EVs are a lot more efficient for energy use, even carefully counting power generation and transmission costs, than ICE engines. Economies of scale is power plants is why we have power plants and not everyone powering their house from their fireplace or some local generator. Carnot efficiencies, etc.
EVs are even more efficient in terms of pollution / CO2 emissions than ICE cars. This used to be 100x better IIRC, but it’s been a while. Again, pollution control measures can be much more consistently enforced and cost effectively implemented at large scale plants than in individual cars. You don’t want to carry around your scrubbers with you when you go to the grocery store, do you?
If you’re going to count battery costs, transmissions, etc, for EVs (which you should), don’t forget to count the gasoline distribution network costs, engine repairs and maintenance (EVs are much better to maintain since they’re not using controlled explosions under the hood for power), and maybe a couple of multi-trillion dollar foreign wars to keep the oil supplies flowing if you want to go that far.
I believe this is not because the manufacturers are trying to move to a subscription-based model, but because that’s a reasonable way forward for them, because the new generation of humans (as a whole, compared to prior generations) don’t care about owning (or driving) cars and would rather rent/borrow/share/be-driven on demand. It may even be more economical (as discussed in the “uber cheaper than owning” thread). It may also be because self-driven cars will likely be more expensive, at least at first.
I see the logic in your reasons listed, but I sure hope autonomous vehicles provide a better quality replacement user driven cars that cell phones did for landlines. In 40+ years of using landlines, the only time I had a hard time hearing someone was off the continent or in another country.
You guys are leaving out the main factor in the claim that car companies are making when they say the the increase in Corporate Avg Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards is unrealistic.
Car makers could have a fleet of cars and trucks that met CAFE standards in only a few years, BUT the price of their vehicles would skyrocket! It’s not that they can’t do it, it’s that they can’t do it and still sell their cars and trucks for a similar price to what they are selling them for now.
In my opinion, when a government regulation agency says to a private company that they HAVE TO PRODUCE something with certain specifications (based on very little more than “because we say so”) or they are breaking the law, and the general public pretty much needs to buy those things to function, If you don’t factor in the increased cost of meeting those specs in the debate, you’re not debating in good faith.
Not to beat a dead horse, but there was an argument above about how realistic or unrealistic the emissions standards are, and whether it was car manufacturers who wanted them rolled back.
Surely you don’t suggest that Charles Koch of Koch industries owner of petroleum refining companies (and founder of Dr. Michael’s Cato Institute) could have a vested interest in debunking any climate change theories or rolling back regulations aiming at lowering gasoline consumption?
So what you’re saying is that global warming is improving our crop yields, so we might need to clear less farm land now and that should be positive for climate change?
For some part of the world, the crop yield will improve. That’s absolutely predicted by the climate model. The overall effect predicted by the same models are though, very bad for the humanity.