Republicans Want to 'Phase Out' Electric Cars to Protect Fossil Fuels

[Eric]

Sigh...

Republicans want to "phase out" electric cars to protect fossil fuels

The proliferation of electric vehicles, they said, would be detrimental to Wyoming and the "ability for the country to efficiently engage in commerce."

www.newsweek.com

In late December, Oregon officials approved regulations that would ban the sale of all new gasoline-powered passenger vehicles in the state by 2035 in favor of electric vehicles and other multimodal forms of transportation, joining states like California looking to ban the proliferation of fossil fuel-powered vehicles.

Two states away in Wyoming, Republican lawmakers are looking to go in a decidedly different direction, pushing legislation that would ban the sale of all new electric vehicles in what lawmakers are calling an effort to preserve the state's fossil fuel industry.

Sponsored by Casper Republican Senator Jim Anderson with the support of several top Republican legislators, the resolution proposes to phase out the sale of all new electric vehicle sales in the state by 2035 to help maintain the fossil fuel jobs that underpin the state's economy.

 

[Citysnaps]

Wyoming republican lawmakers:

 

[Herdfan]

Ummmm.........

61% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels. Another 20% by nuclear. And Wyoming is getting one of the first Natrium plants.

 

[dada_dave]

Ummmm.........

61% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels. Another 20% by nuclear. And Wyoming is getting one of the first Natrium plants.

Sorry, this was too perfect not to use.

 

[Eric]

Ummmm.........

61% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels. Another 20% by nuclear. And Wyoming is getting one of the first Natrium plants.

Ummm.... and the point?

Halting progress on electric cars will do nothing but set those numbers back to 100%. It would be nice if Republicans can agree that renewable resources is the only path forward when it comes to energy, and stop clinging to the past.

Frankly, with logic like this I'm shocked we somehow managed to get off of leaded gasoline.

 

[dada_dave]

Ummm.... and the point?

Halting progress on electric cars will do nothing but set those numbers back to 100%. It would be nice if Republicans can agree that renewable resources is the only path forward when it comes to energy, and stop clinging to the past.

Frankly, with logic like this I'm shocked we somehow managed to get off of leaded gasoline.

I think he’s pointing out that it’s self defeating: more electric cars still means a market for their fossil fuels and nuclear power - so his rationales makes no sense - as in Jim Anderson is … well “the common clay of the new west” … cough

 

[Herdfan]

I think he’s pointing out that it’s self defeating: more electric cars still means a market for their fossil fuels and nuclear power - so his rationales makes no sense - as in Jim Anderson is … well “the common clay of the new west” … cough

Yep. The electricity that powers electric cars is generated from fossil fuels, and will be for quite some time.

 

[Roller]

Ummmm.........

61% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels. Another 20% by nuclear. And Wyoming is getting one of the first Natrium plants.

Since you started your post with "Ummmm," presumably to point out something those of us less enlightened about the subject than you missed, I'll reciprocate.

Erm, electric cars' carbon footprint, which comes from the source of the electricity used to power and manufacture them, is better than for gas-powered vehicles. The benefit will become even greater as solar and other renewable energy sources continue to expand. Here are a couple articles:

Are Electric Vehicles Really Better for the Climate? Yes. Here's Why

UPDATE: Get the latest numbers. One of the questions I’m most frequently asked about electric vehicles (EV) is: “Are they really a cleaner option?” While it’s obvious that a fully-electric vehicle eliminates tailpipe emissions, people often wonder about the global warming emissions from generatin

blog.ucsusa.org

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?

Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.

climate.mit.edu

The effects of climate change are being felt to a greater extent than was predicted just ten years ago, and it's going to get worse. Do you truly think the move by Wyoming's legislators makes sense for all our children, including their own?

 

[Herdfan]

Since you started your post with "Ummmm," presumably to point out something those of us less enlightened about the subject than you missed, I'll reciprocate.

The Ummmm.... was for the Wyoming legislators.

The effects of climate change are being felt to a greater extent than was predicted just ten years ago, and it's going to get worse. Do you truly think the move by Wyoming's legislators makes sense for all our children, including their own?

