safety standards, crumple zones and side curtain air bags add some girth..
Station wagons I think also partially fell out of fashion because you can't do a 3 row wagon safely anymore as there's no way the rear facing vomit seats are going to survive modern safety tests.
Also don't forget how ginormous modern kids seats are in cars, and how many more years kids are legally supposed to sit in safety seats compared to when we grew up. Few sedans are comfortably able to take 2 of these kid seats and still leave you with room for much cargo or a 3rd adult (grandma or grandpa) at the same time.
The market for 7 seaters (of which 4-5 may be occupied at any one time) is fairly large.
Station wagons died in North America mostly due to fuel economy standards, just like all the other full-size sedans. They still exist in Europe/UK (as "Estate Cars") where the fuel economy standards, vehicle and fuel taxation work differently and don't advantage SUVs/light trucks as much.
They've improved a lot and are no longer tarted up pickup trucks. I live in a city with very limited street parking though and it's nuts that people who live here don't always opt for the shortest wheel base.
> It completely failed and SUV consumption skyrocketed and people stopped buying minivans and station wagons.
The government put fuel efficiency regulations on sedans in the 1970s. This effectively killed station wagons. The rules around light trucks were different though, and that's why the minivan was created.
It is of the same flavor of why many of my smartest leftiest friends don't understand why we lose elections if we are so smart and tell people how wrong they are if they don't vote for us? Don't they understand? Maybe we just need to educate them more!
Simply put, you need to meet the voters were they are.
Companies know this and meet consumers where they are.
Why do people buy SUVs?
Because the generation that grew up embarrassed by their parents minivans never wanted to buy a minivan!
So now companies sell the former minivan cohort SUVs instead, which are basically the same thing.
Occasionally the Germans ship us a sexy sports wagon, but they can't call it that here and have to call them hatches or "cross turismo" etc.. haha.
I think it was the boomer generation that decided cars were vanity purchases. Your car became your identity instead of being a purely practical decision.
The ubiquity of SUVs is a phenomenon of the last 30 years. I remember when it started taking off in the 90s. It's not an eternal thing that can't be changed.
Sure, but the idea that we are going to both legislate away ICE and legislate away SUVs in one go.. and not get destroyed in the voting both next cycle is... dubious.
If you live in norther climates there are some advantages to SUVs/crossovers in terms of ground clearance. Winter, even with AWD and winter tires can be a problem in my sedan when I bottom out at every poorly plowed intersection.
Sedans are also a PITA as soon as you want to haul both people AND stuff at once. Or anything with a dimension wider than 3 feet.
SUVs do offer benefits in terms of semi-regular things normies do like moving your kids in/out of college 4x/year with the semester system, taking your family on road trips instead of flying (which is way more polluting!), hauling large dogs, Costco runs, etc.
People with various sorts of outdoors enthusiasm also may use them to haul, roof rack or tow more outdoorsy gear.
Not everything other people prefer is because they are bad people who are evil and need to be stopped.
I'd be curious how exactly you'd legislate away SUVs now that the genie is out of the bottle. What's an SUV, whats a cross over, whats a commercial vehicle, etc. If you go by weight, plenty of sedans violate worse than small SUVs.. In fact if you go by weight class you may ban EVs and allow ICE!
I'm more confused by how this seems to be a recent phenomenon. A decade ago non-trucks and light trucks were on roughly even footing, but after about 2015 the distribution shifts meaningfully towards light trucks. What made Americans want trucks more?
"Light truck" is a problematic term in the US -- it can be defined in multiple ways, often exacerbated by automakers desire to get around fuel economy requirements.
Assuming that "light truck" in this context includes SUVs, that may correlated with the introduction of sub-compact SUVs into the US which have been extremely popular with drivers who are intimidated by driving large vehicles and like the confidence of sitting higher than in a traditional car. Many of these are basically just hatchbacks with some stying tweaks a couple inches of extra height.
