Electric vehicle battery factory will require so much energy it needs a coal plant to power it!

I repeat, Elon didn't need a government mandate to start the company.

man·date
/ˈmanˌdāt/
noun

1. 1.
   an official order or commission to do something.
   "a mandate to seek the release of political prisoners"
   
   Similar:
   instruction
   
   directive
   
   direction
   
   decree
   
   command
   
   order
   
   injunction
   
   edict
   
   charge
   
   commission
   
   bidding
   at their bidding" data-hw="bidding" data-lb="" data-tae="true" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?sca_esv=570134643&sxsrf=AM9HkKlJrkYvpHb9B3ccR00OapyCl7EL4g:1696279355198&q=define+bidding&si=ALGXSlZCBshTM3a3nPTSW0d1OmQeTuglg8akqarZDQKNg7ah9j9qyjejTmrZZoADqjh0GpyfDdhzDNB4pME-OaHAKuNcNlipa9CJVc7Thdepa91LHvALM7s%3D">
   warrant
   
   ruling
   
   ordinance
   
   law
   breaking the law" data-hw="law" data-lb="" data-tae="true" data-te="false" data-tl="en-US" data-tldf="" data-url="/search?sca_esv=570134643&sxsrf=AM9HkKlJrkYvpHb9B3ccR00OapyCl7EL4g:1696279355198&q=define+law&si=ALGXSlYVIDk175oRsopuTeQsnXfR17hyy7dHwF1P8DDHi1N6MnD9qZVLyVWR5o1Tj3tjRBlHtcIbTIeE3jeSU1AkjDzf9qg5oA%3D%3D">
   statute
   
   fiat
   
   ukase
   
   pronunciamento
   
   • 
     
2. 2.
   the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election.
   "a sick leader living beyond his mandate"

 

Would investors have given him funding if there was not going to be heavy government support, both to the company itself and to the electric car market?

 

You seem pretty sure.

It's a shame you're quite wrong.

I answered how government forcing EVs in another thread. Read and learn something.

 

Sure, it was subsidised to begin with. ICE has been subsidised from time to time as well.

 

Who has been forced to buy an EV?

There is a natural enthusiasm for the technology.

 

Nobody yet. That's why they can't do better than a 5-7% market share even with massive subsidies.

But Biden's EPA's new regulatory proposals aim to make 67% of new light duty vehicle sales and 50% of heavy duty vehicle sales EVs by 2032 (on the way to 100% by about 2035) by eliminating ICE vehicles.

That's only 9 years from now.

And now you can go back and read the rest of my post to find out how it's done.

 

People seem to buy as many as can be produced.

The details of the EPA proposals don't really matter. (I'm sure it will be changed and tweaked many times). It's the principle.

 

Not true. EVs are currently sitting on dealer lots unsold. They have a very fundamental technical limitation that keeps them from being competitive with ICE in a huge majority of the market (here in the US anyways).

And the EPA proposal is right in line with the Biden Administration's stated goals. They're just doing what their boss is demanding. Barring a SC decision that overturns Massachusetts v. EPA, it will be law pretty much as written here shortly.

And it's not just a principle, it's what manufacturers must do to be able to sell anything.

 

What will be the net outcome? If we take thousands of ICE vehicles off of the road whilst keeping the coal fired power station open will we still be ahead?

 

What the OP has done is played upon the “I” - impossible expectations

 

Are they?

 

You mean "little oversights" like this are just to be expected?

Or you think that "not that much coal" will actually be burned relative to the amount of coal these batteries will result in saving? (I'm perfectly willing to have a discussion with you about that, and take an actual look at the math)

What is it, exactly, you are trying to say?

 

I see people like you can only use emotions, can't do math. Because that's "too complicated".

What percentage of this power feeding electric cars is even coming from non-fossil fuel sources?

 

Which ones?

uhu

https://electrek.co/2023/09/29/tesla-semi-travels-over-1000-miles-in-a-single-day/

Oh, I'm sure Musk is drumming to Biden's beat. (sarcasm)

 

They should use NPPs as own power source.
A nuclear power plant doesn't produce greenhouse gases.

 

It's almost not worth arguing with them. These people will deny the obvious and obfuscate, and then even if the all the effort is made to prove it to them, they will just say "So what?" and not even care.

 

Yes.

https://fee.org/articles/why-evs-are-piling-up-at-dealerships-despite-massive-taxpayer-subsidies/

 

LOL... Musk is a visionary. But he's also a realist, and understands that his cars rely on fossil fuels for the electricity to fuel them. Somehow, you cannot understand this.

 

Does anyone really think Musk is doing all this for the environment?

No, it's all about the money, and the whole thing is one giant public relations game.
Of course if the government is going to throw a lot of money at something and coerce consumers to buy a certain product, private companies are going to go after the money and produce it. But they're not necessarily going to use clean renewable energy to produce it, which was kind of the whole original point of that government policy and consumer decision.
And it just so happens these batteries do require more energy to produce than it takes to produce an internal combustion engine, so the source of power is more important in an Electric Vehicle battery factory - well, mainly the factories that supply the raw materials that go into producing those batteries (and I can guarantee you those factories are likely in China).

 

Interesting. Don't you have renewable sources of electricity in the states?

 

Even in California, the state that has spent the most money and pushed the hardest for renewable power, slightly less than half of the power comes from renewable sources. And it can go down to 35% during times of peak power demand, usually during a heatwave in the summer.

But most of these factories have moved out of states like California, since it is much more expensive to produce things there.
(related thread having to do with one of the reasons why Tesla decided to move out of California: Jury awarded black worker $137 million in lawsuit for being called N-word )

You seem to be asking lots of off-topic questions. How about you start a separate thread if you want to talk about it.

 

So roughly 1/3 to 1/2 is renewable in California. That's really not that good. For reference in Australia we are due to hit 100% renewables in 2025 and will probably go up to 200% for redundancy. Essentially, electricity in the middle of the day will be free.

It's interesting that California peak demand is in the middle of summer heat waves. This suggests that they don't have enough solar power because that should proportionately increase with AC demand (perhaps not on hot muggy days).

Well it is what it is. Do you think that California & US can improve on these renewable statistics? The relevance of this question and these posts to the topic is that then those batteries you speak of can be produced with far less coal power (your OP).

 

The irony of Australia hitting 100% renewables is that the coal-powered stations will need subsidies. Lol

 

If you're at 100% renewables, why are there still coal plants?

 

China is awash in unsold EV's.