Brady: History, science should negate EV mandate

Posted

Jane Brady is the chair of A Better Delaware. She previously served as state attorney general and as a judge of the Delaware Superior Court.

We at A Better Delaware have been clear about our opposition to Gov. John Carney’s electric vehicle mandate. Whether it is where you have to send your child to school or what type of vehicle you are “allowed” to drive, we don’t believe government should impose artificial restrictions on our choices as consumers. Additionally, as a practical matter, the mandate fails to account for the high cost of the vehicles, the shortage of charging stations, the limited range they can go on a single charge and the dangerous circumstances that these vehicles present on the road when they malfunction or are involved in collisions. There are claims that all these challenges will be met and that they will be affordable, safe and convenient “in time.”

Well, not so fast — in fact, not so 100 years fast! Robert Bryce, a journalist who has written about energy issues for several decades and formerly served as a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has done some research and written a well-documented article on the history of electric vehicles. What he reports will cause you to wonder about the prospect of electric vehicles ever meeting the government’s projections.

According to Bryce, as early as 1915 (yes, you read that correctly), The Washington Post reported, “Prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they are within reach of the average family.” In 1967, the American Motors Corp. (Remember them, and the Rambler American?) unveiled the Amitron, an all-electric vehicle with lithium and nickel batteries, which never went beyond the prototype stage due to “several technical issues and the high cost of battery production at the time,” according to autoevolution.com.

And, in 1980, The Washington Post wrote that, by 2000, the electric car “could play a big role … in delivery trucks and two passenger urban commuter cars,” predicting a savings of a million barrels of oil a day with aggressive production.

This history serves to emphasize just how much the current optimism that electric vehicles will soon be competitive in the marketplace is at odds with reality. The only difference between 1915 or 1980 and today is that the government is using its power to force manufacturers, dealers and buyers of cars to follow its mandates.

As we and many others have demonstrated with facts and science, the electric models offered today are not commercially viable to the vast majority of consumers in this country. Though scientists and salespeople have been unable to produce a commercially viable electric vehicle in 100 years, government policy is to force us to buy whatever might be available — suitable or not — in 10.

But, if the government is serious about converting the fleets of cars and trucks in the U.S. to electric, they are not acting in ways that make it feasible.

As reported by CNBC, the U.S. led the world in lithium production until the 1990s, but today, China, our largest economic competitor, not only is a source of lithium but controls about half the processing and refining worldwide. Did the U.S. run out of lithium? No, there is tons of it, in Utah in particular. But the regulatory restrictions make continuing production, mining or refining so expensive, there is no incentive to take the risks associated with a commercial enterprise.

Citing the regulatory requirements, among other factors, one company just suspended operations at a site near the Great Salt Lake after investing tens of millions of dollars in the project.

Much like the decisions regarding oil and gas, we are prohibiting our country from enjoying not only energy independence but economic independence, as well. We are required to enrich those who would welcome our decline because we restrict access to our own natural resources and purchase theirs.

And it is not just electric vehicles. Cellphones and the new Apple Vision goggles (plus, the knockoffs that will inevitably come to market) all depend on natural resources we could, but don’t, provide for ourselves. We are content to leave the mining, manufacturing, refining and related environmental concerns to other countries. It is a shortsighted plan that does not create a stronger or more sustainable economy.

Gov. Carney needs to pay attention to electric vehicles’ evolution, the lack of success in furthering development of a commercially feasible vehicle and the consequences of a mandate to purchase a product that enriches our economic competitors. He should lift the mandate restrictions and allow Delawareans to choose how they wish to travel, as well as allow the market to provide the incentives to develop consumer choices.

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.

Members and subscribers make this story possible.
You can help support non-partisan, community journalism.

x
X