By on December 9, 2021

On Wednesday, President Joe Biden signed an executive order committing the United States to the acquisition of only zero-emission vehicles by 2035 for the federal vehicle fleet.

This is totally in line with the administration’s stated desire to focus on transitioning the nation toward renewable energy sources while advancing electric vehicle adoption rates. But the event was curiously not celebrated with the applicable fanfare. Biden signed the document without media there to capture the moment and reporters failed to ask about it during a press event on the White House lawn later in the day. Were it not for an official fact sheet issued by the administration later in the day, we may never have known there even was a signing. 

The executive order seeks to ensure that government operations reduce emissions by 65 percent by 2030. This is said to be achievable by sourcing energy from carbon-free and non-polluting sources on a net annual basis within that timeframe. However the ultimate goal is to have net-zero emissions by 2050.

Vehicles are only part of that plan. There are numerous provisions in the EO focusing creating on totally emissions-free energy and building sectors dated between 2027 and 2050. Cars are simply the third piece of the puzzle, though chronologically first. Biden’s order requires the government engage in “100 percent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) acquisitions by 2035, including 100 percent zero-emission light-duty vehicle acquisitions by 2027.”

From the White House:

Through this executive order, the federal government will transform its portfolio of 300,000 buildings, fleet of 600,000 cars and trucks, and annual purchasing power of $650 billion in goods and services to:

Transition federal infrastructure to zero-emission vehicles and buildings powered by carbon pollution-free electricity, which will reduce the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Make federal agencies more adaptive and resilient to the impacts of climate change, and increase the sustainability of federal supply chains, achieving net-zero emissions from federal procurement by 2050.

Mainstream sustainability within the federal workforce, advance equity and environmental justice, and leverage partnerships to accelerate progress.

The fact sheet goes on to explain how this will be accomplished, offering a mixed approach. It’s a mélange of giving the relevant equipment manufacturers a financial leg up, increasing the number of union jobs, altering federal agencies to have greater flexibility and control via a “Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan,” and updating federal buildings to include hyper efficient heating/cooling/plumbing systems.

While there are a few exemptions carved out for military and space vehicles, the plan is pretty clear about when government rides will need to be emissions free. But we can all probably sense that none of this really matters. The timelines being set are set just far enough in the future that the Biden administration might has well not have made them. Corporations and governments do this all the time, banking on the assumption that the collective consciousness will have forgotten promises made years prior.

But then why wasn’t the White House trumpeting the signing? Our guess was because it was already making a lot of noise about transitioning the federal fleet away from gasoline a few months ago.

“The federal government also owns an enormous fleet of vehicles, which we’re going to replace with clean electric vehicles made right here in America made by American workers,” Biden said in January.

Considering the limited progress made since then, the administration may be taking it easy on underscoring the really big promises. But it’s still championing the Build Back Better Act, which is extremely ambitious and includes similar language to Wednesday’s executive order. Perhaps the White House doesn’t want to over-egg the pudding while approval ratings are so low. Honestly, your guess is as good as mine as to why this one was flown in under the radar and you’re always welcome to share it in the comments.

[Image: Orhan Cam/Shutterstock]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

92 Comments on “Biden Executive Order to End Gasoline Powered Vehicle Purchases...”


  • avatar
    RangerM

    What is done by Executive Order, can be undone by Executive Order; especially given the timeframe.

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      And that is why nothing is getting done. Of course getting Congress to agree on a plan doesn’t seem likely either.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        You kidding? Congress can’t decide on when to take a p*ss break.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          That’s not true!! There are 83 members of the house who are over 70, and 30 members of the senate over 70. They all know when they gotta go, they gotta GO.

          In addition the top three members of the House are all over 80: Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Jim Clyburn, and when they have to go, everybody goes, frequently.

          In the Senate, the President pro-tem who takes over when the Veep is frequently absent, is 81 year old Patrick Leahy. The oldest senator is 87 year old Dianne Feinstein, and when either of them have to go, they all go.

          Say what you want about legislation, but the unspoken feature of geriatric government is that they know when to go, frequently.

