U.S. Needs 14 Million Plug-In Cars To Meet Paris Agreement By 2025


Revealed in a report by the progressive policy institute Center for American Progress

The Paris Agreement, set forth as an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is one of the most important documents for our collective futures. It deals with greenhouse-gas-emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance, starting in the year 2020. As of July 2018, 195 UNFCCC members have signed the agreement. A further 179 have become a party to it. The Paris Agreement’s long-term goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, its aim is to limit the increase to just 1.5 °C globally, as this would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change.

The United States – alongside with its western counterparts – is part of the agreement. This means that the most powerful nation in the world needs to adhere to the staples of this agreement, both to complete the goals set forth with it, but also, to be a leading example for other counties. And for the USA, the plug-in vehicle numbers will be one of the biggest goals this nation needs to hit.

And to meet the aforementioned Paris Agreement target goals, it is estimated that the U.S will need to add 14 million new PEVs and more than 330,000 new public charging outlets by the end of 2025 – according to a recent report by the progressive policy institute Center for American Progress. For comparison, the U.S now has just 16,000 public charging outlets. It means the country would have to add a staggering 314,000 of them by 2025, to meet the goal set forth by the agreement.

Furthermore, the report gives us an insight into what particular states can do to enhance their charging infrastructure. It reveals how some states are well on their way in providing public Level 2 and DC fast charging infrastructure needed by 2025, but the country overall needs to make significant strides in order to meet the Paris Agreement goals.

Additionally, according to the authors of this report, only about 50% of the funding needed to deploy adequate public charging facilities through 2025 is available through existing state funding and VW dieselgate settlement funds. Further public and private investments are be needed to close the remaining $2.3 billion gap. Clearly, this will be a tough pill to swallow. But somebody will have to it, no matter who is running the administration in the forthcoming years.

Source: Green Car Congress

Categories: General

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

64 Comments on "U.S. Needs 14 Million Plug-In Cars To Meet Paris Agreement By 2025"

newest oldest most voted

The U.S. withdrew from the Paris Accords.

So the basis of the entire article is flawed. Though I think it was a bad idea, to withdraw from said agreement, writing an article like it is still in force, at least in the U.S. seems a bit odd, to say the least.

US can’t submit intention to withdraw from the climate accords until Nov 4th, 2019 with a 1 year waiting period until Nov 4th, 2020. We are still in fact part of the Climate Accords. Trump is a showman, remember that.

Where to begin…
The Paris Agreement is not “one of the most important documents for our collective future.”
The United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, specifically because it punishes countries with higher standards while rewarding polluters. The agreement is a disaster and by the authors’ own admission, does little to address climate change.

US cannot withdraw from the Agreement until 2020.

That is the formal withdrawal. As far as our current administration is concerned we’re out. So saying the USA has to adhere to the agreement is silly. Now, if the next president decides to follow the agreement then meaningful attempts to attain the desired number of charging stations may occur. In the mean time I think private industry will continue to build out the charging infrastructure, just not at the rate the agreement calls for.

Viking, we can withdraw in November of 2019. That withdrawal will then go into effect in November of 2020. But it really doesn’t matter one way or the other. No country is following the policies that they promised in the agreement anyway and the agreement IS NOT binding. The amusing thing is that the US is the only country close to reducing its greenhouse emissions to levels last seen in 1991, and we are the bad guys? LOL!
The Paris Agreement is more of a $100Bn a year shakedown attempt than a real climate accord.

It may be flawed, but it’s the best we have.

(Also, “rewarding polluters” is BS propaganda. When certain nations have by far the highest per-capita emissions, in spite of existing standards, clearly they need to do more.)

“The United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, specifically because it punishes countries with higher standards while rewarding polluters.”

This is a false statement.

The paris, like Kyoto, are jokes.
Until we require that ALL nations drop their CO2 emission down to levels similar to what India has today, nothing will change.
USA remains high, but is headed in the right direction (though it remains to be seen what Trump will cause; so far, nothing).
Europe, other than Germany and most of eastern Europe, is headed in the right direction.
The 3rd world nations are being pushed by CHina to add loads more Chinese coal plants. This is a disaster in the making.
India is also adding coal, but they want to add AE and Nuke at a fast rate. China really does not.