So it may not necessarily be "Americans wanting trucks" that you're seeing in that data, but instead "Automakers styling their vehicles slightly differently, calling it an SUV, and avoiding fines for violating CAFE standards"
Some of it is supply: the manufacturers build more and the dealers find ways to sell them. Those marketing efforts drive what average people "want". (That's the role of marketing.)
Some of it is a brinksmanship snowball: If I'm safer in a bigger vehicle when more other people are driving bigger vehicles, I need a bigger vehicle.
Some of is budgets: There are a lot of sub-factors here, but one key viewpoint is that there are two very strong markets with very different goals. The new buyer is looking at marketing, and swayed by fashion trends, on average more likely to trade in for the "newest model" for aesthetic or fashion reasons on a regular basis. The used buyer is more budget/maintenance driven, more likely to use a car for utilitarian purposes than treat it as a fashion symbol, more likely to drive the car for longer. Car companies are selling to that first buyer and what they (think) they want, they don't care about the used car market because they don't get their cut of the used car market. There are arguably a lot more used buyers and car companies don't care what they want. To some extent they take what they can get after the "fashionistas" get bored and don't express their wants all that directly.
Some of it is maintenance: The average maintenance life for sedans still seems to be much higher than trucks/SUVs. Longer maintenance life is longer life in the used markets and longer life on the road. It's anecdotal data, but have you ever car watched and tried to estimate the average model year of the cars that pass you by? To me SUVs and Trucks almost always look at most five years old, but you'll see all sorts of 10, 15, 20 year old sedans.
I think those last two points are especially important asterisk to that "Americans don't buy sedans" from the anecdotal perspective of what you see on the road: Americans don't buy new sedans regularly. Sedans seem to last 20 years on "average". Sedans are rarely "fashionable". Sedan buyers favor good long maintenance life. It was the "lesson" of the 80s wave when Japanese manufacturers proved Americans were desperate for reliable, easily maintained sedans and compacts. It was again the "lesson" of the late 00s wave when Korean manufacturers proved Americans were desperate for reliable, easily maintained sedans and compacts. It seems like a "lesson" doomed to repeat roughly every 20 years as old ones age out of the used market. (I think the current EV manufacturers are ignoring/forgetting the "lesson" at their own peril. It could be someone new and fresh like the Chinese this time taking advantage of the used market's huge desire for reliable, easily maintained EV sedans and compacts.)
Right! But the quote you responded to was, "Americans just do not buy sedans". In the context of that quote, it appears that you were using your anecdotal observations to suggest that Americans do buy more sedans than trucks.
Sorta but not really. If you model the grid as a superconductor, sure, but the transmission lines we use do have resistance and therefore a maximum capacity and the father from generation you are, the more losses are incurred to get the power to you. So you end up actually getting power from the generating capacity close to you and occasionally get power from further away (or your local generation sends excess further than normal).
If you have 2 buckets connected at the bottom by a small hose, and you take from the left bucket at a high enough rate, the buckets will be at an unequal level and at some point either you stop taking and the water eventually seeks its own level again or your take rate becomes that of the connecting hose. (this extension of your bucket analogy, like all water/electricity analogies, breaks in a lot of ways but it gets the idea across at least).
But not really; if your local regional plant is nuclear and is consistently the contributor to the lesser sized coal plant in the next region, then the emissions for your bev are less than the coal region.
And given how often Nuclear does provide greater base load than smaller coal plants; if your most local plant is nuclear, your emissions are less.
Yes and no. It's a shared grid (except most of Texas) but for the most part your power is still coming from local sources. The sharing is to balance out extremes, not for constantly moving power from Vermont to Georgia. That would be extremely inefficient.
In addition to location mattering as others have pointed out, time also matters a lot. Charge up during the day, you might be using solar. At night, that isn't likely anymore.
