The avg. age of a car bought in Africa at the time of purchase is 21 years old. All these people buying EVs think they are taking a gas-burner off the road. But in fact cars do not get thrown away. They get shipped to Africa where they live on and continue to emit GHG for decades longer.
So what’s the answer? Destroying the car is a non-starter, as no one would throw away value. It would be like asking people to set some of their cash on fire.
Why not remove the engine and repurpose it as a backup power generator for power outtages? Then convert the rest of the car into an EV.
Conversions are being done. There are some companies offering to do the work. But these are very small scale operations that are rarely spoken of. I have to wonder why (what seems like) the best solution is being overlooked.
Destroying the car (or at least the engine) isn’t entirely out of the question, as that has successfully happened when incentives are given, such as with the cash for clunkers program. But I can’t imagine that would be a better option emissions-wise compared to EV conversions.
Perhaps subsidizing EV conversions could be a viable route. A significant tax break and perhaps government loans for newly formed conversion companies could really ramp up scale of conversions, and hopefully lower costs.
Ideally, even larger tax breaks could be offered to worker coop conversion shops to encourage that form of business.
Since these won’t perform as well as a purpose built EV, as another user mentioned, owners will likely want larger batteries to compensate. If done at scale with lithium based batteries, that would be both costly, and worse, terrible for the environment due to the requirements for lithium.
Sodium ion batteries are just about production ready, and would be the environmental material of choice if this were to be done, even if their range would be lowered due to the decreased energy density.
Cash for clunkers was worthless handout to the auto industry. We traded in cars that were perfectly serviceable to sell SUVs with no effiency standards. It wasnt progress but a keysian blowjob to billionaires.
I’m not the biggest fan of it either, I only mentioned it as an example that some people will willingly destroy their own cars for a small incentive. I recall it shrunk the used car market noticeably, which had the effect of raising the price of transportation for people who couldn’t afford new cars.
Had it been crafted with lower emissions as the end goal instead of economic stimulus, such as the credit only applying to only the most fuel efficient vehicles from each brand, it could’ve had a larger positive effect. It wasn’t a complete waste, though. Taking the most fuel inefficient vehicles off the road, even when replaced with a modest improvement, can have a profound difference, since MPG is a not linear decrease in gas usage.
The alternative bill described in the wikipedia article that some democrats proposed would’ve done more good, especially as it would’ve given $1,000 toward purchasing a more fuel efficient used car as well.