Electric vehicle weight poses threat to current road infrastructure, safety experts warn

A report in the Washington Times explains that electric vehicles (EVs) can weigh up to 50 percent more than internal combustion motor vehicles. That extra weight could more easily damage roads, bridges, and parking garages.

If all of the existing headaches for those pushing expensive electric vehicles on resisting American consumers could vanish, there’s still a big one that may have no ready solution.

Already, it appears the U.S. could end up dependent on unfriendly nations for materials for all those batteries. Then there’s the fact that the nation’s grid simply can’t support all that recharging – California already has been sending out advisories for owners not to charge. And then there’s the limited range, extended recharging times, both worsened by bad weather.

But now a report in the Washington Times explains that those batteries are heavy, and EVs can weigh up to 50 percent more than internal combustion motor vehicles.

And that weight damages roads, bridges and parking garages, with those vehicles easily plowing through safety guardrails while posing a higher danger to other drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling the same routes.

“The problems associated with EVs are poised to grow as more consumers purchase the cars under the Biden administration’s plan to eliminate gas-powered vehicles and the tailpipe emissions that come with them,” the report explained.

It explained engineers writing recently for Structure Magazine suggested construction companies, and building codes, need to make accommodation for the higher weight.

Parking garages, they said, should be redesigned to hold more weight.

“Significantly increasing passenger vehicle weights combined with recently reduced structural design requirements will result in reduced factors of safety and increased maintenance and repair costs for parking structures,” the engineers wrote. “There are many cases of parking structure failures, and the growing demand for EVs will only increase the probability of failure.”

Then there are those guardrails, installed to minimize damage when traffic goes awry.

They are installed between lanes for traffic moving opposite directions, between lanes and edge drop-offs and more.

That concern comes out of a procedure at a test facility in Nebraska, where examiners took a 3.6-ton Rivian R1 and sent it into a metal guardrail at 62 mph, first head-on, then at an angle.

Both times it “ripped through” the guardrail and continued into what would have been lanes for oncoming traffic, the report revealed.

The conclusion was simple: making vehicles much heavier means “a lot more force” is required to redirect the vehicle.

University of Nebraska professor Cody Stolle, told the Times, “We found these guardrail systems don’t have great compatibility with these [electric] vehicles yet.”

The heavier vehicles also could cause more damage to other vehicles in collisions.

The report said an insurance institute expert confirmed the weight provides more protection to those inside the EV, but at the expense of anyone in another vehicle involved in an accident.

Joe Biden has insisted over and over that consumers should be buying the much more expensive and often less reliable electric cars the government programs subsidize.

The weight differences are significant. The report said the Tesla Model Y is more than 4,400 pounds while the similar size gas-powered Honda Accord is 3,300. Kia makes multiple SUVs, with the gas model weighting 3,900 pounds and the EV unit nearly 6,500.

Residential roads already are not engineered to handle the heavy weight on highways, and the lifespan of bridges could be reduced with much heavier traffic, the report said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently said, “EVs are typically much heavier compared to similarly sized, gas-powered vehicles, which will put additional strain on America’s transportation infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers warns that an increase in EVs could substantially reduce the lifespan of roads and bridges, necessitating further investment in infrastructure.”

Reprinted with permission from the WND News Center.

Related Topics:#BobUnruh #ElectricVehicleWeight #EVWeight #LifeSiteNews #RoadInfrastructure

Up Next

One (Megawatt) is the loneliest number, but hundreds of batteries are absurd

Don't Miss

“Indian Industry” cronyism

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 3 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 4 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Automotive

It’s Time To Abandon Reckless EV Mandates

Published on July 7, 2024

Todayville

From Canadians for Affordable Energy

Dan McTeague

Written By Dan McTeague

Already, billions of tax dollars have been handed out in subsidies to companies that have no accountability to the Canadian taxpayer. This experiment in societal re-engineering will disproportionately harm Canadian workers and families, especially those who live in rural communities.

And it will surely fail

Canada is not nearly ready for the wholesale adoption of electric vehicles (EVs).

That was the message of the letter I sent to every member of Parliament recently, urging them to drop the “Electric Vehicle Availability Standard” introduced by the Trudeau government late last year. That’s the policy that mandates that all new vehicles sold in Canada must be electric by 2035. There is no way, considering the economic, technological and infrastructural realities of our country — and our world — where this is possible.

Stubbornly attempting to achieve this goal would do serious damage to our economy, leaving Canadian taxpayers on the hook for generations to come. Already, billions of tax dollars have been handed out in subsidies to companies that have no accountability to the Canadian taxpayer. This experiment in societal re-engineering will disproportionately harm Canadian workers and families, especially those who live in rural communities.