It’s not a shared market, only a shared grid—through the magic of accounting, you can purchase renewable energy even if the actual electrons came from a fossil fuel plant.
OP is talking about CO2 emissions. 20% of Maines electricity generation is fossil but the vast majority of that is natural gas, which they get from New Brunswick (as does NH).
Energy used in manufacture is paid back early in the panel's life. This article from 2018 gives a range of 1-4 years, things will have only improved since then. Most panels come with a warranty of 20 years at 90% of original output, so they come out way ahead.
Its disappointing to see this myth repeated over and over again, you should examine the political motivations of the sources that are telling you how dirty panels are. There are externalities to their manufacture but any who tries to convince you they are worse than fossil fuels is being deceptive.
SUVs should be banned, or taxed the point of economic non-viability. The fact that such a deadly category of vehicle, on top of being much less energy efficient, is being allowed to take over the market, is completely inane.
Whenever I hear someone exclaim that they love their SUV/massive pickups because it feels so much safer than "small cars", I hold my tongue but I want to reply in a chirpy tone of voice: "I love standing up when I'm in a movie theater -- the view is so much better."
For one, there is just the mass: yes, it makes it safer for the SUV driver, but at the expense of the smaller cars/bikes/pedestrians.
But there is another factor. When I learned to drive 40 years ago, I took it for granted that most of the time I could look through the car in front of me, and often the car in front of that, to anticipate changes in traffic conditions. Now I mostly see the rear of the large vehicle in front of me and no further.
Buying increasingly deadly vehicles to protect yourself from other drivers is antisocial behavior, even if you personally rationalize it as “allowed and expected”.
An SUV is also more deadly to every other class of driver on the road. Even sedan drivers are more likely to die in an accident involving an SUV than any other accident class. (It's a deadly brinksmanship. The safest people in an SUV wreck are the generally ones in the SUV and everyone else is at a disadvantage.)
But even that's not entirely true that people inside the SUV are safe because you can also look up the history of "rollover deaths". In an accident an SUV is a big immovable object, right until it isn't anymore and then it's a very heavy thing with a weird center of gravity. If an SUV tips over somehow in a collision, or worse rolls over itself more than once, that often has spelled death for the SUV's occupants. There's been more safety measures and center of gravity balancing and rollover cages added to SUVs since the height of rollover deaths in the 1990s, but the brinksmanship of "the safest option is to be inside the SUV" moving "everyone" to SUVs for their own skin, increases the likelihood of SUV versus SUV accidents and the return of rollover death statistics.
SUVs are unnecessarily large and heavy, dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, blocking the view for other drivers, causing more wear to the street surface and take up precious space when parking in cities. And for what? Hummers might be an exception, but most SUVs aren't even suitable for off-road use. Not that most owners even need that.
So yeah, it is absolutely insane for people to drive a car that causes so much harm to other road users and society as a whole for no good reason other than "me want BIG BIG CAR" and so it should be taxed to offset these effects.
You could also say it's insane to allow private ownership of vehicles. If we instead invested in public transit, emissions would be lower, transportation would be ubiquitous, and fatalities would drop immensely. So we should tax all cars, not just SUVs.
I'd also add visibility/being able to check the blind spot in them. Also, they generally drive like they're invincible. Just a pattern I've noticed, hatchback boy racer vibes. I generally ride my bike a bit faster than the traffic and I'll get passed like I'm standing still. It's not really kosher having vehicles like that and inconsiderate drivers.
People need large vehicles for various reasons, commercial and private life. If you're insecure with there being variety on the road, which there always will be, then stay off it or take the bus. Builders are not doing their job in a Prius and a family isnt taking a ski vacation to the mountains in a Camry.
It’s not good to do this analysis with figures from the entire U.S., which has a wildly variable mix of electricity sources depending on where you are and what time of day it is. This also obscures the difference between unavoidable C02 emissions from burning gasoline with emissions from industrial processes that may not emit carbon in the future.
