back to article America ain't exactly outlawing gas cars but it's steering hard into EVs

America's Environmental Protection Agency today proposed a bunch of vehicle emissions standards that, while not banning gasoline-powered vehicles outright, could lead to automakers drastically speeding up EV adoption. Targeted at model year 2027 and newer vehicles, the draft standards – divided between one for cars and light …

  1. robert lindsay
    Thumb Up

    Bonus for the Gary Numan reference

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Until the right wing puppet court, sorry Supreme Court, strip the EPA of its powers.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      It won't be the SCOTUS

      but the House of Repomen (Representatives)

      If they can go after the Manhattan DA for spending a measly $500 of Federal Money in their legal attempts to take down their 'Dear Leader who never committed a crime in his life' (Donald Trump) and threaten to defund the FDA, the DOJ, FBI, DHS and uncle tom cobbly and all including the EPA then allI I can say is

      WATCH THIS SPACE.

      Then there are states that are actively passing laws to ban EV's (or make them so expensive to own that no one in their right mind would want to own one) then the battle is just beginning.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: It won't be the SCOTUS

        Then there are states that are actively passing laws to ban EV's (or make them so expensive to own that no one in their right mind would want to own one) then the battle is just beginning.

        Given that the new set of high end EV's cost £70k-£100k each (which is 50% of the cost of buying a house in the UK) i'd suggest that they are already so expensive to own that noone in their right mind would want to own one at the moment. Even the "cheap" options are excessively expensive.

        Comparatively, going with an EV is up to one hundred times more expensive than buying a second hand car, and the second hand car has a longer range, cheaper running costs and a higher likely resale value after 5 years. Additionally, after a thousand or so discharge cycles on a lithium battery then it's going to need replacement and this generally works out as something like 70% of the value of the car at new. If you accept the range in the brochure as being 400 miles then a thousand charge cycles would give you a range of 400k miles before basically having to spend as much as buying a new car on maintenance which is presumably the reason why there are virtually no second hand EV's filtering down through the second hand car market. My existing second hand car has some something over 4x the most optimistic battery life of an EV, so doing that mileage would be utterly unaffordable for an EV. On top of that, electricity from a public charger is more expensive than diesel.

        That said, it's far from impossible to make EV's work. If you want me to buy an EV, he's a quick guide to how to do it.

        1) Build enough nuclear power plants to actually generate the power required for mass adoption of EV's which will bring the electricity generation price down to around 20% of what we are currently paying and it will also produce enough actually green power to power the EV's; because gas or coal powered EV's is just lunacy.

        2) Forget fully powering the things with massive expensive batteries and put a "third rail" type charging strip down major roads in towns, and across the countries key motorways and highways. This means that you don't *NEED* a 400 mile range on a battery; you could probably manage at that point with a 40 mile range as the batteries would only be needed for random back roads which don't have sufficient traffic to justify electrification. At this point you can massively cut the purchase price and battery replacement cost of an EV. (and preferably mandate a single battery size and shape and interconnectors to further force the battery replacement price down)

        At that point, EV's would be cheaper to buy, greener and have lower running costs and people would naturally switch to them because it'd be the sane and sensible thing to do. At the moment, the sane and sensible thing to do is avoid them at all costs.

        1. ragnar

          Re: It won't be the SCOTUS

          Where do you live in the UK where the cost of buying a house i s 140-200k?! Are there well-paid jobs in the area?

          1. Peter2 Silver badge

            Re: It won't be the SCOTUS

            It's called "outside of London". You know, that scary place 1+ hours drive outside of the M25.

            This covers quite a lot of the country and while you do have to accept buying a smaller house that could use some renovation for the lower end of that (Victorian terraces/semi's) rather than a new build it's quite possible; i've done it. Jobs are less well paid than in the smoke, but on the other hand everything is cheaper and you don't have to pay quarter of your salary to the railways to travel.

            Prices have gone up somewhat recently with the mass exodus of snobs from London to the provinces during the pandemic, but they typically went for the high end properties that didn't need any work doing, so it's still possible to do.

        2. ian 22

          Re: It won't be the SCOTUS

          Thanks for the analysis. It’s also been proven that bumblebees can’t fly.

  3. Duncan Macdonald

    Distances

    Many people in the US drive much longer distances than UK drivers. EVs are impractical for a single day drive of 600 miles or more due to both the time taken to recharge and the limited number of fast recharging points. A typical petrol car can be refueled in about 5 minutes and be good for over 400 miles - an EV that uses a rapid charger may manage a full recharge (good for about 200 miles) in about an hour but if only a lower power charger is available then the full recharge time will be several hours.

    600 mile journey

    Petrol car - driving time + 5 minutes refill time

    EV - driving time + 2 hours recharge time (rapid charger)

    EV - driving time + 12 hours recharge time (slow charger)

    Also the electricity has to come from somewhere - places with charging points that do not have a high power grid connection will need a local generator to be able to run rapid chargers (at over 100kW each). This is almost certain to be a diesel generator producing its own CO2 emissions.

    As many US politicians are aware of these facts, I expect the proposed EPA rules to be rejected by Congress.

    1. ravenviz Silver badge

      Re: Distances

      Lives entwined with car use is what is destructive, that is what needs to change, which means we have to manage our lifestyle choices instead of thinking we can just go on as ‘normal’.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Distances

        I'll do that when, and only when, the people who tell me I need to change my lifestyle decide to lead by example.

    2. Korev Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Distances

      600 mile journey

      Petrol car - driving time + 5 minutes refill time

      Isn't taking only a five minute break on a ~ten hour journey rather dangerous?

      If you make a more realistic comparison with your rapid recharge time, then twelve hours isn't much more than ten plus breaks...

      1. ChrisC Silver badge

        Re: Distances

        Sharing the driving with whoever else is in the car with you, perhaps?

      2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Distances

        Isn't taking only a five minute break on a ~ten hour journey rather dangerous?

        Not in my experience. Have any actual methodologically-sound studies to back up your thesis?

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Distances

          "Isn't taking only a five minute break on a ~ten hour journey rather dangerous?

          Not in my experience. Have any actual methodologically-sound studies to back up your thesis?"

          The US Department of Transportation (DOT) and I believe NHTSA both have done studies that show driving long hours without a break leads to accidents. I've done some massive road trips in the past when I was much younger and it didn't seem to be an issue, but I won't do that same trips now at the same pace. For one, I need more comfort breaks and eat regularly so my blood sugar levels don't crash.

          The last long trip I did to help a friend move around 1,200 miles, the two of us old guys were whiny, crippled campers when we stopped for fuel. We would have taken another day if the movers hadn't been so late to pick up and he had his pets in his car and they weren't that happy about such a long trip. I was driving the moving van that we really packed to the rafters and it didn't drive that well so it took a lot of concentration.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Distances

          I'm just wondering. How do you use the toilet once in ten hours?

          Sounds like a health problem waiting to happen.

    3. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: Distances

      Spelling out the EV range problem on the web for the billionth time, just in case somebody can't work it out for themselves and hasn't seen it 10 times already.

    4. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Distances

      "an EV that uses a rapid charger may manage a full recharge (good for about 200 miles) in about an hour "

      The latest CCS fast-charge points can deliver up to 270kW and fast chargers at petrol stations are 100 or 150 kW*. Typical longer-distance model cars have battery capacity of around 70-80 kWh and a claimed range of around 350 miles / 560km. Lets say real range more like 300 miles / 480km, and you would charge at 10% to 90% (80% of capacity, approx 60kWh). Based on that, an 80% recharge would give you 240 miles / 384 km in approximately 24 minutes (150kW charger) or 13 minutes (270 kW).