    • 0 avatar
      teddyc73

      Yes but the colossal damage this guy and his party has done and will continue to do over the next three years may never be undone even with executive orders. Nov 22 can’t come soon enough.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        @Teddy: U.S. unemployment at the same rate it was in February 2017, the Dow Jones at a record high, homicides while still increasing are not increasing as much as they did during the calendar year 2020, and not one member of the Cabinet/inner circle/campaign team indicted/under investigation or resigning under disgrace. Compare that to the performance of TFG during the first year of his presidency. Seems almost like a return to ‘normalcy’.

  • avatar
    cprescott

    And knowing the geezer that is in there, only UNION-BUILT EV’s need apply.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    I wonder if the Biden plan has a provision to exchange the tens of thousands of gas and diesel powered vehicles that we gifted to the Taliban over to electric.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    The Inauguration on January 20 was a towering monument to many many well-kept full-size SUV’s powered by petroleum. The ‘feed’ I listened to had no commentary masking the sound. I enjoyed it very much.

    2035 is a long way off. If I make it, I’ll turn 69 in 2035 – which is only a decade younger than the President is right now!

  • avatar
    MitchConner

    If you voted for that empty headed clown please stay home on Election Day for the rest of your life.

    • 0 avatar
      CaddyDaddy

      The sad part is, to elect Xiden, they did not have to leave home. The Ballot(s) came to them.

      • 0 avatar
        kcflyer

        yes, and conveniently there were just enough absentee ballots to overcome Trumps lead when the poles closed in the swing states. The fact that nearly 100 percent of absentee ballots were for Sleepy Joe should in no way be questioned even though the law of averages would indicate closer to a 50 / 50 mix in most districts. (historically absentee ballots tended to be conservative due to the oversees military votes. Nothing to see here. You can bet if the current variant of the China Virus isn’t enough of a scare tactic the dems will make something else up to justify millions of absentee ballots for the mid terms and in 2024.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Listen to this comedy team…

        “The Ballot(s) came to them.”
        And no one voted for the guy who lost by mail. Oh, wait…tens of millions of people DID vote for him by mail, but the only suspect mail-in votes were for the other guy.
        (Rimshot)

        “…Trumps lead when the poles closed in the swing states…”
        You mean, poles, as in north and south pole, or Polish folks with a lowercase “p”?
        (Rimshot)

        They’ll be here until Tuesday, folks…be sure to tip your wait staff…

        • 0 avatar
          C5 is Alive

          Yawn. Or, perhaps those who can’t be troubled to get off their couches and stand in a polling line (let alone get a job) shouldn’t be so easily granted a voice in our national conversation?

          Voting really needs to be reclassified as a privilege to be earned, rather than a “right” to be squandered.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Service Guarantees Citizenship! Would you like to know more?

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            At this point I’m willing to at least consider other approaches, 28. Surely there’s a middle ground between Heinlein’s breathless protestations against fascism and the wanton misappropriation of representative democracy.

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            Edit to the above: I confused the author with Paul Verhoeven, who turned “Starship Troopers” into a satirical film. Heinlein was a proponent for a regimented state that favored the productive elite.

            My point stands.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @C5

            Oh I am sure there is, the question becomes can reasonable men with reasonable ideas prevail?

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            They can, but first they’ll need to reconcile with themselves the need to be “unreasonable” in dealing with societal vermin. Therein lies the problem so far.

          • 0 avatar
            ToolGuy

            @C5, I’ve read a lot* of Heinlein lately [I have time – rimshot], including the Starship Troopers book (quite different from the movie). The ‘can’t vote without Federal Service’ idea definitely comes from Heinlein and the 1959 novel.

            *Not a whole lot, because Robert Heinlein is a little too kinky for me – refer to ‘his’ wikipedia entry.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Voting really needs to be reclassified as a privilege to be earned, rather than a “right” to be squandered.”

            And I thought reincarnation wasn’t real. Is that you, George III? I thought you went nuts and died.

