EuroWire January 2019

Transatlantic Cable

The SAFER proposal would reverse the Obama administration nding that more fuel-e cient cars would save owners money over the course of their use, claiming instead that fuel-conservation technology will raise the cost of new cars and keep more consumers driving older models that lack advanced safety features. † Reporting on a 1 st November interview, Mr Evarts of The Car Connection quoted California Governor Jerry Brown as calling the SAFER proposal “profoundly misguided and dangerous.” Mr Brown said further that Trump administration o cials “are continuing their war not only on science but [also] on common sense.” California moreover considers the SAFER proposal illegal and, together with more than 16 other states, has led a lawsuit to block it. Elsewhere in automotive . . . † BMW said on 30 th October that the battery packs for the group’s second electric vehicle, the Mini, will come from its plant in Dingol ng, Germany. As reported by Daniel Patrascu in Autoevolution , preparations for the provisional launch of the Mini EV later this year will involve a major overhaul of the facility. Some 65,000 square feet of space will be given over to the new battery assembly line. According to Green Car Reports , BMW also has plans to build a supply chain to recycle used battery cells into new packs through a partnership with a new battery supplier in Sweden and a Belgian recycling rm. Those batteries will not become available until supplier Northvolt completes its battery factory in Sweden and until a su cient supply of used batteries from old BMW electric models becomes available.

Automotive

California strongly repudiates a ‘profoundly misguided and dangerous’ Trump administration proposal on emissions standards to be the opening salvo in a very long battle”

The reference, by Eric C Evarts of The Car Connection , was to the late-October release by California of its 400-page denunciation of the plan by the administration of US President Donald Trump to freeze fuel economy standards and revoke the state’s statutory right to set its own limits on vehicle emissions. ( “California Girds for Battle With EPA Over Fuel Economy,” 2 nd November ) California’s vigorous response was prompted by its objection to the Safer A ordable Fuel E cient Vehicles Rule (SAFER) proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Tra c Safety Administration (NHTSA). The new policy would undo fuel-economy directives put in place by the Obama administration to reduce automotive emissions of carbon dioxide. Wrote Mr Evarts, “The SAFER proposal . . . e ectively undoes the Obama-era agreement entirely – along with 50 years of legal precedent.” He pointed out that the California statement, rst released in draft form to the Washington Post , calls the SAFER proposal “a contrived solution to justify a predetermined outcome.” Finalising SAFER would, it said, “worsen air quality for the most vulnerable, waste billions of gallons of gasoline, forfeit our best chance to ght climate change, and result in years of uncertainty in the marketplace.” The EPA and NHTSA concur that man-made carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions cause global warming, with its attendant danger to human health. But they argue that the problem is unavoidable and that stricter fuel economy standards in the US will do little to mitigate it. † California asserts this to be “a nihilistic and fatalistic view that future generations will necessarily be subject to a climate in which human civilisation as it currently exists is impossible.” It further claims that the SAFER cost gures do not “re ect reality” or “pass basic tests of mathematical and statistical rigour.”

Image: www.bigstockphoto.com Photographer Adrian Grosu

Energy

A futuristic but solidly based projection: ‘Batteries are going to permeate our lives’ “The battery boom is coming to China, California and basically everywhere else – and it will be even bigger than previously

24

www.read-eurowire.com

January 2019