      "A typical petrol car can be refueled in about 5 minutes and be good for over 400 miles", Yes, and in this case the limiting factor on stop intervals and length of stops isn't the car, it's the driver. The number of people for whom a 15-minute break every 4 hours is too much break and too little driving must be quite few (and they can keep their ICE cars). In the real world, 500 mile journey is:

      in petrol car - 250 miles driving time, 5-minutes refueling, 15 minutes to pay the fuel, go to the bathroom, stretch legs and grab a coffee, 250 miles driving time

      in electric car - 250 miles driving time, 20-minutes recharge, during which you can pay, go to the bathroom, stretch legs and grab a coffee, 250 miles driving time

      I'm being a bit nit-picky, I know that for a while yet ICE is more convenient, but it's not so huge a difference as you make it out to be. Clearly there is still a long way to go for both battery capacity/range and charging speeds to catch up with ICE / hydrocarbon in both range and refueling speeds, but rapidly getting there. The real limiting factor at the moment is the availability and reliability of fast charge points. Drivers all over the civilised world currently take for granted the availability of multiple petrol station with available fuel within very small distances of each other. This ubiquity has to spread to fast chargers (with the accompanying upgrades in electrical grid production and distribution). And that's only going to happen with a lot of investment and infrastructure build.

      The other big issue with electric car range (maybe more to do with cost / availability) is that even if I only rarely go on long trips (say once a month) in an electric car, I still might want to get a large battery that is a costly and contended resource, which I am vastly underutilising for most of the time. Or else I get a smaller battery more in tune with my daily needs (and considerably cheaper), and have to stop more often on longer trips. A larger tank or jerry can cost squat. Again, not something that will be solved until battery technology improves enough to make batteries half the price or less per capacity than currently.

      * old Tesla superchargers are 150kW (potentially shared by 2), new ones are 250kW each. There is apparently something called an Ionity Network that has 350kW chargers

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Distances

        And if there happen to be any such chargers available on the route, that might be a persuasive argument.

        There are no – zero – EV chargers of any sort on the 10-hour trip I take once a month or so, much less "fast-charge" ones. I don't know how far I'd have to deviate from my route to find any chargers, or how much extra time that would cost, but it would be significant.

        And even when traveling through more densely-populated states I much prefer rural routes.

        EVs won't be practical for the majority of my motor-vehicle use for the foreseeable future. Probably not as long as I'm still able to drive.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: Distances

          "There are no – zero – EV chargers of any sort on the 10-hour trip I take once a month or so, much less "fast-charge" ones"

          Yes, that's why I said "The real limiting factor at the moment is the availability and reliability of fast charge points." I'm not terribly familiar with US grid but what I've heard anecdotally is that it's pretty crap, so any provider would have difficulty getting the requisite infrastructure (transformers, high-voltage or power lines etc) to connect their chargers to the grid. And that means that there is a fairly low ROI, ie no economic incentive at all, for private investors to build up this type of charging network.

          But isn't that why it's governments who build road infrastructure and not private interests? If the government wants more electrification they should put their money where their mouth is and pay to build the infrastructure.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Distances

            "I'm not terribly familiar with US grid but what I've heard anecdotally is that it's pretty crap, so any provider would have difficulty getting the requisite infrastructure (transformers, high-voltage or power lines etc) to connect their chargers to the grid."

            The bigger problem is planning permission, inspections and a permit to operate. In some states, charging companies still can't charge by the kWh unless they register as a public utility which is either not in their best interest or impossible for them to qualify in the first place.

            Power isn't that big of an issue. Some of the more out of the way charging stations have added large battery packs so they can service cars with fast charging and stay within the capability of their feed by charging that station battery when there's available power. Customers pay a bit more, but those remote locations are often needed to span the distance between other charging. It took over 100 years to get to the point where there are petrol stations all over but even now, there are trips I'd find tricky to do in an ICEV with 400+miles of range. I could get from A to B, but not always by the route I'd like as there isn't the locations to refuel at suitable points. EV charging is going to have to evolve too, but transmission lines are not that hard to install across lonely prairies and once in place, don't require regular lorries in the same way to deliver petrol and diesel. Some of those prairies could also have solar/wind farms placed on them and eventually store power via used EV battery packs to recharge later EV's.

            You can't railroad until it's time to railroad. Even with governments trying to overfill the firebox with coal isn't going to help the train go any faster when it is time. Private industry will fill the niches as they spot profits to be made. The smaller companies will put chargers in out of the way places when larger ones will "optimize their capital expenditures" by putting too many in overserved areas until they lose their shorts.

        2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Distances

          "And if there happen to be any such chargers available on the route, that might be a persuasive argument."

          IF and only IF the new emissions standards are mandated by law, the earliest it will happen is 5 years down the line according to the article. The article also states that this is not a forced switch to EV so your gas cars will still be available.

          How many chargers were you seeing 5 years ago compared to now? Probably not that many, if any, in more rural areas. In cities? Probably lots nowadays compared to 5 years ago. As demand increases, so will supply. It's the American Way :-)

          I'll still be sticking with ICE for the foreseeable future too for similar reasons, but I can see the trend happening now. The majority of people who live in cities rarely need to worry about where to find a charger and many will be able to charge at home or work. Similar will apply to long distance haulage. EV is no where near ready yet for that use case. But large haulage companies with local depots can transfer loads to smaller EV vehicles for the "final mile" local deliveries in many case. Or there's an opening for change in the haulage business. Big trucks to city to city, interstate etc to out of town depots and a local company does all the in-city deliveries for multiple haulage companies and local businesses, especially if citys start charging ICE trucks for coming in and polluting, but not Evs.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: Distances

            "But large haulage companies with local depots can transfer loads to smaller EV vehicles for the "final mile" local deliveries in many case."

            I just saw a report from California where Schneider Trucking just opened up a large recharging facility for their electric Freightliner fleet. I believe they service the ports around Los Angeles where electric trucks are going to be mandated over even the diesel trucks that are up to date with DEF systems. I see a great fit for getting containers from the port to the railheads short of moving the railheads to the ports which would take a big line of the largest Cat bulldozers to accomplish. Maybe some eminent domain actions as well, so maybe 20 years with luck.

        3. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Distances

          "There are no – zero – EV chargers of any sort on the 10-hour trip I take once a month or so, much less "fast-charge" ones."

          What is the trip and where you have looked? I've checked on some people assertions like that and found there were plenty. You could be correct, but in a month things may have changed.

          A ten hour (one way) trip each month is way off the curve. The vast majority of people don't do that as much as 2x a year.

      2. James O'Shea Silver badge

        Re: Distances

        Err... I have to go to a location 70 miles from base twice a week. There is no recharging point near that location, not even a slow recharger. I have to go to a location 170 miles from base once a month; no rechargers within 10 miles of that location. There is a rapid recharger roughly 11 miles away. Every time I go by, all connections (there are a half dozen) are in use. Possibly I have bad timing. Possibly it's the only charge point in a large radius and is heavily used. Every once in quite a while, I have to go to a location 500 miles away. I have no idea how many rechargers are close; I suspect very few, if any.

        Sorry, it's just not on, not until there are more rechargers.

    5. Nonymous Crowd Nerd

      Re: Distances

      Bjørn Nyland on YouTube has now tested approximately a dozen cars that will cover 1,000km with less than an hour of charging time en route. That's about 600 miles.

