Causal Rewrite- imgoingswimming

Stress On Power Production From Electric Vehicles

The United States and many other countries around the globe are fighting to reduce the usage of fossil fuels in vehicles as worry increases on the health of the earth. These countries plan on helping the health of the earth by phasing out gasoline vehicles to reduce tailpipe emissions. The replacement for these fossil fuel vehicles would be electric powered cars, but these electric vehicles will hurt just as much as they help. Many of these countries have not looked at pollution and demand created from electric vehicles such as, where this electricity comes from, how we would have to make current energy clean, how to keep up with increased energy demand, increased energy fluctuation throughout the day, and how other countries will attempt to adapt. Changing to electric cars will result in more pollution through current and future energy production. Electric cars may seem like a safe solution, but in order for these vehicles to help slow climate change we need to clean our already dirty energy.

In order for energy to be considered clean, it would have to come from responsible and renewable sources of energy. This means electricity would need to stop being produced from sources like coal, diesel, gasoline, and forms of natural gas. These are the worst forms of energy production on the planet and result in the most climate change, so eliminating them will result in fully clean energy vehicles. As the US energy administration says, in the United States 19 percent of electricity is produced from coal, and 40 percent is from natural gas. In order to change to clean energy, not including nuclear energy which takes up 20 percent of all energy made, we would have to replace almost 60 percent of all energy produced in the United States within the next ten to fifteen years. While trying to decrease dirty energy usage we need to simultaneously increase the amount of electricity produced in order to keep up with the demands of more electricity needed with electric cars.

According to PEW, if all fossil fuel powered objects were replaced with electric objects the consumption of electricity would increase by 38 percent which would mainly be contributed to electric cars. This means that while replacing 60 percent of electricity production we would also have to increase production by 38 percent which put a massive strain on keeping up with these goals. This would make replacement and growth very hard to take place and would surely lead to cost-cutting and possibly more pollution if these forms of fossil fuel energy were used as a shortcut to meet demand. PEW says that California projects that cars will use 5.4 percent of all electricity produced by 2030, this is 17,000-gigawatt hours in just California alone. PEW also speaks about the demand for electricity changing through the course of the day. In the early morning, the demand is less, but in the early evening, demand increases dramatically. People come home from work, turn their lights on, turn the TV on, make food, and if they have an electric car they plug them in for the next day of use. If people were to follow what many do now, everyone would charge as soon as they get home from their jobs increasing strain on the system all at once and even having the possibility of overloading the system. So while many charging stations will need to be made the network would have to find a way to meet the demands, especially in densely populated cities.

Places like China and India have a large demand for energy with their large populations, and most of this energy comes from power that is irresponsibly sourced. Because of this, China and India have the worst pollution on the planet. According to the EIA, China’s energy is 58 percent coal, 20 percent petroleum, and 8 percent natural gas, while India is 45 percent coal, 25 percent petroleum. This means China would need to replace 80 percent, and India would need to replace 70 percent of its energy production while also increasing its energy production to accompany electric cars. China’s energy is produced by only 13 percent renewable resources, and India is only one percent, apart from their biomass energy production which is 20 percent. These countries would also have a harder time because of their more dense population, but China already has a policy in place that would help them to make the change. China phases out cars as they get older in order to help with pollution. This is done by limiting the sale of certain cars depending on age and also banning some depending on age. This phase-out will help them with replacing fossil fuel burning cars, but will not help them solve their issue of replacing where the energy will come from.

This change in power production will be hard to solve in the next twenty years, but some countries are already close to their final goal. Countries like Norway already have 60 percent electric cars and energy comes from 97 percent renewable resources and 93.4 percent of that consisting of hydroelectric energy. Countries like Norway are in the works of solving the fossil fuel burning vehicles while also considering where this energy will come from and should be a prime example we should follow. Countries like the United States, China, India, and many others will all have different solutions to their problems. These problems may differ because of cultural, agricultural, and differing landscapes. Taking advantage of possible energy resources based on territory will be the best possible solution just as Norway has done.


Brown, A. B. (2020, January 9). “Electric Cars Will Challenge State Power Grids.” The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved March 29 2021.

Electricity in the U.S.“- U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (n.d.). U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved March 29, 2021. 

International China- U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).(n.d.). U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved April 3, 2021.

International India- U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (n.d.-b). U.S. Energy Information Administration. Retrieved April 4, 2021.

This entry was posted in Causal Rewrite, imgoingswimming, Portfolio ImGoingSwimming. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Causal Rewrite- imgoingswimming

  1. davidbdale says:

    The time has come for me to grade this post, Swimming, so I’ve gone ahead and placed a 00/100 on Canvas, not to punish you, but as a reminder that this assignment is overdue. You’ve done good work on your earlier Argument, so I’m confident you’ll be able to make good Causal claims her and substantiate them with research, but . . . a Rebuttal Argument will be due in just over a week, so letting this go any longer will only compound the deadline crisis. I look forward to seeing this argument when you finish it. Please consider posting any draft, no matter how rough, just to get yourself into compliance. Feedback might help focus your attention and make the rewrite easier.


  2. davidbdale says:

    Hey, Swimming. I’m glad to see this argument at the blog. Let’s do some feedback.
    —Your first three sentences could be, and probably should be combined into one with much greater impact.
    —Your “Not all sides of the story” sentence is intended to name the OBJECTIONS to hurrying to an all-electric-car world, but because they’re phrased as “how to” clauses, they sound like you’re making recommendations.
    —Your “Yet” sentence misuses the conjunction “yet.” For it to work, you would have FIRST made the case that all-electric is desirable before using “YET” to transition to the counterargument. It also contains an unclear claim: “through current and future energy production.”
    —No need to invoke others’ opinions here: While many believe that the problem is solved
    —Just make your own position clear: There is a long road ahead to truly have clean energy in electric vehicles.
    —”have clean energy in electric vehicles” is not clear.

    —Delete this: The influx in electric vehicles would have a list of downsides if this were to be pushed.
    —You deny energy to your argument when you draw out your best ideas, Swimming. Your style is to make part of a claim, then explain aspects of your idea with sentences starting with “This” or “These.”

    In order for energy to be considered clean, it would have to come from responsible and renewable sources of energy. This means electricity would need to stop being produced from sources like coal, diesel, gasoline, and forms of natural gas. These are the worst forms of energy production on the planet and our electric cars will still be powered by them, making this clean energy, dirty energy.

    Language can be less cumbersome.

    As long as the electricity powering our cars is produced from irresponsibly dirty sources like like coal, diesel, gasoline, and natural gas, electric cars will not be “running clean.”

    Also, please notice that you’ve conflated two ideas here. Electricity is generated by burning dirty coal and natural gas. And cars run on dirty gasoline and diesel. But both your three sentences and my one sentence wrongly suggest that somebody’s burning gasoline and diesel to make electricity.

    The last half of this paragraph makes it hard to understand that to achieve an all-electric transportation system, we’ll have to accomplish two CONTRADICTORY goals simultaneously. 1) REDUCE the amount of electricity we generate by burning fossil fuels, and 2) VASTLY INCREASE the amount of electricity we produce. Once you call attention to that conundrum, your numbers are easier to follow.

    I hate to be blunt, but apparently your tactic is to spend as many words as possible making every claim. That simple observation that your P2 required is revisited here in P3.
    —Delete this: Many problems need to be solved or understood for cars to go electric that is rarely considered.
    —Does “electrification in all sectors” mean switching OTHER SECTORS of the economy to “all electric” as well as personal transportation? For example, heating our homes with electricity instead of heating oil or gas?
    —If so, those other sectors are irrelevant to your argument, and it’s confusing when you include them, UNLESS you make your overall observation very clearly:

    Our national goal to electrify EVERYTHING to eliminate our use of fossil fuels will put an ENORMOUS STRAIN on the SUPPLY SIDE. Switching to electric cars AT THE SAME TIME we try to sustainably generate electricity for our residential and commercial heating and lighting needs will require an INCOMPREHENSIBLY RAPID transition AWAY from fossil fuels. We haven’t BEGUN to demonstrate that wind and solar can provide enough to do both.

    If you make that case FIRST, instead of slowly building toward a conclusion readers can only guess at, your evidence will be seen as CONFIRMATION of your thesis.

    Your China/India paragraph tells the story a little backwards too. Their populations aren’t a special situation. Neither is their “density.” Nor is the percentage of their energy they currently produce with fossil fuels. The special situation in these populous countries is that “SO MANY people demand electricity from a grid that generates SO LITTLE of its power sustainably.” That sounds like the same argument, but it’s not. How much is coal and how much petroleum is less important than how little is SOMETHING ELSE. To get clean, they have to INCREASE their green generation from 13 percent (and India 1 percent) to 100 percent, while AT THE SAME TIME generating (you tell me how much) THREE TIMES AS MUCH electricity as they do now!

    That puts the Chinese “car upgrade” policy into perspective. The cars they scrap won’t burn gas any more, but each new car will be ANOTHER DRAIN on the grid that has to be supplied sustainably.

    P5. The good news in the Norway story isn’t how many electric cars they drive or how little fossil fuel they need. The good news in the Norway story is HYDROELECTRIC. The real focus of your argument isn’t we need to MOVE AWAY FROM gasoline, it’s we need to MOVE AHEAD TO GREEN ENERGY (because moving away from gasoline to coal and natural gas is NOT MOVING AHEAD at all).

    Your material is fine, Swimming. What it requires is a subtle shift of emphasis.


  3. davidbdale says:

    I have graded this draft at Canvas to reflect the grade it would earn in your Portfolio. Obviously, you will want to revise it to improve that grade. When you have made significant revisions, put this post into the Regrade Please category. You may also request additional feedback by asking specific questions as often as you like and putting the post back into the Feedback Please category.


  4. davidbdale says:

    Significant improvements throughout, Swimming.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s