In general people are not careful readers, and in my opinion, headlines like this tend to feed cynicism and inaction.
What I see here is enormous opportunity in decarbonizing the processes that lead to high lifecycle emissions for this and other vehicles.
I don't think this is true at all, anyone engaged with this work realizes how much effort is going to be involved in electrifying the vehicle fleet. It's only when you acknowledge that a problem is tractable that you can even begin to answer the question, "what do I do next to make this happen?"
There's tons more that we can be doing now to reduce transportation emissions. Investments in transit and bikes. Locating housing closer to jobs. Blocking highway widening efforts. All other efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Ignoring all those on the belief that it is "tractable" to eventually reach net-zero without them, is exactly the complacency I was talking about! In other areas, reducing energy consumption is identified as a necessary and impactful way to reduce emissions in the short term, and make fully converting the grid to renewable easier in the long term. Why not here?
It's a tax policy designed to stimulate economic activity. (I'm not saying it's good vs bad, just that that seems to be the overall design. If you want to spur investment in new tractors [and employment at John Deere], make tractors eligible for section 179 expensing in the first year, which helps the businesses cash flow [and the government still gets its tax money in later years, when the deduction is $0 for that vehicle instead of a portion as it would be if spread out over multiple years])
I think it's misguided to regulate like this, there's a natural incentive for efficiency in electric vehicles (more range, better battery life, consumers want this). People buying a mega car like this very likely COULD want it for a practical use case, trucks are tools as well as transportation and many people legitimately use their trucks for actual work in the US. I think the real problem here is the efficiency of the local grid.
If I buy an array of solar panels and use it to charge my car, it doesn't matter at all how efficient my car is, grams of CO2 emitted is basically 0.
We should really focus on regulating and improving the efficiency of grids across the US, investing in renewables and nuclear. This is the biggest benefit of electric vehicles anyway, the fact that it pushes the burden of efficiency from every consumer who owns a car to the much smaller set of infrastructure providers.
> If I buy an array of solar panels and use it to charge my car, it doesn't matter at all how efficient my car is, grams of CO2 emitted is basically 0.
There are metrics which relate the amount of CO2 emitted to manufacture a panel vs the total amount of electricity it goes on to generate, and they are not 0. They're significantly lower than coal fire power plants, but not zero... and can vary greatly depending on where in the world you actually install that panel.
> improving the efficiency of grids across the US
What is currently inefficient about them?
> the much smaller set of infrastructure providers
Who all hold government granted monopolies on their infrastructure. I'm not absurdly hopeful this will automatically turn into a win for the consumer.
>There are metrics which relate the amount of CO2 emitted to manufacture a panel vs the total amount of electricity it goes on to generate, and they are not 0
Yes, fair enough. Making pretty much _anything_ contributes to CO2 in some way and this argument easily devolves into one where we're saying we should just limit all human activity, and I'd say that that way of thinking is regressive. If you can generate your own electricity this pushes the burden of emissions to the manufacturer of the panels, which is a good thing because panels are tech that improves over time.
> What is currently inefficient about them?
Yeah I misspoke, what I meant to say is we should focus on reducing the emissions that they create while generating electricity. i.e. improving efficiency if you consider CO2/Watt generated to be your units. This is done by switching to renewables + nuclear.
>Who all hold government granted monopolies on their infrastructure. I'm not absurdly hopeful this will automatically turn into a win for the consumer.
This I disagree with, I think a smaller number of government-granted monopolies are much easier to control/regulate than every single US consumer.
Totally agree. I and two other friends have Teslas and enough solar to cover our charging needs, and I don't believe I'm some crazy anomaly.
Also, all else being equal, an large electric vehicle at least has the potential to use low-CO2 energy, and the grid provides a better place to optimize CO2 output and renewable usage.