Heck, since so many want to push the per capitia normalization, then if looked at AE per person, America is one of the top 3 nations. China ranks way down there (around 50). And Since America has not been building out new coal plants, but continues to add lots of AE, we are looking great in terms of per capita.
This is also why America’s CO2 emissions per capita continues downwards, while China’s continues upwards.

Does this analysis factor in the lifecycle of existing BEVs/Plug-ins? By 2025, the first gen Leafs and Volts will likely be ending their service lives unless the auto manufacturers provide relatively affordable replacement battery packs to prolong the life of the vehicle. At that point, we need more than 14M sales because the first few years sales will not be on the road anymore.

The first few years’ sales barely amounts to half a million, especially if Teslas are excluded.

This is achievable with a roughly 50% annual growth rate in PEV sales. So not impossible by any stretch.

Would be much more though than the US has been seeing over the past several years…

“Clearly, this will be a tough pill to swallow. But somebody will have to it, no matter who is running the administration in the forthcoming years.”

Or… what? I’m pretty sure it’s a non binding agreement. If we fail to meet some arbitrary goal, nothing will happen. What needs to happen between now and 2025 is plug in cars need to become more popular and more widely adopted. Then the charging station will come organically if they are needed. Building a bunch of charging stations no one will use is wasteful and dumb.

China is feeding their economy, …and their electric cars with coal. They will feed their “new world order” (one belt one road) with coal.
Might be a good time to invest in coal. (although China already scooped up the super cheap deals —courtesy of “the war on coal” )
“The country’s electricity demand increased significantly in early 2018, with 2.66 trillion kilowatt-hours consumed from January through May, an increase of 9.75% compared to the same period last year. Coal consumption at China’s six biggest power generators in the country’s southeast reached its second-highest level in history last month, when they burned through 724,000 tons a day. The six include China Guodian Corp. and Guangdong Yudean Group Co. Ltd., and are often used as a benchmark for the country’s coal industry.
The increased demand resulted in unusually high spot coal prices in May, leading the NDRC to make its first direct intervention in the market in two years. The agency ordered utilities to stop stockpiling thermal coal and told miners to increase production by 50%.”
Coal Import Restrictions Eased as Summer Electricity Demand Boosts Prices
June 19, 2018

Aren’t you tired for bs-ing? I hope you drop everything you have on coal…you know how it is…a fool and his money…you seem like
The perfect candidate.

On one hand, China is the only country in the world that is actually pursuing the next generation in nuclear power plants. We on the other hand are not. We are mostly shutting down the nuclear plants and mostly replacing them with natural gas. Im certain that China sees coal as a practical short term solution unlike some in the US that see fossil fuels as the the only solution.

Depends on what you mean by “short term” I guess. Chinese companies are building something like 1600 new coal fired power plants in country and along the “one belt, one road” …. Those usually stay in service for many decades.

For the Chinese and the people planning their future, decades is short term for sure. Nobody likes mining coal. Nobody likes burning coal. It’s just cheap and abundant in China. Once there is a credible replacement for coal where the Chinese aren’t dependent on outsiders, likely they will switch. Particularly when the effects of climate change start really messing with their country too.

In 2015, in China, deaths due to air pollution were about 4000 a day. Climate change will simply make things worse.

You’re right. That’s why I believe that their coal powered plants will only be temporary.

CARCUS I don’t know where you get your information from but in 2016 China halted construction all new coal plants which at the time was 130 and some they stopped at already started construction.

No, they did not. They decided to stop building plants in 13 regions. The rest of China is fair game and will see more coal plants. In late 2017 the Chinese government stated that they plan to build 700 more coal plants, with 20% of them to be built outside China. They are moving the plant construction sites further from the larger cities and they have slowed the coal plant build rate, but they still plan on building more than 500 coal plants in China in the years to come.
They are shutting down the older, dirtier coal plants but they intend to replace them with newer coal plants.