      His reference test with a petrol car was really quite tricky as stopping for less than an hour in the nine hours it takes is not advisable, safe or sensible.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Distances

        Oh, do fuck off. "[N[ot advisable, safe or sensible" according to what data, nanny?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Distances

          I've gotta agree with @michael Wojciak here.

          So less than one hour in a nine hour journey not safe or sensible.... But surely stopping for 10 minutes, walking about , do you stuff then stop again for 10 minutes. You can repeat that stop 5 times, 50 minutes. Seems that's under an an hour and stopping five times to stretch you legs seems more than enough on a 9 hour journey.

          I own an EV and travelling more than its range which requires the use of a public charger is definitely not stress free. If you are lucky and there is a working/unused charger then maybe fine. But if not, then EV ownership and planning any journey to a schedule becomes hugely frustrating.

          Personally, I've had DC charging failure of the car not considered an emergency by the AA as it's drivable so basically you have to slow charge your way home. Trust me you will curse the day you ever bought an EV if that happens to you in a journey back from Scotland.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Distances

        "Bjørn Nyland on YouTube has now tested approximately a dozen cars that will cover 1,000km with less than an hour of charging time en route. That's about 600 miles."

        He also has all of his data on a downloadable spread sheet so if you want to see how a car does in summer vs a Nordic winter, he has the data on some of the models he's tested. He'll also do things such as leave a car to cold soak overnight while he's holed up in a hotel and see how well the car will charge in the morning as a way to simulate not having access to charging at the end of a day's driving when the battery might be nice and warm. It's not as terrible as some people claim. The cars with pre-conditioning options can make sub-freezing temps a non-issue for charging.

        1. ian 22

          Re: Distances

          Toyota announced plans for an electric car with 900 (!) miles of range by 2028. Good on them if they manage it. Next we will have commenters claiming they need 1000 miles of range.

    6. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Distances

      "EVs are impractical for a single day drive of 600 miles or more due to both the time taken to recharge and the limited number of fast recharging points."

      Wow, you were able to get so much wrong in so few words that you should go into politics.

      If you are driving 600+ miles per day very frequently, you are in the tiniest percentile of drivers in the US. At an average speed of 60mph (which is about what you get with stops for fuel, food and bio-breaks), that's 10 hours of driving. Yes, I've averaged faster and I've also spent much more time going even fewer miles.

      There are EV's on the market that will charge from 10% to 80% in under 20 minutes. I've been logging my long trips over the last bunch of years to see if an EV would be a good choice and with filling up a fuel tank, it's about 20 minutes on a stop if I can pull right up right away. It can be another 5 minutes or more of waiting time on a holiday weekend or just as a roll of the dice. Of course, if you want to pay a premium price, there's no waiting.

      It takes a vast amount of electricity to convert crude oil into transportation fuel and I've have never seen any mention of an EV charging station being run from a diesel generator. That's so horribly inefficient that the cost would be enormous. Some stations are using reclaimed EV batteries as a way to reduce peak demand at a charging station. Power companies will charge extra for high demand durning peak times so that battery pack makes sense. It also makes sense as EV's don't pull their maximum charging rate the entire time they are hooked up. When demand in low at a station, it will allocated power to recharge its battery. When demand is high, it may reduce the maximum power any one charger can dispense.

      The number of DC fast chargers (non-Tesla) across the US is increasing every day as companies finally get their installations' final sign off and permit to operate. The red tape has been a main hinderance, but the network can only expand at a rate that demand will pay for. There are several very good EV route planners where it's easy to see just how many chargers there are. For the most part, EV's make sense for people that can charge at home/work. Most EV owners do charge at home/work. Even Tesla has published that owners of their cars mainly charge at home. The switch is going to take a long time. EV's are expensive and very few for sale in the US are non-luxury models or at lease non-luxury priced.

    7. ian 22

      Re: Distances

      Of course battery technology will never improve. Tesla has shown us the truth of that.

  4. earl grey
    Devil

    this is simply not feasible

    (1) nobody on earth has enough electrical generation capacity

    (2) nobody on earth has enough battery storage

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: this is simply not feasible

      I don't know who's downvoting you, as it's true against the backdrop of the existing networks and generators. It is, however, feasible with the right investment in the right things, in bulk.

      We are need to be talking about WW2 levels of gearing up production across many sectors. The evidence of that happening is dubious at best.

      I work in the electricity network sector and spend much of my waking hours arguing the toss for the scale of the changes needed.

      The alternative is "waiting till later" when the eventual shortfall of oil will force the issue; probably much more violently. Better to do it now in controlled manner than delay.

    2. jmch Silver badge

      Re: this is simply not feasible

      (1) nobody on earth has enough electrical generation capacity - Yes, currently, but there's 10-20 years to change that

      (2) nobody on earth has enough battery storage - not currently, but we're getting there. It seems like in the last 20 years, major breakthroughs in battery technology were always around the corner and never arriving.... and yet the steady incremental approaches from the first Ni-Mh batteries in my first ever mobile phone to the latest Li-ion are huge. Al-ion and Al-graphene batteries are starting to leave the lab and start appearing in the market... still as costly button cells for now but in 10 years who knows?

      1. I miss PL/1

        Re: this is simply not feasible

        In the us we are talking 2 year backlog to get a transformer. You think in 20 years even we will have enough capacity!!!?!?

        Not to mention that capacity of child slave labor we need to mine the cobalt and lithium.

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: this is simply not feasible

          I have no idea what it's like elsewhere in the country, but my local electric co-op was quoting 14-18 months for a residential pole transformer last year, and I don't believe the situation has improved. So, yeah, I don't see any signs of the necessary infrastructure ramp-up either.

          There may be time to do it, but that only helps if someone actually does.

          And electric utilities have plenty of other worries.

          1. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: this is simply not feasible

            "And electric utilities have plenty of other worries."

            Yeah, the cost to name a sports stadium keeps going up and it's getting harder to fund the C-level exec's annual bonuses.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: this is simply not feasible

          Wholesale copper prices have more or less tripled in the space of three years. Besides the obvious events of this period, opposition to copper mining expansion was a major feature in the Chilean general election.

          Considering it was guaranteed high income for the local populace, opposition is a bit weird.

          Scaling up the electricity networks has other (less obvious) issues. One of the most common insulating gases (SF6) is dreadful from point of view of CO2 equivalence. This means there is a strong driver to replace older equipment with stuff that uses less SF6, or alternative gases. A handful of installations based on these alternatives are starting to appear; but the production lines to stamp these out by the thousands of substation replacements needed aren't there yet... And people tend not to like writing off equipment that has useful lifetime when replacing it means adding to the bill.

          First gen SF6 equipment IS coming up to end of service life (~40 years or so) though so now absolutely is the time to get on top of the alternatives and start building them in anger.

          Enter the wonderful world of planning permission (UK) or zoning (US)...

          A/C because, as if you hadn't guessed, I am one of El Reg's resident transmission engineers.

          1. jmch Silver badge

            Re: this is simply not feasible

            "...opposition to copper mining expansion was a major feature in the Chilean general election. Considering it was guaranteed high income for the local populace, opposition is a bit weird."

            Money isn't everything. If the local populace considered that having clean drinking water as a higher priority than them affording a couple of small luxuries and some foreigners getting cheaper copper, who am I to argue??

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: this is simply not feasible

            "Wholesale copper prices have more or less tripled in the space of three years. "

            That does indeed add to the capital cost of building electrical installations, but it also amortizes out very quickly. In many cases for power generation, the rising legal costs of fighting all of the lawsuits grossly outweighs the increased cost of Copper.

