Posted on 02/22/2022 7:05:11 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
California has done more than any other state to facilitate the widespread adoption of electric vehicles, and it recently announced new measures to do so again. This time, however, the state is pursuing an EV policy whose tradeoffs have not yet been sufficiently evaluated.
A recent proposal from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the state’s clean air watchdog, would require EVs built in 2026 and beyond to have batteries that maintain 80% of their power for at least 15 years. This “durability requirement” is intended to promote the resale of used EVs by assuring purchasers that the battery still has enough remaining life to run the car.
The proposal could also overwhelm the nascent EV battery recycling industry, which is racing to prepare for the nearly 16 billion pounds of lithium-ion EV batteries (approximately 403 million batteries) expected to reach end of life by 2040.
This mandate will influence battery-related environmental emissions in ways that haven’t been analyzed or fully understood. All stages of the battery life cycle — from raw materials extraction through manufacturing, use, charging, secondary use outside the EV and eventual recycling — have emissions properties that must be considered and weighed when creating public policy.
Prioritizing the single outcome of sufficient battery life in used EVs over sound, science-based public policy undermines progress toward establishing a true circular economy for batteries that minimizes full life cycle environmental and emissions impacts.
The main goal of adopting EVs is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That should be the starting point of any policy discussion.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Just think about the road rage when everyone drives electric and their batteries are dead
The main goal of adopting EVs is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.That's the stated goal. It's a pretext for the real goal or goals.
If your in an emergency situation and need to go somewhere and your battery is flat I guess it sucks being you huh?
This article sounds like a lobbying effort by companies intending to sell replacement batteries to suckers who buy used EVs.
The real agenda is to restrict freedom of travel
As California goes, so goes Communism.
Most EVs are deployed in southern California where there is little rain, almost no snow and the roads are not salted. What happens when EVs either by choice or coercion, are widely deployed in cold winter states, those batteries wear down, show corrosion or develop small cracks. Would a rational person drive home in a winter storm, park his EV in a garage attached to his house, attach the recharger, tuck his kids in their beds and then go to sleep?
Saw a program this morning....All Lawnmowers to be electric....no more gas. Stupid.
Battery technology is still in its infancy, once it matures a bit a pure EV will be the sensible option...
Better batteries also will mean personal transportation will start to move from roads to the air with personal craft that resemble large drones.
It's all about the batteries....we need lower weight, higher capacity, longer life and cheaper prices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzhREYOK0oo&t=104s
What we need more than anything is faster recharge times.
It’s all about the batteries“
Wrong it’s all about control. Once everyone has been forced into EV’s everyone is immobilized within days via a thrown switch. The climate hoax is all about power, control and unlimited funding for the rats and the ruling class.
The real goal was to reduce smog in LA and other cities. Shift emissions to power plants outside the cities. Pretty much still the thing it is doing.
NO! That is a preposterous statement and assumption. It is the LAST thing that should be considered.
I think that’s going to raise the price of EVs and thus reduce sales.
The 15 year minimum doesn’t make sense to me. Aren’t the batteries depreciated by discharging and recharging, rather than the passage of time.
Gotta love this crappola: “...the state is pursuing an EV policy whose tradeoffs have not yet been sufficiently evaluated”.
Gimme a flippin break! CaCaLand has never fully evaluated any policy! Neither have they ever, ever, looked back at any such to see if on balance it was good or bad. Such delusional “just do it!” is typical of liberal TWOT’s out this way.
And, the rest of the clown states just follow suit.
Anything “pioneered” by CaCaLand simply must be looked at like any sane person looks at anything from the MSM: “probably lies”.
The Kia EV 6 can charge from 10%~80% in 18 minutes which is 200ish miles. Certainly not on par with an ICE car but, given that you start from home with a full battery, it gives you 500ish miles range for only 18 minutes charge time. Adequate for most folks I would think. The major problem is that these numbers get thrown out the window in cold weather. I don’t see a solution for this which is why I think the headlong rush to 100% EVs is beyond foolish.
One of the problems here, is that fast-charging depletes the life of batteries. So the state government's request that batteries maintain 80% life over 15 years will not happen with existing batteries. It's doubtful they'll maintain 80% over 10 years. Currently, most EV manufacturers promise 70% life over 8 to 10 years. Guess what; with regular fast-charging you won't have over 70% life within 10 years.
Best way to achieve over 80% life is to do slow-charging. That is not pushed by the EV sellers, but should be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.