Dav8or Ask rate payers in South Carolina and Georgia about the advanced Nuclear power plants V.C. Summers and Vogel two units at both sites caused the bankruptcy of Westinghouse and Toshiba lost 7 billion almost went bankrupt and Stone and Webster. These units were suppose to be completed already there only about half way completed but construction has been stopped because of the billions they are already over on what it was initially suppose to cost. Rate payer in Georgia and South Carolina will be paying for decades for that mistake.

So… you’re suggesting we condemn an entire technology due to contractor fraud, or incompetence?

Most of the existing nuclear plants are more expensive to operate, that’s why they and coal want subsidies which basically is rate increases. Also there is no spent fuel storage facility to store the spent radioactive fuel.

CARUS Your wrong China’s electric use was 24% renewable at the end of 2016 wind solar and hydro. So there electric cars are using more renewable energy than the US. The increase is coal usage is for thermal coal which is used to make coke and then steel production.

Ron M, … you are getting thermal coal and metallurgical coal (coking coal) mixed up , … among other things.
China’s renewable sector — the lion’s share(70%+) is hydro, .. which has had some pretty serious ecological impacts (i.e. not good), .. but that’s another matter
In 2015/2016 China had a major economic slowdown, which put some projects on hold

I’ll admit when I’m wrong I meant to say metrological coal use increased. Now you admit that there isn’t any plans to build 1600 coal plants because there actually considering a solar road I don’t know how much of it. The other thing was the canceling if 130 coal plants was because XI and the people of China are demanding cleaner air and environment. XI said what good is having all these cars and buildings if you can’t breath. They have 3-4 times the population and have already achieved 24% electricity production. Also many homes are still heated with coal which China wants to ban.

Ron M,

Go to end coal dot org and play around with the global coal plant tracker. Look on the China map … do you see all the yellow, light-orange, orange, red? For contrast — go to United states, .. do you see any of those colors on that map??

Now look at the summary Coal Plants by Country.
Just look at just the top 4 (china, india, indonesia, vietnam) (just part of where Chinese companies are planning/building)
Announced, pre-permit, permit, construction = 844
Shelved =779
844 + 779 = 1623

From end coal FAQ:

“Shelved: Projects where sufficient evidence is found to indicate that a project is no longer moving forward, but not enough to declare it definitively cancelled. Projects where construction has been put on hold are designated “Shelved.” A project that shows no activity over a period of 2 years is categorized as “Shelved” unless there is evidence to the contrary.”

Carus Thanks for the site I went to Coal Plants by Country (Units). China has 2,882 Opeating Units They have canceled since 2010-2018 514 units
68 announced
85 pre-permitted
58 Permitted
256 Constuction
It also says in the pink column that they have shelved 599 units
Also the comments that you made were about China let’s stay with that for now. Announced, Pre-Permitted, Permitted and construction add up to 467
With 599 Shelved that may never be built and these are probably the ones XI canceled

Look at the article about China’s war on coal.https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/1/17/14294906/china-cancels-coal-plants

It’s Trump that doesn’t believe in Science.

Ron M,

As I’ve said and sourced before, … a lot of those plants were likely just stalled due to financial difficulties/grid “overgrowth” — with a good probability that they will be completed in the future. If you play around with the map you can see several plants that were recently completed — same plants that were “””””cancelled””””” back in the 2016 time frame.

Shelved — really ??????

As a “point of interest” ……
Look at China’s Shandan Power Station — with a status of “shelved”.

Look at the satellite image, sure looks like everything’s done and there’s some big ol’ piles of coal there. –Don’t know why the structures are “marked out with blue highlighter” … but I could guess.

(scroll out a little on the image to see both facilities on either side of the cooling pond) (use google maps on it’s own for a clearer view)

/paris agreement my *ss

You can have two units there and still shelve or canceled two additional units some coal plants have 6 or more units. Also a large coal unit is typically 500 MW.

