Ars Technica Article on Possible Upcoming Funding Changes for EVs and EV Infrastructure

[Jim Lewis]

Just offering the existence of the article for informational purposes. I'm not offering an opinion since "political" discussions are not encouraged on the forum.

Trump’s attack on EVs to be bigger than thought - Ars Technica

Sponsored

 

[broncoaz]

I’ll be interesting to see what happens to EV’s in the next couple of presidential cycles. The push pull of different administrations increasing then relaxing then increasing regulation roller coaster makes it hard for the manufacturers to plan on long term strategies and develop new product. EV’s have a foothold in the car market and those who have them generally are enthusiastic about the experience, saving money, and environmental benefits. Those people will be looking for new EV’s going forward. Unfortunately moves like this may slow the pace of EV development, but I think everyone is all in on battery tech. Relaxing restrictions on domestic mining and battery production should be a good thing. Lithium mining is a dirty business and it doesn’t seem fair to just pilfer the third world where there are no environmental regulations, we can mine it cleaner here. As for the lack of subsidies, EV’s should be able to stand on their own in the marketplace without the freebies. Hopefully we’ll see prices continue to drop and charging networks expand.

Many people feel the effective bans on ICE that CA is implementing and that impact other states are a step too far. People like choice rather than having someone force what is perceived as a more expensive car that limits their freedom of movement shoved down their throat. The coming fight should be interesting, it’s not just a state’s rights issue because it impacts interstate commerce.

As for military and government using EV’s, in places where electricity is cheap the government should be utilizing EV’s to save the taxpayers money. Here in MA with high grid rates I’d rather see them in a hybrid ICE vehicle. As for military uses in combat zones, EV’s are a terrible idea. Dinosaur juice is extremely energy dense and easy to transport with other supplies, getting electricity to the front lines and long recharge times just isn’t feasible. Unless they want to make the Abrams tanks nuclear powered or build nuclear generators for the battlefield, there is no way to go EV and keep them combat effective. 300 gallons of diesel (37.1 kWh per gallon) per eight hours is equivalent to 11 MWh per fillup, or what most decent size home solar systems produce in a year. Typical consumption for an entire war appears to be about two gallons per soldier per day, so we deploy 100K soldiers it equates to 200K gallons per day, or 7,420 MWh per day.

 

[sotek2345]

Fudge........

 

[TaxmanHog]

So far so good, please remember to keep personal attacks of forum members or public figures out of the discussion, stick to the facts of law & policy as it is.

 

[bmwhitetx]

This forum also has an often overlooked option called the Ignore button. Keeps your Threads list nice and clean.
https://www.f150lightningforum.com/...es-for-evs-and-ev-infrastructure.23328/ignore

 

[Zprime29]

I'll believe it when I see it. Don't think it will last, too much money is on the line betting on EV's.

 

[Grumpy2]

Tens of thousands of jobs in swing states are potentially on the chopping block, I can't see any benefit to putting those battery and auto plants on the cutting board. A new announcement by the current administration just this morning.
If there is an attempt to keep building gov financed battery plants while cutting incentives will please some of the oil money people, but it will be hard to prevent hurt to mid-term elections.

This will be interesting theater over the next 2 years, but only a bump in the road to EV adoption.

 

[sotek2345]

Tens of thousands of jobs in swing states are potentially on the chopping block, I can't see any benefit to putting those battery and auto plants on the cutting board. A new announcement by the current administration just this morning.
If there is an attempt to keep building gov financed battery plants while cutting incentives will please some of the oil money people, but it will be hard to prevent hurt to mid-term elections.

This will be interesting theater over the next 2 years, but only a bump in the road to EV adoption.

Unfortunately EV adoption and grid / power generation upgrades are already going way to slow in the US. We can't afford any bumps.

 

[The Weatherman]

If we cut our investments in this industry we are conceding this technology to the Chinese. Let our leaders explain that to the nation two years from now.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/17/cars/automakers-china-losses?cid=ios_app

 

[chl]

Just offering the existence of the article for informational purposes. I'm not offering an opinion since "political" discussions are not encouraged on the forum.

Trump’s attack on EVs to be bigger than thought - Ars Technica

Congress gets to decide how money is spent, not the Executive branch according to the US Constitution, so time will tell how funding/usage etc. plays out.

