Update – Electric Vehicles Are Not the Solution

I wrote an article almost 2 years ago entitled: The Batteries in Electric Vehicles Are Not The Solution to Replace Fossil Fuels, which points out that not only are EV batteries not the answer, but they are destructive to the environment. I can only hope that the realities of the past 2 years become more obvious to those who so zealously pushed this EV agenda.  

As I write this article it is Palm Sunday. “So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”
-John 12:13. Many have wondered “How could they cry ‘Hosanna!’ on Sunday and ‘Crucify!’ on Friday?” The likely answer is the crowds had Scriptural awareness but not true knowledge; and nothing is quite so dangerous as full zeal and minimal knowledge. We can sometimes know just enough about the Bible to confuse ourselves and others about its true meaning. The Messiah was entering Jerusalem, so it was right to worship and wave palm branches, but because Jerusalem didn’t know the full reason He came, Jesus was easily rejected. 

Yes indeed, nothing is quite so dangerous as full zeal and minimal knowledge. Sadly, in this case, I am afraid this administration and the progressive left follow a false ideology where facts are secondary to the cause. It was recently reported by Republican Senator Deb Fischer from Nebraska that last year, President Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency (”EPA”) proposed a 56 percent reduction in new vehicle emissions by 2032. “The goal of course was to force automakers, and by extension the American public, to adopt electric cars at a breakneck pace.  President Biden wanted 60% of new vehicles produced to be electric by 2030. But reality has started to set in. Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin are all scaling back EV production. EV production and sales are declining as Americans realize not just their high cost, but also the dirty truth behind this “clean” alternative to traditional vehicles.”

As I stated in my first article, the production of EV batteries requires a massive amount of electricity, mostly produced by generators that burn fossil fuels. The manufacturing of EVs produces at least 60 percent more carbon emissions than that of gas-powered cars.

Also, EV batteries weigh 1,000 pounds, which quickly wears down the tires. One study found that electric cars emitted about a quarter more particulate matter than hybrid vehicles thanks to the added weight. Why this administration activists and others went from hybrid to EV is insane. The data on hybrids is far more compelling than EVs for lessening fossil fuel use and has less environmental issues. I fully support hybrids as a practical alternative. Unless you drive more than 100+ miles per day, the hybrid will get you around town without any issues. If you drive further, just switch to gas, It really is the perfect compromise.

The pursuit of Electric Vehicles is destroying the planet. There is nothing refined about mining. It involves crushing rock, and then using a concoction of chemical reagents such as sulphuric and nitric acid, to obtain a rare-earth concentrate close to 100% purity. On top of that, imagine the destruction and energy required to obtain these essential metals: 

18,740 pounds of purified rock to produce 2.2 pounds of vanadium
35,275 pounds of ore for 2.2 pounds of cerium
110,230 pounds of rock for 2.2 pounds of gallium
2,645,550 pounds of ore to get 2.2 pounds of lutecium

These Administration activists aren’t just wrong about the environmental benefits of EVs, they are also wrong about their performance. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg claimed that “we see the superiority of EVs in terms of performance, not just in terms of climate.” Really? Didn’t we all read reports over the past year about EVs malfunctioning from freezing temperatures and that hot temperatures drain the batteries and reduce driving range, leaving stranded drivers helpless. In fact, a Consumer Reports survey found that new EVs have 79 percent more problems than internal-combustion cars.

More than anything else, EVs will not strengthen our long-term economic security. Approximately 75% of EV battery manufacturing is done in China. Why?  Because China owns and controls nearly half the global production of some of the battery’s critical elements. We will become even more dependent on China for our transportation, which is doubly ironic when these so-called “clean” cars derive their batteries from China which uses dirty manufacturing methods, including child labor and unsafe working conditions.

Senator Fisher reported that “the Biden administration is sending millions of dollars to Congo to support cobalt mining for EV batteries. A few years ago, human rights groups investigated Congo’s mining sector. They found it full of young children working in hand-dug tunnels that often collapse, burying kids alive. One Congolese mining expert said it best — ‘How can you base a green revolution on trashing Congolese environment and exploiting Congolese workers?’”