            I'm not saying the rise in Copper prices doesn't suck. I was contemplating some wiring projects in my garage/shop and the cost for the wire is crippling. I'm hitting all of the estate sales in the area that I can when I see photos that make it look like there are tools and materials to be had. I'm also kicking myself for not grabbing the odd roll of wiring when I had seen it before and didn't have any pending projects. It's my age old fight to balance hording vs having materials on hand for projects.

      2. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: this is simply not feasible

        (2) nobody on earth has enough battery storage - not currently, but we're getting there. It seems like in the last 20 years, major breakthroughs in battery technology were always around the corner and never arriving.... and yet the steady incremental approaches from the first Ni-Mh batteries in my first ever mobile phone to the latest Li-ion are huge. Al-ion and Al-graphene batteries are starting to leave the lab and start appearing in the market... still as costly button cells for now but in 10 years who knows?

        A nokia 3300 had a 780mAh battery, which was fine for a weeks usage. The first iphone had a 1400 mAh battery and lasted most of a day. The latest one has a 4323 mAh battery, but is twice the size and weighs twice as much. The real improvements have been in the reduced power usage in the phone; the 3300 could have had a larger and more expensive battery but didn't need one.

        The issue is the cost and weight of the batteries, which won't get cheap enough fast enough.

        As to the point that there is 10-20 years to change the shortage of electrical generation capacity, you say this like that's a lot of time.

        There are 3 viable methods of power generation. Coal, gas and nuclear. Wind and solar produces some power, but are require backing up with either coal or gas because their output swings from "you can turn the gas plant off" to "we've got a blackout" on an hourly basis. Picking either of those options is a deliberate decision as to remain with gas generation indefinitely to "back up" (actually act as greenwashing for gas being the primary power generation...)

        Nuclear could replace the lot, but it takes 10 years to build from the point that you get a politician to pointlessly shovel the first spadesful of dirt to their successor cutting the nice ribbon and power coming out.

        So "we have 10-20 years to change that" means "we are already to f****** late".

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: this is simply not feasible

          With respect to battery technology, 780 >> 4323 mAh is over 5X increase. Even accounting for the battery size more than doubling, that's still more than doubling of energy density in 20 years. At a similair rate of increase I would expect batteries capable of well over 200 Wh/kg in the next 10 years. That extra power in phones has mostly been used up in increased processing power, and bigger, brighter and higher-resolution screens. When applied to cars, the actual power requirements aren't really changing so any improvements in battery tech go directly to the bottom line performance.

          With respect to generation, I'm in complete agreement. A bunch of new nuclear power stations need to be built ASAP, and considering the years faffing about even agreeing to build one and finding a site, it would be 15-20 years until their power starts coming online. Not sure if that can be speeded up by widespread adoption of small modular reactors, for which I guess build / deploy time is considerably less (but come with their own issues...). Wind and solar aren't a complete loss though, I believe it's more efficient to site them where they can more reliably produce power and transmit the power (possible over thousands of km) than try to cram as many of them in wherever they can be fitted. With respect to solar there are many deserty places (southern US / Mexico and north Africa) with very little cloud cover and lots of sunshine, and within 2000km or less of major US / European grids. Also molten salt solar stores daylight heat and releases overnight, providing lower peak output per square meter BUT allowing predictable power output over 24h.

          Frankly, "because we're late" is exactly why we can't afford to put all our eggs in the nuclear basket.

          1. Peter2 Silver badge

            Re: this is simply not feasible

            Wind and solar aren't a complete loss though

            No, just quadruple to quintuple the delivered price of electricity versus any other option, with the addition of crippling energy insecurity problems.

            And we end up importing them from China, because they are massively energy expensive to make and we neither have the energy to make them with, nor the desire to deal with the toxic byproducts of making them.

            1. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: this is simply not feasible

              "And we end up importing them from China"

              In the beginning, China became the low price supplier of pure Silicon ingots used in making solar cells. As time when by, Chinese industry began making the cells and the supply of Silicon ingots for export became limited and the price went up. Once China had reached a point where they dominated the solar cell market, they began making complete panels whereupon cheap and plentiful solar cells became a thing of the past. China has down this with many different products. Once they've reduced or eliminated the ability for a product to be produced at a competitive price, they seal the deal by curtailing the export of raw material and sub-components. In the mean time, the US continues to effectively ban heavy industry so it won't be long before many base level materials can't be made in the US any longer.

              I recently read where China was going to actively pursue cases against companies infringing on the patents for NdFeB magnets. That's awfully rich as the original patents were awarded to Magnaquench, a division of General Motors before being sold to China and IP protections aren't extended to companies outside of China for domestic Chinese makers ripping them off.

          2. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

            Re: this is simply not feasible

            Solar in "deserty" places seems like a good idea, until you factor in damage from constant sandblasting, which gradually etches the panel surface making each panel less effective. Also windblown dust that builds up and reduces the panel efficiency. All this means a shorter life and greater maintenance effort, which increases cost a lot.

            Solar thermal e.g. molten salt could be a better bet, since the mirrors tend to be less spread out than PV panels, and the thermal mass of the molten salt acts as a buffer to solar variations.

            Still they are expensive to build and come with their own regular maintenance issues. And you still have to get the power from the deserts to the people, which means billions spent on transmission lines.

            Couple this to the fact you really don't want to be relying on another nation for your energy security. Russian gas dependency has thoroughly proven this. For most countries that need a lot of power, desert areas tend to be in someone else's country. It'd be great if we could all just play nicely together, share power all around the world, but history and current events demonstrate time and again how naive such a view is.

          3. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: this is simply not feasible

            "Not sure if that can be speeded up by widespread adoption of small modular reactors"

            I don't see the argument for SMR's as being anywhere close to reality. It's not the complexity of the build, it's usually all of the lawsuits, revolving door permissions, problems keeping the financing in place etc. If a judge orders a stoppage on construction, it takes a long time to bring crews back and get it going again which will often begin with cleaning up the issues the stoppage caused (vandalism, weathering, etc). None of that is ameliorated by building more, yet smaller reactors. I think it will be just the opposite and court dates will be further and further out as there will be more of them to hear. For these sorts of issues, cases are generally heard in only certain courts since it takes a lot a technical expertise.

          4. ian 22

            Re: this is simply not feasible

            The rate of development of battery technology will approximate that of semiconductors. Remember Moore's Law? Likewise, the efficiency of electric vehicles is bound to improve.

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: this is simply not feasible

          "A nokia 3300 had a 780mAh battery, which was fine for a weeks usage. "

          I leave off Data, WiFi and Bluetooth if I'm not using them and get loads of battery life from my 'smart' phone. It also helps that I don't spend my days buried neck deep in the phone as many do.

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: this is simply not feasible

      "(1) nobody on earth has enough electrical generation capacity"

      I'll do this in US units (sorry rest of world)

      It takes 7.46kWh per gallon of petrol in refining. Many passenger EV's can travel 25 miles on that amount of electricity. My car averages with mixed driving about 30 mpg (it has 230k on the odometer and could do with a rebuilt engine). I'm getting 5 miles of range over the amount of electricity that has gone into refining the petrol without considering additional energy expended to get that petrol to the filling station, billing/payment, lighting the forecourt, etc. So much for the latent 32kWh/gallon of energy in the petrol that's all been wasted.