Some historical fun, around 2008 there were various articles analyzing whether a Gas-powered Hummer H2 had less embodied co2 emissions than a Toyota Prius: https://slate.com/technology/2008/03/is-it-possible-that-a-h... (google and you'll find a number of other articles)
If absurdities like 9,000lb EV hummers is what it's gonna take to substantially accelerate EV adoption across the national fleet, I don't personally care.
We'll have a far easier time generating clean electricity from stationary grid-tied power plants than getting the fleet to stop spewing co2 sans electrification. Worst case we build a bunch of modern nuclear plants, just get the damn combustion engines physically decoupled from all the automobiles already.
Kind of a weird comparison considering the Malibu is 1/3 of the weight. It's certainly more efficient than a Chevy Malibu at moving 9,000lbs around.
I'm not sure how Americans can undo the colossal car arms race... taxes based on weight? I believe there are actually tax breaks aimed at businesses with vehicles over a certain weight, which seems backwards.
Taxes should be based on weight, particularly because road damage is primarily driven by vehicle weight. (by a cubed factor)
We current subsidize, to a LARGE extent, goods shipped via semi truck. A large portion of the damage done to infrastructure is from shipping.
The solution? Trains. Whatever we can do to get more goods shipped by rail or ships the better. Those are the most CO^2 and infrastructure efficient ways to move goods. Even better if some day in the future we get those trains powered by electricity.
Yes, USA royally mixed up their incentives (unless their goal was "sell more diesel"...) by taxing the railroads too much and the semi-trucks too little (guess which industry represents a larger voting bloc)
Shout-out to India, they have grade-separated electrified freight corridors, 5 lanes wide in some places, running double stacked container trains at 100kmh, no noise no pollution, it's a sight to behold
The goal was to "sell more cars"... which.. yeah, had the desired effect.
We went from decently planned cities, good public transit, and a thriving rail industry in the 1940s to... what we have today. All because we prioritized cars and home ownership :(.
It's depressing watching old TV/cartoons from that era. Midsize to largish cities had electric trolleys and elevated trains for commuters. While there were cars, they weren't necessities for pretty much anyone. It's why today the older larger cities seem to suck for cars, because that's not how people got around when they were built.
Disclosure: I work for GM; what follows is SOLELY MY OWN OPINION.
I would be surprised if there are ever more than 50,000 Hummer SUV and Trucks made in a single year. For comparison, a decent year for the Malibu would be 300,000.
My perception of the Hummer EV is that it is meant to be a halo vehicle that gets people excited and in showrooms. You don't have to love it, but someone will.
Also, as other commentors have pointed out - these will largely be purchased by people who have other large SUVs. And you can't roll coal in an EV! I don't really like how ridiculously big these things have gotten either (solely my own opinion). I'd rather have a truck the size of the old Chevy S-10 or old Ford Ranger or current Ford Maverick.
OK; there are a few issues with the article and the other comments. I suggest using this to estimate a particular vehicle's footprint in a given US geographic region:
Regulators must indeed consider EV efficiency and manufacturing emissions, but most importantly the national average of CO2 per kWh must be pushed much closer to zero for developed nations too.
I would be curious so see how the Hummer EV compares not based on national average, but in a markets where electricity is not produced via fossil fuels, and in a market where electricity is produced via fossil fuels.
Engineering Explained covered this in part, in his video asking whether or not it is better for the environment to keep your current (presumably ICE) car, or buy a new EV.
Sure...when 60% of the grid is powered via fossil fuels. If that number hits 80% or 90% then what. How about Hummer EV vs. H2? What if someone pays for completely green energy from their electric company? Also...why not include the Hummer EV on your fancy graphs???
Comparing with the H1 does nothing since that was a military vehicle that wasn't really meant to be for consumers. That is also a 20+ year old vehicle at this point.
This WSJ analysis is quite good - an EV has about half the carbon emissions relative to a comparable car after 200k miles. [https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-really-better...] Naturally, an EV that is much more massive than a regular car will have more emissions, use more materials to manufacture, and tear up roads quicker. Ironically, there are tax incentives towards purchasing large vehicles which destroy roads quicker.
