This commentary was written by Tom Evslin from Stowe, an entrepreneur and author who was formerly a Douglas administration official. His blog can be found here.
Electricity is not a source of energy. It’s a way of moving energy from one place to another. It is essential that electricity be generated before a car can be moved by it.
According to the US Energy Administration Agency40% of U.S. electricity will be produced from natural gas. 19% of it was from coal, 20% nuclear, 13% wind and hydro, 7% hydro, and 1% petroleum. Plugging in electric cars creates a new demand. The short-term solution to this new demand is to burn more natural gas. You can’t tell the sun to shine brighter, or the wind to blow harder. Nuke and coal plants don’t spool quickly, and there is only so many water sources behind the dam. Electric cars are similar to natural gas cars in that they use the same technology, but the transmission losses make them less efficient.
Yes, but the proponents for subsidies for electric cars say that more solar and winds are being built, so that eventually these cars will run on renewable energy. The problem is that this generation of electric cars with their lithium batteries will end up in the trash stream before we do. Yes, but at least 20% of these cars’ energy comes from renewables, according to subsidy advocates. However, a new electric vehicle doesn’t increase the availability of renewable energy. If the electrons it uses are from a sun-powered panel, then something else will not be able use those electrons. It will almost certainly be replaced using more natural gas electricity.
We, the electric ratepayers, and taxpayers, subsidise electric cars as well as the generation of electricity by solar and wind. To reduce emissions from electric cars, we must subsidize enough renewable energy in order to power them. The cost of using electric cars for reducing emissions is much more than the ridiculous subsidies they already receive. This is because the cars do not reduce emissions as any renewable energy they use must also be replaced with non-renewable. It is double counting to add to the emissions savings by replacing gasoline cars with the emissions saved from generating more renewable power if that new energy goes into the cars. Subventions for electric cars continue to be a popular option for reducing greenhouse gases. They have been part Vermont’s plan to reduce greenhouse gasesses for many years.
I have both plug-in hybrids and solar panels. I received subsidies for both but I am only reducing my carbon emissions once. My clean electricity does not go to my car. I do not reduce the grid’s overall load. My solar-generated electricity will be used to power my car. My decision was not affected by any subsidy.Many early adopters may agree.
Even without subsidies, electric cars are inevitable. The engineering perspective is that electric cars have more capabilities than combustion engines. If we can regain our sanity regarding nuclear energy, there will be very little fossil fuel needed to generate electricity. If we are serious about building back better, we will also have an electric grid that is safe, decentralized, efficient, and hardened so that we can rely on it for most of our energy needs.
If electric car adoption exceeds the available energy to power them, and the grid’s ability to transport that energy, then our security and the grid are at risk. We want to prepare for more electric vehicles by creating a better grid and adding nuclear supply. We don’t want to encourage or subsidise electric cars.