      I would expect that people buying an EV are replacing an ICE vehicle or the miles driven. Less demand for petrol/diesel, less power used at the refinery. The problem then becomes power distribution more than generating capacity. It's much easier to deliver all of that power from power plant to refinery than from the power plant to thousands of locations, but most of that has already been done. I have a goal of getting an EV, likely something like a used Bolt, in the next year or two after a new roof and solar PV. The overwhelming amount of charging of the car will be from solar at my home. It works for me as I'm self employed, work about half the time in a home office and don't travel often over 200 miles in one day. I also have several public charging options and can sometimes plug in at job sites. Not everybody can do that so there will need to be many more options to fit circumstances. It the problem is you live in a flat with no off street parking in a city, move. Simple as that. Had I stayed in the area I lived in previously I'd never been able to afford my own home (paid for now). Salaries and what I can charge customers is less than that big metropolis, but my costs are much much lower as well. With my solar heating projects I was able to stop using central heat 8 years ago and still keep plenty warm. It's very dry where I am so cooling in the summer is with an evaporative cooler. This summer that will run on solar power all day and several hours into the evening with battery packs I've built from reclaimed lithium cells.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    OK, let’s all go EV next week

    Electricity grid capacity?

    Charging network?

    Car manufacture?

    Cost?

    Low income users?

    It’s a 40 year pipe dream.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Current EV battery technology is unsustainable

    A battery is a fuel tank, and a not very good one at that.

    1. Jusme

      Re: Current EV battery technology is unsustainable

      Batteries are crap.

      If battery technology had advanced the same rate semiconductors, magnetic media and networks have over the last decades we'd be flying across the Atlantic on a pack of AA's by now. The fact that it hasn't suggests it won't, it certainly isn't for the want of trying*. Your phone battery lasts so much longer now not because the battery is so much better, but because the electronics are. Unfortunately it still takes the same amount of energy to move a tin can and it's contents now as it always did, and always will, so there's little other scope for improvements to the range.

      There's also the problem of charging, even if a perfect battery existed. The filler hose at your local supermarket delivers the equivalent of around a megawatt of power while it's dispensing fuel. That's a lot of amps and a lot of volts to get the same energy delivery in a short time. Electrical things with megawatts on their nameplates tend to live in locked rooms with big warning signs, for good reasons, not out on the high street for anyone to play with.

      * Unless you think Big Bad Oil has been keeping it hidden for all this time, which requires strong metallic millinery to believe**

      ** Unlike the much more plausible conspiracy that Big Bad Oil has been suppressing it's real enemy, nuclear, by funding FUD for 50 years...

      1. Duncan Macdonald

        Re: Current EV battery technology is unsustainable

        Garage petrol filler hoses dispense power at around 17 megawatts not just one megawatt (30l/min @ 34MJ/l)

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Current EV battery technology is unsustainable

          "Garage petrol filler hoses dispense power at around 17 megawatts not just one megawatt (30l/min @ 34MJ/l)"

          and a good 2/3rds of that is thrown away as waste heat. You are also discounting all of the electricity that was used in the refining process.

      2. Binraider Silver badge

        Re: Current EV battery technology is unsustainable

        The discovery of Li-Ion batteries were a progressional "blip". Since then it has mostly been esoteric materials making only incremental gains and little practical gain.

        But there are other forms of storage available; and of distribtion. Who says you need a battery to do 400 miles on electric? Scalextric tracks, and dodgems long solved the problem of getting electric power to vehicles without a battery.

        While you would never convert every road in the land to such tech; having a battery for short stretches "off network" while using a pickup "on network" surely is the best of both worlds. Keeps the weight requirement of the vehicle down, and the sheer quantity of batteries.

        Doing stuff like this though requires considerable forward planning, something that most nations aren't capable of doing beyond the end of their nose.

      3. jmch Silver badge

        Re: Current EV battery technology is unsustainable

        Mostly right, and additional ++++ for "metallic millinery"

        "If battery technology had advanced the same rate semiconductors, magnetic media and networks..."

        Not really a good comparison. After all if ICEs and jet engines had advanced at the same rate we'd be flying across the Atlantic on a litre of fuel or driving New York to San Francisco in 10 minutes on a teaspoon of fuel. The electronics are certainly better but the batteries are definitely much better too. The NiMh batteries of 15-20 years ago stored maybe 100Wh/kg and were very sensitive to charging cycle. Modern Li-ion are pushing 150Wh/kg and can be charge-cycled 500-ish times. Lab versions of Al-ion and Al-graphene batteries are already at 150Wh/kg and charge similair to Li-ion, with potential to go up to 3X faster, a theoretical upper limit of 1050Wh/kg (compared to 400 for Li-ion - in practice even reaching 200 - 300Wh/kg in real life would be a game-changer), and 2000 charge cycles without performance deterioration.

        It's not outlandish to suggest the possibility in the next 10 years of batteries capable of 200 Wh/kg (1/2 ton car battery = 100kWh), even if 80kWh is used for mobility, it's 500+km range on 1 charge, and 400kW chargers (current fastest ones are 250-350kW) could top up that 500km range in 12 minutes. 2000 charge cycles is a full charge per day for 5.5 years, or full charge every 2 days for 11 years.

        In other words, current batteries are crapp(ish) compared to liquid fuel, but it doesn't need major breakthroughs to be on par within 10 years, just the current steady progress.

        "Electrical things with megawatts on their nameplates tend to live in locked rooms with big warning signs, for good reasons, not out on the high street for anyone to play with."

        And yet we have enough safety systems in place that the filler hoses at our local supermarket are not regularly (or even ever) subject to becoming blazing infernos. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, minor car crashes do not lead to giant fireballs. I suspect with the right regulation in place, we can manage 1/2 MW chargers.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Current EV battery technology is unsustainable

        TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima aren't FUD. (and I'm drawing a nuclear industry pension)

        1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

          Re: Current EV battery technology is unsustainable

          The panic mass overreaction to pretty much no radioactive emmission from Fukishma was entirely due to FUD.

  7. Ghostman

    Older Cars

    We could find older cars and trucks. For the 80K+ price of a new one (truck), you could take an older model (70-90) put in a crate motor, refurbish the vehicle to 0 miles quality, new paint, needed safety features (3 point seat belts, air bags), and a Bluetooth sound system. OH, yeah, an EFI fuel system.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Older Cars

      "We could find older cars and trucks. "

      The amount of modification you could do to an older vehicle will be dependent on age. If it's not old enough, there's no way to do an engine swap to something fairly modern and get it approved by the State. Air bags? That's something I'd rather not play with or count on. It would take a bunch of money to be able to verify that whatever you came up with would work properly and safely.

      The dilemma I have right now is a used, low-mileage engine for my car would cost around $1,500 installed with a guarantee. The rest of the car is in good nick so a new engine and paint would bring it back up to a pretty good standard. A used Chevy Bolt with the fast charging option (no idea why they thought making it an option was a good idea) is in the neighborhood of $15,000 if I had cash on hand to scoop up a deal as soon as I saw it. Closer to $20k on any day of the week without needing to shop. The difference between $15k and $2,500 buys a whole lot of petrol so the EV doesn't make much financial sense. Even with the cost of ICEV related maintenance, the EV is more expensive to acquire. Financing just brings more pain so I'd really like to pay cash.

      While an EV advocate, it may be a while before I'm also an EV owner as well.

  8. Tim99 Silver badge

    Change can happen quickly...

    ...If there is a structural or a monetary imperative. A good example may be that of how quickly horses were replaced by internal combustion vehicles. They example that is often shown is photographs of New York's 5th Avenue taken in 1901 to 1913: Where is the car? vs Where is the horse?

    Petroleum fuel stations only came into existence from about 1907 - Before then fuel was sold from 5 gallon containers by blacksmiths, hardware stores and pharmacies (places where kerosine was sold for lamps etc.). Fuel was typically poured directly into the vehicle using a funnel, a hazardous procedure as petrol has a much lower flash point than kerosine (<-25C vs ~38C) - Local authorities started mandating that gasoline should be dispensed safely from purpose-built facilities, hence the modern "Service Station" with underground storage tanks evolving from about 1913.