Even if all vehicles were electric, overall emissions wouldn't budge much. [https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector] >80% of global emissions are from fossil fuels, mainly oil, coal, and gas. [https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix] Electric vehicles require more materials to produce and require significant grid infrastructure, which is mainly powered by fossil fuels.
Isn't Sweden much more compact than the U.S.? Are the countries really comparable at all in size, density, standard of living and many other factors?
I visited Sweden in high school on a student exchange, many years ago, and almost no one had a car. Everyone walked and it was a tiny town. Meals were very simple - bread, cheese and little to no meat. The family I stayed with and the town in general was quite poor and lived a simple life (with lots of drugs & alcohol). Of course things could of changed dramatically since then.
I'm curious how does the carbon tax not just inflate prices across the board?
Sweden has similar density to the US. Both countries have >80% of the population living in urban areas. Same goes for standard of living, with slightly lower GDP in Sweden and slightly higher quality of life.
Higher prices are one of the best ways to reduce consumption. Imagine of clothes were suddenly taxed at 100% - people would presumably purchase less clothing.
Yes - a classic public goods problem. Lots of global inequities with minimal interest in solving. The average standard of living is substantially lower than developed countries, and global resource expenditure would skyrocket if parity occurred.
Inequity is inevitable. But that doesn't mean we should create tax policy to exacerbate it further. You really didn't say whether the carbon tax was effective in Sweden either. You just said they had lower emissions than the U.S. But that was probably true before the tax as well.
Full EV is obviously the dream, but I have been interested in cars like the e-power Nissan Note which is a series hybrid. Same concept as a diesel electric train essentially. The car is mechanically an EV, but with a small 3 cylinder engine used to charge the (much smaller than usual) battery. Sounds insane at face value, but the the setup is far more efficient than a regular ICE setup, getting 1000-1300km range out of a 45litre tank. In a country like Australia where I can be city driving one week but still need to do 1500km journeys to go see family, this is a truly attractive stop-gap and they also end up being far cheaper to buy.
They fill a very big niche for people who need an efficient car but don't have plugin capabilities or need more range but can't afford a full EV, or maybe a full EV doesn't work for them.
Such huge BEV also needs big battery. Since EV production is now constrained by battery supply, saving battery usage is also important. One Hummer battery would be equivalent to almost four Model 3. Replacing a ICE Hummer to a EV hummer vs replacing four ICE Camry or BMW 3 to four Model 3s, which is better?
I'm pretty sure the base load (which what you're drawing from off of peak hours) is largely produced by fossil fuel generation because those sources don't have the variability of renewables (I don't think a lot of solar is being produced at night...).
Solar is a terrible reference for renewable as the US has 4x as much wind and hydro power as solar, which makes up barely 1% of generation. Nuclear makes up 9.6%.
These 3 are clear base load because they don't turn off.
Yeah it seems like, in Boston at least, grid carbon intensity peaks between 12 and 8pm and is at its lowest around 4am. It's probably on a case by case basis though -- if you live in an area that still burns a lot of coal, your base load is likely to be pretty dirty (though of course in that case it probably doesn't matter when you charge your car, unless there happens to be a lot of solar as well).
Moving the contractor's fleet of F-150 and the likes into EV is a good thing. With that background Hummers is just a noise not worth the bandwidth we are spending discussing it. Instead, muster some empathy and compassion for and have a pity on the guys who feel the need for such a car.
I've wondered for a while, why don't EV vehicles use transmissions? I understand they don't need them but wouldn't it make the motor even more efficient?
Any ICE vehicles goal would be to put the lowest gearing (over drive) you can, without eating all of it's "passing power", nor dropping the RPMs too low. The lower the gear, the lower the engine needs to spin to keep that speed. The catch being, you need lots of torque to spin that gear, which electric motors have plenty of.