Regarding the environment, the same issues apply to wind and solar energy as well.  Dr. Timothy Nash reported that “while the energy they produce is referred to as renewable, they both require massive increases in mineral extraction. Their manufacture also relies on forced labor (such as the Uyghurs in China) and even children (such as de facto slaves in Congo). They require significant land use, threatening wildlife, and huge swaths of nature. Finally, they’re inherently unreliable, since the wind isn’t always blowing, nor the sun always shining. As many parts of the U.S. are learning, more wind and solar power means more blackouts.”

The answer is not to build more wind and solar projects. That will simply set us up for failure as a nation. As I stated 2 years ago, the most reliable energy source we can develop right now that is also clean energy is nuclear power. If we are truly earnest in finding alternative sources of electricity to replace fossil fuel usage, then there needs to be an honest discussion about expanding our nuclear power plant footprint.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”) reports that nuclear power plants are among the safest and most secure facilities in the world in generating electricity. In terms of safe energy practices, Our World In Data shows that “based on the energy production death rates per terawatt-hour, the safety of nuclear power (0.03) is rated between solar (0.02) and wind (0.04), whereas coal is 24.62 and Oil is 18.43. The odds on a major catastrophe were one in one billion to one in ten billion years for a given reactor. [Dr. Herbert Kouts, Head of AEC Division of Reactor Safety to Associated Press, 1974-01-14].”

Like solar energy, nuclear energy originates from atomic fission or fusion and can be used for electricity production. Regarding our current electric grid, nuclear energy is America’s work horse, providing constant, reliable, carbon-free power to millions of Americans. Nuclear has roughly supplied a fifth of America’s power each year since 1990. Nuclear also has the highest capacity factor which means nuclear power plants are producing maximum power more than 92% of the time during the year. That’s about 2 times more as natural gas and coal units, and almost 3 times or more reliable than wind and solar plants. To provide a decent amount of reliable electricity to all humans on a fully decarbonized planet, we need approximately 25,000 large nuclear plants globally.  

Nuclear power plants are typically used more often because they require less maintenance and are designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years). Renewable plants are considered intermittent or variable sources and are mostly limited by a lack of fuel (wind, sun, or water). As a result, these plants need a backup power source such as large-scale storage (not currently available at grid-scale) or they can be paired with a reliable baseload power like nuclear energy. Also, based on these capacity factors, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid. And as we move away from fossil fuels, we will have an even less robust electric grid without nuclear.

Obviously, the use of nuclear energy results in some nuclear waste. However, because nuclear fuel is very energy dense, very little of it is required to produce immense amounts of electricity, especially when compared to other energy sources. For example, the generation of electricity from a typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station, which would supply the needs of more than a million people, produces only three cubic meters of vitrified high-level waste per year, if the used fuel is recycled. In comparison, a 1,000-megawatt coal-fired power station produces approximately 300,000 tons of ash and more than 6 million tons of carbon dioxide, every year.

Used nuclear fuel is kept in either wet or dry storage facilities, before being recycled or disposed of. Most of the material in used fuel (approximately 97%) can be recycled. Recycling has, to date, mostly been focused on the extraction of plutonium and uranium, as these elements can be reused in conventional reactors. This separated plutonium and uranium can also be mixed with fresh uranium and made into new fuel rods. Alternatively, direct disposal is where used nuclear fuel is designated as waste and disposed of in an underground repository, without any recycling. The used fuel is placed in canisters which, in turn, are placed in tunnels and subsequently sealed with rocks and clay.

One last point to consider regarding nuclear energy are small modular reactors (“SMR”). Terra Power, a private company founded by Bill Gates designs and builds small modular reactors. SMR’s are built in a factory and shipped to a site to be assembled. SMR’s are built in an assembly line like airplanes and the costs are dramatically cut with regulatory approval being one and done. The key strategy to this design is to allow these SMR’s to be assembled on old coal brownfield sites where water, power lines and infrastructure are already in place. In fact, Terra Power is building their first SMR in Wyoming on an old coal site while another company NuScale is building 10 plants in Poland and one demonstration plant in Idaho. Not only will these small modular reactors greatly reduce the cost factors of nuclear energy but the additional benefit of installing SMR’s on old coal brownfield sites is it creates new employment opportunities to those who had worked in the coal mines. SMR’s may prove to be the future for our electric grids.

One day, alternative energy technologies might be sufficiently robust to replace fossil fuels in some of our major applications but until that time, it is crucial that American energy independence is protected through the continued development of the United States petroleum and natural gas.

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.