    1. Jusme

      Re: Change can happen quickly...

      "Change can happen quickly...If there is a structural or a monetary imperative"

      Actually I think that's exactly wrong. Trying to coerce people into something they don't really want is, at best, a slow process. The reason ICE vehicles took over from horses so quickly was because people wanted the freedom they gave, despite their initial limitations. The huge demand fuelled their mass production, and provision of the infrastructure to support them. There was no "government incentive" to get an ICE vehicle, people *wanted* them.

      Compare with those abhorrent CFL lamps that they tried to push on us a few years back. They may have had a lower energy consumption than incandescent lamps, but in every other way they were significantly worse. People didn't really want them, so they had to be forced on us, by banning incandescents and subsidising their production, and by getting the energy companies to supply them to disinterested customers and add the costs to their bills. Then along came viable LED lighting. *Poof* CFLs (and finally incandescents) were history. No incentives or laws needed - they are actually better than the alternatives, and people wanted them.

      People don't really want electric cars. They may have lower emissions at the point of use (but it's not clear if their total environmental impact is actually that much less than ICE), and they are generally inferior in most other respects (cost, range, choice...). Unfortunately there probably won't be an "LED" moment for personal transport. Barring a 10-fold improvement in battery technology, which is unlikely at this point, or development of a safe suitcase-size fusion reactor, which is still pure sci-fi, the only solution to the very real problem of fossil fuel exhaustion is a significant reduction in the availability of personal transport. This will most likely happen by pricing them off the roads, as "cheap" ICE vehicles are outlawed and only those who can afford BEVs will be able to enjoy the freedom of personal transport. People won't like that.

      1. Atomic Duetto

        Re: Change can happen quickly...

        “People don’t really want electric cars…”

        I’m people, and I want an electric car, so does my wife

        (and the cheesemakers and other manufacturers of dairy products)

        I actually ordered a Tesla Model Y last year, but they have all the driving verve of a fridge (full of CFLs perhaps).. I really tried to like it, honest.

        1. Jusme

          Re: Change can happen quickly...

          "I’m people, and I want an electric car, so does my wife"

          Really?

          Or do you actually want a means of transporting yourself, your cohorts and your chattels from A to B cheaply and conveniently?

          Most people don't really care if their vehicle is powered by dead dinosaurs, angry atoms or unicorn farts, they just want "a car", and today, the ICE is generally the best fit solution for that problem, and the BEV isn't.

          1. Atomic Duetto

            Re: Change can happen quickly...

            I don’t really understand your comment. Are you suggesting that I don’t know what I want?

            (Pretty fucking arrogant if it is)

            1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

              Re: Change can happen quickly...

              I don’t really understand your comment. Are you suggesting that I don’t know what I want?

              It's possible. I want a superyacht. I probably won't get a superyacht because I've got an idea of the running costs involved. I don't need a superyacht, I just like the idea of having a mobile home for glamping on the waves. Or actually, I'd really want Paul Allen's Octopus. I had the chance to chat with some of the crew once, and the reason why it was a lil fugly was because it was a 'proper' explorer yacht, complete with sonar suite. So basically an oceanographic research/survey 'yacht' so I can satisfy my curiousity and geek out in comfort. That would be fun, but probably not as easy to make cover it's costs by chartering the thing.. Although having researchers onboard to pester would probably be more interesting than chatting with a lot of people who charter yachts. Researchers just don't have the money, even though they're more valuable.

              So I guess it's down to really understanding what you want. Do you want a car, or a truck? Do you want a 6 seater to haul your kids around? Or do you want a 2-seater sports car to flex with and boost your social media ratings? Do want need a car to commute, or shop? Or do you want an EV because you want to do you bit to save the planet?

              And have you ever owned an EV, or heard, seen or read about any of the disadvantages from people who've owned them, and then got rid of them?

              I have, and there are pros and cons to both ICEs and EVs. The cons to ICEs are mainly due to regulatory capture and idiots making policies to stop people driving them. But ICEs are arguably more efficient than EVs because the fuel density of diesel or petrol is much higher than batteries. It's far faster to fill an ICE tank than a battery, and less stressful on a very expensive component of your EV. Fast charge it too much and the battery degrades, reducing range and ultimately requiring a very expensive replacement. Tyres, brakes and suspension may require replacing more frequently because an EV is generally a lot heavier than an ICE. Do you have somewhere to charge your EV, and are confident that there are enough charging points around your typical routes to make using it convenient? Are you comfortable with having a dozen apps on your smart phone to pay all the different charging networks operators? And then what happens if your phone is lost or stolen when you're far from home?

              Or there's just the TCO thing. Petrol and Diesel have been getting steadily more expensive due to government policies. Taxes on fuel are very high, and governments don't want to lose that money. Again, thanks to policies, electricity has been getting ever more expensive.. To the point where filling an EV can now cost more than filling an ICE. And this is without 'fuel duties' being transferred across to EVs. Or there's just the cost of generating enough electricity to support millions of EVs.. Plus all the other Green carp that makes up 'Net Zero'.

              But whether you really want one or not, or if it makes any economic or environmental sense is largely irrelevant because you're probably going to have to buy one anyway.

              1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: Change can happen quickly...

                "I want a superyacht. "

                I want a friend that has a superyacht that invites me out on it, a lot. I'll bring the beer.

              2. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: Change can happen quickly...

                "But ICEs are arguably more efficient than EVs because the fuel density of diesel or petrol is much higher than batteries."

                You stuck your foot in it with that one. See a previous replay I made on this topic. The efficiency of an EV mile for mile is much greater than an ICEV. It's also color blind when it comes to how the electricity is produced. A petrol car will always need to be supplied with petrol derived from oil. There are some synth fuels, but they are for more expensive and even fuels from tar sands are cheaper.

            2. Col_Panek

              Re: Change can happen quickly...

              "If I asked people what they wanted, they'd say a faster horse." -- Henry Ford

              The SAE projects that EV vs. ICE car build costs will cross over in the 2025ish time frame. If people get a choice of an EV and an ICE at the same price, some of them will go for the EV for its dramatically lower running costs, not to mention the zoom zoom factor (ignoring the noise and smell). There will be many who say they have to drive 600 miles without stopping, in -20C weather, pulling a boat, and park at an apartment or street with no charging. Many who will be convinced that it's a Liberal Democratic hoax like climate change, and that They can shut off your car when THEY want to limit you. Forcing people to change does nothing but generate resentment. Let them buy dino juice and enjoy the price.

              SAE = Society of Automotive Engineers

              1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: Change can happen quickly...

                "The SAE projects that EV vs. ICE car build costs will cross over in the 2025ish time frame. "

                Nice sum up, Col Panek. I'm in agreement about creating resentment by forcing people into something they don't want. There will also be resentment in continuing all of the subsidies that make those that don't want to opt in, pay for everybody else.

                I don't put any credence in the the statements of somebody that cites an extreme driving/usage example as an argument against. My dad, many moons ago, bought a "sport" model Ford Fiesta to commute to work with and no put miles on his truck. The truck was needed for pulling the horse trailer and fetching supplies from the feed store/hardware store. There wasn't a good way to rent a truck with the proper hitch to move the horses in a big hurry if there were a fire. The little yellow car paid for itself in savings as it used far less petrol, was cheaper to insure and put off the need to purchase another expensive truck for many years. In fact, my dad passed away before he needed a new truck. That wouldn't have been the case if he kept up using it as a daily driver.

