Electric vehicles didn’t make sense in 1912 and they don’t make sense now..And those who forget history are doomed to repeat it..That’s the conclusion by a report by the Manhattan Institute, a US think tank which calls the “reactionary” rush by governments — including Canada’s — to subsidize EVs “fatally” flawed and loaded with unintended consequences, for taxpayers who are ultimately footing the bill for overhyped and even mythical environmental benefits..But first, a history lesson:.Few people know that the world’s first commercially produced electric vehicle wasn’t the Tesla 5. It was actually the Studebaker Electric. And it was manufactured for ten model years from 1902-12 in South Bend, Indiana..Studebaker had been researching the idea since 1898 with an initial investment of $4,000, or $135,000 today, yielding an initial run of just one car..But it didn’t begin full production until 1902 for the urban taxi market in cities such as New York City because they were clean — cities were overrun with horse manure — and easily recharged without the need for gas stations, which were scarce..By 1912, however, it became clear the future of the automobile lay in gasoline-powered engines rather than heavy, sluggish electrics and production stopped. .Chairman Frederick S. Fish issued a two-line statement: “The production of electric automobiles at South Bend has ended. It has been conducted for nine years without much success, and ultimately the superiority of the gasoline car (is) apparent.”.The Manhattan report comes to pretty much the same conclusion when it comes to the current state of affairs with EVs and moves by governments to ban internal combustion engines in favour of lithium-ion powered cars..“Ultimately, if implemented, bans on conventionally powered vehicles will lead to draconian impediments to affordable and convenient driving and a massive misallocation of capital in the world’s $4 trillion automotive industry,” the executive summary reads..“There’s no such thing as a carbon-free lunch.”.The report notes that rarely has any government attempt to ban specific products or behaviours that are so widely used or adopted — about 99% of vehicles on the roads are gasoline powered — succeeded. . US miles drivenMiles driven in the US are up, not down. .Indeed, there have been only two comparably far-reaching bans in US history: the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibited the consumption of alcohol (repealed by the 21st Amendment); and the 1974 law prohibiting driving faster than 55 mph. .“Neither achieved its goals; both were widely flouted, and the first one engendered unintended consequences, not least of which was criminal behavior,” it said..Even casting that premise aside, no one knows how much CO2 emissions will decline as EV use rises, or whether EVs will ever reach economic parity with gasoline powered cars, making them a luxury for the rich..The notion that emissions will inevitably decline CO2 miss the point that emissions directly associated with EVs begin with all the upstream industrial processes needed to acquire materials and fabricate the battery. .“The received wisdom that EVs will have a ‘huge impact’ on reducing emissions is, whether the claimants know it or not, anchored in assumptions about the quantities and varieties of materials mined, processed, and refined to make the battery,” the report says..A typical EV battery weighs about 1,000 pounds and requires about 100,000 pounds of ore to produce a single unit. The figure doesn’t include the large amount of chemicals — many of them toxic — required to process and refine the minerals..“The global mining industry today already accounts for about 40% of all industrial energy use, and that’s before an epic expansion that will be needed to meet green plans. Petroleum itself typically accounts for half of mining-sector energy use,” it says..That’s excluding the emissions from the actual manufacturing plants themselves. Canada is already subsidizing two of them; $13 billion for Volkswagen and up to $19 billion for Stellantis. More are rumoured to be on the way.. Lifecycle emissions of diesel vs EVLifecycle emissions of a Volkswagen diesel are similar to its EV model. .But it could be more than penny wise, pound foolish..A study by Swedish automaker Volvo found that is EV models actually had higher total emissions than a comparable gasoline powered engine for the first 45,000 miles of driving, including average emissions supplied from the EU power grid..Another big assumption is that continued urbanization will diminish the role of the automobile in society, when in fact people are leaving the big major centres due to a lack of affordable housing. The number of miles driven in the US is trending up, not down.. US miles drivenMiles driven in the US are up, not down. .Instead, the report authors conclude government money would be better spent increasing the efficiency of the good old gasoline powered motor..“If the policy goal is to reduce automotive petroleum use, there are far easier and more certain ways to achieve that. Combustion engines have already been built and are commercially viable that can cut fuel use by 50%,” it said. .“It would be easier, cheaper, faster—and transparently verifiable—to incentivize consumers to purchase more efficient internal combustion engines or hybrids.”