It just seems like you can easily sacrifice your horsepower for some more efficient highway speeds.
One of the reasons is that a gearbox capable of withstanding the torque from an electric motor would need to be rather heavy. I suspect that if there are any efficiency gains to be had, they’d be offset by the increased mass and transmission losses. Not to mention the increased parts cost, manufacturing complexity and packaging challenges.
That is true, but I've also read that F1 (electric series?) was using transmissions at first and some stuck with them, while some didnt. Although, F1 has unlimited budget. Im sure using lower power motors would allow the usage of transmission and maintain enough power to be a daily commuter.
I'd imagine the top end being where you need the gearing. If you can cut the rpm in half while on a road trip that's double(?) mileage? Im sure it isn't that cut and dry though, they probably did plenty of experiments.
Where I live, the city supplies the power network but I can choose between dozens of electricity providers. AIUI there are several for any taste or opinion. Running one of those cars without CO₂ emissions would be as simple as picking a suitable provider and charging the battery for >15 minutes at a time (the statistical model that governs power allocation is based on 15-minute time units).
Is the article author dense or is this kind of competitive electricity provision unknown in the US?
Realistically shit is going to hit the climate fan in the next 50 years so bad that even Americans will be driving tiny EVs. And they will count themselves lucky.
This article completely ignores the fact that changing a zillion distributed point sources of pollution and concentrating that into a much smaller number of industrial facility pollution sources makes tackling the pollution problem HUGELY simpler.
Yes, we need laws about the efficiency of these cars. However, just switching to electric is a huge benefit even if there is no net decrease in emissions over combustion engine cars.
Who cares? Car companies will likely need to enter the EV space by starting with offerings in their highest margin categories to ensure they have the wiggle room to develop new technologies or methods of production and still hit a price point acceptable to customers. The actual practicality of the specific car is secondary to this.
Two steps forward, one step back. It’s like people complaining a decade ago that the electricity was from coal, which is now 20% of US electricity. Although, globally we’re still at 40% coal power generation.
What’s important is that the technology is developed, improved, then improved again until it finally becomes a viable technology.
I don't understand the purpose of this article...it's making multiple comparisons but in a way that seems intentionally biased to incite discourse?
It's also hard to ignore that electric motors provide almost near instantaneous torque on demand...talk about a major wooooooo factor that's hard to say no to.
Yeah felt the same. Not sure who ACEEE is...are they getting paid by Tesla to write this hut piece since their cyber truck isn't out? Or Ford who doesn't have a large EV show truck?
Theows away their credibility and I'm sure the blog post was vetted before going up.
Someone who has $100k for a truck isn't going to go for a Malibu...they would have gotten an Escalade or another behemoth.
The Hummer EV was created to dispel the myth that EVs can only for tree huggers. Different people have different lifestyles and if they are going for a more eco friendly vehicle than their gas equivalent that should be celebrated.
This is dependent on the area where it's driven. A 9K lb hummer EV driven exclusively in the PNW will find that most electricity is generated by renewables (mainly hydroelectric) power, but the same car driven in WV will have significantly higher CO2 emissions...
Odd that they omit fabrication emissions of a 9000 lb vehicle, with tons of lithium, aluminum, steel, plastic and the implied water impact, from the emissions.
If a tesla requires ~ 9 years to offset its fabrication, this beast needs 18.
I think this article is missing the elephant in the room by putting too much emphasis on efficiency: the biggest issue with EVs is in the manufacturing, and the reason why I often hear Tesla and other big EVs referred to as tools to ease one’s conscience, but certainly not long-term (or even medium-term) solutions to global warming.
My figures are from Switzerland [1], so assume the Swiss grid (mostly hydroelectric and nuclear, so about as good as it gets).