          2. werdsmith Silver badge

            Re: Change can happen quickly...

            I'm on 2nd EV with a 3rd one ordered.

            No way I'm ever willingly going back to old fashioned ICE cars having driven EV. Thank you.

      2. jmch Silver badge

        Re: Change can happen quickly...

        "People don't really want electric cars."

        I very much doubt this. Some people do want them, some don't, and most don't care and just want a car. Lower emissions at point of use are one advantage, another is being more economical (electricity cost much cheaper than fuel, and less moving parts = cheaper service and longer lifetime of the non-battery parts). They're still more expensive to begin with, and need to be operated 10+ years to break even, but they only need about 5-10% reduction in price to be competitive with ICEs. Which brings me to....

        "Barring a 10-fold improvement in battery technology, which is unlikely at this point..."

        Yes, a 10-fold improvement in battery technology is a pipe dream, but is also not needed. Around 20% more energy density* and 20% less cost on the battery side combined with mass production on the scale of ICE cars over the next 10 years is likely to be enough to bring cost and range parity between comparable battery and ICE vehicles. If someone doesn't care about battery vs ICE, but they have the same or similar range and upfront cost, electric will win every time due to lower running costs (as long as the charging infrastructure has kept pace with development that people aren't worried about range issues).

        *Theoretical energy density of Al-ion batteries is 1050Wh/kg vs 400Wh/kg of Li-ion. Currently both in practice do 150, but there is huge room for improvement. Mass production of Al-ion batteries would be a game changer as Al is much cheaper and more abundant than Li

        1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

          Re: Change can happen quickly...

          Some people do want them, some don't, and most don't care and just want a car

          Indeed. I don't want an EV, because it doesn't fit my use case. If one did, then I'd consider it – except, well, I wouldn't, because I'm pretty sure all the EVs sold in the US come with touchscreens, and I will not buy a car with a touchscreen. (Which likely means I'll never buy another new car.) But as far as just the engine technology goes, if an EV could satisfy my use case, I'd give it a look.

          Some other people do want an EV, for various reasons.

          But the post upthread that pointed out demand for fueling stations and motor vehicles in the first place was driven by demand is correct. The proportion of the population that wanted to switch from horses to motor vehicles greatly exceeds the proportion that now wants to switch from ICE to EV, and can feasibly do so. The past several decades of motoring-infrastructure build-out had a much stronger economic driver than EV build-out does.

          1. ian 22

            Re: Change can happen quickly...

            I agree, a vehicle with a touch screen will never be mine. However, I own a Nissan Leaf electric vehicle that has no touch screen. It is fun to drive, and I'm one of the lucky few that can charge it up at work for free. Given the price swings for gasoline, electricity is far more reliably priced.

            1. VicMortimer Silver badge

              Re: Change can happen quickly...

              Meanwhile, I will never own another car without a touchscreen.

              And since most new EVs come with touchscreens and I will also never own another car with a gasoline engine, I'm probably set.

        2. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Change can happen quickly...

          "need to be operated 10+ years to break even, "

          There's a whole bunch of assumptions wrapped into that statement. As a depreciating asset, it can be very hard to talk about 'break even' since you'd need to specify what you are using as the metric for what break even is.

          I've been around long enough to see more predictions not come true than those that do. Li batteries do far better than 150kWh/kg right now. There are even batteries that do much better than that but have other issues. Anyone versed in engineering knows that all of the knobs on the panel interact. Optimize for one parameter and something else slips. The big issues are energy density, cost, safety, charging rate and cycles. Take Lithium Titinate batteries; they can be charged very quickly but their energy density isn't that hot. Not a big deal for a city bus that has the room for a larger battery and isn't traveling hundreds of miles between charging stops. A pretty typical city bus route maxes at about 30 miles. Some of that is union rules for driver's breaks and some of it it just the constraints of how routes can be planned. If there is charging where the driver stops, the bus can "plug in" although an overhead system might work better and with batteries that can charge very quickly, the bus is ready to go very shortly for the return route. I'm not holding my breath for a new technology to disrupt what's currently being produced. Most things never make it out of the university labs. Most technology moves in incremental steps as well.

      3. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Change can happen quickly...

        "People don't really want electric cars."

        I am people and I'd like one.

        It's not about only getting from A to B. I want to be able to preheat/cool the car before I leave. I want to be able to plug the car in and have a full charge (or 80%) every morning and never have to visit a smelly forecourt again. I want the option of using the solar panels I put on the house to power the car and count on the car to power the house if necessary. I'd also like the peace and quiet of an electric drive train.

        That's me and I expect there are plenty of people that don't want one or would be hard pressed to make one work in their situation. That's fine. I'll have my ICEV for some time yet. I don't see any point in the State mandating EV's. California had passed a law many years ago to ban ICEV's and it had to be reversed although I think money also changed hands. It wasn't time to railroad and we may still not be at that point. Adoption is already pretty high. I see EV's all over the place so there is demand and the people I've talked with are happy with them. They'll then tell two friends and somebody else will ask them how they are getting along with their golf cart and word will get out, questions will be answered by friends and neighbors which we value more than pundits and adverts. If your neighbor has an EV and they dispel all of the myths you've picked up, it might change your mind about getting one yourself. Between that and a good used market, it's the point where adoption will increase as fast as the market can support. Everybody isn't going to run out and buy a new car in the next couple of years. A new(ish) car is a major purchase.

      4. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Change can happen quickly...

        "Trying to coerce people into something they don't really want is, at best, a slow process."

        Even if they want it, the cost is too high for an impulse buy. The people DO want electric cars. Not all of them and not all want the same EV. Some are put off by everything being on a center mounted screen instead of having the same sort of controls they have become used to over decades. Even today, the newer drivers that would get on with using a tablet to control a car aren't the sort to have the money for one and will be instead getting a used something with traditional buttons and knobs. Some don't have a place to charge at home or work which makes an EV a poor choice since it's that convenience that really makes them viable and the complication of having to go elsewhere to charge up a huge negative.

        Battery tech is not going to improve 10-fold. That would put a battery in the same energy density class as C-4 plastic explosive. I'd rather not have that mounted underneath my seat. Given that surmise, it's how personal transportation is used rather than new products being a direct replacement for old. I'm a rabid advocate of trains and would like to see more improvements made there for longer trips. Before Covid, I was in the habit of taking the train for the bulk of my travel to see my mom. They weren't always on-time, but not too far off the schedule and driving was laborious and highly variable. The trouble is that the station closest to me doesn't have secure overnight parking so I can't stay overnight or go on other long trips using that station and have to drive a couple of hours (if lucky) to the central station where they do have guarded parking structures. Fixing the train service for some of my complaints turns out to not be about the trains themselves, but other connected issues. Build a fence/wall, have some security roaming about and feel free to charge me for parking. It's much cheaper to do that rather than find a window busted out and all of the change missing from the ash tray, catalytic converter cut out and battery/wheels/tires gone.

    2. I miss PL/1

      Re: Change can happen quickly...

      The problem is I didn't have to pay to put in gas stations but I have to pay to put in charging stations even if I don't own an EV.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Change can happen quickly...

        "The problem is I didn't have to pay to put in gas stations but I have to pay to put in charging stations even if I don't own an EV."

        You should write to your Rep/Senator/MP and let them know you are opposed to government subsidy of EV charging. I happen to agree and have written those letters. If you don't, be certain the lobbyists will have written masses of them in favor all with different false names 'signed' on the bottom and that mainly what the government official will be seeing. They can hire people for minimum wage to write the letters and misspelling/poor grammar is a bonus.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My old ICE is good for 350,000km

    That should see me out.