            He’ll be here all week, folks. Tip your waitress!

          • 0 avatar
            C5 is Alive

            And yet you so regularly demonstrate, Mike, why not everyone with a microphone deserves to be heard.

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “ Listen to this comedy team…

          “The Ballot(s) came to them.”
          And no one voted for the guy who lost by mail. Oh, wait…tens of millions of people DID vote for him by mail, but the only suspect mail-in votes were for the other guy.
          (Rimshot)

          “…Trumps lead when the poles closed in the swing states…”
          You mean, poles, as in north and south pole, or Polish folks with a lowercase “p”?
          (Rimshot)

          They’ll be here until Tuesday, folks…be sure to tip your wait staff…”

          I’ll sum up:

          “CNN/PMSNBC/WaPo/HuffingtonPuffington Post said there was in no way any election fraud therefore there wasn’t any election fraud.”

          I swear to God if CNN/PMSNBC and the liberal rags said the Earth was flat, you’d spend you’re entire day making less than funny quips at anyone that said it was round.

          You would have been the one burning people at the stake or putting them on trial and sentencing them to house arrest for life (aka a lockdown) for having the audacity to say that the Earth revolves around the sun because, essentially, “the science was settled”.

          Absolutely amazing.

      • 0 avatar

        ” The Ballot(s) came to them.”

        Were they already pre-filled? In Russia there is service that fills your ballot and mails it for a small fee in case you cannot read and/or write.

  • avatar
    randy in rocklin

    This is worse than Governor Moonbean in CA back in the day. He’s a demented idiot.

  • avatar
    Kendahl

    The fed may have to buy a lot of Teslas.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    I don’t think any of those goals is remotely realistic, but to even achieve 2/3rds of the amount of them seriously does involve shrinking the consumer base. Odd that is never discussed, but it is happening as we speak.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Define “shrinking the consumer base.”

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Assuming “carbon” is the “enemy”, mathematically it can be broken down how much per consumer produces on average in a given time period. So if 50% were a goal, technological changes can only get so far in reaching that figure and therefore the amount of consumers in various cohorts would have to be reduced mathematically.

        In the case of the DC junta’s lofty 65% goal *by 2030* for Federal government usage, the same applies so either the amount of employees goes down or a combination of employees and activities. If these goals were more reasonable, say 10%, I’d say that may be achieved by technological advances alone but 65%, or even 40% isn’t going to happen through technological changes alone.

        @Greg Hamilton

        I saw that, and IIRC the gentleman behind that company was conveniently whacked not long after releasing that prediction. Believe me I have dwelled on it, but I hope the Big Club realizes if they attempt any significant reduction they will literally plunge everyone back into something similar to the Dark Ages because it will all just come apart quickly. On the face of it that may sound grand to satanic psychopaths but you can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again with any measure of ease. Such a thing would probably take decades, and that’s assuming the significant geopolitical event which causes the reduction doesn’t spin out of control internationally. Slow burn is likely the method of action to be employed, but if they are really serious about these huge carbon cuts in very short timeframes, God help us.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          @28:

          Uh, we can reduce peoples’ carbon footprints without mathematically eliminating them.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            Not 45% by 2030 which is what they want:

            https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition

            5% globally may be possible, but ultimately it will be higher for the nations not named PRC or India who I very much doubt will actually hit their targets and instead goose their numbers (or just outright say, “we don’t care”). 10% for most nations by 2030 is possibly doable without too much consumer change, anything beyond I would not be bullish on.

            So if they are blowing smoke, they’ll put out ridiculous numbers knowing well the real estimates and be happy with it. In other words, business as usual. But if they are really serious about these goals, well…

          • 0 avatar
            Matt Posky

            For what it’s worth, most automakers seem to anticipate the United States being the last big market where they can expect to see majority EV sales. It varies quite a bit between brands, but most automakers aren’t planning for the U.S. to have majority EV and hybrid volumes until after 2035. Europe, on the other hand, is estimated to yield 70 percent EV or hybrid sales by 2030. Asia is the wildcard, with some regions presumed to see swift EV adoption rates and others not so much.