Not at all. But there are environmental issues with EV batteries as well and pretending there aren't doesn't make sense either.

 

[Roller]

The Ummmm.... was for the Wyoming legislators.



Not at all. But there are environmental issues with EV batteries as well and pretending there aren't doesn't make sense either.

Thanks for the clarification on the Ummmm, but it didn't seem that way to me. Sorry.

Regardless, I agree that EV batteries have an environmental impact, but like everything, it's a matter of balancing the risks and benefits. Converting from fossil fuel to electric cars isn't a panacea, but it's the best we have. It will get better as new battery technologies come online.

 

[Nycturne]

Not at all. But there are environmental issues with EV batteries as well and pretending there aren't doesn't make sense either.

Not enough to offset the inefficiencies of ICE vehicles over the life of the car, as well as the extra air pollution (not just CO2) that comes with it. And as the grid gets better, the calculus just gets worse for the ICE.

Regardless, I agree that EV batteries have an environmental impact, but like everything, it's a matter of balancing the risks and benefits. Converting from fossil fuel to electric cars isn't a panacea, but it's the best we have. It will get better as new battery technologies come online.

A renewed interest in density, the “missing middle”, and alternate forms of transit in cities can help further limit the impact of mining lithium and other rare earths. Seattle and the surrounding regions are starting to steer in this direction.

Before someone brings it up again, cities house over 2/3rds our population in the US. Decarbonizing the city with transit that can be electrified along transit corridors rather than using batteries is going to have a huge impact on carbon emissions, even if rural communities keep using ICE vehicles for the time being. It’s also more economical to address carbon emissions in more dense regions through sheer reduction in demand on cars, car infrastructure, and the like. Less impact on the grid to run electrified rail than millions of EVs.

In terms of bang for buck to the whole problem, solving car dependence in cities is a much bigger impact, and reduces the number of EVs we would need to electrify the remaining drivers that we will continue to have.

 

[quagmire]

Back in 1910.....

Wyoming to ban the sale of new horseless carriages by 1925 to help protect the horse industry that so many rely on in the state.

 

[Edd]

The GOP, always in need of something to hit the Dems with, find themselves stuck with an “all efforts to curb fossil emissions are bad” problem.

I call it a problem because it makes them look unreasonable, but looking unreasonable is no longer a problem with the modern GOP. I’d be embarrassed if I were in their ranks but embarrassment is also no longer an issue with them.

 

[GermanSuplex]

They were yammering on about gas stoves this past week. And the fact that M&M's are releasing a three-color version of their candy, which represents the three "female" characters.

This is marketing crap that's been done for decades, it's not "wokeness", and even if it is, it's easy to ignore. Nobody is coming to steal your gas stove.

Oddly enough, Biden's approval rating has shot up in recent weeks. It remains to be seen how the documents scandal will effect him, but between the conservative press pushing these BS stories, the legal jeopardy around Trump and the GOP house setting up the circus tents, its not surprising.

 

[Roller]

Not enough to offset the inefficiencies of ICE vehicles over the life of the car, as well as the extra air pollution (not just CO2) that comes with it. And as the grid gets better, the calculus just gets worse for the ICE.



A renewed interest in density, the “missing middle”, and alternate forms of transit in cities can help further limit the impact of mining lithium and other rare earths. Seattle and the surrounding regions are starting to steer in this direction.

Before someone brings it up again, cities house over 2/3rds our population in the US. Decarbonizing the city with transit that can be electrified along transit corridors rather than using batteries is going to have a huge impact on carbon emissions, even if rural communities keep using ICE vehicles for the time being. It’s also more economical to address carbon emissions in more dense regions through sheer reduction in demand on cars, car infrastructure, and the like. Less impact on the grid to run electrified rail than millions of EVs.

In terms of bang for buck to the whole problem, solving car dependence in cities is a much bigger impact, and reduces the number of EVs we would need to electrify the remaining drivers that we will continue to have.

