I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

bobzilla said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I like beer but I don't like IPA's. Where does that leave me?

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

I said my company was part of the project. I didn't say I know the engineers or even have access to them. We weren't part of the engineering team. We worked on the finance and scheduling side, which is not my dept.  I know what was done and roughly how much was spent to do it (which is public information anyone can get). 

And apparently you ignored everything else.  

Utilities are for profit corporations. If more generation is needed, then they will make it happen in the most profitable way possible.  I never said I have any faith in political leaders - you're putting words in my mouth. I have little faith in any politician to do anything that would go against their chances of getting elected.

But I have absolute faith in the greed of corporations doing whatever they will need to do to make money.  

Opti said:

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Here is the problem with the no new ICE doesnt mean you cant have an ICE argument. If you tell the majority of Americans they cant buy a new ICE you are effectively telling them they cant own an ICE just a few years after that. Most Americans dont have money to pay cash for a car, financing is harder on an older car. Repair costs generally rise as a car ages and has more miles, most Americans dont have money for repairs (and rely on new car warrantys) and cant do it themselves. Yes ICE cars will still be around but if they actually manage to enforce this legislation, they wont be for long. Yes I will always have access to an ICE car unless the govt changes its ming, but most people wont, and many people will be in a worse position for it.

The whole reason they are enacting this legislation, is to get rid of ICE cars, but if they outright ban them, they get a bunch of pushback, if they say only new ones, they have the defense you are using "keep your ICE" but everyone knows it wont be long until ICE cars will not be feasible for the vast majority of Americans, its literally your whole point. 

That argument doesnt hold water

They also told me I could keep my current insurance plan in 2010.

The majority of Americans buy used cars, and the numbers aren't close between new and used car sales.   The average age of the fleet is 11 or 12 years right now, I think?   The numbers indicate that there will be lots of ICE vehicles to buy for quite some time.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

I'm really sorry. I don't like beer.  While I've had a sip or two in my life,  altogether I've drank maybe two cans?   Only to be polite.  
 I'm a Wino.   Not the expensive ones you have to raise your little finger to drink. 
   I prefer soft fruity ones.  But the after taste is important.  

DAMMIT, FRENCHYD... now we can't be friends  

His screen name pretty much tells you he's drinkin froo froo grape drinks.............note he probably likes to fling cows over castle walls and mock you father for smelling of elderberry.

In reply to mattm :

Yes thats why I didnt say it will immediately kill ICE vehicles. I said it wont be long before they arent available.

The plurality of cars on the road are 2015-2019 at 26% cars, about 11% are 2020 and up (mind you thats with a artificially depressed new car market) older than 1999 are only 10 percent and there are about 5 million from 1919-1981 which does skew the stats. The majority of cars on the road are less than about 10 years old, so for most Americans it wont be feasible to buy an ICE car within a decade after the legislation, you add about another 5 years to that and its over 75%

If the intention of the legislation wasnt to eliminate ICE cars they wouldnt do it. Its like someone intentionally poisoning another person slowly and your argument is well they wont be dead for a while, yes but the intention is to kill them, and they will.

This is the governments way of kid gloving, the vast majority of people cant have ICE cars. Its easier to swallow, but just as stupid

Opti said:

In reply to mattm :

Yes thats why I didnt say it will immediately kill ICE vehicles. I said it wont be long before they arent available.

If the intention of the legislation wasnt to eliminate ICE cars they wouldnt do it. Its like someone intentionally poisoning another person slowly and your argument is well they wont be dead for a while, yes but the intention is to kill them, and they will.

This is the governments way of kid gloving, the vast majority of people cant have ICE cars. Its easier to swallow, but just as stupid

I'm trying to understand the logic.  Honestly not picking on you, but when the EPA suddenly said we have to have emissions equipment, compression ratios plummeted, cams were neutered, and it sounded the death bell for the muscle car, people were furious.  The government had mandated that you could no longer buy a new car without emissions equipment.  So people who were new-car buyers shifted.  Maybe they didn't by the new 1973 Nova when it came out because it was wussy.  Maybe they opted for a slightly used 1970 model instead.  Now you can walk into a dealer and buy a 750hp Hellcat off the showroom floor.