            For example, Nissan is plotting to have EVs and hybrids making up more than 75 percent of its total European sales volume in 2027. The Japanese market is expected to yield 55 percent, with China around 40 percent, within the same timeframe. The company doesn’t expect the United States to be capable of yielding more than a 40-percent EV/hybrid share until after 2030.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Matt

            Short of Peak Oil, 40% by even 2040 isn’t happening in USDM. Now if they take overall production down to 8-9 million units because [INSERT LIES HERE] market share will shoot up then who knows.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Why do you want to reduce the “carbon footprint” of sentient carbon-based life forms? Almost all life on this planet is carbon based, and in humans it’s about 18% by weight.

            Carbon dioxide is necessary for photosynthesis, without which all plants, and all life on this planet will die.

            How did an element necessary for all life become evil? Were some simplistic assumptions made and computer simulations run that predict disaster?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Lorenzo

            I mean, I don’t, but that is the imagined measure being imposed as yet another control mechanism.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Lorenzo – CVO2 is necessary but too much is bad. Oceans are acidifying because of it. It taps in heat.
            Life on this planet exists in a narrow band of conditions.

    • 0 avatar
      Greg Hamilton

      28,
      Deagel.com did predict quite the shrinkage of the consumer base of the U.S. before it was removed from the site. I think it was actually two thirds by 2025.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “ut to even achieve 2/3rds of the amount of them seriously does involve shrinking the consumer base. ”

      What? We’re only talking about the Federal government’s Fleet. No the general population.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        This particular article, yes, though they’ve prattled on about general reductions of which I cannot recall at the moment. The overall point is any reduction comes down to math and the larger the goal in a short timeframe the more that amount will rely on means other than technological advancement.

  • avatar
    Greg Hamilton

    In the past: The United States–Making the world safe for Democracy.
    Now: Making the world safe for Executive Orders.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Good. Building more EVs here means more jobs.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      The current automotive industry is already highly automated and will only likely increase automation every year. Unless EV production is greater than current production, at best its a wash.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        All the infrastructure needed for this will create tons of economic opportunity. It goes beyond just screwing the cars together.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          People may say that, I’m not sure I am completely buying it. Once you build the infrastructure, then what for those workers? I seem to recall hearing about shovel ready projects in 2009, and the small amount of money which actually made it to projects was what, a year’s worth of construction? X jobs for 12 months, maybe longer? These sorts of jobs programs may be a bump but they are not permanent. Hence the bartender and waitress graphs during the “Recovery”.

          Here we go:

          https://www.citizensjournal.us/87-months-consecutive-job-gains-far-best-job-u-s/

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Once you build the infrastructure, then what for those workers?”

            Same can be said of any economic opportunity.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “Same can be said of any economic opportunity.”

            Manufacturing tends to have permanent economic effects assuming the products are still in demand. Hence the satirical “recovery” of bartenders and not manufacturing jobs.

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          Installation of the electric charging infrastructure at my current residence employed two talented youngsters for approximately 3 hours (plus their support staff back at the office). That was ten years ago.

  • avatar
    mcs

    and it’s only about Federal Government vehicle purchases. You’d think they’d be happy about potentially being out of range of the ATF’s electric Suburbans.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      True, there aren’t many charging stations near the I Ain’t Payin’ No Damn Tax ‘Cause Jesus Told Me Not To Ranch in Nutbag, Idaho. They could have the tactical advantage over the ATF this time.

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        “Rural drivers” were covered directly by the U.S. Transportation Secretary’s comments this week. Idaho charging infrastructure in 2035 will be more than adequate for Idaho taxpayers and for ATF vehicles.

        • 0 avatar
          mcs

          Maybe if instead of EV subsidies, the government would put money into helping farmers get into agrivoltaics, it would solve the lack of infrastructure in rural areas.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            We’re already paying farmers not to grow stuff, so why not?