The Executive can try to change the rules, but the Administrative Procedures Act and the recent 'overruling' of the Chevron case by SCOTUS means there is less the executive branch can do to impose their policy on agencies, such as the IRS which administers the EV tax credit, etc.

Congress could undo the EV progress with new legislation of course, it would be a shame if they do.
There used to be EV proponents on both side of the aisle, but now, who knows.

Fingers crossed.

 

[Firn]

I’ll be interesting to see what happens to EV’s in the next couple of presidential cycles. The push pull of different administrations increasing then relaxing then increasing regulation roller coaster makes it hard for the manufacturers to plan on long term strategies and develop new product. EV’s have a foothold in the car market and those who have them generally are enthusiastic about the experience, saving money, and environmental benefits. Those people will be looking for new EV’s going forward. Unfortunately moves like this may slow the pace of EV development, but I think everyone is all in on battery tech. Relaxing restrictions on domestic mining and battery production should be a good thing. Lithium mining is a dirty business and it doesn’t seem fair to just pilfer the third world where there are no environmental regulations, we can mine it cleaner here. As for the lack of subsidies, EV’s should be able to stand on their own in the marketplace without the freebies. Hopefully we’ll see prices continue to drop and charging networks expand.

Many people feel the effective bans on ICE that CA is implementing and that impact other states are a step too far. People like choice rather than having someone force what is perceived as a more expensive car that limits their freedom of movement shoved down their throat. The coming fight should be interesting, it’s not just a state’s rights issue because it impacts interstate commerce.

As for military and government using EV’s, in places where electricity is cheap the government should be utilizing EV’s to save the taxpayers money. Here in MA with high grid rates I’d rather see them in a hybrid ICE vehicle. As for military uses in combat zones, EV’s are a terrible idea. Dinosaur juice is extremely energy dense and easy to transport with other supplies, getting electricity to the front lines and long recharge times just isn’t feasible. Unless they want to make the Abrams tanks nuclear powered or build nuclear generators for the battlefield, there is no way to go EV and keep them combat effective. 300 gallons of diesel (37.1 kWh per gallon) per eight hours is equivalent to 11 MWh per fillup, or what most decent size home solar systems produce in a year. Typical consumption for an entire war appears to be about two gallons per soldier per day, so we deploy 100K soldiers it equates to 200K gallons per day, or 7,420 MWh per day.

Just a couple minor things.

The world's largest lithium mine is in Australia, and many of the other major producers are first world countries.
If you took Australia's Green Bushes lithium mine and made it one hundred times larger it would meet three THOUSAND percent of the current demand for lithium. It would still be smaller than the oil sands in Canada that provide 3% of the world's petroleum.

We need to be cognizant of where these materials come from, but this "pilligaging" of the world for EVs is a lot of rhetoric.

Similar to the "ban" of ICE vehicles. One, it is not a BAN of ICE vehicles, they will still be allowed to operate freely. It prevents the sale of NEW gas vehicles only. And iirc it has only been enacted by one state. I can't say I agree with California policies, but when you visit and still today there are dirt clouds hanging over the cities then you have to ask who exactly IS responsible to fix that?

 

[SpaceEVDriver]

If we cut our investments in this industry we are conceding this technology to the Chinese. Let our leaders explain that to the nation two years from now.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/17/cars/automakers-china-losses?cid=ios_app

It's not just EV technology. If we don't continue to invest in EVs, we'll concede all battery technology to the rest of the world; we'll concede the entire automotive industry (when the rest of the world is operating spaceships with wheels and we're still building slightly-improved Model-Ts, the rest of the world will stop buying from the US automobile manufacturers); we'll concede improvements to the electrical distribution grid; we'll concede most space energy technology (most spacecraft operate on photovoltaics and batteries and this will be true for decades); there are dozens and dozens of other technologies and industries.

We'll concede the future.

 

[sotek2345]

It's not just EV technology. If we don't continue to invest in EVs, we'll concede all battery technology to the rest of the world; we'll concede the entire automotive industry (when the rest of the world is operating spaceships with wheels and we're still building slightly-improved Model-Ts, the rest of the world will stop buying from the US automobile manufacturers); we'll concede improvements to the electrical distribution grid; we'll concede most space energy technology (most spacecraft operate on photovoltaics and batteries and this will be true for decades); there are dozens and dozens of other technologies and industries.

We'll concede the future.

Well reasoned and well written - I love it!

Sponsored