I, myself, resisted OBD2.  When I traded my 1991 Beretta, I didn't buy a brand new 1996 car, I bought a 1994 with 20k on it.  Eventually I realized that OBD2 isn't the evil thing that the doubters thought it would be and eventually bought a 1996.  I have now owned probably 10 OBD2 cars and I haven't died.

So if there is a 60-year-old out there who is hesitant to adopt the reality of EVs, they must have missed that the EPA emissions creation, the loss of leaded gas, the addition of shoulder belts, air bags, ABS, the oil embargo, OBD1, OBD2, EFI, catalysts.... all the huge changes in the industry haven't affected the use, purchase, or maintenance of the cars that were manufactured before those changes took place.

When all those changes happened throughout history, did we lose access to the cars before them?  Were we told we can't drive them?  Did they stop making parts for them?  Nope.  I'm curious why the resistant folks think that this is any different?  It's going to take a very long time... like 4-5 generations before we see any real shift... even if they mandated new EVs today.

Funny how the people who are saying "don't like them, then don't buy them" are also some of the same people saying "but they're forcing us to buy them."  No one forced me to buy an OBD2 vehicle.   Heck, just about 8 years ago I bought a car with drum brakes, lap belts, a carburetor and zero emissions equipment.  No one came to my door with a warrant.

My argument is that this shift to mandatory new EV is no different than the mandatory shift to emissions compliance, or OBD2, or airbags.  We figured it out.

The same will be true here.  The automotive industry has made tectonic shifts before that have ruffled consumers' feathers, but somehow we still drive cars.  I'm curious what your reasoning is for this one being different.  I'm not sure why you (collectively) think that this will be such a short journey when it hasn't affected anything about car ownership for the last 130 years.

And yes.... death to new ICEs is the goal.  But it won't eliminate all ICEs from the road for at least 100 years.  Maybe 200.

Do I want an EV now?  Not really, but at age 49, I'm quite certain that I can live the rest of my life without every being forced to buy one.  When I'm 90, there will still be millions of ICE cars on the roads.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Couple things. You are talking about things on a micro level. As i stated I will always have access to ICE engines unless the govt bans them completely. I am also not an average car buyer. I can fix my own stuff and I have the money to pay cash for an older car which can be hard to finance. The vast majority of Americans cant deal with an older car that breaks all the time, or get financing for an older car.

Im talking about the macro level. Yes technically people will be able to buy an ICE, but in reality it wont be viable for them, and they will be forced to go EV. Do you really think if the government mandates no new ICEs in 2030 that it will take 120-150 years (4-5 generations) before we see a real switch to EV? You think that suddenly our average car age will be 70 or 80 years old? Based on current info within 15 years of the legislation, the vast majority of Americans will be in an EV, and currently I dont think EVs work for the majority of Americans, and with the grid reliabiltiy trending downwards the infrastructure is also headed in the wrong direction to support this.

The point of the legislation is to get rid of ICE, to think it wont is comical.

You are also conflating adding requirements to a vehicle which would operate in essentially the exact same manner, to switching to something with a different fuel and infrastructure to support it, which is currently not up to the task. Also the addition of cats and emissions (while ended up being better in the end) did leave the consumers with much worse choices in the market for about a decade.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

Eliminating ALL ICEs doesnt matter. Eliminating the vast majority of people from driving ICE is what matters. Its the same with emissions restrictions. Cars without them are still on the road, but they arent feasible for the majority of Americans.

Certain people legally being able to have one and it being viable for them, is not the same as most Americans really having a choice in the matter.

In reply to Opti :

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Im as worried about unreasonably expensive energy as much as I am unreliable energy. They result in the same thing, people dont have energy
 

Oh, it's definitely expensive. I don't think there is an economic justification. I also have concerns that we are just switching to other non renewable resources for battery production, both in the EV's, and the grid. It should be a plus for reliability though- we are talking about adding big emergency batteries to the grid and smaller ones to homes and businesses.

Opti said:

In reply to mattm :

Yes thats why I didnt say it will immediately kill ICE vehicles. I said it wont be long before they arent available.

The plurality of cars on the road are 2015-2019 at 26% cars, about 11% are 2020 and up (mind you thats with a artificially depressed new car market) older than 1999 are only 10 percent and there are about 5 million from 1919-1981 which does skew the stats. The majority of cars on the road are less than about 10 years old, so for most Americans it wont be feasible to buy an ICE car within a decade after the legislation, you add about another 5 years to that and its over 75%

If the intention of the legislation wasnt to eliminate ICE cars they wouldnt do it. Its like someone intentionally poisoning another person slowly and your argument is well they wont be dead for a while, yes but the intention is to kill them, and they will.

This is the governments way of kid gloving, the vast majority of people cant have ICE cars. Its easier to swallow, but just as stupid

Using your same source, 39% of the cars on the road are between 2005-2014.  So 39% of the vehicles are between 18 and 9 years old.  36% of vehicles on the road are less than 9 years old.  So the actual majority are 9 years old or older even now.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Great that gives you stored voltage and current capacity.  It still doesn't produce a stable 60 hz frequency, therefore cannot support the grid!  

That's what inverters are for.

In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :

I'm trying to understand the logic.  Honestly not picking on you, but when the EPA suddenly said we have to have emissions equipment, compression ratios plummeted, cams were neutered, and it sounded the death bell for the muscle car, people were furious.  The government had mandated that you could no longer buy a new car without emissions equipment.  So people who were new-car buyers shifted.  Maybe they didn't by the new 1973 Nova when it came out because it was wussy.  Maybe they opted for a slightly used 1970 model instead.  Now you can walk into a dealer and buy a 750hp Hellcat off the showroom floor.

I, myself, resisted OBD2.  When I traded my 1991 Beretta, I didn't buy a brand new 1996 car, I bought a 1994 with 20k on it.  Eventually I realized that OBD2 isn't the evil thing that the doubters thought it would be and eventually bought a 1996.  I have now owned probably 10 OBD2 cars and I haven't died.

So if there is a 60-year-old out there who is hesitant to adopt the reality of EVs, they must have missed that the EPA emissions creation, the loss of leaded gas, the addition of shoulder belts, air bags, ABS, the oil embargo, OBD1, OBD2, EFI, catalysts.... all the huge changes in the industry haven't affected the use, purchase, or maintenance of the cars that were manufactured before those changes took place.

When all those changes happened throughout history, did we lose access to the cars before them?  Were we told we can't drive them?  Did they stop making parts for them?  Nope.  I'm curious why the resistant folks think that this is any different?  It's going to take a very long time... like 4-5 generations before we see any real shift... even if they mandated new EVs today.

Funny how the people who are saying "don't like them, then don't buy them" are also some of the same people saying "but they're forcing us to buy them."  No one forced me to buy an OBD2 vehicle.   Heck, just about 8 years ago I bought a car with drum brakes, lap belts, a carburetor and zero emissions equipment.  No one came to my door with a warrant.

My argument is that this shift to mandatory new EV is no different than the mandatory shift to emissions compliance, or OBD2, or airbags.  We figured it out.

The same will be true here.  The automotive industry has made tectonic shifts before that have ruffled consumers' feathers, but somehow we still drive cars.  I'm curious what your reasoning is for this one being different.  I'm not sure why you (collectively) think that this will be such a short journey when it hasn't affected anything about car ownership for the last 130 years.

I think the problem with your example is that none of the above fundamentally changed the nature of the car. The 1973 emissions was close-  they made cars way worse for the average buyer- but they still operated the same way. Right now, I can add 400+ miles of range to my ICE car in less than 10 minutes. And I can do it pretty much anywhere in the country. EV's can't do that, which makes them fundamentally different. 

In reply to mattm :

Like all statistics you can frame it any way. I framed it one way, you framed it another way. The data was a broken up weirdly sometimes in 5 year chunks and sometimes 10 year chunks, would have been better more granular, but either way somewhere between to and 8-18 years the vast majority of people will have moved to EVs. Also the data has been skewed since 2020 since cars havent exactly been available. If interests rates stabilize and supply recovered we could easily see a decent rebound in average age.

The EVs are getting better so they may solve many of the issues, with the cars themselves, that make them not viable for many Americans, but the alarming concern is the downward trend of energy infrastructure reliability and the rising costs of energy. If we were actually making the grid better and more reliable, and energy costs werent rising steeply I wouldnt be so concerned. EVs themselves may become less viableas time goes on, at no fault of the manufactures but due to the energy industry and the government. This is literally already happening.

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Inverters aren't going to support a grid.  They work great right where you need them.  You still need a giant machine somewhere that can respond to fluctuations and make a constant frequency,

I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread.  Know what I have not seen in my travels to South America and Africa in the last year?  EVs.  Not one.  The US is a huge market but it's not the entire global market.  We don't have the capacity yet in this country to go all EV.  How will less developed countries be able to go all EV?  Are car makers willing to forego all of those sales by not offering internal combustion powered vehicles?

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Inverters aren't going to support a grid.  They work great right where you need them.  You still need a giant machine somewhere that can respond to fluctuations and make a constant frequency,

Inverters can absolutely do that.  There are plenty available now and used in grid-tied solar systems that will sync to grid frequency and output as much power as the grid will accept (or up to a configured limit) until they hit the limit of the available input power (from solar panels, batteries, etc.)

parker said:

I haven't read all 17 pages of this thread.  Know what I have not seen in my travels to South America and Africa in the last year?  EVs.  Not one.  The US is a huge market but it's not the entire global market.  We don't have the capacity yet in this country to go all EV.  How will less developed countries be able to go all EV?  Are car makers willing to forego all of those sales by not offering internal combustion powered vehicles?

That's the whole point. Move the emissions and waste to the poor places. We can all drive our EVs and smell our own farts while not actually solving anything.

Oh I'm sorry did you think the goal was to actually improve things and not just pretend we are?

rslifkin said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Boost_Crazy :

Inverters aren't going to support a grid.  They work great right where you need them.  You still need a giant machine somewhere that can respond to fluctuations and make a constant frequency,

Inverters can absolutely do that.  There are plenty available now and used in grid-tied solar systems that will sync to grid frequency and output as much power as the grid will accept (or up to a configured limit) until they hit the limit of the available input power (from solar panels, batteries, etc.)

Install an inverter in every house tie them to the grid and watch what happens.  It's that silly power factor nonsense again.  Everything you do to the grid makes it go up or down.  Giant rotating machines can get close to ideal.  Almost everything else makes it go down.

Inverters are great at the endpoint....  not so great for running a power grid.   

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

I was literally on the job site. It was part of a substation. It wasn't the first one, and there are more breaking ground. It works. I've done off grid solar projects. I've been part of a micro grid project in a large city. I've done countless large scale UPS projects with everything from lead acid, lithium ion, and even flywheel (very cool) batteries, which had no trouble producing clean 60 hz (or 50hz for large machines from Europe) power. I've done power quality studies for manufacturing plants where we used UPS system to clean up dirty grid power from the utilities. So I believe that you are mistaken. 
 

Now the cost and many other factors are highly debatable, but there is no doubt that it works. 

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

Because you know damn well you're making a straw argument. Grid improvements will always be incremental and impossible to quantify due to the sheer size of the system. They identify weak areas and try to improve them. There will always be storms that knock out power to customers. Improvements mean they lose power for less time. And from what I've seen from my friends and associates who live in NJ, those improvements have been successful.

You keep getting hung up on generation and ignore the fact that generation will be solved when the need is there. Why? Because utility companies like making money and they will be happy to sell you all the power you want to use.  Yes, they will grand stand with politicians over whatever the flavor of the moment is on how to do it, but in the end, if the need is there they will make it happen. How they do it is something I could not care less about. 

It's going to be like it was with my Grandmother. She was born with a horse and buggy and died with a Chevy wagon with a 350. There is going to be a slow transition- It's that simple.