I’m wrong about the blue highlight suspicion, — don’t know what that means, …. but if you want to see a monster “shelved” power plant that has a very low res sat for it’s section (coincidence, .. maybe) — look at Shenhua Baoqing power station

Ghost cities, .. ghost power plants … they’ll finish them up and move the people/workers/coal in sooner or later — all part of the master xi plan

Yep, .. it’s a trend. Huadian Gongxian power station (2 units “shelved”) also blurred out. (one little satellite photo that’s low res, while everything around it is clear, .. easy to see on google maps)

Ron,, China plans to build more than 500 coal plants in the years to come. They are moving the construction sites further from their larger cities, but they are still building a boatload of coal plants in the next 10-20 years.
They are shutting down the old dirty plants and building new ones.

We are not part of the Paris Agreements.

(a) Our withdrawal is not effective until December 2020.
(b) It is non-binding anyway.

This administration has not absolved us of our responsibilities, it has merely delayed their implementation and increased their cost. So, I guess that is what they meant by “great again”.

Why do you see increased costs and what do you see those costs for?

Luckily despite Trump and the GOP congressman who get $400 million for there campaigns for the 2018 election so they will continue working for the Koch Brothers.
However many companies are working to become 100% renewable globally.

When will your next “president” be released in theaters nationwide?

Good question. It’s going to be tough to beat the current comedy/dramatic tragedy. So far it has lived up to the promise- “You’ll laugh, you’ll cry”.

“limit the increase to just 1.5 °C globally”

That’s only to 2100. Temperature will continue to climb beyond that and we will reach 2C and beyond even if Paris is followed.

“this would substantially reduce the risks and effects of climate change”

That is only true temporarily. Again, if we don’t find cheaper alternative to fossil fuel, the risk and effect will be the same, just delayed by few years.

In the end, no amount of “fighting climate change” will do anything substantial, because up and coming countries (eg. African countries) will be using the cheapest possible (for now, fossil fuel). Based on US emitting less than most countries who signed Kyoto thanks to fracking and cheaper than coal natural gas, what will make a difference will be cheaper source of energy. Unfortunately, very little money is being spent on this front with Obummer cutting funding for fusion research in US, never mind the internet troll we have as prez today.

In all fairness to Obama, he was only doing the will of the people. The vast majority of Americans still see the use of nuclear power generation resulting in mushroom clouds of destruction, glowing three eyed fish and greater nuclear weapons proliferation. Many assume the dystopian future we all seem to see as a fact and certainty these days, see nuclear power as a driving force in that outcome.

The American public is woefully ignorant of what is possible with different types of nuclear generation and also why we ended up with the somewhat dangerous nuclear power plants we have instead of much safer ones. If we educate the people, then perhaps we can persuade a future president to actually guide us to the 21st century.

The weird fish and frogs were caused by bacteria growing from the water being warm, not from radiation. The Simpsons is social commentary, not fact. The greatest thing Obama did was appoint Energy Secretary Chu. It is sad he didn’t stay on in the following administration. Secretary of Energy folks should be physicists, not fossil fuel barons.

I think if you read what I wrote, I was speaking to perceptions by the general public, not that there were actually any glow in the dark three eyed fish. Yes, popular entertainment, like the Simpsons does help to spread disinformation and shape public opinion.

Actually, Africa has made great strides in electrification lately, because now they can just build cheap decentralised solar instead of expensive conventional grids. The cost argument against renewables is passé. The only problem right now is committing to building out renewables fast enough, since every single year matters at this point. No need for any new pie-in-the-sky miracle technology.

I really bothers me how shortsighted supposed “experts” in public charging infrastructure are. The report still only has L2 and high speed travel DCFC as the only public charging options. Unless the cost managed deployment of medium speed DCFC in the public charging space occurs, there’s no way that the proposed goals can be met. L2 is inexpensive compared to travel DCFC, but is quite inflexible as it is designed to use the internal charger of the car to recharge the battery in a 4-8 hour timeframe. Travel DCFC along highways are optimized for long distance travel. However, the deployment and usage cost makes it difficult to use as the standard public charging infrastructure. Medium speed DCFC in the 20-25 kW range can be deployed in a similar cost structure as L2, but can provide 3 to 8 times the power. This facilitates more flexible charging options. The report erroneously points out that PHEV cannot use DCFC interfaces. This is not universal as there are a few PHEVs, such as the Mitsubishi Outlander, that do have DCFC ports. The solution moving forward isn’t to deploy L2 everywhere solely because all plug-ins can use them, but to advocate to manfacturers that… Read more »

I kind of agree with your thinking, but would add that L2 can potentially go up to like 19kW, so implementing that architecture and the corresponding on-board chargers as battery sizes increase would probably better than DC 20-25kW, as less cost would be involved in the station deployment.