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            @freedmike: They can grow crops and graze animals even with the panels in place. Apparently, they get the side effect of the panels keeping evaporation down. For grazing, sheep work well, but goats apparently will eat the working. For crops, they just have to keep the panels high enough to so that the harvesting equipment can get through.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    To lead off; OH for 60; repeat 0 for 60. Sue over election results, slam a door on your dork 60 times and still come out losing. Now that’s over.

    GSA vehicles are to be used for Official Government Business. Usually used to go from one Govt building to another Govt building. Leave Unicorn Fart Complex to go to Dead White Guy building and return to Unicorn Fart Complex. Throw in some retired Colonel to make sure the GSA vehicles are returned every night and plugged in.

    GSA vehicles usually are not take home and keep overnight vehicles. See above for their typical usage; leave UFC with a vehicle full of people to go to a meeting, after taking your anti-PowerPoint meds, go to DWG building for meeting, return to UFC.

    Their should be carve outs for military and LEOs. See how many Very Important and Serious Senior Government employees will swear on a stack of religious reference books their preference that their Very Important and Serious positions, not jobs mind you require them to support the military and LEOs.

    We’ve evolved as society that just writing a check or rounding up your total at the register counts as charity in some way. No need to actually do anything or make an effort. Just pay a little bit for some cause.

    Now imagine the Federal Government mandating that solar panels be put on every tarred-over flat roof the government owns. Heck, even make solar panels a requirement for leasing or renewing Federal government leases.

    But. but, El-Scotto that will result in some butt-ugly, poorly designed, and ill-conceived solar panel layouts you all say. Easy fix to that; I’ll start a government contracting company to allay fears of ugly solar panel installs. Promise my senior engineers bonuses that can be rolled over into their 401-k plans. Safety would be 1st and foremost with my company. When climbing ladders, all female employees under 30 must wear yoga pants.

  • avatar
    craiger

    When do we go to a one child per family policy? Because climate change. After all, if we’re talking about the destruction of life on the planet, or at least the extinction of the human race, what isn’t on the table?

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Interesting you should bring it up, I thought I read the Chinese concluded that policy hurt more than it helped so it was abandoned at least a few years ago. Even during that policy cronies of the CCP got around it with ease, at least post-Mao. If the neo-bolsheviks behind the DC Junta try such a stunt, the same will happen here with regime cronies above the law while you are slowly genocided.

    • 0 avatar
      ToolGuy

      Saw these this week:

      China cutting back (heh) on vasectomies:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-birth-control-vasectomy/2021/12/09/c89cc902-50b8-11ec-83d2-d9dab0e23b7e_story.html

      Unknown Tech Guy calls for higher birth rate:
      https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-on-demographics-population-ageing-2021-12

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Honestly, as we are talking about “the fate of the planet”, whatever CO2 targets required to save said planet should be strictly enforced by all means up to and including kinetic military action against pollution sources not in compliance.

      Yet somehow the solution seems to be taxing people. I was born on a day, but it wasn’t yesterday.

      • 0 avatar
        ToolGuy

        @Art Vandelay, if you find yourself paying more in Federal taxes than you would like, there are some strategies you can put into place which are completely legal and not that difficult. I’ve looked before and there are some very competent people in your immediate geographic area who could help you out. (Or you could keep posting here about how you don’t like where your tax dollars go – that might work too.)

      • 0 avatar
        teddyc73

        Um Art, the fate of the planet will be just fine. Mother Nature has it covered. The solution is not a complete destruction and tearing down of our country and way of life. The Democrat’s solution for everything is taxing people. Their big government obsession and need for power requires an endless supply of our money. It’s obscene.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          @teddyc: nice ostrich approach. Ignore science and history and hope for the best. Throughout history there have been multiple incidents of human destroying their habitat. The deadly fogs of London ended when the use of coal fires was largely eliminated. Drying up lakes, diverting underground aquifers, deforestation. Salting your enemies land to prevent anything from growing on it was an ancient practice.

  • avatar

    Let’s Go Brandon!

  • avatar
    ThomasSchiffer

    Well then, watching the President of The USA in 2035 get chauffeured around in a 6-ton EV “The Beast” should be fun.