    Petroleum, no matter the cost, will be around for many years to come.

    1. I miss PL/1

      Re: My old ICE is good for 350,000km

      Exactly because fuel is only 1 of the 6000 things we get from petroleum.

      A good reference is Jeremy Clarkson's riff on oil on Top Gear when it was funny.

      I am sure you can Google it on YouTube.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: My old ICE is good for 350,000km

        "Exactly because fuel is only 1 of the 6000 things we get from petroleum."

        Not everything in a barrel of oil can be turned into transportation fuels nor into the other 5,999 things. Many people don't understand that crude oil isn't all the same stuff. The heavy/sour oil that Russia has lots of isn't that great for turning into petrol. It has to be cracked and have the Sulfur removed which lowers the eROI. Oil from west Texas is often light/sweet so it has a higher fraction of the shorter chain hydrocarbons that are great for turning into transportation fuels and very little contaminants such as Sulphur that must be removed. The tar sands of Alberta are nasty horrible deposits that are both beyond heavy and loaded with all sorts of byproducts that are difficult to handle.

        The vast majority of crude oil is turned into fuels of various kinds, but the higher margin products are arguably more important although the industry is set up for large volumes and may have a hard time adapting if a shift happens over a short period of time. Think of a government mandating that all new cars sold having to be electric. With one piece of poor legislation, they'll be able to cause the crash of many different markets. It will, of course, be done will all of the best intentions. Just like government backed student loans.

  10. ShortStuff

    Where Does All This Electricity Come From?

    We don't even have enough electricity now to cover the demand in many areas. Brown outs and black outs are common. Rationing during heavy usage is common. How do you get more of what you already don't have enough of? Politicians and government executives are nothing but educated idiots with no real world knowledge or experience, and absolutely no common sense.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Where Does All This Electricity Come From?

      Where? Maybe your power grid requires some government regulation to ensure the providers can provide what is needed by updating their assets instead of sweating 50 year old kit while paying out massive c-level bonuses?

  11. Potemkine! Silver badge

    As the US produces around 1/7th of all the CO2 produced worldwide, it's a good thing the US starts to think about reducing that production.

    However, changing ICE by EV won't be that good if electricity is produced with coal, oil or gas - 60% of electricity produced in the US is made from burning coal or gas.

    This measure looks like putting the cart before the horse. The first step is putting in place more and cleaner power plants and to build the grid able to transport all this new electricity. That would have a much bigger impact on CO2 production.

    Getting rid of carbon-based power plants in the next 15 years should be the target of all governments worldwide.

    1. Duncan Macdonald

      Not practical

      Shutting down carbon based generation (coal/oil/gas) in 15 years is not practical.

      To replace the current carbon based power plants would require the building of a huge number of nuclear power plants. With the exception of a few small areas in the world (eg Iceland) the renewable energy sources are either very limited (eg hydro) or not constant (wind/solar/tidal). As people still need electricity on a calm winters night there has to be sufficient conventional (coal/oil/gas/nuclear) generation to cover the load.

      There is not the capacity to build the required number of nuclear power stations in 15 years - probably not even in 25 years.

      1. Splatterplatter

        Re: Not practical

        Tosh. Our Ex Dear Leader , Nicola, assured us Scottish wind was the way, it is, of course, superior to any other windy byproducts - All hail our glorious windy nation...err, um., along with Standby Gas, obvs.

      2. Potemkine! Silver badge

        Re: Not practical

        To replace the current carbon based power plants would require the building of a huge number of nuclear power plants.

        That's why I think too, we need massive investments in new nuclear power plants.

        For the capacity, it may adjust if the money is there.

        " Global nuclear reactor construction time 1981-2021 - Published by Statista Research Department, Dec 13, 2022

        Nuclear reactors connected to the grid in 2021 had a median construction time of 88 months. During the period in consideration, the median construction time for nuclear reactors was the longest for reactors connected between 1996 and 2000, at 120 months.".

        If many reactors should be built, we could maybe gain some time with standardisation.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Not practical

          "If many reactors should be built, we could maybe gain some time with standardisation."

          Something that would speed it up even faster is to kill all of the lawyers.

  12. Marty McFly Silver badge
    FAIL

    The problems are unchanged

    Battery technology has not changed. Still an anode. Still a cathode. Still electrolyte. Still an electro-chemical reaction.

    The problem is energy storage and rapid energy replenishment. Batteries are not up to the task. A new technology is needed to replace batteries, maybe something like fuel cells.

    Compounding the problem is government meddling and trying to force people by limiting their options. No one likes to be forced to do anything. Then it becomes 'we the majority' are making 'you the minority' bow to our wishes. And that is a ugly societal situation, no matter what the underlying debate is.

  13. navarac Silver badge

    Not fit for purpose

    The infrastructure to charge EVs are inadequate in the UK with our shorter distances. I dread to think of the US distances. It's all arse about face - get the chargers sorted first and then maybe, just maybe, EVs will be viable. At the moment the system is not fit for purpose outside an urban environment..

    1. Tim99 Silver badge

      Re: Not fit for purpose

      As I posted above, cars (obviously) came first - The market for cars, and subsequent legislation, created petroleum fuel service stations. In 1901, 40 percent of US automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline (total of all types probably less than 35,000). Most vehicles travelled short distances and were predominately urban. By 1905 there would have been >60,000 cars in the US but it took until about 1911-1912 for petroleum power to become a majority.

      I note that BP in Australia have started rolling out 2 bay 75kW chargers in the Eastern States. So far they only have <20, but plan 600. They see it as an opportunity to sell/provide food and shopping: carexpert.com.au - Ampol have plans for 120 stations.

      Shopping centres are another obvious location. I live on the outer edge of a metropolitan area in Western Australia, our local shopping centre has J-1772 and Tesla chargers; with another 26 within a 60 km diameter. Going 80 km further out, a low population area of 24,000 km^2 with a population density of 7people/km^2 has over 60 stations with the furthest distance between them of 70 km.

      Admittedly we have lots of sun and wind (currently 65% of our electricity generation) with coal (19%) to be phased out completely by 2029 - Fortunately we have a lot of natural gas to make up any shortfall. It may be significant that most of the electricity generation and distribution is owned by the State Government, whereas in the rest of Australia it is mostly privately owned.

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Not fit for purpose

      "The infrastructure to charge EVs are inadequate in the UK with our shorter distances"

      If you have an electrical outlet, you have infrastructure. Whenever I see this short of comment I wonder if the person thinks that the only way to charge an EV is to take it to a charging station and sit there while it charges. One of the big pluses of having an EV is being able to refuel at home/work. If you live someplace where that's not possible, don't buy an EV. Chargers are being installed but they cost money and the companies putting them in have to pace their capital outlays. If the 'government' gets involved, be prepared to see massive loads of fraud, abuse and non-functional charging stations. There's already complaints about the dearth of public charging in low income neighborhoods and politicos banging out about it. Why would a company install a whole bunch of heavy copper wiring someplace where the chance that somebody will be charging an EV is next to zero? The politicians have a good answer for that, give the poor people the money to buy an EV. The rich can afford an EV if they want one, the poor may get subsidized and the middle class will pay for all of it and hold a monthly bus pass if they're lucky.

  14. Martin Harnevie

    Referring to petrol gas(oline) cars or biogas cars?

    Lack of precision in US English tend to confuse the two.

  15. aks

    The other point made clearly in the article but not in the comments is the protectionist nature of Biden's proposals.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like