Still, I’m generally of the opinion that EVs charge at home when not traveling, and charge on the road when traveling. That makes the L2 and fast DCFC pretty viable. Apartment dwellers could charge at a fast DCFC once a week like they would a gas station, or catch L2 destination charging at shopping centers or the workplace.

That should cover the overwhelming majority of use cases without a 20kW (give or take) charging necessity.

“…but would add that L2 can potentially go up to like 19kW, so implementing that architecture and the corresponding on-board chargers as battery sizes increase would probably better than DC 20-25kW, as less cost would be involved in the station deployment.” What you state is true. The issue is that often watts are left on the table because the internal charger is matched to the battery of the vehicle, instead of the input power coming into the station. So that means you get wide variability in terms of charging ability depending on the car. Only an older Tesla Model S and X with dual chargers can take full advantage of a 19.2 kW L2. All current cars, including all current Teslas utilize less power than that. There is much more flexibility for every type of plug-in if the charger is external to the vehicle. “Still, I’m generally of the opinion that EVs charge at home when not traveling, and charge on the road when traveling. That makes the L2 and fast DCFC pretty viable. Apartment dwellers could charge at a fast DCFC once a week like they would a gas station, or catch L2 destination charging at shopping centers or… Read more »

Cars are parked for the vast majority of time at home or at work; so that’s where chargers primarily need to be deployed. And L2 is perfectly fine for that.

For a pure electric vehicle, the range has to be sufficient for the worst case, not the best case — so opportunity charging scattered at random places will do very little to alleviate range anxiety / need for larger batteries. It doesn’t change the fact that people want enough range to cover an entire day of running errands; or to get from one natural rest stop to the next on longer trips.

(For PHEVs though, I guess opportunity charging can indeed help increase electric-only driving a bit…)

Also, your argument that charging stations have to make up for car makers skimping on on-board chargers, seems a little questionable to me…

If range is developed for the worst case, instead of the average case, then the price of plug-ins will be a long time coming to parity to their ICE counterparts. Someone in theory could drive 1,000 miles in a day. That’s a worst case. It’s completely unreasonable to think of that as a target battery range. Though I have had read comments from some wanting that type of range. A more realistic estimate is the average daily range with some extra margin. And car makers are not “skimping” on internal chargers. Internal chargers are designed to recharge the car in a long term dwell situation on the order of 5-10 hours. This matches well to your premise that EVs are mostly parked at home and work, and that L2 is fine for that. What it isn’t fine for is flexible charging in other situations that are not strictly commuting, or strictly road tripping. There needs to be a cost effective way to gain a faster charge when recharging speed isn’t the primary concern, as it is when on a road trip. Another issue is that fact that there will be a segment of the population that will not have opportunities… Read more »

My point is not that every EV out there has to cover the hypothetical worst case across the entire population… Rather, every specific car has to more or less cover the perceived worst case of its specific user.

While medium-fast opportunity charging sounds attractive in theory, it is not, and cannot, be available everywhere people might want to go. Thus they can’t really rely on it being available where needed — which is why I fear it does fairly little to alleviate range anxiety.

Also, I have doubts that creating an extensive charging infrastructure primarily for the needs of a limited number of mostly obsolete first-generation EVs, and rarely really needed by others, is the best possible use of funds…

If we could brute force the situation a win is easy at least for charging.
Use Tesla connectors and no other. Their system is by far the most pervasive and tested, not to mention easy to use. Change to two identical Tesla connectors when needed which doubles capacity and maintains 100% compatibility with older systems. Force all EV’s to be able to communicate the same way. Give Tesla a tiny amount for development but no so much others cannot make a profit selling charging.
What we have now is a dream come true for Big Oil, the delay of EVs because we lack a charging standard.

We will have instead 14 million of unregulated diesel cars, make America great again.