    • 0 avatar
      C5 is Alive

      Today’s “Beast” already weighs somewhere between 7-10 tons. Batteries could add half again that weight… not to mention the massive diesel generator it’ll need to tow to actually go anywhere.

      But it’s probably a moot point anyway. Do you really think the USA will still exist by 2035?

  • avatar
    wjtinfwb

    Must be part of Xiden’s anti-Legal Immigration plan… Where you gonna charge a Ford Lightning pickup in the middle of SW Texas desert? Or transport the “prisioners” 300 miles or more to some unsuspecting small town to dump them in the middle of night… in an electric Transit? EVs will be fine in urban environments and it probably makes sense to move in that direction, but a 100% mandate is ludicrous. Many fed vehicles are stationed out in the boonies, think Department of Interior, Parks Service, etc. I know of a ex-US Park Service F-150 that was 3 years old with over 110k miles on it. 3050 miles a month ain’t happening in Utah, Wyoming or even Texas if you only have 250 miles of range. Sounds like the brainchild of Mayor Pete and just another stupid and extremely expensive idea out of Washington.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “I know of a ex-US Park Service F-150 that was 3 years old with over 110k miles on it. 3050 miles a month ain’t happening in Utah, Wyoming or even Texas if you only have 250 miles of range. ”

      That’s 100 miles a day and I could do that in an old Leaf. Besides, we’re talking about 2035, not 2015. Most of the 300 to 350 mile range vehicles currently have a battery density of about 260 Wh/kg. Newer 380 Wh/kg cells are in pilot production now and ramping up to full production next year. Even if progress slows way down, we should see 500 Wh/kg cells by 2030. So, those 350-mile range vehicles will be 700 miles of range. You could drive non-stop from Van Horn TX to Felicity CA non-stop. Or Evanston Montana to Sacremento CA non-stop.

      By the way, I was born in West Texas and even as a child, I can tell you, we had electricity. Superchargers are already in Van Horn, Pecos, and Fort Stockton. There are smaller chargers in other places like Marfa. My question is how easy will it be to get gas in 2035? Range anxiety will be an ICE thing by then.

  • avatar
    ToolGuy

    Meanwhile at the top of the food chain:
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/rupert-murdoch-buys-200-million-montana-ranch-from-the-koch-family-11639065752

    “Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above,
    Don’t fence me in.”
    https://youtu.be/vMnLoOnrwbg

    (Lyrics written [sort of] by an engineer – and Highway Department employee)

  • avatar
    Crosley

    Typical virtue signaling and he won’t have to be the “bad guy” that says we can’t meet the goal.

    There’s just no question we are transitioning to an electric fleet, why not let that happen organically? Electric vehicles though just don’t make sense for every application.

    What’s crazy is Biden could have been an incredibly popular, centrist President. Biden’s whole career was a “reasonable” Democrat, but he’s obviously not really in charge and this Administration has decided to go hard left on everything.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      US military uses more fuel than other countries. Good luck

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “US military uses more fuel than other countries.”

        You inadvertently stumbled across the biggest reason why the USA government wants to electrify civilian transportation. The USA military is a massive consumer of fuel. You can’t win wars on battery power.

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          “You can’t win wars on battery power.”

          Speaking of batteries and wars (and Chicago and Hitler):
          https://www.msichicago.org/press/press-releases/u-505-submarine/

          Only 238.8 tons of batteries in a U-boat (Type XXI). If we weighed out an equivalent amount of 2021 Mazda CX-9’s, we’d need around 111, so we see that this is virtually no mass at all.

          Good thing the winning side in WWII didn’t use batteries in any implements of war.

          Dear TTAC,
          How many Rivian R1T batteries would it take to power a WWII Unterseeboot, and how much would those batteries weigh?

        • 0 avatar
          ToolGuy

          “You can’t win wars on battery power.”