Definitely. I’m a big fan of electrified light rail as an alternative to cars. But aside from building the rolling stock and infrastructure, the challenge will be weaning people off the supposed freedom a personal vehicle provides, even if that means sitting in heavy traffic for hours. I also wonder about the effect of home workers who no longer need to commute, which should reduce the need for cars.

 

[Citysnaps]

Not at all. But there are environmental issues with EV batteries as well and pretending there aren't doesn't make sense either.

And that's being addressed with better and more advanced battery technologies - from both an environmental and energy density perspective *. Lithium Sulfur battery tech, for example.

* EDIT: Better battery safety, too.

 

[Herdfan]

Nobody is coming to steal your gas stove.

Interesting wording. No, they are not coming to steal the one in my house. But they are looking at preventing me from buying a new one.

U.S. Regulators And State Lawmakers Consider Banning Gas Stoves—Here’s Why

One federal official called natural gas appliances a “hidden hazard” due to health concerns and environmental impacts.

www.forbes.com

Talk about a huge PITA for people who have them and either 1) don't have a 50A circuit at the location or 2) in older homes, don't have the electrical capacity to run a 50A range. So people, many of who probably can't afford it, will be faced with an additional cost of hundred or maybe even thousands of dollars so they can use and electric range.

It is really easy to sit in a office and look only at one aspect of it, but when you start looking at what all it entails, some of these ideas aren't as great as they seem.

Definitely. I’m a big fan of electrified light rail as an alternative to cars. But aside from building the rolling stock and infrastructure, the challenge will be weaning people off the supposed freedom a personal vehicle provides, even if that means sitting in heavy traffic for hours. I also wonder about the effect of home workers who no longer need to commute, which should reduce the need for cars.

Electric light rail works in more densely populated areas. Where I live it would be almost useless.

Even in LA it doesn't work for my daughter. She lives 5 minutes from a Metro station. But her office is still a 20+ minute Uber ride from the downtown station. She might as well drive herself.

I also question the economics. As you noted, with so many people now being allowed to WFH, are there going to be enough riders to make it viable. Even my daughter only has to go into the office 2x/week. Is this a trend that is going to stick or will people slowly make their way back to the office for a full 5 days?

 

[Yoused]

Persons,
Wyoming: ~600K
Oregon + California: 43.7M

In terms of sales, some 70 times as many BEVs are likely to be sold in the states looking to ban ICEs than are going to not be sold in Wyoming

 

[AG_PhamD]

I suspect this is mostly posturing. If there becomes a point where EV’s prices come down, have charging infrastructure, etc and are interpreted by consumers as a better option, there may not be many new ICE vehicles available to buy. I’m sure the Wyomingers(?) will enjoy being forced to drive 10+ year old cars and their 600k population will not have much influence.

Besides, they all drive pickups which I imagine will have to be some exemption, barring some massive leap forward. I’ve been to Wyoming a couple times and everyone seemed to drive a pickup.

That said, I think the 2035 goals for 100% consumer EVs some states have put forward will be extremely difficult given the rare earth metals required and ability to scale production of such metals considerably. That is barring a big leap forward in battery tech which obviously is a huge area of research and isn’t necessarily and impossibility. It doesn’t help a lot of these metal come or are processed in Russia and China or (Chinese owned mines). The WEF already cites a lithium shortage by 2025.

The other big problem that’s really not being adequately addressed is that if we want to have 100% EV’s, at least for regular cars, and also want to wean off gas esp for heating, there needs to be a lot more power generation. Solar and wind are great, but are not going to solve the problem, especially in certain parts of country. And larger scale energy products take years to plan, get through all the environmental reviews and lawsuits, and build.

As for the gas stove thing, there are many states and jurisdictions where this has been attempted- including my own town in MA. The AG shot it down as unconstitutional and many states have created laws against such policies. NYC however has banned gas connections in new buildings in the future, though I’m sure safety is probably a big part of the reason. At least NY gets a sizable percentage from renewables, in large part thanks to hydro, which is great.

 

[Herdfan]

NYC however has banned gas connections in new buildings in the future, though I

All new buildings?

Man some chef's are going to be pissed over that.