And it will surely fail. In my letter I highlight a few of the central reasons why staying the course on EV mandates by 2035 is extremely reckless. Right off the bat, the technology is simply not there for electric vehicles to be a reliable source of transportation in Canada’s climate. The batteries cannot hold their charge in frigid temperatures. Forcing Canadians to rely on vehicles that can’t handle our winters is irresponsible and dangerous.

Electric vehicles’ cost is another issue. Right now, the EV market relies heavily on government subsidies. These subsidies can’t last forever. But without them EVs are prohibitively expensive. Even with them, the costs of maintaining an EV are high. Replacing a damaged battery, for example, can cost upwards of $20,000. Mandating that people buy vehicles they can’t afford to either purchase in the first place or maintain if they do buy them is political malpractice.

A fact long ignored by decision-makers in Ottawa is that our electrical grid isn’t ready for the excess demand that would come with widespread EV adoption. These mandates, paired with the government’s goal of fully decarbonizing the grid by 2035, put us on a collision course with the reality of unreliable power. A grid powered, not by reliable fossil fuels, but by spotty wind and solar energy would be further burdened with millions of cars relying exclusively on electricity.

Beyond the electricity itself, the EV mandates will require additional transmission and distribution capacity. But there are no signs any plan is in place to expand our transmission capacity to meet the 2035 target.

The sheer number of new charging stations required by wholesale adoption of EVs will strain our distribution networks. Natural Resources Canada projections show that Canada will need between 442,000 and 469,000 public charging ports by 2035. At the moment, we have roughly 28,000. And that doesn’t include the private charging stations people will need to install at home. Closing that gap in such a tight time frame is almost certainly impossible.

All of those considerations aside, at a fundamental level the government’s push for electric vehicles encroaches on the operation of the free market, all in the name of emissions reductions. The Canadian economy is founded on the market principle that the consumer drives the economy (no pun intended). Thousands of times over, it has been shown that if there is enough demand for a product, supply soon follows. In the case of EVs, however, the federal government is operating under the assumption that if you somehow create a supply, that will inspire a demand.

This hasn’t worked in any of the countries where it’s been attempted, which is why nations around the world have started to tap the brakes on EV mandates. Decision-makers in Ottawa need to follow suit and abandon these reckless and costly mandates. Let the market decide when EVs are ready for prime time. In other words, let Canadians decide.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy

Automotive

Many Gen Z and millennial Canadians don’t believe in EV corporate welfare

Published on July 7, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Jake Fuss

The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently estimated federal government support for EV initiatives will cost Canadian taxpayers $31.4 billion, which represents roughly $1,043 per tax filer.

According to a new Leger poll, a significant percentage of Gen Z and millennial Canadians don’t believe that billions of dollars in government subsidies to build electric vehicle (EV) plants—including $5 billion to Honda, $13.2 billion to Volkswagen and $15 billion to Stellantis—will benefit them. And based on a large body of research, they’re right.

The poll, which surveyed Canadians aged 18 to 39 who are eligible to vote, found that only 32 per cent of respondents believe these subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) will be of “significant benefit to your generation” while 28 per cent disagree and 25 per cent are on the fence.

Unfortunately, this type of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare isn’t new. The federal government spent an estimated $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on business subsidies from 2007 to 2019, the last pre-COVID year of data. Over the same period, provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion on business subsidies for their favoured firms and industries. And these figures exclude other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the actual cost of corporate welfare during this period was much higher.

The Trudeau government has shown a particular proclivity for corporate welfare. According to a recent study, federal subsidies have increased by 140 per cent from 2014/15 to 2023/24. But again, the money used to fund these subsidies isn’t free—its funded by taxpayers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently estimated federal government support for EV initiatives will cost Canadian taxpayers $31.4 billion, which represents roughly $1,043 per tax filer.

And Canadians are right to be skeptical. Despite what the Trudeau or provincial governments claim, there’s little to no evidence that corporate welfare creates jobs (on net) or produces widespread economic benefits.

Instead, by giving money to select firms, the government simply shifts jobs and investment away from other firms and industries—which are likely more productive, as they don’t require government funding to be economically viable—to the government’s preferred industries and firms, circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Canada without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.

Finally, higher taxes (or lower government spending in other areas) ultimately fund corporate welfare. And higher taxes depress economic activity—the higher the rates, the more economic activity is discouraged.

Unfortunately, the Trudeau government believes it knows better than investors and entrepreneurs, so it continues to use taxpayer money to allocate scarce resources—including labour—to their favoured projects and industries. And since politicians spend other people’s money, they have little incentive to be careful investors.

Canadians, including young Canadians, are right to be skeptical of corporate welfare. As the evidence suggests, there’s little reason to think it will lead to any economic benefit for them.