Using the same car, to ease the comparison: Peugeot 208 (ICE) vs Peugeot e-208 (BEV). Manufacturing takes 9.0 tCO2eq for the ICE version, 15.9 tCO2eq for the BEV version. Over the lifespan of the car (200,000 km): 42.0 tCO2eq for the ICE version against 22.7 tCO2eq for the BEV version. So as expected the BEV version wins: it breaks even at about 50,000 km.
But note that it's "only" cutting emissions in half. And that's on the Swiss grid. Of course it's better than nothing, but unless manufacturing costs (in terms of GHG emissions) are massively reduced, it's a dead end.
This is for a rather tiny BEV without much range, looking at Tesla Model 3 Long Range: 21.4 tCO2eq for manufacturing, 29.0 tCO2eq over 200,000km. Nearly 70% of the emissions of a Peugeot 208 ICE over the lifespan of the vehicle. And again that's with a nearly optimal grid in terms of emissions. I'm not even sure a coal powered Model 3 would break even with a Peugeot 208 (ICE).
To give some perspective, to stabilize the climate we basically each have a 2.0 tCO2eq / year quota, of which currently about 1.0 tCO2eq is eaten by public services (infrastructure, hospitals, police, firefighters, etc.), rough estimation for France, YMMV depending on where you live. How to reconcile this with a car that emits 21.4 tCO2eq just for manufacturing, I don't know.
I find it strange that the article doesn't mention the Hummer's exact weight. Is it really exactly 9,000 pounds, or is it about 9,000, or is it over 9,000?
The shear weight of EVs compared to combustion engine vehicles scare me as a pedestrian/motorcyclist. I think this one is like twice the weight of the H3/H2.
The best part of this is that you have to drive a Tesla 400k+ miles to totally offset the carbon it takes to manufacturer the vehicle and to generate the electricity to operate it.
You probably have to drive this hummer 800k+ miles to offset the carbon to manufacture and operate.
A gallon of gasoline emits about 11.8 kg of CO2 if you include refining. https://innovationorigins.com/en/producing-gasoline-and-dies...
One kilowatt-hour of electricity currently emits about 372grams of CO2, a number that has dropped from 500 grams in 2012.
A new Chevy Malibu gets 32.5mpg combined. Hummer EV gets 47mpge combined, or about 1.394 miles per kWh.
363gCO2 per mile for the Malibu, 267gCO2/mile for the Hummer.
I don’t think using hyper-specific region specific metrics makes a lot of sense considering the grid is all connected. (At least, the East Coast and Midwest, Texas doing its own thing, and then the west Coast.) in any case, the grid is getting lower emissions over time and could go MUCH lower than current (maybe half or less) over the full life of any new vehicle.
Also, a Hummer EV is displacing other large vehicles. And if everybody drove subcompacts or other hyper efficient gasoline cars then we’d have less of a problem anyway. But not everyone is doing that. And a lot of people don’t want to. From a political economy standpoint then this is still a huge net win. Every new car and truck needs to at least have a plug in it within the next 5 to 10 years, and then we can start penalizing larger and heavier vehicles more directly.
EDIT: what we should do is expand the EV tax credit. GM no longer qualifies as they used theirs up, like Tesla. Mostly just foreign EV makers qualify, which cannot be the real intention of lawmakers when they made the law.
We can use the EV credit as a tool for improving efficiency. Instead of subsidizing per kWh of battery, we subsidize per mile of range. The first 50 miles of range (ie to be a plug in hybrid, but need at least 6.6kW charging speed) are incentivized at $100/mile of range. The next 200 miles of range $25/mile (under the condition of 100kW fast charging capability).
That way car companies are incentivized (even more) to maximize miles per kWh. Small, hyper-efficient EVs will be disproportionately credited. For a given kWh of battery, you’ll make more EV credit money as a carmaker putting it in a small, very efficient car than a big Hummer. But unless we renew the EV credit (and make it per kWh), there isn’t this (additional) incentive.