          Speaking of batteries and wars (and Chicago, and Hitler):
          https://www.msichicago.org/press/press-releases/u-505-submarine/

          Only 238.8 tons of batteries in a U-boat (Type XXI). If we weighed out an equivalent amount of 2021 Mazda CX-9’s, we’d need around 111, so we see that this is virtually no mass at all.

          Good thing the winning side in WWII didn’t use batteries in any implements of war (torpedo? bazooka?). Really good thing that the F-16C doesn’t have any on-board batteries.

          Dear TTAC,
          How many Rivian R1T batteries would it take to power a WWII Unterseeboot, and how much would those batteries weigh?

          • 0 avatar
            ToolGuy

            @ToolGuy, can you say that one more time? Eyeroll.

          • 0 avatar
            mcs

            “You can’t win wars on battery power.”

            The Japanese seem to think you can:

            https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/29ss.htm

            In addition to the UUV’s the US Navy is developing, equipment carried by soldiers depends on batteries. Night vision goggles, communications, and other gear. There is other advanced equipment that requires battery power as well. The computational power needed by advanced weapons under development is highly dependent on the advancement of battery technology. That’s why as an AI researcher, I’ve had to gain a lot of expertise in advanced battery technology.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Winston Churchill created a furore when he and Jackie Fisher ordered Royal Navy ships which were oil rather than coal fired. Many argued that this defeated the RN’s advantage of having multiple ports and access to coal supplies.

    When streets, residences and businesses converted from gas to electric lighting there was also an uproar and resistance from many. Including those who made their living supplying/installing/maintaining the gas fixtures/supply. Yet electric lighting proved far superior being safer, requiring less maintenance and providing better light/performance than gaslight.

    We should all learn from history.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Churchill did not convert 300M ships at once. But rather 10 ships to be able to use both – coal and oil. Churchill relied on the idea that UK has plenty oil bearing colonies and oil supply will not be an issue. Lets see what modern Churchills will burn today to get the electric power.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Arthur agree and its not like we are going off of oil anytime soon. I am building a retirement condo and I am having 220 put in the garage for an EV even if I never buy an EV which I probably will in the future. I wouldn’t be surprised in the next few years if 220 in the garage becomes a standard for new homes.

  • avatar
    mor2bz

    Post Office Grunmans do 6mpg. start with them, now.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    When government has 300,000 buildings …. something is wrong

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    The Government has been consolidating their offices and has been reducing the number of buildings it had in the past. Could Government do more of course but case in point in Cincinnati it has consolidated 4 buildings into 1 with telework, reducing storage and workroom space, smaller and less meeting rooms, and many other reductions. The savings in one year for the Federal Government in Cincinnati is just under 2 million a year which includes rent, utilities, and maintenance. The Government calls this Restacking and it has been done in a number of Federal Buildings across the country and plans to do it in all cities that have Federal Buildings. There will always be waste in Government but there have been more efficiencies and cost cutting in areas of office space, increased electronic records with timelines to go all electronic, refitting existing buildings to be more energy efficient, reduction in travel for many Government workers, and centralizing more ordering of basics like office equipment and supplies. The something that is wrong is the system of funding political campaigns and the growth of lobbyists.

  • avatar
    3SpeedAutomatic

    I’m getting concerned with the “Executive Order” concept. Both Republicans and Democrats have used them in the past, but it now appears as a means to totally circumvent congress without the usual checks and balances.
    This could become a hot button issue if it becomes the norm in government.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    True and an Executive Order can be reversed by a new President. Congress needs to do their job starting with passing a budget without multiple Continuing Resolutions and this applies to both political parties.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • dal20402: What’s twisted? We have a city car and a trip car. We buy and use the city car for city purposes....
  • dal20402: The spirit is in you if you can feel the godly power even while looking at that upholstery.
  • jalop1991: A bicycle is superior in every **relevant** respect. Why don’t you use that? Keep twisting yourself...
  • ToolGuy: @ajla, pmirp1 said “Right now the one thing you can trust is having your car fill with gas at corner...
  • dal20402: LOL. I read your comment as I was stuffing a burger in my face. We have two cars. One of them can do the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber