Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm certainly not arguing with you on this. The goal is not to reduce pollution; it's to assuage guilt that we are an affluent society that produces and does well, while the rest of the world procreates and pollutes. The objective is soft lockdown, aside from people who can afford private drivers and private jets.
Its not a "gullt" or "feel good" reason to go electric.
Many of politically liberal views are ashamed of affluence. Jimmy Carter, in his "Crisis of Confidence" speech of July 15, 1979, often called the "Malaise" speech, stated in part (link):
Quote:
In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.
Jimmy Carter was not the first, as I tirelessly point out. The speech and its candor about Democratic views (for the record I am a Democrat) helped sink Mr. Carter. Reagan pointed out skillfully in the 1980 Presidential debates that Carter thought affluence a bad thing. That is part of the drive towards electrification of cars; to reduce our standard of living.
Its not a "gullt" or "feel good" reason to go electric.
The goal is absolutely to reduce local pollution by switching to electric cars, and cities will definitely see reductions in localized ozone and particulate concentrations. Most fossil fuel electrical generation is done far away from cities, so even in a zero-sum energy use scenario (ie no reduction of fossil fuel use) the cities will see fewer products of combustion in the air. Globally it changes little, and actually could be worse as using combustion to generate electricity is less efficient than direct combustion in an engine. However, this can be offset by transitioning away from fossil fuels to less polluting sources of energy (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, etc).
And switching away from fossil fuels serves many other purposes, including preserving fossil fuels for use in other products like chemicals and plastics (rather than just burning them up), reducing interstate transport and infrastructure of large quantities of hazardous liquids and gasses, reducing need and dependencies of imported products (look at how Eastern Europe is held over a barrel by Russia), etc. Also, electric motors are simpler in design than combustion engines, smoother and quieter to operate, and can provide more speed, torque, etc than similar combustion engines.
As we have developed an infrastructure and process to drill thousands of feet deep to collect crude, transport oil from halfway around the word, refine it into highly combustible gasoline, ship the hazardous product it thousands of miles by pipeline and truck in the US, store it locally in hundreds of thousands of gas stations, load the hazardous liquid in millions of cars, many stored inside garages attached to people's homes - I would say that EV process and infrastructure seems incredibly simpler overall.
What you've described here is more or less the same with EV with different problems. We haven't produced mined enough copper, silver, and precious minerals to meet even 10% of global EV demands. We would need to elevate production atleast 50x to begin the transition. For states like CA to say stop selling ICE cars at 2030 is way too premature. I guarantee that it will be recalled or some type of new bill to allow for continuous sale. The current BEV tech can't replace dump trucks, buses, heavy industry machinery that's where the real pollution all these heavy diesel burning vehicles.
Our electrical grid is so fragile especially places like CA will they run risk of brownouts every year. There's no innovation yet to making the grid secure and potent enough to run through every neighborhood safely.
While government wants to ban gas pipelines due to fire hazard
The risk of electrical fire due to having high voltage and poor home circuits is also very dangerous. I bet a lot of homes will catch fires as more people charge EVs at home with outdated circuits.
The only way for EVs to succeed over ICE is when the prices of new EVs are much cheaper than today. If a new EV costs only $15k while a similar car is $25k and used EVs cost $5k while used ICE cars are $10k
Realistically, what percentage of new cars being sold will be EVs in 2030? 10-20 percent? Which means that 80-90% of new cars in 2030 will still be ICE.
It was 7% in Q1 of this year, up from 4.6% in Q1/2022. If I had to bet, I'd say we'd cross 20 percent before 2030, but not 50 percent as the Biden Admin is hoping for.
It was 7% in Q1 of this year, up from 4.6% in Q1/2022. If I had to bet, I'd say we'd cross 20 percent before 2030, but not 50 percent as the Biden Admin is hoping for.
What you've described here is more or less the same with EV with different problems. We haven't produced mined enough copper, silver, and precious minerals to meet even 10% of global EV demands. We would need to elevate production atleast 50x to begin the transition. For states like CA to say stop selling ICE cars at 2030 is way too premature. I guarantee that it will be recalled or some type of new bill to allow for continuous sale. The current BEV tech can't replace dump trucks, buses, heavy industry machinery that's where the real pollution all these heavy diesel burning vehicles.
Our electrical grid is so fragile especially places like CA will they run risk of brownouts every year. There's no innovation yet to making the grid secure and potent enough to run through every neighborhood safely.
While government wants to ban gas pipelines due to fire hazard
The risk of electrical fire due to having high voltage and poor home circuits is also very dangerous. I bet a lot of homes will catch fires as more people charge EVs at home with outdated circuits.
The only way for EVs to succeed over ICE is when the prices of new EVs are much cheaper than today. If a new EV costs only $15k while a similar car is $25k and used EVs cost $5k while used ICE cars are $10k
What BS - show the data that backs your statements. EVs do not require anywhere near that much copper and silver and ICE use more precious metals than an EV - and no where near 50X. An EV uses between 25 and 50 grams of silver - about $20 to $40 worth. An EV uses less than half as much copper as is in your average house - about $500 worth.
There are already EV powered busses and other heavy equipment so the current tech can replace these. According to Bloomberg’s Electric Vehicle Outlook 2020, EV-buses are expected to comprise over 67 percent of the global bus fleet by 2040. According to IEA.org - nearly 66 000 electric buses and 60 000 medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks were sold worldwide in 2022. Here is a story about a battery powered CAT mining truck -https://www.equipmentworld.com/construction-equipment/heavy-equipment/off-road-trucks/article/15303756/caterpillars-first-batterypowered-mining-truck.
The electric grid is hardly "fragile" and CA hasn't had a brownout in decades. The DOE did a study on the grids ability to support EV use and concluded that the grid will be able to support even the most aggressive contemplated conversion rate. And claims of house fires is just silly - like saying more house fires because using electric ovens instead of gas. EVs are already cheaper to operate so why have to be cheaper to buy also? Where is your data?
Not one statement you made is even close to reality - seems like just BS by someone that knows very little about EVs.
Not one statement you made is even close to reality - seems like just BS by someone that knows very little about EVs.
It seems like the supporters of EV's are desperate to avoid giving consumers any choice in the matter. Did the government force people to drop using horses? Did the government force people to stop illuminating with whale oil? Those transitions were relatively effortless and free from compulsion or direct subsidy.
Why should this unwanted change be shoved down people's throats?
It seems like the supporters of EV's are desperate to avoid giving consumers any choice in the matter. Did the government force people to drop using horses? Did the government force people to stop illuminating with whale oil? Those transitions were relatively effortless and free from compulsion or direct subsidy.
Why should this unwanted change be shoved down people's throats?
Whale oil, yes there are bans on whale hunting. Horses, yes many cities put limits on horses as an use for transportation because of the health hazards of horse manure all over every street which got tracked into homes on the bottoms of people shoes and on the legs of every housefly.
Last edited by Mike from back east; 06-27-2023 at 12:12 PM..
Reason: Added a bit to overcome the rule on one-liners.
Why not let EV's and ICE compete against each other and let the consumer pick the winner? One side will make a vehicle that the consumer decides is better with less cost.
The answer is the powers that be apparently don't want free market competition in autos anymore for some reason. My guess they got together and decided ICE has to go because they decided that they, not consumers, will decide what the market will sell.
It seems like the supporters of EV's are desperate to avoid giving consumers any choice in the matter. Did the government force people to drop using horses? Did the government force people to stop illuminating with whale oil? Those transitions were relatively effortless and free from compulsion or direct subsidy.
Why should this unwanted change be shoved down people's throats?
Most supporters of EVs really do not really care for the government forcing the issues of what you can buy - but they have no power to force anything any more than ICE supporters. No one here had any part of making these laws. The only thing most EV owners want is to quit spread lies and fake information - it only makes you look desperate. Many driving EVs are conservatives and dive them for reasons other than the environment.
BTW - there is no change being shoved down your throat - you can buy an ICE vehicle in most of the country for probably the next 20-30 or so years (Biden's Exec action is BS). Even so, you can drive an ICE vehicle as long as you want - they are not going away in our lifetimes. Even in CA, you can continue to buy a hybrid after the "ban" - they allow many hybrids under the 100% EV mandate.
I really do not care what you drive - why do you care what I drive?
Why not let EV's and ICE compete against each other and let the consumer pick the winner? One side will make a vehicle that the consumer decides is better with less cost.
The answer is the powers that be apparently don't want free market competition in autos anymore for some reason. My guess they got together and decided ICE has to go because they decided that they, not consumers, will decide what the market will sell.
This is not that different than Emission standards of the 70s or CAFE standards more recently. The option of making ICE that are not fuel efficient are to tax them - they do this to some exotics by large tax that makes them more costly already. I am guessing if mandates don't work, they will just find a way to tax ICE out of existence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
